jonathan_maingot1

---RANT ALLERT!----

With so much photography for perfections sake on this site, I dare say the following...

You should use nothing other than a 50mm prime lens (or whatever is equivilent to that in the format your using). I've never seen a good photo taken with a telephoto of wide-angle lens, and this is with good reasons. Photography is- or rather I should say, can be- an art of recording the physical world. It is not interpretation of the world; it is 'reportage'. A 'normal' lens shows the world the the viewer, anything else creates a new world; an abstraction.

Now, you may- and will- say; "Well, just shoot whatever you like". BOLLOCKS!!! Remember the abstractionists? The photographic ones? They sucked! They made horrible pictures! They took a concept from a foriegn medium and imported to photography without even thinking about their medium. They gave no thought to what photography is and merely looked at their pictures and felt pleased with themselves because they looked like the stuff their idols had been making for years! They weren't artists, they were hobbists, amuzing themselves be copying famous artists! Enough of horrible photography! It makes me sick!

You don't see the world through a wide-angle lens, you don't see the world through a tele-photo lens, so why would you take pictures with them? If you're so interested in ill-considered art-forms, take up photo-realistic painting!

In other words, get a prime 'normal' lens, don't use your other lenses, and don't look back until looking at a copy of Popular Photography genuinely makes you nauseous.

Note: This is a rant, don't get your jollies off by trying to humilliate me with on an internet forum. That being said, do you think I would have writen this if I didn't want to upset some stuffy hobbists? Hey, at least I said something interesting and dared to tell our poor "novice" to do what he should have been doing all along. And you know what they say; "There's nothing wrong with being arrogant so long as you're right." Get over it.

I recently recived a RZ Pro body and back that I ordered on ebay.

While pleased with the camera, there is one thing that I'm unsure

about; there is a little bit of rotational play between the body and

back. If I pull the back outward while attached, its snug, but if I

try to lightly rotate it with the 'rotating toggle' in the locked

position it wiggles a tiny little bit. Not enough to cause any

noticeable problems, but maybe just enough to wreck a picture taken

with a carefully leveled camera. The camera is used but the is no

excessive wear to any fittings.

This is my first RZ, so I'm unfimiliar with the camera, and I'm

wondering if this problem is the specific camera or back that I

have, or just typical of the RZ Pros.

I'm also wondering if any of you out there have had any problems

with unlevel picture due to such slight movements.

Thanks.

-Jonathan.M

Thanks, that clears it up. I'll go with the RB... and maybe get some freeweights in the mean-time... just to prepare eh.

-Jonathan

My primary need is for a MF format camera that can fuction in poor

conditions; damp weather and cold weather (-30 degree Celsius = -22

degree Fahrenheit) While I won't be seeing -20F temperatures that

much, I am looking at RB due to it "ruggedness". Mind you I'll also

be shooting in a studio in a couple of years and the precision that

the RZ is capable of is desirable as well. What I'm wondering is

this...

1)Will the RZ ProII without a battery and with an RB 127mm KL,

preform comparably to the RB ProSD with the same lens?

2)Does the RB ProSD, in its design, or in your collective

experiences, have a marked advantage over the RZ ProII in marginal

operating conditions when using RB lenes?

Any replies would be greatly apprieciated.

Thanks.

-Jonathan

I'm wondering how the following cameras might

compare..............................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

...

DCS 620(3060 x 2036 max res)

<img

src="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/images/kodak_dcs460.gif">.......

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

DCS 760 (3032 x 2008 max res)

<img

src="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/images/kodak_dcs760.gif">.......

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

...........................................................

Canon EOS 20D (max res 3504 x 2336)

<img

src="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/images/canon_eos20d.gif">.......

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

........................................

Short version:

Does a camera that cost $25,000usd ten years ago compare to a new

$500 camera? Or am I going to get noisy photos with poor

colour?..............................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....

Long version:

I'm 19 and going to be the next Thomas Struth one day. Ok, just

kidding, but I am serious about photography. I won't be going

to "art" school for over a year, and in the mean time I'll be rather

far away from a city, yet alone any good labs. Since I just got my

$100 laptop up working again and the Epson 2200 that I won(!) over

two and a half years ago still sits unused, I'm considering a

digital camera at or preferablly below the $500 USD mark. Since

school is rather far into the future and graduation even more so,

I'm thinking that a quality MF can wait while I play around a little

bit (no pun intented). My love of older equipment has gotten the

best of me however, and when I grudgingly look towards digital, I

find myself only attracted by the old Kodaks, like the dcs 620,

which have rather high resolutions and can be gotten on Ebay for

hopefully rather cheap. Am I on the right course? Or should I bite

the bullet and admit that newer is in fact better, and consider

*gasp*... a new or at least newer camera. In other words, does a

camera that cost $25,000usd ten years ago compare to a new $500

camera? Or am I going to get noisy photos with poor colour? Keep in

mind, my only concern is the performance of the light capturing

fuctions of the camera and not the automation of the camera in

calculating exposure. The camera will be tripod mounted in light

ranging from only EV 12 to 15 (only several stops below and maximum

of one above "bright and sunny" or "f16 law"

light)...............................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

.....................................................................

........

Any replies would be very much apriciated. And thanks for reading

this far.

-Jonathan

Hmmm... TLR. Not a bad idea, but after spending the last two nights online 10hours per night looking for a folder, I guess I'm just too in love with how great they might be to give up now.

I found a good Vigilant 620, that's fresh out of the box, and has probably never been opened (could be interesting). The only pictures I have are below, and I'm still curious about the lens and what on earth that pattern of white specs is, as I haven't noticed anything like that on any other jpg photos of vigilants.

I'm looking for an absolutely amazing lens, and I'm looking to get

for under $100 canadian ($80usd). Rembember that old engineering

adage?... "You can have it Good, Fast, and Cheap... now pick two."

I've picked Good and Cheap- mind you f4.5 isn't that slow-, but now

I have to pick a camera. After reading about the resolution test

done on the 100mm f/4.5 Anastigmat (Kodak 620 Special), I became

hooked on the notion of folders. What am I looking for? A VERY poor

man's Hasselblad Planar 100mm; impecable resolution with minimal

distorion in a medium format camera with neg sizes 6x6, 6x7, or 6x9.

Here's what I'm looking at right now...

-Agfa Isolette with Solinar 75mm f3.5 from Jurgen Kreckel (certo6)

-Ziess Ikonta with Tessar 75mm f3.5

-Zeiss Nettar 517/16 with Novar Anastigmat 75mm f6.3

plus some unknowns...

-Kodak Vigilant 620 (lens unknown, but may be f-4.5 101mm Anastigmat

Special... tessar-style?)

-Kodak Monitor 620 (lens unknown)

-Kodak 620 with Anastigmat 105mm f4.5 (Tessar-type?)

Unfortunately however, time is against me as I'm returning to a home

with internet access quite soon. If any of you out there could help

me find info, lens test results, or even better worked with these,

or other cameras personally, your replies would be very much

appreciated. Thanks.

-Jonathan

"The only joy in photography is geometry, the rest is just sentimental."

- Henri Cartier-Bresson

Perhaps a little misquoted, but oh well... what's one to do?

...oh how I miss those disks...

Maybe I should restate the question:

Are there any updates that make the RZ-67 ProII superior to the older RZ-67 when using a digital back?

I'm a student and I'm looking at buying an RZ-67 (not an RB, not

DSLR, an RZ, end of story), BUT there is one final dilema... ProII

or not?

My main concern with the older RZ is that it may not be as digital-

back compatable five or ten years down the line as the ProII. As I

have a VERY limited budget, about $1300 usd, what body I get will

effect what lense and back I get. Any help or links to good info

would be much appreciated, thanks.

-Jonathan