tom_norman

Has anyone made a comparison between using L lenses on a 20D versus

using lenses from Leica, Contax, etc. via the adapter?

 

I like the look and bokeh of German glass and was wondering if that

would transfer over to a digital body. Plus L lenses are extremely

expensive compared to some German counterparts.

I just bought a 20d which is my first digital camera.

 

I still use a hasselblad and TLR but need a DSLR for trips etc when

the hasselblad is too much of a hassle. Reading various canon forums

it seems that a lot of non-pro photographers (like myself) opt to get

zoom lenses instead of primes for their use. I'm kind of surprised as

primes are generally smaller, cheaper, and seem to produce sharper

images compared to zooms that I've had in the past.

 

Coming from using MF and standard lenses I forsee myself just using

primes for my DSLR as well. I was just wondering if maybe I'm a

minority or if anyone else uses just primes in their DSLR setup?

Impressive leica "glow" on the picture of the signs.

The people with the 4870's say its not as good as the nikon 9000.

The people with the 9000 say its not as good as an imacon and it goes on and on. Its not easy to meld an analogue process with digital. Square pegs in round holes come to mind. Unfortunately one has to make a decision based on how much you are willing to compromise in order for the control that digital has to offer.

The concensus seems that with USM applied the soft scan from an Epson won't be an issue. Its hard to garner that when comparing shots of the 4870 and nikon just because the Nikon's initial scan is so much more sharper then the 4870's. I would imagine that the Nikon is pretty far ahead in pulling in dynamic information vs. the 4870. This may be harder to correct in photoshop of course.

How big a print size would it take for a nikon 9000 to pull away from a 4990/4870 after USM is applied etc.? Is it immediately noticeable or only 16x20 and up?

Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will try to use and push my film to 800 ISO speed and consider investing in a monopod or 80mm. As much as I like shooting with the hasselblad I?m learning that my shooting habits are changing. I usually work in a downtown location so I?m kind of paranoid about setting up and using a tripod that draws attention. For some reason I feel tied down when using the tripod and feel liberated walking around without one.

 

Recently I came across Ralph Gibson?s work and his use of shadow and high contrast scenes. This got me thinking that a leica or similar camera might be of use as I could walk around with minimal equipment and setup time and still get close enough to achieve an image the size that I want. This weekend a friend of mine loaned me a Olympus XA with a 35mm Zuiko lens. I?m going to go take a break from the hasselblad and see if the Olympus changes anything and just go with the flow.

I need some advice.

 

I've been shooting 6x6 and recently set down and really went over my

shots with a loupe from the past couple of years. While there are some

keepers, under a loupe most of my shots are out of focus. I try to

maintain handheld speed over 1/125 but its still hit and miss with

alot of shots.

 

I currently use a hasselblad with a 150mm lens and now realize that

this is not the best camera to handhold. The lack of DOF is also

starting to effect my shots as I shoot many still lifes and high

contrast abstracts ala Aaron Siskind :)

 

I don't like working with a tripod but I'm tired of getting blurry

shots with an slr. It has occurred to me that for my shooting style

(handheld, still life) that maybe I would be better off with a

rangefinder camera that is more geared to being handheld.

 

I tried using a friends Mamiya 7, but the 80mm will only focus up to 3

feet and the 80mm in MF is a little too wide. I need a slightly tele

lens that will allow me to get closer to an object.

 

Would you consider a leica or bessa and a 75mm/90mm a good choice for

shooting still-lifes, handheld? Would a tripod with an SLR be the only

other choice? I thought about getting a 20D, but it seems like the

leica would be sharper because of the lack of a mirror, plus it would

be more portable.

Thanks for everyones responses. I'm planning on going ahead and getting a nikon 9000. Its more then I want to spend but coupled with my hasselblad it should be a decent scanner. With the sinkhole that scanning is, it seems the 9000 would be easier to work with then using a flatbed, plus I do believe that the quality will be noticeably better.

I currently have an espon 2200 used for printing up to 13x19". Since I

shoot a hasselblad (6x6) its mostly 11x11. I'm trying to decide

between an epson 4990 or nikon 8000/9000.

 

Of course the epson is a lot cheaper in price and it is a flatbed.

However, since my max printing size is 13x19 would there still be a

noticeable difference between the flatbed vs. the nikon? Or would the

differences not be readily apparent until bigger print sizes?

I was just wanting to get some opinions of using the pentax 67 with a

waist level finder.

 

I currently shoot with a hasselblad, but because of the cost of the

lenses I'm considering a different camera. I really like composing

with the waist level finder on the hasselblad and its one of the

reasons that I'm still using it. My other option is a bronica 6x6, but

I wouldn't mind using the larger format of 6x7. Also, without the TTL

meter would the weight of the Pentax67 be reduced much? I've handled a

P67 with TTL and 200m lens and its quite a beast :)

Anyone notice the v96c that is fitted on the back of the 503CW? I guess this is a new digital back for the V series. That would be nice :)

Thanks for the responses. The tiltall and bogen 3001 sound like what I'm looking for. I'll have to check them out. I'm still curious if they would be able to support a 250mm lens though, might be kind of front heavy.

I�m trying to find a tripod for a hasselblad that is light and is

fairly inexpensive. Is it possible to use light and cheap in the same

sentence when talking about a tripod? :)

 

I was thinking about buying either the bogen 3001 or slik 300dx,

although I�m not sure if they would support the weight of a

hasselblad, prism, and 250mm lens. Many people recommend the bogen

3021 with a 3047 head but I�m concerned about the weight.

 

Can anyone recommend a tripod that won�t break the bank or my back?

 

regards,

Probably a better question for the traveling forum but I just wanted

to get some feedback from people who shoot MF on what they use when

traveling.

 

I'm going to Europe this summer for two weeks: Paris and Amsterdam. I

have a hasselblad with 80mm and 150mm that I have just acquired and

was planning on taking. However, I'm having second thoughts. I'm kind

of nervous about traveling to larger cities with my Blad gear. I keep

hearing that petty crime is a big problem in Amsterdam and don't want

to be a sitting target with a hasselblad. I also have a 35mm Elan and

Olympus XA which would be my alternative.

 

Just wondering what you would recommend? Do you usually opt to carry

35mm when travleing or a smaller MF setup?

 

thanks,

Thanks Rob, I'll send an email before I return it.

Thanks for the opinions.

It seems for the most part the scratch wouldn't be a deterrent. However, I went ahead and called the person who I got the lens from (luckily it was a small camera shop) and they said they would take it back. I hate to part with a $300 CF lens, but oh well.

 

Resale was the deciding factor.

In 5 years or so its going to be hard enough trying to sell a MF unscratched lens, forget about the scratched ones! :)

Well I just got a 80mm from the auction site with "a few scratches".

It turns out there is one scratch that does a semicircle on the outer

portion of the front element.

I have always read that scratches really don't matter much on the

front element, however I was wondering if this is a little to the

extreme.

The scratch is not noticeable except looking from the rear element.

Looking from the front I can hardly detect the scratch. It's really

long a thin (about an inch) and runs along the the outer end of the

lens. However, I freak out looking at it from the back as its

magnified a great deal.

Currently my blad is in the shop getting a cla so I won't be able to

test for a few days.

 

I put some pics in my folder that I took looking through the rear

element and just wanted to get some advice from some people on if a

scratch such as this may affect the picture quality. Or if anyone has

any similar experiences.

Is it possible to get a scratch polished out or new front element?

Or should I just return it.

Latley I've been considering a used hasselblad 500 to start shooting

my color work, using slide film. I had planned on scanning the slides

on a epson 3200 and printing them out onto a 2200 at around 11x11 in

size.

However, I have read many comments referring to softening that occurs

when using the espon flatbeds.

Should I instead opt for a canon 10D or digital rebel for this purpose?

 

Just wondering if the 10D would provide me a better print vs a

hasselblad plus flatbed combo.

I know that Tangos scans are another story...

 

regards,

Tom

I know Kodak has been renaming some 35mm films and discontinuing some

others. Which leads me to question which format has seen the most film

choices discontinued lately (35mm, MF, LF)? I would like to see how

the industry views different formats and if it may be harder to get

4x5 film vs 120mm film etc. later on down the road. I would like to

think 35mm would be least effected perhaps.

 

Which formats do you think may see the most reduction in film choices?

Thanks for setting me straight about he vignetting. Although it sounds like its bothersome to use the 500cm with longer lenses, I'm sure many people have dealt with the finder cutoff over the years. Sounds like it is something that I will get used to, unless I won't to pony up the money for the 501cm :|

I know that the early 500c, 500cm has a short mirror which causes

vignetting when using longer lenses. However, I've heard that the

vignetting only occurs when stopped down. I'm interested in buying a

250mm and some extension tubes but was afraid on how much the

vignetting might affect the viewfinder image.

 

From experience, is the vignetting only apparent if I'm shooting the

250mm or using the extinsion tubes stopped down as oppose to wide

open? If this is the case then the vignetting issue would not be as

much as a concern because I can just open the lens to get the full

image and then stop down to take the picture.

 

regards,

This is probably trivial, but as I was checking out a 500c for

purchase recently I pointed the front of the camera towards a

lightbulb. Looking from the back, through the cloth shutter, I

noticed 2-3 tin holes that you would normally not see in most

cicumstances. This model was very clean and looked almost new but I

didn't buy it for this reason. This got me thinking as to how much of

a problem this might be with older hasselblads 500c/early 500cm. I

would think that over time such things might develope from use.

 

Would the holes be able to be filled (repaired)or is this camera best

left for parts? Or does it even matter, given the small size of the holes?

 

regards,

Is the 80/150 combo be pretty sufficient for what you use with your

hasselblad? I�m on a tight budget which limits me from buying many

lenses, especially when it comes to hasselblad.

 

I like shooting on the long end and do a little macro on the side, but

I�m also concerned with general shooting. For the price of a used

hasselblad and two lenses I could buy a bronica sqai and macro/150/80

for the same. So I�m a little indecisive to say the least. It seems

like most people like to use the 80/150 on the long side.

 

Would this two lens setup cover most of what you need or would you

find it limiting?

I shoot 35mm B+W and am contemplating going from a traditional to

digital darkroom. Previously I have displayed my work using

traditional darkroom methods at the local galleries and know of

noone who is displaying digitally printed work in my small city.

However, I desire to work in the light more and I am considering

buying a film scanner and epson 1160 printer with MIS quadtone

inks.

 

However, I wanted to get a concensus from other fine art

photographers on how gallery owners and the public perceive digital

outputted work. Is there a stigma associated with the digital

process when compared to traditional or are digital printed works

being accepted just as well? Are there any fine art photographers

which someone can recommed that are using digital outputted

processes for their fine art photography?

 

Just wondering if I should make the move or stay with the darkroom

for a while longer :)

 

regards,