120 slide film

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>An important point is that if you don't care about the medium itself, only the results, it makes little sense to shoot E6. Negative film is cheaper to buy, cheaper to develop, more tolerant of exposure and has better dynamic range. You can't go wrong with trying some tools of Ektar through your camera before doing anything else. A Canon 9000 flatbed, which can be considered not expensive, can give you at least 16mp from a 6x7.<br>

Your lens lineup is very nice. I don't know, but with all those accessories, I think you can get noticeably more than $700 for it. Just sell separately, with a promise to combine postage!<br>

David is more or less on the mark. The only bit is that in this range digital gear doesn't age so well as film gear: wheres you can keep your Bronica running a long time without expenditure, any full frame body you buy now second hand will be quite dated in a few years and worth much less. Digital is not a one-time cost.<br>

Also, the lenses. How much need you spend to get the equivalent of what you have now?<br>

How about sticking to what you have right now (and your negatives can be scanned today as well as 20 years from now), and starting a piggy bank to get a full frame digital in a couple of years? By then, what you get used will be better than what you find used now. Digital has come a long way, so used material is much better as time goes by, and there will come a time when used is as good as you need, while at the same time progress is so fast-paced that there will be plenty of people selling used material so they can get the latest stuff. (For me, who am not in need of anything special, the time has come to start looking for a used Pentax body - good enough for everything I may want - which wasn't the case years ago -, yet obsolete enough to be cheap.)</p>

[henryp]

<p><a href="http://bhpho.to/1lCpCdA">120 format slide film.</a></p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Thanks for everybody input, its helped me alot and there is some very good advice here. I think if i sold off my current camera piece by piece i cold get probally more than i paid, how much more i dont know, maybe a few hundred bucks.<br>

I think i should try negaitve color and E6 and see the results and if i really like something i may pay to have it scanned. I will mostly shoot BW, i love BW, but my current living situation wont allow me to do my own printing like i used to do. I think if i sell off my camera and get 1000 dollars, i will still have to throw in another 1000 min to get something Worth while in digital.<br>

I think the best move is to wait for my camera to arrive here in Paris and shoot 3or 4 rolls of Velvia and BW and c41 color film and try prints, try the scanning thing and go from there. I thiink to try it our for 30 days or more to see how i feel about is probally best. I will be selling off some of my lenses though, i dont need that many lenses for landscape, so the 250mm and probally the 65mm i will sell off. I think i will sell off the grip that goes with it to.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>Michael the GS-1 with 65mm lens and grip is what I used as a walk around landscape camera, very nice to hold and shoot, that is why I want your 65mm if you should decide to sell. So try it to see what you think before selling it off. I recently bought a GS-1 with 110mm macro and your 65mm lens will duplicate the combination I had some time ago before I sold it and bought into the Fuji GX680 system, which is strictly a tripod camera for me. Good quality film medium format lenses and cameras can be bought for very reasonable prices today.</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Ok i will probally sell you the 65mm. I was told all my stuff has only had 12 rolls of film shot thru it and is in mint condtion, so i hope its true. I will see about the grip and see how i like it, i may keep that. Where are you located, my camera is in California ready to be shipped to me in Paris France. I want that 100 or 110 mm macro lens to, i looked and its pricely.</p>

[donbright]

<p>Photography perhaps in the top 5 of all things to humble a person, so here's the stark reality, When I press the button on my Pentax 67II, the chances are the picture I'm going for is NOT going to be worthy of a print, let alone a large print. I refused to believe that for the longest time, and thought that perhaps its an equipment fix that would somehow surgically add something to my synapse to improve the odds. Not going to happen. So it seems logical to keep film going, spend the money on these rolls of film, develop, and edit on a light table, choose the worthy frame for a scan, determine whether or not it will be a Noritzu scan, or a Drum Scan, then spend that money, but again this is rare. We are swimming in a sea of imagery throughout the net, and so much of it mediocrity, we struggle to elevate our technique to a art form worthy of calling it an art form, this just goes with the territory in Photography. There continues to exist this notion that film, not being the latest technology is somehow inferior so why bother. Nothing could be further from the truth. We can't buy vision.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>Michael I am in Jacksonville FL USA about halfway between your camera and Paris France! I found the 65mm good for landscape, better in my opinion than the 50mm that was too wide for my tastes.</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Sorry John i made a mistake, im selling the 50mm, i agree that the 50mm is to wide, i want to keep the 65mm, sorry. Im selling the 50mm and the 250mm, there is one on eBay for you i believe.</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>I want to know if they still make the polaroid film for the back on the Bronica GS1, i see i can get the back on eBay, but can i get the polaroid film still these days.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>Wise choice Michael, I found the 250 lens a handful and rarely used it, the same with the 50, although I found a "spoiled" one for low money recently, that I could not resist. I had considered extracting the lens elements for use in a Copal shutter on my Linhof 6x9 V from 1963 - still love the antique cameras. I had Polaroid backs for my GS-1 but never found the Polaroid pack film. I think Fuji still has an instant film offering, but I think you need the Fuji holder for it.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

My opinion: by all means shoot

medium format or digital - or both! The

only thing I wouldn't buy is a DSLR

system. They make no sense unless

you shoot sports like F1 or something.

And even there, mirrorless systems are

catching up. Something like a Sony A7

offers more lens choice than SLRs (film

or digital) by an order or magnitude.

 

BTW I shot a few rolls with a 1950s

Zeiss folder and loved every single

moment. Digital cameras don't do that

for me. And I shoot 90% digital ATM.

That will change!

[david_henderson]

<p>Karim - can you explain your point of view behind "I wouldn't buy a DSLR system. They make no sense unless you shoot sports like F1 or something?" - in the context that millions of photographers use them quite successfully to shoot a wide range of subjects- apparently just as successfully as other formats.</p>

[c_watson1]

<p><em>Something like a Sony A7 offers more lens choice than SLRs (film or digital) by an order or magnitude.</em></p>

<p>That's another head-scratcher.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

David, people buy DSLRs because:

 

1. It's a safe assumption that they are

very capable.

 

2. Friends recommend them (this is a

legacy which will lag reality).

 

3. Pros use them. (How many pros, for

better or worse, use: rangefinders; TLRs; film; mirrorless systems?) IOW, consensus.

 

4. They like them, after trying and

considering other options.

 

5. They have to use them, despite

personal preferences, because their

employer supplies the equipment.

 

Many successful assignments have

been photographed with Rolleiflexes,

too. I love them - but I prefer other

cameras.

[c_watson1]

<p>And what about that gigantic Sony lens selection?</p>

<p>(crickets chirping)</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Im thinking about getting this Sony A7 and skipping film, is this Sony a full frame sensor. Im having trrouble with the seller who sold me the Bronica on eBay, Do any of you guys own this Sony A7</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>Hi, Michael.<br>

If you are having trouble, you should let ebay know. They sport that kind of things out.<br>

As to the rest, I think the best for you would be to calm down a little and do a bit of research on the many options available. For instance, you seem adamant on wanting full frame, but you don't say why. But then you say you are thinking of getting the Sony, but how how can you be thinking of getting it and not know whether it is full frame or not? Before thinking you want something, it would be logical to know what it is!</p>

[michael_radika]

<p>Yes your right, i think full frame is better resolution no, and will have sharper images. I did read one review and they said its a very very nice camera.<br>

Im having problems with the seller on eBay i bought the Bronica from, he is trying now to charge me mroe money for shipping, and its not right, he way Under estimated the shipping cost.<br>

I guess i really dont know anything about digital camera, i have never shot one, owned one.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

<p>You really should go slow and be careful with this deal. Do you realise there may be customs duties to pay when the camera enters France? (That, however, is not the seller's fault, but if he's willing to cancel the transaction, then maybe that's the way to go.)</p>

<p>Full frame has advantages, but I'm not sure they are image quality and sharpness. These days, the advantage of full frame has more to do with the geometrical properties of the size, specifically, than with the electronic image quality. That is, the advantage of full frame nowadays is more like the advantage of 4x5 film versus 120 film in the old days. Image quality, sure, but mainly the use that you can make of your lenses in what regards depth of field, bokeh properties, perspective, etc.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

If you must have a wide selection of AF

lenses, you have three DSLR systems

to choose from plus Micro 4/3.

 

If you want to exploit the (truly)

"gigantic lens selection" consisting of

Pentax M42, K, Chinon, Konica,

Contax, Yashica, Minolta A, Minolta

MD, Canon FD, Canon EOS, Nikon F

(even the ones Nikon DSLRs can't

use), Fujica, Praktica, Exacta, Olympus

OM, Bolex, Pen F, Alpa, Aaton,

Miranda, Leica (A7s only) etc, then the

A7 is for you. Try mounting all of those

lenses on an SLR.

[michael_radika]

<p>My Bronica wont be coming by mail, the seller is sending from CA to Atlanta GA and my friend there is a airline stewardess, and will bring it on the plane with her to Paris, she flys to Paris every week. The sellier didnt factor in the box weights 23lbs and is big for all that stuff and now wants more money.<br>

I read the A7 will accept alot of lenses, and different mounts for those lenses. I read a review on it and they were using the Carl Zeiss lenses and said that it was a top notch setup, but i didnt see how much those lenses are.. I also was looking and read good things about Nikon 7100, not to exspensive and got really good reviews and is a 24.1 mp camera.</p>

[ant_nio_marques]

Any mirrorless system wil accept those lenses, tho in manual mode only, because their native flange focal distance is

very short, so it's possible to build simple mechanical adapters for the mount. However, that's only of use if you do have

the lenses! Or if your plan specifically is to build a system around old lenses. There's nothing wrong with that, but unless

that is the plan, there is little to no advantage in doing it. For the very simple reason that Nikon or Canon offer all kinds of

lenses, so you don't have to go hunting for exquisite old ones to do this or that thing that can not be done with Nikon or

Canon lenses.

 

Besides that, Canon EOS cameras can take a large number of old lenses too. Not nearly all, like mirrorless systems can,

but many. Nikon in general can not. But why I'm saying is that I don't think this should be a big concern to someone who

is starting now. If you do have access to a large selection of old lenses, then sure, go for the Sony. And I'm not saying the

Sony isn't great. I'm just saying this is one particular merit of it that I don't think should be of much relevance.

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>Interesting discussion.</p>

<p>For more than 3 decades I'm working with film. For the last 2 decades only with slide film. Didn't jump on the digital wagon for quality reasons. Invested into a full frame digital system 14 months ago, because I could use my old lenses from my 35 mm system. Learned to handle it. Bought new lenses. </p>

<p>Then the disaster hit me: I had to correct each shot! Chromatic aberration, lens distortion, raw development... this kept me glued to the computer, and I don't like that. So I turned back to my film based 6x9 camera systems for important projects - again for quality reasons.</p>

<p>Just recently I profiled Fuji Pro 400 H and Fuji Pro 160 NS for my scanner, and I am really overwhelmed when I see the exposure latitude of negative film. </p>

<p>I shoot around 50 rolls 120 film per year, and I wouldn't shoot more with digital. I don't want to say that digital is bad, but it lacks a lot (in my opinion): lens quality (no CAs, no distortion, longevity, return on investment, low maintenance costs for CLA, etc.).</p>

<p>So instead of wasting too much time to correct a gazillion bugs of the new world technology, I enjoy my work outdoors. A nice side effect is that I keep the lab alive and have real world contacts to many professionals in the process chain from lab to print.</p>

<p>In short: film is rewarding, digital is time consuming and for fun or layout photography - for me. Others might shade a different light on the preferences...</p>

[david_henderson]

<blockquote>Then the disaster hit me, I had to correct each shot!</blockquote>

<p>Correcting on average a dozen shots a week doesn't sound too much of a drama. Maybe an hour a week? and that's if you correct all of them rather than just the ones you're interested in or might use in some way. Most of the things you mention - like raw processing- are either the work of moments or, like CA , distortion, both quick to correct and don't affect every frame . For most people it would take them an hour or more just to get slides processed. You seem to be trading off time spent processing against time spent photographing. What, an hour? If you want to spend more time outdoors photographing surely there are more significant things you waste or spend time on that you could give up to get you out photographing for several hours more? But to begrudge doing something for an hour because it keeps you from photographing seems a bit extreme- if I have an hour spare I might grab an espresso, make a couple of calls, watch a TV show or half a movie. I certainly don't pick up my camera bag and venture out to see what I could photograph. </p>

<p>And there's another side to this coin. If I want to have a print made, or prepare images for a self-published book, or add to my website, it takes me a lot longer, per image, to do that if I choose a MF slide than if I choose a digital photograph. To start with there's scanning, and also the need to own a scanner or pay for scans. Does anyone like scanning? One of the big benefits of digital to me is that I don't any longer need to spend much time scanning film. And if I select a slide then it seems to take me a lot longer to prepare a print file, or something for the web, starting from the scan of a slide than from a very basically processed digital photograph. Right now I am assembling photographs for a self-published book, and I find myself rejecting "possible" candidates from slides because I know I'm going to spend a lot more time getting the image into shape than if I choose a digital photograph instead. </p>

<p>So Mr Benthien, I've done a lot of MF slide photography too and I think you're kidding yourself. I can understand perfectly that some people prefer the look of photographs on film. But that shouldn't prevent you from being objective about other aspects of getting to a final image under either regime.</p>

[jens_g.r._benthien]

<p>In my last paragraph I explicitly wrote: '... - for me.' <br /><br /><br>

I didn't write: 'It has to be this way for everyone'.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone like scanning?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I do. Because I have calibrated the process. Just mount the slide or negative and hit the button 'SCAN'. After a moment I have a digitized, final image, which doesn't require tweaking (except for some minor retouching of unwanted objects, which would be identical in the digital process).<br>

<br>

Unless I use JPEG in digital, I have to process a raw file with lots of tweaking, and even then the final image lacks dynamic range plus lens and perspective corrections unless I use a PhaseOne IQ 180 on my leveled Arca Swiss. Until today I haven't seen a full frame digital camera which can be leveled exactly to the verticals and horizontals. Don't tell me about the artificial horizon in those toys - they are a joke compared to precise bubble levels on a large format camera.<br>

<br>

</p>