anand_n._vishwamitran

I'm one of those who think Velvia 100 should be rated at 125. <P>

 

The reason for this is <b>not</b> to "bring out colours". As others have pointed out, overexposing lightens saturation and opens up shadows, at the risk of blowing out highlights. The advise to rate Velvia 100 at 125 is directed toward conserving highlight detail.

If you're shooting models, you presumably want the ability to use shallow depth of field. Faster lenses would trump slower lenses here anyday, and so the Mamiya 7II would lose out, IMO.

I'm confused. Where are the crops? Looks like you took 4 pictures, each with a different lens.

 

Also, what's the conclusion?

<img src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1122-1.jpg" width=900>

<p>

The 50mm f/1.4 ASPH is a faster Summicron in its imaging characteristics, with perhaps less attractive bokeh at the wider apertures. It is not as compact as the Summicron, but you probably knew that already.

<p>

Although the focussing ring seems OK to me, I prefer the Summicron for its better handling.

<p>

The Noctilux is still the king of available light photography IMO.

<p>

<center><img src="http://www.vishwamitran.net/images/1180-32.jpg" height=420></center>

The 135 f/2L is one of Canon's sharpest optics. Wide open, it is sharper than the 50mm f/1.4, but that is no surprise being a telephoto lens and a stop slower. Bokeh-wise, you cannot fault either lens. Being a normal focal length, the 50mm is definitely more versatile.

 

The 85 1.8 is an extremely sharp lens as well. Between the two lenses, you'll find more use for the 85mm focal length in everyday situations.

 

If you would like sample images taken with the 135mm f/2L, feel free to email me.

The f/2 shot of the resolution chart looks really bad for the ZM!

To my eyes, the Velvia 100 greens definitely look flatter on the light table than what Velvia classic is capable of.

 

In fact, I shot the first picture of flowers blooming with Velvia 50 as well (both shots were minutes apart). Velvia 50's greens look more rampant and warmer.

E100S is good film that's a grainier version of E100G. If you mainly shoot people, pass on the chance - you need a warming filter, and even then the skin tones aren't out of this world.

<p>

In the past, I've <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-

msg?msg_id=00Di6C">not liked</a> Fuji Velvia 100. I convinced myself

to repeat the experiment last weekend with a roll of 220 film, and

this time the results were quite pleasing:

 

<p>

<center>

<a href="http://www.igaruda.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1170-3"><img

height="240" src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1170-3.jpg"></a>

<a href="http://www.igaruda.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1170-6">

<img height="240" src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1170-6.jpg"></a>

</center>

</p>

 

<p><center>

<a href="http://www.igaruda.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1170-

10"><img width="300" src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1170-

10.jpg"></a>

</center>

</p>

 

<p>

My findings (in no particular order)

<li>The rated speed of 100 seems too low - I'd put true speed more

at 125

<li>I saw no evidence of a magenta cast during scans this time round

<li>Fuji Velvia 50 is definitely sharper

<li>The film is very...bright, and it can be a challenge to keep

highlights tamed. Exposing at 125 should help in keeping this tamed.

 

<p>

Overall, I'm still tempted to stock up on Fuji Velvia 50, but Velvia

100 doesn't seem so bad after all.

Forgive the ignorance, but what's so special about this magazine?

<p>

I haven't had the camera long enough to comment on how its battery life.

 

<p>

If anything, the camera is less conspicuous than a Leica M7 chrome with handgrip.

 

<p>

The lenses, as you know are outstanding, and you'll love the images they produce-

<p>

Images link to a fuller size with technical information.

 

<p>

<table>

<tr>

<td align=left><a href="http://www.igaruda.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1115-5"><img src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1115-5.jpg" height=450></a></td>

<td align=left><a href="http://www.igaruda.com/w3rootg/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1115-4"><img src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1115-4.jpg" height=450></a></td>

<td align=right><a href="http://www.vishwamitran.net/w3root/dspi.aspx?IMGID=1104-19&stax=1111"><img src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1104-19.jpg" height=450></a></td>

</tr>

</table>

I definitely like the first one - thanks for sharing!

Thanks, James! Glad you liked that picture.

<p>

Andrew, I'd agree with most of the members' comments about the 35 'Lux. Get the 35 'Lux ahead of the 75mm lens: it is definitely more versatile. However, get the 75mm 'lux ahead of the 75mm Summicron - the 'lux can do f/2.0, but the Summicron can't do f/1.4 <grin>

<p>

 

<center>

<b>Children playing cricket</b><br><br>

<img align=bottom src="http://www.igaruda.com/images/1139-15.jpg" height=450>

</center>

The 75mm f/1.4 Summilux is to be preferred for portraiture, IMO. The images retain more atmosphere at the wider apertures than does the 90mm Summicron.<div></div>

Was the shot of the girl with dog taken wide open?

 

Thanks

I definitely like the picture of the girl with the dog! Tell us what film you used :)

The 90mm does have different framelines. You did switch the camera on, of course?

Scott, long term you will end up with a Mamiya 7 in addition to your Leica equipment.

 

The Mamiya 7 would not be my first choice for a studio camera - however, its lightness makes it a fantastic travel camera. There is nothing like medium format to bring back the sights, sounds and smells of a foreign location.

 

A Leica cannot replace a Mamiya 7; but then nor can the Mamiya replace a Leica.

I disagree that we need to spend a lot of time with Leica equipment to justify its cost.

 

How many movies do I have to watch every day to justify a plasma TV? Should I care about how enriching the movie-watching experience (whenever it happens) should be; or should I punish myself with mediocre equipment in return for not taking up watching movies as a profession?

 

Clearly, if we can afford it, and can use it, we want to be able to reach for a Leica when life's moments happen.<div></div>

Thank you, Arthur. I'll give that a shot.

Hi Ilkka,

 

Good point about Nikon.

 

I didn't recalibrate my scanner for the new film. Just attempted to scan in as is. Please share your experience.

I have shot only one roll of Velvia 100 (in 35mm) so far; however, 36 frames of varied enough subjects are enough to tell me that this is not Velvia 50.

 

Velvia 100 has garish magenta shifted colors, is more contrasty, and scans terribly - all compared to Velvia 50. My scans were done using a Nikon Coolscan 9000 which seems to do better with the old Velvia. I intend to repeat the experiment with another roll of Velvia 100 after I've mustered up enough courage

 

After seeing the results of the first roll on the light table, I quickly bought some Velvia 50 as future stock. Even treating Velvia 100 as a new emulsion, it is different and worse enough to not make it worth the price of admission.

The XPAN II also has the problem of paint chipping off. Outrageous, for the price but true.

 

The center filter is essential for critical work with the 45mm lens. EBay should get you a good deal on it.

 

I use a Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the glass carrier to scan my XPAN work in.

Get rid of the long zoom, get the 85 1.2L. Start saving up for the IS version of the 70-200mm f/2.8L.<div></div>