tim_bosley1

<p>In my experience, when the back is not recognized, the body shows "no db" if you attempt to fire shutter.<br>

<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2881/9280830948_98028a33a6_m.jpg" alt="" width="240" height="240" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>The focal length is the focal length.</p>

<p>From what I remember, the Fuji GA 645 line of rangefinders shot normally in portrait, but others like the Pentax 645, Mamiya 645, etc are already in landscape. </p>

<p>uhh... why not just shoot with whatever wide you currently own and distort image to "fisheye look" with software?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you see film speed on LCD then you have in the batteries.<br>

Did you remove the dark slide?</p>

 

<p>Since the thread is a Sunday musings:<br>

Agree that only you can really decide if you need to change formats and I can understand your pros for such. I can also see (however I do not agree) with those wanting pocket cams, video, high iso, etc...<br>

I recently had an opportunity to search through years (and I mean decades) of film images. When I looked at the early digital and what I get now with the Mamiya 645 compared to the film images, I am glad I made the switch. <br>

Without discussions of MF "look" and large format DR, I can say that I loved the realism of the film era images. I began to emerge back into the place and time with the film. The early digitial did not do that for me. I a world of ultra ISO and super frame rates, I have learned to appreciate the simpler items with medium format. Truer skin tones, great DR and easier handling full function SW. <br>

Medium format digital is a pain to lug around, but you will be rewarded when you look on the images years later.</p>

<div></div>

<p>deleted.....</p>

<p>deleted.....</p>

<p>How about keeping the lenses and just buy a ELX body like the 553?<br>

Add a cheap metering prism and sounds like you have everything you want + local service distribution network with large used market...</p>

<p>I am not so certain they both are optically the same. I have both the manual and original AF zoom and I recall the AF has different (larger) element sizing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Wasn't expecting good image quality for $12. Just puzzled why it didn't look like .45x</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Err.... maybe because it was $12 ;)</p>

<p> </p>

<p><br /><br />It depends.<br /><br /><br />Just being "fast" is not reason enough to use a lens. Some lenses are optimized to shoot sharp at wide open apertures - others are not. A fast coke bottle is still a coke bottle :)<br /><br /><br />Personally I have never gotten into hi ISO. I look for digital systems that let me shoot much like I did with film.<br /><br />Remember - "the best lens is a tripod."</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>Hassles or Hasselblads?! </strong></p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes sir. Hasselblads on the brain. I have both the A16 and A24, but have only put a few rolls through them since getting a V96c back.</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

 

<p>I occassionally get the urge to shoot film, then I remember the hassels:<br>

Thawing out the film and locking myself in dark room to load. Frustrated with camera not shooting, only to find the dark slide was engaged. Going days trying to complete a full roll - knowing the film sitting on insert could cause problems. Having it sit at home in drawer until I could find time to drop off. Waiting an exhorbent amount of time to have it done. Driving across town only to find that the processing was not done - after checking over phone before driving out. Then scanning, and re-scanning.<br>

Guess I could try mailers again, but I've had a number of rolls ruined with no explanation.<br>

It was however exciting to see the slides under a loupe and light table.</p>

<p>I once owned a Mamiya 645 24mm fish with S/N 0000001<br>

I am certain it was special production run as it also had markings different from newer units I have seen (I've had three over the years).<br>

Anyway- special as it was, it did not net me any more $$ than average for 645 fisheyes.</p>

<p>Hey! I still have some floppies laying around. It was an early Sony digicam if I recall and has to be closing in on 10 yrs ago.<br>

It would now make a good camera for getting your child interested in digital photography - if you had a PC with floppy access.</p>

<p>Your obviously comfortable with the Hasselblad system - so the CFV39 is the best choice to take advantange of the fantastic lens system you have at hand rather than purchasing new lenses and body...<br>

Further the CFV39 back can be had for less than half of the Pentax and opens up upgrade possibilities in the future. <br>

Both systems have pros and cons, but I do not subscribe to the Pentax being the best choice for anyone wanting to go toward medium format digital.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

 

<p>I would like to find a resource that clearly identifies which lenses have changed optical design from transition from C to CF CB CFi <br>

I have the 120CF but have not seen any information on the CB version.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The only situation that comes to mind is the "TruWide" digital solution that made use of Nikon lenses mounted on camera frame that accepted V mount digital backs. <br>

In its day it was a solution to get ultra wide on a cropped sensor. Will it accept film backs? I guess, but who wants to deal with vignetting on film?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Do not have my lenses in front of me, but I think if you are "quick" and have some older C lenses - they have a setting for the 8-second self-timer built into them.</p>

<p>Do not recall seeing them on some of my newer CF lenses. No clue on CFE and CB lens...</p>

<p>Interesting.<br>

I guess that hole is to make identification easier if your camera ever gets stolen!</p>

<p>Why else ruin a perfectly usable WLF :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the model you are looking at is the AFD II version. Mine is just AFD</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am afraid you have answered your question. The original AFD has gotten long in the tooth with the II and III along with PhaseOne DF versions. Essentially the same camera, but you know...<br>

From what I see, the price has been pretty consistent for the AFD since last since last summer. $600 would be a standard price. I know keh will only offer something closer to $300 in good condition. <br>

I think quite a few are using Mamiya AF as accessories are getting hard to find. <br>

To me the Mamiya AF is just what I wanted from digital- ability to easily take film if I want, and upgrade digital backs if I desire. The only item I never got from Mamiya AF was the use of LS lenses. PhaseOne has a solution, but far from cheap.</p>

 

<p>Depends on your perspective....<br>

Someone yesterday wrote how they appreciate the Pentax 67 over modern medium format camera's.<br>

I have the opposite torn: the ultra thin pocketable units- no matter how handy leave me guessing if I even got the subject in the frame.<br>

Not to worry. We will all be using cell phones in the future.</p>

<p>Viva la SQUARE!</p>

<p>Can not speak for other manufacturers, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that my Leaf back could be rotated. Note: this is not rotatation while on the body as in the RZ's, but detach and re-attach in landscape/portrait.</p>