erol_a.

I'm switching to Diapositive now, hoping for good luck as I've heard they're worth the premium. The other labs I've tried have lost, scratched, and spilled things on my film too many times to go back. My film (90% 4x5) always came back from MCL with giant thumbprints (seriously, like the guy was eating fried chicken as he loaded my negs) and scratches. I've been to Coloredge three times. Once was fine, once had watermarks like you wouldn't even believe, the past two days... well. I was given two other photographers' commercial shoots before they finally found mine. I know sh*t happens, but that's like a 66% failure rate thus far.

In the past few years I've had 2 M bodies (one M6, one M3) fail and two current-issue lenses fall off their mounts. In fairness, the 3 had most likely had a long, hard life prior to my owning it, and a mid '50s summilux I was the 2nd owner of (now owned by someone on this board) was probably the best built lens I'd ever held. I'm a little shocked by the two new lenses stripping the screws out of their mounts, though. I don't pamper my gear but I'm certainly not abusive either.

That's wild. I regularly print 16x20 from 67 and 4x5, less often 30x40 and up. I've never had that wide a discrepancy between the two.

 

Tony, at 40x50 4x5 will have an advantage, though a good set of printing skills will give you a stunning print from the 67 neg/slide as well. More important than negative size I think is the process of shooting large format - you work differently, even from the RZ, which is as big and heavy as many 4x5 cameras! I'd say though if you're looking for a notably clear jump in quality, you might look into 8x10.

I like my Harrison tent. I had a bag before and the only thing it did well was make me appreciate 35mm. I think it came factory-shipped with enough dust and loose strands of fabric to ruin the next decade of film loaded inside of it. Heck of a feature. The Harrison is easy to set up, folds down fairly compact for travel, and has plenty of room for 4x5. It's a little tight for 8x10, but it's certainly very doable and I don't have the largest size tent.

I think a medium format 67 camera and a dedicated 120 film scanner will beat either of those for large prints. I shoot mostly 4x5, and have a v700 at home that I use for making digital contact sheets and quick test scans, but my "real" scans are all made on an Imacon. The difference is night and day. You lose too much on the flatbed to really make 4x5/Epson worthwhile if the scanner is going to factor into every image you make in my opinion, whereas an inexpensive used RZ67 plus a Nikon 8000 will give you great 16x20s with greater ease.

 

If you plan to do any high end scanning or darkroom work, though, 4x5 is an absolute joy to work with.

I don't think you'll be surprised, but once you're comfortable with the camera, I think you'll be exceptionally happy with the image quality. The 5D makes great images that enlarge pretty well, but I personally really love the texture and tactile look of a film image. Both are perfectly useful, and a great picture will look wonderful regardless of what format, so it really comes down to personal preference, and also what camera you enjoy working with more. You can rent a Hassy in most towns of decent size, I'd do that first and see what you think.

I'd echo the comment about forgetting about the rollfilm back - unless you are going to shoot a TON of pictures, and many of the same subject, just stick to sheet film, and crop if you want a different shape. Rollfilm adaptors add another factor of difficulty in working with the camera. Also consider the simpler RW45 camera. It'll handle down to a 65mm lens and has the basic movements needed for most landscape photography. I moved up from an RZ system to the 45 (though still use the RZ for portraiture and quicker-paced ___scape shooting) and the only times I've run into a lack of movements has been doing interior architecture. The RW is a great, simple camera for landscapes, exteriors, and portraits. It's also the cheapest in the Ebony stable, leaving more cash for lenses and film.

 

I think there's still the Fuji 6x8 medium format camera w/movements out there too, isn't there?

1600. I have 2 1600s and 2 800s and I wish I had more power for LF portraits. If you're

using softboxes/umbrellas and having to light backgrounds, etc, you're going to want

more power. I'm usually shooting 100 speed and if I can get to f/16 with soft light I'm

lucky.. and f/16 doesn't go too far in 4x5 where you're using a 210mm lens focused on

something 10 feet away.

I shoot with RZ and 503 systems myself. The RZ is an amazing camera - I've used it for studio and location work, including light trekking/climbing. The flexibility of the system makes the weight bearable!

 

With the way prices are nowaways, I'd not worry about compatibility and just go with all RZ kit. My two favorite lenses are the 110 and the 65FLE - I'd imagine for fashion a 180 or 250 would be a nice addition as well. I have a 180 but I don't use it tremendously often. The prices just keep dropping on RZs (which is why I still have mine between the 'blad and 4x5) so the lenses and finders that a coulpe years ago still cost a decent coin are going for good prices.

 

the rotating back is amazingly useful.

Hey Drew - I've got the 20/2.8 Nikkor at my place in Brooklyn. I passed on most of my Nikon gear to my girlfriend and father, but Erin forgot the 20mm last time she was visiting. You're welcome to take it for a spin and see what you think - I can bring it with me to ICP. I'm back in VA now (don't start again until the 29th) but will be back up in town sometime soon to prepare myself for round 2. My email is currently bungled but I'll get in touch when I know when I'm headed back up.

 

I have the 50/1.8 and the 35/2 as well. The 35/2 and 85/1.8 were unquestionably my favorite shooting lenses for years in that system. I can get pretty much any of those from Erin as long as I leave one with her; she's not shooting much.

Done a lot of work with Contax 645 (owned 2 for several years) and Mamiyz RZ, and at the

studio we had a Mamiya 645 for a few years that I used now and again as well. I hands

down preferred the Contax - it fit much better in my hands, and the C645 lenses have a

look that I prefer to any other lenses on any other system I've owned (Leica, 'blad, 4x5

Schneider, etc...) They are simply excellent for BW and unbeatable for color. The Mamiya is

no slouch but I found it didn't feel comfy for me, and the lenses were good but didn't have

that extra something to them the Contax glass did (I personally liked the look I got from

the RZ and Mamiya 7 lenses to the 645.)

 

that said. The issue of servicing on a Contax is not insignificant. Even when they were still

around, I found service was iffy for my 645 as well as my G2 rangefinder. I had issues with

a G lens as well as one of my 645 bodies. Concerns about future reliability led me to sell

out of the Contax system despite it being stellar. I do a lot of field portraiture and long-

term field shooting (planning a long shooting project in Mongolia, S. China, and Vietnam)

and have moved back to manual film cameras. There's always speculation about Contax

coming back, but it's just that - speculation. I'm told that there are parts out there to

supply several years worth of repairs, but that's a risk you'll have to evaluate for yourself.

I've trekked with 2 Nikons and a 645, as well as with an RZ67 - it can definitely be done.

I'm currently in the first stages of planning a trip through China and Vietnam, and

planning to carry two of my Leicas, my 503 w/ 80mm lens, and (cue shock, horror) a 4x5

field camera. I may leave one of the bigger cameras at home due to space for film, but

thats the aim - it does of course entail having safe haven to leave gear during the day, as

moving with that much gear all the time more or less makes street shooting impossible.

The last trip I did was my first doing all digital, using Canon Mark II and 5D cameras, and

while they are immensely convenient, there's a clear difference between their look and all

those old slides I've shot in the past. I personally prefer the texture of film's aesthetic, and

thus it's worth it to me.

thanks a ton, all. This definitely gives me something to work on tonight...

Howdy all. I'm new to the LF arena, having just purchased an Ebony 4x5 field and 120mm lens. As I

immerse myself in the re-learning of making images, I'm looking for a little inspiration to keep me

going. I'm primarily a documentary photographer - my Leicas and Rolleiflex suit it so well. But I don't

treat photojournalism and documentary as a pursuit that's necessarily action-based all of the time -

environmental portraiture and scenic/cityscape/architecture can play a huge part in telling a story. I'm

interested in learning about photographers who work with large format in a documentary way, creating

picture stories or covering issues utilizing the quality of large format. Perhaps not exclusively; I hope to

work with the field camera as a complement to what I already do with the Leicas and 6x6 for my

personal projects (we'll leave the digital stuff at work...)

That's the best digital BW I've seen yet. Really lovely. And more importantly, fantastic work

- these are some of my favorite images I've seen in a while. Thanks very much for sharing

them.

well, I think that's a little unfair. Will I be buying one? Doubtful - my work is built around

the do-all ability of DSLRs and the quality of fantastic MF cameras. Leica M is what I use

for my own enjoyment, and I can't justify that luxury. However, for someone who likes to

shoot with a small camera in the 28-70mm ranges and wants digital, I don't think it's so

crazy. Extravagant? Undeniably. For the casual shooter, it's overblown. For the amateur

who's got cash to burn and wants the best in that narrow category, it's a solid bet. I'd

probably tell most people to get a 5D and donate $1000 to Medecins Sans Frontieres, but

hey. Whatever works.

I think it's great. It puts Leica in a more viable position for professionals in an industry

where so many clients now expect it all right away digitally. For shooters who use the M

range professionally, it's a tremendous camera assuming it performs as we're all hoping it

does. For everyone else, it's a great camera and a luxury that must be justified with the

pleasure of using it rather than any financial rationale.

I find mine to perform abysmally poor in bright sunlight and don't even really think of it as

an option in those cases. If I need off camera remote flash for sunny days, I'll hook

pocketwizards up to SB28s or lightweight AlienBees 800s with a Vagabond pack.

 

watch those shadows, too.

High ISO performance and reasonably fast lenses are the thing. I try to shoot at 2.8 - 4

most of the time just as performers are typically just that - PERFORMING. Moving around.

A little depth of field can be your friend. Fast lenses really help in that it's much easier to

focus, and when opportunity arises, you can do dramatic low DOF 1.4/1.8 shots. In a

smaller club, the stage level is typically low enough that you can get pretty close and be at

a good shooting level - just a little lower than the musicians. That slightly low vantage

point is cool; it gives a slight "pedestal" feelingof authority to the figures in the pics. You'll

often be able to use shorter lenses, 28 - 85mm in these situations, and benefit from their

typically fast apertures, sharp performance, and ease of handholding. They're also discreet

enough not to distract anyone.

 

the biggest problem with shooting in small clubs is the lighting. One or two spots if you're

lucky, often really flat bad light that just looks hideous and adds nothing to the pic. In

those situations, I'll place a slaved flash on the corner of the stage (with permission) and

let it provide a little drama. In big clubs that have great lighting, I'll sometimes use a little

bit of camera-mounted fill flash to freeze motion and open shadows. Ask ahead of time if

possible if that'll bother them, if you can't, watch their reactions and see if it's pissing 'em

off.

 

Get close, but don't get in their way. As a touring musician myself, I can say

photographers at shows *is* fun, until someone tries to get close and then when they

duck out the way quickly, trip and unplug your entire pedalboard in the process, ripping

out the solder joint in your cable in the process...

 

I'm guessing your 50 is between 1.4 and 1.8 - which will be great. You'll probably be able

to get right close as at most small clubs it seems the crowd has to stay a couple feet back

from the stage to be able to hear the PA spread, leaving you some wiggle room in front of

them. Meter carefully - if you can, before it start up get close and meter off of a grey card

or someone's face (and adjust a little from there) for different part of the stage, and

manually go to those settings whenever you aim that way. Small, poorly lit clubs tend to

stay pretty constant in their lighting, so that's probably a safe bet.

http://www.normancamera.com/shop/SearchResults.asp?ProdStock=2512a002

 

bought mine from them.

My girlfriend is not a photographer, but she will pick out the images I shoot with my C645 or

Leica against those done on the RZ or my Canons and comment on the quality of the image

delivered. I too am harboring an immense hope that Phase1 or Zeiss revive the Contax line to

ensure we can keep using our cameras and lenses in the future. I have not made a digital

investment with my 645 as it wouldn't make financial sense at this point, but I hope that the

Contax line will be again supported if/when that time does come for me.

I have both cameras, they are VERY different beasts. The 1D2 has several advantages over the

5D - the autofocus is quicker and more stable in low light, there are far more useful focus

points near the edges of the frame, the frame rate and buffer are impressive, you get dual

cardslots, and most of all, the construction is bombproof. The 5D has a bigger and brighter

viewfinder, full frame sensor (though I do like the 1.3 of the 1D2), higher resolution, and

lower weight and size. Both are excellent, but what do you shoot?

Panning is good. Looks really nice, requires a little practice. The big thing you want to

avoid of course is stopping motion on the wheels - if the wheels aren't blurred, it looks

parked. Unless you're shooting at a slow corner, 1/250th usually gives you a sharp car and

motion-blurred wheels. If we're talking Formula cars, I'd go to 500th, maybe higher. From

what you describe, I'd experiment with between 1/125th and 1/500th at as narrow an

aperture as you are confident you can nail focus on, and then try some panning between

1/30th and 1/60th. Shoot lots - you'll have some definite misses, but you'll start getting

the technique down and figure out what speed works for your tastes. FWIW I usually shoot

in manual exposure mode. It's easy to compensate for the slight changes in light you get

(usually pretty predictable... have a "cloud" and "sun" setting in mind.) Having red, black,

white, and all else cars in your frame can trick your meter sometimes, so best to just set

and forget.

I was hoping to pick up an Elinchrom but found indication that it isn't really compatible

with WL/Alienbees lights. I currently have two AB800s and was planning to add a WL 1600

plus Vagabond 300 for location/less demanding studio work - studio makes up a large

enough part of my work that I want to expand, but not so large that I can at this time

justify the expense of switching over to a high-end system.

 

I am however interested in the Elinchrom unit mentioned above, or something comparable

(rear-firing) to it that would be compatible with my lights - is there such a thing? I found

note of one unit made my Balcar that was then desribed as (probably paraphrasing) "the

most expensive POS on the market" - not a ringing endorsement. Any other suggestions

of rear-firing large octos that will mount with the Buff lights would be appreciated.

I think the look I get from Portra 160 through my Contax 645 lenses wide open or near

wide open has "the edge" over my L lenses on my 1DmkII when I want that particular look.

So, no, the 5D isn't going to give my Canon system "the edge" over my 645. I still like the

classic BW film look shooting TriX in my M6, or color neg on MF. All this "sensor v. film"

talk totally looks over the lenses... different systems have different looks, and if Canon

came out with a 42MP camera tomorrow, it still wouldn't have the look of my Leica or

Contax 645, because it wasn't using those optics. Digital is great and I use it all the time,

but trying to generally say one is aesthetically better than the other ignores personal taste.

The 5D will be an exciting camera, one that if it had any weather sealing I'd be purchasing,

but in the hands of a photographer who's using it to make good images, no camera has

ever lost "its edge." If you love the look your 645 gives you, keep it. The selling prices of

used 645s is so low that I personally think unless you're totally strapped for cash to make

a digital upgrade, it's worth holding onto a 645 camera who's look you know you enjoy.