mark_lewis2

I'd go ahead and contact your insurance company. If, by some stroke of luck, you do get it back, go immediately and buy a lottery ticket.

<p>All of my buying experiences with KEH have been top-notch. I would suggest calling on the phone rather than buying from them online if getting it shipped quickly is important. Sometimes the web orders take a while to ship but my phone orders tend to go out that day.</p>

<p>I've owned at least three each of all three vintages (6x7, 67, 67ii). I wouldn't even consider a body without MLU, and even those with MLU have a handful of shutter speeds that are basically unusable (from about 1/2-1/30) if you care about truly sharp images. I got so fed up with vibration that I sold my entire Pentax stash and switched to Mamiya so as to have the leaf-shutter lenses. I never did make my peace with the vibration those Pentax camera's entail, in spite of making countless mortgage payments with them over the years.</p>

<p>There are some fairly stubborn weeds in my driveway (gravel driveway). I tried spent fixer on them last week. I don't have weed problems now.</p>

<p>I can focus a whole lot faster with my Mamiya 7ii than I can with my RZ Pro-II. That said, I don't shoot sports - I'm not in a hurry.</p>

<p>I have a release form translated into the local language wherever I go. It prevents a lot of "I wonder if I need a release" thoughts after the fact when every single person I photograph has signed a release.</p>

<p>UPDATE: </p>

<p>77mm lens ---> Mamiya RB/RZ mounting ring G2 ---> Hassy 40676 folding Proshade.<br>

It took a few calls, a good bit of frustration, and then finding the answer sitting in my camera bag on my existing RZ bellows shade :-)</p>

<p>I've got the similar Mamiya shade but the lack of folding rail causes it to take up a lot of room in my bag. So far today I've called and spoken with people at B&H, KEH, Hasselblad (they won't talk to you if you are trying to use their products on another brand!), and a camera repair facility that I used to use in the 90's.<br>

I vividly recall what the ring looked like but cannot for the life of me figure out who made it or find anyone that makes something similar now.<br>

This will teach me to get out of film....and then get back into it!<br>

mark</p>

<p>Hi all,<br>

15 years ago, I was primarily using Pentax 67's for my MF work. At the time, I used a folding-rail Hasselblad "Pro Shade" and somehow had a 77mm ring that allowed using it with my Pentax 200mm lens. I've recently put my digital gear aside and have reentered the MF world - now using Mamiya RZ equipment and would like to once again have a bellows lens shade with a folding rail (just easier to fit in the bag compared to the static rail variety). <br>

I cannot seem to figure out what adapter ring I was using to get that Hassy shade onto a 77mm filter size rather than the bayonet they are intended for. Does anyone here have either A) a better memory than I do, or B) a hint as to what ring I need to do that?<br>

Many thanks/</p>

<p>Velvia, but shoot a few test rolls as the stated ISO and the real ISO can be VERY different. Back when RVP was the only thing in my bag, I rated it at 32 but I've not shot it in a while.</p>

<p>I had the Dryzone for a while but the waterproof zippers were a real nuisance to get open/closed. I went back to a large Tamrac bag for my MF system.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Mamiya 6 or 7, just save the pennies a bit longer. </p>

<p>I put my Mamiya 7ii on a tripod aimed at a brick wall. Then, I outlined the four corners of what I saw in the viewfinder with masking tape on the brick wall. Upon processing the film, I had a better idea of what the camera yields compared to what the viewfinder shows. I did this for each lens that I own.</p>

<p>I continue to use a Minolta handheld meter with my 7 II (old habit that likely won't be lost) so I never bother giving much credit to the in-camera meter.<br>

Sounds like you got the deal of the decade on that camera outfit!</p>

<p>This will likely be seen as a rather radical suggestion, but.....maybe use the one lens you have coming and decide after using that for a while what focal length you feel you are missing?</p>

<p>I'm at a loss as to how I'm going to produce any images unless some new lenses are released soon! While some of my lenses have a "II" on them, I'm certain that a "III" lens will produce better shots. It's all in the gear, right?</p>

<p>Guys, I truly appreciate all the input, many of you have touched on exactly the points I wanted to hear about. <br>

Thanks again for the input, it is very helpful/<br>

mark</p>

<p>I was hoping that people that have used both could chime in on their likes/dislikes of each. Is the bulk of the RZ worth the effort over the compactness of the M7?<br>

-is there an optical advantage of one over the other?<br>

-is one more durable than the other in terms of daily professional use?<br>

-if comparing the two cameras with comparable lenses, on a three day shoot with models in a remote location, is there one system that seems preferable? and if so, why?</p>

 

<p>I'm contemplating reintering the world of film after a four year dalliance with digital (1DsII, 1DsIII, 5DII) and while I've owned Hassy and P67II gear, I'm leaning toward Mamiya 7 or RZ equipment (not really into the square thing...). I'm not dissuaded by the weight/bulk of the RZ, but am hearing a lot of chatter about the optical performance of the Mamiya 7 lenses. <br>

Primary use would be on location, on tripod, subject matter from 5' feet to infinity. The only rangefinders I've previously owned were Leica's and I was fine (amazed!) with them.<br>

Durability/ruggedness is a concern as I only shoot in distant/remote locations. That said, I do seriously baby my gear and wonder why I continue to insure it all...<br>

If it matters, photography has been my sole occupation for the past 23 years, this is not merely a hobby. <br>

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!</p>

 

Far too many responses seem to think $500 should yield the perfect camera. That

premise is completely unrealistic now with digital or even in the days of film. No RAW or

wide enough lens? buy a DSLR and you're all set.

 

I shoot photos for a living and have for over two decades. Do I expect the G7 to replace

my 1DsII's, no. But for $500, I have realistic expectations. Just think what 4MP cameras

cost a few years back and the G7 starts to look pretty good.

 

Sure, I'd love it to have a 20mm lens and RAW but if you are a camera manufacturer and

pack every conceivable feature into a $500 camera, who is going to buy your upper level

models?

 

Maybe when the G8 comes out some of these concerns will be addressed. Until then, it's

decent value for money.

I guess I'll be the oddball here: my 17-40 is nearly permanently set at 17mm and I wish it

would go wider. I have never had a "crop" body, only fullframe sensors and dearly wish for

wider good optics. Before I switched to digital I used the gear of a different manufacturer

and their 14mm was one of my more used optics/

mark

www.markpix.com

I hope you find a wider audience for these meaningful images

than this board, they deserve to be seen. Well done.

We don't all use the same lab. We don't all use the same

chemistry. Not all labs use the same brand of control strips. Fuji

control strips yield higher effective film speeds than Kodak

control strips, etc, etc, etc.....

 

<p>

 

Sorry, but if you want accuracy with your own lab or your own

home processing, YOU have to do the testing and find what

works for you. Testing several rolls of film really isn't that hard is

it?

I love my mother but all of her support and ooh's and aah's over

my images have never helped to improve my craft. If what you are

looking for are just nice warm fuzzy feelings, I can suggest a few

good Cabernets that fail to disappoint.

 

<p>

 

If we go about setting the bar too low to which we compare

ourselves, are we really accomplishing anything? I don't feel in

competition with anyone on this site as you have suggested. Nor

do I necessarily find this forum to be the best place to have

photos critiqued, as the merits of the judges are a bit hard to

ascertain. However, when you defensively call for someone who

has given comments on your images to put something up for the

rest of us to see, you automatically make it a competition

between you and he/she.

 

<p>

 

I find some of the technical info on this site helpful and some of

the critiques rather amusing in how they are recieved by the

people whos images are being evaluated. Without fail, an

image is posted and the person gets defensive about the first

post that fails to call it the "best image they have ever seen".

 

<p>

 

Support from fellow shooters is all well and good, but post an

image knowing full well that people will view it with a critical eye.

We all have seen thousands of images, I would worry if we didn't

start to become critical viewers after a while.

I think that adding something constructive is appropriate when

there is something in the presented photo that can be capitalized

upon. If there is really nothing of merit in the photo for the viewer,

stating that a given image "does nothing for me" is simply an

honest opinion.

 

<p>

 

As was stated above, if you really want only constructive

comments on every shot you present to the group, enroll in photo

class somewhere - but be forewarned, photo classes get rather

into deconstructing images as well, and other students will

happily tell you that your image "does nothing for them". I would

assume that anyone posting an image here would be prepared

for some honest, and sometimes harsh, opinions.

 

<p>

 

If you can't take the opinions expressed here, just try going down

to one of the larger ad agencies in your city and having their

art-buyer look through you work. I think you'll find that peoples

opionions here are actually rather tempered in their judgement

compared to people who critique (buy) photos daily .