k._rivkin

As someone who too came from digital 35 - for me the main difference in shopping was that unlike 35mm world, where ppl would bore each other with fights "my focusing ring is smoother than yours" or "my lenses are more metallic", MF world is really diverse. There are some cameras you'll hate (I can't work with Rangefinders, and not really a TLR guy too), and some you'll love (for me it's SLRs).

 

So I would go to a big camera shop, ask them to show you all the cameras they've got, try if you are willing to work with them, and then ask here "is this any good ?".

Thank you very much,

 

Concerning Kievs' on the market - I think shady dealers thinking more about trade's volume rather than about satisfied returning customers are also to blame for the situation.

 

I've decided to part with my Kiev, and yes, it is a _very_ good Kiev, hope someone will have good luck with it (after bidding mega$ for it :)).

 

I'll be watching a second hand Bronica coming about on ebay... Just lost the chanse on one for 400$... Hope something will turn up...

Thank you, I've seen this one - I was wondering if this is actually seen in real life on 11x11 prints or so...

I'm sorry for asking another question earlier and now jumping to this but:

 

After a lot of web searching and looking at some tests, there is a

question that I would really appreciate being helped with - did

someone compare Bronica's 50mm to Kiev 45mm in terms of

sharpness/contrast, I don't mean a rigorous test, I mean exactly

personal experience - is Bronica visibly better ? Is it better at f11

? I would really appreciate the answer.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

K.Rivkin

Thank you very much for your responces - now, after somet thinking I understand that I've started asking the questions before figuring out whether it's DOF, film plane or corner sharpness problems.

Thank you, but I have Kiev 88, not cm - 45mm comes in both mounts.

 

In this case, I don't really think buying Kiev 88cm (remembering the great pains I went through with choosing my 88) is an option for me...

7335.1

 

Dear All,

 

Thank you very much in advance for your help in this one, I'm really

in distress, I've also posted this question in Kiev Report:

 

I have Kiev 88 (working great, good year, no problems _at all_ _ever_)

with 45mm Mir, which is somewhat bad - you can see a bubble in the

coating. I just finished printing and realized to my great

missatisfaction that it seems that it does not have as much of a DOF

as seems to be advertised in the DOF table on the lens. Basically it

focuses fine, but much more seems to fell from focus than it should've

been. Also it's a little bit wide for my GND and polarizer so it's not

like I really need exactly 45, I would do fine with 50mm.

 

Contrast is also does not seem to be that great.

 

I'm shooting _only_ landscapes, I don't need non-wide angle lenses, so

I was wondering what would be the best solution for me:

 

a. To buy another 45mm thinking "I'll be lucky this time". The problem

that the new ones are 200+$ and is there a guarantee/good chanse to

get something good ?

b. Spend 300+$ on 55mm PCS, but do I really need shift, I'm not an

architecture guy...

c. Change to Bronica with 50mm PS (40mm will not fit my polarizer) by

selling my Kiev. But is Bronica that better ? Is it better ? I mean

I've seen the great testing job at kievaholic, but is it really at

f8-f11 ?

d. Keep what I have, stop down to f16 , focus to infinity and pray the

foreground will be ok.

e. Buy myself a Hassy/50mm.

g. There are no Schneiders and so on for 88, but are there some good

wide angle lenses ? I mean my Kiev is really _fantastically_ reliable,

I would not want to throw it away.

 

Thank you !

 

Sincerely yours,

 

K.Rivkin

Hi,

 

Thank you - but I would expect much bigger distortion for a wide angle lens, that's basically why I'm thinking to buy it. The thing that bothers me is that all pictures I've seen with 17-40 where a little bit too high in contrast - things that with my tamron would be well visible where far too often simply black. Is it just my luck to know such slide-oriented people, or it's really a little bit more contrasty than tamron ?

Sorry for probably asking a well known question, but since I did not

find anything in the archives, I would really appreciate to hear the

input on how Canon 17-40 f4.0 L stacks up in image quality against

Tamron 28-75.

 

The reason I want to know is that I'm not really using 40-70mm

diapason on my Tamron, so if it's that worse than 17-40 I would just

sell it.

 

Thank you !

 

K.Rivkin

Dear All,

 

I would really appreciate if you help with a stupid question:

 

How is it called when you have a compartment in a case, which is

essentially lightproof, has two holes for the hands, and can be used

as a mobile darkroom ?

 

I mean how can one call such a compartment ?

 

Sincerely yours,

 

K.Rivkin

If I may confirm my reputation as a jerk - when one says "pro converted to digital", the question to ask is "what pro ?".

 

Wedding photographers etc. - I never understood why, besides "we use a 5000$+ commersial gear", they've been using MF cameras - they make very few large prints, it's more than understadnable that they use DSLRs right now. If by "pro" you mean a small number of landscape/architecture/product photographers who used MF for it's sole purpose - making large prints, they are still using MF, may be a little bit of 1DS (till MF digital technology matures). Yes, because of 35mm advancement, digital MF will develop too slow, but eventually physics will tell that you just can't resolve nearly as much on 35mm as on 6x9cm.

Well, the problem with 35mm digital is that there are just so many pixels you can resolve, even with a prime lens, and 14Mp is pretty much very close to this theoretical number. You still theoretically can get a better quality with 20Mp sensor, but it's going to be like 5% increase in resolution, so basically resolutions we see right now in 1Ds II is as far as you can fly with a Bayer matrix and 35mm optics.

 

So MF will fight in 15MP+ market. There are two problems - very few people need this reolution and MF gear is being used by very few people, so it's going to be quite expensive (but that's always been the big problem of buying a new MF camera) - tolerable at the low end 15Mp due to the competition from 35mm, and ridiculously expensive at 50Mp. Will MF disappear ? NO. The need to print 20x30" sizes will not disappear. Will small companies that are not able to afford R&D for a digital back disappear ? Yes.

It's going to be there for a while, at least till 1Ds drops to 2200$.

 

Depending on where you live working with 120/220 should not be a problem.

Dear All,

 

Thank you very much in advance for helping me out - in short I need a

very small tripod for just one set of photographs, with required

characteristics:

 

1. Ability to have its head to be at at least -45 degrees with respect

to horizon's plane.

2. Ability to steadily hold Hasselblad 500 in a windless and shakeless

environment (so it should not be heavy/steady, but should not be

turned upside down by Hassy's own momentum).

3. Adjustable legs' size.

 

for now I'm thinking something in between if Slik MiniPro-II, Giotto

Q-Pod, Culmann 50001 (looks real cool to me, or some generic Sunpak

like stuff ?

 

Could you please offer me an advise on which one to choose ?

Does anyone have an experience if one can use a monopod in places

where tripods are a big no - like museums and so on ?

 

Thank you very much,

 

K.rivkin

Did you shoot them at 18mm ?

 

Then it's a great example of _how_ different one 18-55 from others. Mine is not that sharp be far.

It's all beutiful, but my problem with 35 mm:

 

1. Small viewfinders, no ability to mount any respectable size ground glass.

2. 3x2 ratio is good for 4x6 or 20x30 prints, and does not work good for anything in between. And I don't make either 4x6 or 20x30 prints. So if I frame something really tight I'm faced with a prospective of printing some freaky 10x15 and getting its custom framed for megadollars.

 

Both things are not likely to be ever corrected. So I will eventually go 100% digital, but not that I'm really enthusiastic about this.

Dear All,

 

I hope someone will be kind enough to help with the problem: Digital

Rebel has a very small viewfinder.

 

So the question is, will Angle Finder B or something like this help ?

And the second question - is there a ground glass adapter for Canon

viewfinders ?

 

Thank you very much,

 

K.Rivkin

If one thing I learned by asking similar questions is that there is no one who can decide for yourself which lenses you should have.

 

For example for me 28-135 IS is too unsharp, as all non-L lenses in general, with very few exceptions.

 

So I would go for 17-40 and dump 18-55, or would buy Tamron 28-75. But yet again you can have a different set of likes/dislikes.

 

My advise would be buy some, return some, keep some.

A couple of weeks ago I asked a similar question.

 

The problem, like with this thread, that most of the people give advices based on educated guess rather then knowledge.

 

So I've read the thread and still have no idea how 645 will really stack up against MF, cause specific comparison is still not available.

RAW file size _very_ variable ? Nearly impossible imho. JPEG - they vary a lot, it's usually ok.

 

Improper focusing - what lens ?

must have is Polarizer and graduated ND (preferrably non-Cokin). These are two filters nearly impossible to replicate in photoshop.

 

ND can be repliacted by multiple exposures, but it requires a tripod and patience. Polarizer can be only partially replicated by advanced color management.

 

P.S. Cokin system is usually for people with many lenses. Dedicated 58mm Tiffen or Hoya filters will be less expensive and of basically the same quality.

A lot of people go to Antarctica to work. Italians are hired not only by italian but also by the american station (alaskians seemed more of a logical choise to me, but hey - the guy who monitors my friend's recording equipment is italian).

 

People who are needed - from cooks and construction workers to scientists. The pay is very good. They work there half a year during summer months, then most of them goes home, and a few stay to monitor the equipment.

 

Antartica is a major scientific center.

 

Ok, those who know more, oh let them correct me.

The main trick is to buy another lens :).

 

The supplemental one is to instead of focusing on sea, or air to focus on some tree far away.

Digital Rebel of Nikon D70. Nikon has a better, but way more expensive kit lens. In the rest they are tolerably different.

 

You'll save money in the long run, and you will have much less wasted frames.