leo_tam1

The n2000/2020 are a steal at today's pricing. Yes, it's not "cool" but it does everything I want and nothing more in a nice handy compact package. The viewfinder is so nice to focus with as well

I'll miss the pastel skin tone/GREEN greens look of this film

I wish the rollei 35 was a rangefinder

 

I use an Olympus XA and a Canon Rebel T2 and a 40 stm - only down side is I had to strip the melting rubber grip off and then glue the little remote receiver window back on -

Magicflexcamera Camera shop

Thanks. Elx bodies are so underrated - they sell for the price of the acute matte screen they came with.

 

This whole time I thought the h series used a focal plane shutter like every other 645 system. Did not know that it was a leaf shutter system. Thanks

I was actually thinking of the H series film cameras - H1/H2 - I've been using the 645N sporadically for a year or two (the only lens I had for it was a 80 F Planar because the 2000FCM my dad was letting me use stopped working reliably, but have added a 100 Planar and a 150 Sonnar) - I don't own any Pentax lenses at all - was just thinking of an "all hasselblad" solution (yes, I know the H series is Fuji) - rarely use studio flash, and if I did, I'd probably pick up another 500 series body and just use a tripod

 

Thanks

I know the Hasselblad H series is a kludge with the V series adapter - but I may go that route... (currently have a 645N using Hasseblad lenses) - A better handheld solution for the Zeiss lenses vs. a 500C (at least for me)

Has anyone's F5 or F6 ever had sticky rubber? My F100 is slightly tacky (not worse than my maxxum 7), but still kinda annoys me

Thanks. I have a hasselblad and have used a Pentax 645 handheld with hasselblad lenses. The hasselblad is a bit violent for handheld use, so I don't even think about it. Will probably end up with a 645 of some sort- the rz/rb is tempting though. I don't mind the weight if it's dampened well

Which SLR systems are better suited for handholding? Lots of wedding work was done with the 645 systems right? Pentax 67 and fashion work was pretty prevalent. How about the rZ/rb ? Sure the heavy, but I've heard users say they're well damped? I'm finding color negative work in 35mm less and less enticing

Wow, good look inside an early hasseblad - I have to dig out my dad's - it came with an early sticker over the slow speeds (later cameras had the stripe painted) 80mm Planar (which sadly has some gnarly separation)

I don't shoot enough to justify film (I know...)

Mix up developers, finish 36 exposure rolls, make sure the chemicals didn't expire, shoot film (color) before they got too expired, etc.

 

I still love my film gear, and I still have some 35mm provia 400x (expired back in 2014, and it's anxiety inducing trying to figure out how how not to waste it, but knowing I have to use it soon), but I think I like other people's results with film better than my own

Allancobb - please let us know how they compare - I wasted so much of my tmz stash trying to learn the film (focusing in the dark was another skill I needed to improve on)

E6 is kinda why I kept film gear around

 

Any tips for 400x Provia? Trying to use the film's character to my advantage. My first few rolls ended up with too much blown skies... Time to get an ND grad

I know a lot of people love Minolta colors and a lot vote

Leica

 

What's yours?

I only play with film for the look, I know the resolution

isn't there. Gritty 35mm Tri-X, Velvia/Provia/Ektachrome

colors (the main reason I shoot film), and that super

clean TMY-2 look are why I keep a few film cameras

around

I think they just reintroduce it back in the US. Got a roll of

1600 at KM camera in NYC

Damn, I like lti lightsides E6 - there's still CRC vista

<p>Thanks - By all means, I have no problem using either system - was just wondering if the FD version that was touted as best of its era was "better" than the newer EF lens. <br>

The FD at its time was noted to be sharper than the other non Aspherical 50 1.2s (which wasn't saying much)<br>

Curious if the EF, which is not as praised for its sharpness, is still better in that aspect than the FD - samples I've seen show that it's color and contrast looks pretty good<br>

The FD holds its value because it's a collectors lens, while the EF is still in production - guessing that affects it's "value"</p>

I have a Sony a7. I hear about the focus shift with the EF

50 1.2, the softness, and the lack of floating elements,

so was wondering from a purely optical standpoint, if the

FD was better. I would use a Canon new F1 with the FD,

or the potentially unreliable t90.

 

I'm not sure if the EF for its soft reputation, is still

sharper than the FD.

I know the EF is larger and doesn't use floating elements,

but was the image quality improved? Anyone use both? I

plan on using one on both film and digital

<p>Hmm, if the 105 1.8 is as sharp as the 105 2.5 at the same apertures, I might spring for one- shot a few shows on film where an extra stop would have helped a lot</p>

<p>I know the 150 2.8 is the sharp and more popular lens, but I can't afford one and 200 F4s are more in my range <br>

Are they as sharp?<br>

Ming Thein reviewed one and didn't like it on his 645Z, but I'm using film<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks- also what cable is it? Quantum doesn't list it?</p>

<p>So T2s are cheap now- but Quantum turbos are still expensive and I don't like having to deal with SLA battery maintenance <br>

What else can I power them with? Preferably NiMH or Li Ion</p>

<p>Thanks</p>