bill_dewberry

<p>Oh, and really important - if you do get some tubes, learn how to mount the tube and lens to the body so you don't jam the lens mount. Daniel Son, tube on, lens on; lens off, tube off.</p>

<p>Look at the work by Nicholas Sinclair; gorgeous; 150 with 16 tube.</p>

<p>Would you feel better if prices were regulated and controlled by the government ?<br>

You don't like the concept of free trade ?</p>

<p>I used that back a long time ago;You can only shoot horizontal, not vertical, it does not rotate, so it ended up not really working for portraits. Also, as said above, the image is small. This would not meet your needs.</p>

<p>Its as simple as this, the 2.8 F Planar is expensive, but once you have owned and used one, you will understand it is the premier twin lens, in terms of use and the images it produces.</p>

<p>first choice 2.8 F; second choice 3.5 F, both planars.</p>

<p>what the heck is a 28-135 2.8 lens ?</p>

<p>You can read what other people say and think they know, but the only true answer is for you to try MF and find out. Would you ask 20 people what sex is like, or would you find out yourself truly by participating ?<br>

Get a mamiya RB system with a 127 lens and shoot some film.</p>

<p>I have a 5D, and a 1V, they are very easy to use toghether. I also have an EOS -3, and there is no way I would choose that body over a 1-V.</p>

<p>Well, actually his comment and attitude are very common for photographers in his line od work; I read an article in a large newspaper re: a portrait photographer, and he was using a Nikon D200. A very excellent wedding photographer I know uses a Nikon D 300; the point is, these professionals have excellent skills, years of experience, and the equipment they use is of minor importance; while we amateurs and wanna bees place first importnace on our equipment, and believe that having the latest and the best will make our images better. Wishing will not make it so.</p>

 

<p>To get a really complete answer with details, google Jose Villa, a wedding photographer in California who uses film only, both MF and 35mm; he talks about what he uses and how he does it in various articles. The common thread to top end wedding photographers using film is Contax 645, and Richards photo labs in Los Angeles. Jose and other film photographers always mention how much less computer work is involved; they shoot film, send it to the lab for prints, processing and CD.</p>

<p>Dark slides, same issue.</p>

<p>Wow, you people love to make moutains out of molehills; create problems instead of solutions, your clients must really love your style.</p>

<p>I had the 24-105 and thought it was mediocre; an expensive mediocre, certainly not worth the cost.</p>

<p>Take a look at Bella West work , very nice with P 25, its an option.</p>

<p> A valuable item of equipment- shoes for crews.</p>

<p>Envelope please; and the winner is.... The R8.<br>

Thanks to all.</p>

 

<p>What has the R9 going for it the others lack ?</p>

<p>Thanks, I have that area covered, great looking wife and kids.</p>

<p>I am going to buy a leica R body, either R7 or R8, to replace a dead R5 body. Any compelling reason for one or the other body ?<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>M8- See Rinze Van brug work.</p>

<p>Galen Rowell.</p>

<p>iPhone, 12 MP , full frame. The end is here.</p>

<p>Dan, was the picture of you and the hassy taken with a digital camera ?</p>

<p>No need for proof of the mirror fix; if it did not, canon will do it now no charge.</p>