A camera project on Kickstarter with a brilliant feature - interchangeable backs

[ben_hutcherson]

Another thought...are they REALLY charging an extra $800 for a Triotar type lens and $1K for a Tessar?

 

People gave Nikon crap for the $500 45mm 2.8 AI-P. I have one(bought used) which I like and use. It's a nice, contrasty lens thanks to the fact that it's a multicoated version of a lens DESIGNED to get around the limitations of uncoated lenses. Still, it's fundamentally a Tessar-small and light(I think the smallest lens Nikon has made), virtually no distortion, slow for its focal length, and abysmal corner performance wide open. I also have the 45mm GN, which shares most of the same characteristics except for having just a tiny bit less contrast.

[Richard Williams]

Yes, apparently the same guys are behind the Meyer lenses they've been selling for a while: Meyer Optik Goerlitz

 

It's hard to defend any of this stuff in terms of technical quality, of course, but there's enough interest in quirky cameras and lenses to make them viable. Leica have resurrected a couple of ancient lens formulas recently, cannily choosing rather rare optics where the originals command high prices, so that potential customers can't just buy a cheap secondhand alternative.

[ben_hutcherson]

It's hard to defend any of this stuff in terms of technical quality, of course, but there's enough interest in quirky cameras and lenses to make them viable. Leica have resurrected a couple of ancient lens formulas recently, cannily choosing rather rare optics where the originals command high prices, so that potential customers can't just buy a cheap secondhand alternative.

 

I can understand the logic in Leica doing that that.

 

Heck, I swore it would never happen but I've considered a lomography product-specifically an F mount 85mm Petzval. Even though I have no aversion to shooting large format and would love to have an old one, a clear one will cost dearly. Heck, even ones that are cloudy or have separation are not that cheap.

 

To me, building an F mount Tessar would be like Leica building a new Elmar. Yes, it's an interesting design full of character, but in LTM an uncoated collapsible is worth maybe $100 on a good day. I know that when I bought my IIIc(my only entry into the Leica world, even though I have a couple of other LTM cameras) the seller would only knock off $50 if I DIDN'T take the 50mm(I bought it with a 35mm Summaron and a 135mm that I think I've only take out of the case once or twice).

 

Aside from the F mount Tessars I mentioned, they also abound in larger formats. I have a couple of 4x5 lenses that are Tessar type designs.

[rodeo_joe1]

"The difference to digital is an increase in charm, depth and elegance in your images."

 

- And the tyros that fall for this BS are going to set up a darkroom to avoid the digital process altogether are they?

 

I didn't think so.

 

Either you're committed to an entirely 'analogue' workflow, or you're not. Going digital after the easy bit of exposing and taking the film out of the camera is completely hypocritical, while supposedly vaunting the merits of film.

 

If you're happy with a digital file as the end-product, then shoot a digital file in the first place, and don't pretend to despise digital imaging.

[glen_h]

I have bought some cameras from the nearby (avoid shipping charges) Goodwill auctions. Usually they will take them back if they really don't work, but most often they work well enough. My latest is a Canon IID2 with 50/1.8 Canon lens for $220 (plus tax).

 

So far, it seems to work fine, and without a CLA.

 

I think they would have taken it back, and either auctioned it again, or sold it to the next bidder.

[Richard Williams]

 

Heck, I swore it would never happen but I've considered a lomography product-specifically an F mount 85mm Petzval. Even though I have no aversion to shooting large format and would love to have an old one, a clear one will cost dearly. Heck, even ones that are cloudy or have separation are not that cheap.

 

To me, building an F mount Tessar would be like Leica building a new Elmar. Yes, it's an interesting design full of character, but in LTM an uncoated collapsible is worth maybe $100 on a good day. I know that when I bought my IIIc(my only entry into the Leica world, even though I have a couple of other LTM cameras) the seller would only knock off $50 if I DIDN'T take the 50mm(I bought it with a 35mm Summaron and a 135mm that I think I've only take out of the case once or twice).

I suppose the Elbaflex isn't very different to what the Lomography guys are doing - recycle an Eastern Bloc design with better marketing. I like the old LTM Elmar I've used on a Leica - the images do have a distinctive look to them that can be attractive. But there's a certain irony in the new Meyer selling a $1000 50mm 'Trioplan' lens that isn't even a Tessar, but a triplet. Back in the day, one of the UK camera magazines used a budget 50mm Meyer Domiplan triplet that I suspect has similar qualities as a comparison standard on their resolution charts. It was the 'worst' lens they had ever tested (a Zeiss Planar 50/1.7 was the 'best'). But now, of course, the same flaws make these lenses especially interesting for some photographers - never mind the resolution, look at the 'bubble bokeh'!

[Richard Williams]

Either you're committed to an entirely 'analogue' workflow, or you're not. Going digital after the easy bit of exposing and taking the film out of the camera is completely hypocritical, while supposedly vaunting the merits of film.

Hypocritical? It's not a belief system, just a way of taking pictures. Scanned film shots look quite different to purely digital images when you post them on Flickr, and some people like this. Anyone shooting film this century without their own darkroom is in any case probably getting their pictures back from a hybrid digital minilab like a Fuji Frontier or a Noritsu that prints from a scan.

[ben_hutcherson]

But now, of course, the same flaws make these lenses especially interesting for some photographers - never mind the resolution, look at the 'bubble bokeh'!

 

If I can stand on a soap box again, "bokeh" is another one of those terms that has unfortunately been corrupted. I was taught that it refers to the character of the OOF areas, and now it often just seems to be used generically to refer to an OOF background. In any case, I'm probably preaching to the choir.

 

I hunted a little while to find a nice Nikkor-S 5.8cm 1.4. Mine came on a 6.4 million F, and is PROBABLY the lens that was bought with that camera when it was new. The 5.8cm version was made for about 2 1/2 years(and not in super high quantities) before it was replaced by the 50mm Nikkor-S that was-in almost every way-much better. Wide open, the 5.8cm has a peculiar "swirly" quality to the bokeh when wide open that I like, but it also is very low contrast and has a fair bit of spherical abberation.

 

Along those same lines, I have a Mamiya 150mm "SF" lens for the RB67. This is an interesting lens that actually comes with "diffusion disks" to change the bokeh. In any case, though, it's loaded with spherical abberation-probably the worst I've seen in any modern lens(much less a Mamiya) that basically disappears at f/8. To my eye, it looks terrible wide open, but there are Flickr pages dedicated to the lens.

[Richard Williams]

The best lens I have for quality of OOF areas is the Nikon 105 DC. It's sharp (but not harsh) wide open with very nice 'bokeh', and applying the 'defocus control' feature allows you to manipulate the effect. Apparently it works by varying the level of spherical aberration - a subtle (perhaps too subtle) effect at low settings, and something like a diffuser at extreme settings. For swirly bokeh the Leitz Summitar is a good and not too expensive bet.

[ben_hutcherson]

The best lens I have for quality of OOF areas is the Nikon 105 DC. It's sharp (but not harsh) wide open with very nice 'bokeh', and applying the 'defocus control' feature allows you to manipulate the effect. Apparently it works by varying the level of spherical aberration - a subtle (perhaps too subtle) effect at low settings, and something like a diffuser at extreme settings. For swirly bokeh the Leitz Summitar is a good and not too expensive bet.

 

The 135mm DC is one of the lenses on my "want" list. I've considered it because I like 135mm for headshot portraits, and having a 135mm f/2 is something I've missed since moving to Nikon. Also, I've overlooked the 105 for the simple reason that I have several Nikon 105s.

 

In any case, I like what I've seen from both of these lenses.

 

If the Summitar is available in LTM, I might have to look at getting one.

[rodeo_joe1]

Have a look at the Samyang 135mm f/2 Ben. It's about as close to optically perfect as I've ever seen.

 

Whether its undetectable amount of spherical aberration also delivers perfect bokeh is, I suspect, entirely a matter of personal taste.

 

"Hypocritical? It's not a belief system.."

 

- Really not?

It seems to me that film use is evangelised and defended with a zealot enthusiasm that verges on fanaticism in some quarters. With film being supposedly imbued with mystical qualities that can't be emulated. (Despite the fact that the same mystical 'film' shots are being viewed as digital files online)

 

I actually find it quite sad that darkroom use is almost extinct these days, while film use is supposedly on the rise. There's still nothing to touch a genuine silver-gelatine print for B&W reproduction. Yet so-called film enthusiasts can only be bothered to go as far as producing a negative in their quest for the 'analogue' experience.

 

I applaud anyone who's still wet printing. Well done! It's just unfortunate that your tactile genuine prints can't be shared online like those 'shamalog' scanned efforts.

[rossb]

I find it interesting that someone is going to bring out a new 35mm camera to the market. I will follow along and see how it goes. I am trying to keep tabs on the Intrepid LF camera also. As far as 35mm goes I do have 3 cameras and they all work real nice. I'm a hypocrite photographer and scan B/W film and then print on my inkjet. I enjoy the process and my photos. I also have a Mirrorless camera and used it yesterday and took about 20 pictures of the Grandkids playing in the yard. It was fun. The photos end up being printed on the same inkjet and stored in the same photo album.

[Richard Williams]

It seems to me that film use is evangelised and defended with a zealot enthusiasm that verges on fanaticism in some quarters. With film being supposedly imbued with mystical qualities that can't be emulated. (Despite the fact that the same mystical 'film' shots are being viewed as digital files online)

There are always people who go over the top about anything in photography, or indeed anything on the internet - see any discussion about UV filters! I don't see why a negative that ends up as a digital file is any less 'valid' than one that ends up as (say) a colour print. The grain that gives a film photo its texture is just as visible (often more so). One of the nice things about watching a movie on an HD format like Blu-ray is that you can see the grain that was lost in lower resolution formats.

I actually find it quite sad that darkroom use is almost extinct these days, while film use is supposedly on the rise. There's still nothing to touch a genuine silver-gelatine print for B&W reproduction.

Yes, a proper silver print can certainly be beautiful.

[JDMvW]

a proper silver print can certainly be beautiful

 

Actually, my favorite B&W film is Ilford XP2 and it's chromogenic with no silver at all after it's processed.;)

[rossb]

Back when we still had some labs around I used to shoot XP2 and the Kodak version. However once the labs all shut down I decided to start developing film myself and that has worked out well. HP5 and Tri-X are the usual films that I shoot.. I did like XP2 however.

[ben_hutcherson]

The colleague who gave me his Coolscan shot XP2 by the bucket load before he went completely digital.

 

His chief reasoning was that it was significantly easier to scan than "real" B&W films.

 

I have to admit that I do like XP2, and there are times when paying the local lab $4.50 to develop it is appealing, albeit not as satisfying, as developing film myself. I also like the fact that the negatives print very nicely in addition to being easy to scan. I never had a lot of luck getting good prints from the Kodak products, and I suspect that the difference comes down to the fact that XP2 was DESIGNED to be printed on an enlarger while T400CN(or whatever it was called) seemed to have been designed to print well in a typical minilab set up for color.

[JDMvW]

For the record, here is an advertisement for the Contaflex interchangeable back:

Modern Photography 1962-March

[Richard Williams]

I always rather liked the idea of the Rollei SL2000F/3003 models mentioned above:

Rolleiflex SL2000F - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia

It's a very nice piece of industrial design, like something that has slipped through from a parallel universe where 35mm cameras developed like medium format models.