jeg

<p>Night photography with superfast lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Take it to Canon and have is properly calibrated to your camera. It's the only way to be sure.</p>

<p>The Yashica has a [rather] modern and fast 35mm lens that will outperform any vintage Tessar lens. If you can't notice this with your cameras something might be wrong with your Electro 35 CC. The AE system and the better viewfinder are also big plusses and make the Yashica a much more easier- and faster-to-use camera (in addition to the parallax correction and more useful wide angle lens). But if you find these features not that exciting, just keep the camera you feel more comfortable with. In my case this would be the CC, but your milage may vary.</p>

<p>Then again, if you want maximum image quality performance, don't waste your time with 35mm cameras but get into medium format! [Or - <em>gasp!</em> - full-frame dSLRs!]</p>

<p>A little piece of nature in Tokyo.</p><div></div>

<p>As the others said, it is a user error. The plane-of-focus is on the tip of the nose, so the small depth-of-field leads to most part of the face being out of focus. Read more about the basics of photography, I say.</p>

<p>I think that smaller than f/8 or so diffraction slowly becomes an issue on APS-C cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Trust me, I've tried shooting in the classical philosophy (basic rangefinder, Tri-X) out of a sense of romance, and experienced all the limitations and frustrations they did back then when they were FANTASIZING about equipment like the D700 :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So true!</p>

<p>AE mode and medium format don't go together. There are few cameras (most of them professional system cameras) with a good AE feature and these are pretty expensive. Usually they are big SLRs, which are not the most suited for candid portraiture. And keep in mind that not many MF cameras have good close-focusing capabilities, check out the minimum focus distance of your desired lensesto avoid disappointments. Especially rangefinders are not that great in this regard.</p>

<p>All SLRs with a non-square format are landscape (except the ones with a rotating back), so if you plan in portrait format a lot, they are not that convenient to use with an extra AE prism. 645 rangefinders are all portrait format, maybe you can find a bargain on the modern Bronica RF645 instead of the Mamiya 6/7. Else I guess the various 645 SLRs are good options when used with an AE prism and a motor grip for fast shooting, but they are much louder than non-SLR cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do shoot alot of landscape and I get the impression a TLR is not the best suited for this purpose?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, you can shoot any subject with any camera. Landscape is not really that demanding. Many great landscape pictures were made with 6x6 cameras and standard lenses. But "best suited" are cameras with interchangeable lenses (for wide angle and telephoto framing), good control over composition and depth-of-field and a rectangular, possibly larger format. In short, a 645, 6x7, 6x8 or 6x9 system SLR.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now does a 6x7 format still use 120 and you just get less per roll, or am I still not getting it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>6x7 cameras like the Mamiya RB67/RZ67, Mamiya 7, Pentax 67 and Fujica 6x7 rangefinders use 120 film (with a regular 120 back) and get 10 frames per roll. 6x6 gets 12 frames and 645 15 or 16 frames. The larger 6x9 gets only 8 pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is one concern after looking at the difference in price of 120, 220, and especially 620.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You want 120. Trust us.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also I didn't realize that MF SLRs used waist level finders so that changes things some as well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, then research a little more and check out some cameras in real life if you can.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, there's a 6x4.5 back for the Mamiya RB67, which if course has a rotating back... but that's being *really* pedantic. :D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Only if you had mentioned the 645 back for Hasselblads or the Rolleiflex SLRs. I have never seen a Kiev 645 in the wild, I wonder how many were made. However, like those back options it don't consider it a "true" (native) 645 camera but more a modification of a larger-format camera.<br>

I don't think of cameras with "modern" electronics as really "classic" or old, but let's face it, the M645s are 35+ years old and quite vintage in this regard for a young MF beginner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>*all* the old 6x4.5 cameras are by necessity in "portrait" format, and if you shoot landscapes a lot, having the camera sideways all the time can get old, quick.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not entirely accurate. All 645 non-SLR cameras are portrait format, and all SLRs are landscape format. Unfortunately, there is no 645 SLR with a rotating back.</p>

What are you trying to archieve with this folder you plan as a present? Do you just want any usable camera that

is as old as possible? -- Then a 120 Brownie makes sense, but don't expect too many usable image results or

hassle-free operation.

<p>

Or do just want a vintage-looking camera with bellows that makes a good present for a photographer and takes

nices photos? Then the many classic folders are your best choice, although they may not be super-ancient or

produce images that may be different from modern cameras. The German Zeiss Ikon and Voigtländer are good

suggestions, but one of my favorite "good-looking" folder camera is the chrome-age Balda Mess-Baldix (a.k.a. Hapo

66E).

<center><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3172464">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3172464-lg.jpg">

</a>

<br>Cold Winter Sunday

</center>

Brian, unfortunately the Mamiya CWP is a little too new to solve this question...

<p>

But Nick, if you are afraid of the truth, send the roll to <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=614297">Gene M.</a> or any other found film enthusiast here on the forum

It all depends on your distance to the stage and your budget. Get a fast prime, anything from the EF 24mm f/1.4 L USM to the EF 135mm f/2 L USM is fine. I used the EF 20mm f/2.8 a lot, but the faster EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and EF 100mm f/2 USM are also among my favorites.

 

A fast super-wide zoom like the Tokina AT-X 11-16mm f/2.8 is worth considering, too, especially if you can go very close to the stage. An external Speedlite is mandatory for main or fill flash and autofocus assist work. Live music photography is one of the most demanding types of photography, because of the changing lighting, moving subjects, fast action and difficult working conditions. Good luck!

The results from the 4x4 Isoly or 6x6 Click are not going to be that great. Any decent 35mm will produce at least equal or possibly better image quality than those glorified box cameras in disguise. I don't understand why you would want to waste money on film and processing unless you prefer the cheap look. Buy a nice second-hand medium format outfit to test the water, and if you don't like it, you can sell it again for little or no loss at all.

 

I mean, why do you specifically want a low-quality, vintage medium format film camera for square images when you have no experience with film at all?

Yes. All RB67 lenses except for the shift/tilt lens and one of the more expensive APO telephotos are interchangeable between all RB/RZ67 bodies.

All lenses you own (except for possibly the primes which you didn't elaborate) are pretty poor consumer lenses (yeah, I know, the Vivitar is Series 1, but this still an old 1970s zoom lens). Even the lowly kit lenses of today's dSLRs will outperform any of your lenses, so I would sell them all and built a modern kit from scratch.

 

Good beginners' cameras are a used Pentax K10D or a used Canon EOS 20D. Since I feel that you won't be interested in Canon's high-end professional system ($$$), the Pentax will be a very affordable and excellent camera for you.

Uh, perhaps because of the fast aperture...?

Rangefinder cameras are super-nice and very easy to use. A Mamiya rangefinder is a joy to use and accurately to focus. But unless you want something else besides the 80mm normal lens, a Mamiya 6 or 7 will exceed your budget. If the standard lens is sufficient, then go it by all means.

 

Another alternative is the less expensive but highly regarded Bronica RF645 system. Smaller 645 format, not very common, discontinued, but probably the second best camera after Mamiya's rangefinders.

 

By the way, if you are unsure about rangefinders, get an inexpensive 35mm camera (e.g., any Yashica Electro 35 model) and see how you handle it. Modern rangefinders are even easier to focus as the rangefinder patch in the viewfinder is much brighter. But keep an eye out for minimum focus distance, all rangefinders do not focus very close.

 

Personally, I find that no medium format camera is inobstrusive. People will notice these big cameras and will talk to you (especially if you are using an weird-looking camera like a TLR, a vintage folder or use an SLR with a WLF).

It can be used hand-held (best with fast shutter speeds), but the camera doesn't balance very well (it's very front-heavy due to the big glass).

Too late for that question...

Look here: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_m645_super_ae_prism_n/mamiya_m645_super_ae_prism_n.htm

 

Found at this website: http://www.butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_lenses_accessories/mamiya_lenses_accessories.htm

Unless you only want the very latest versions, I find most Sekor Z lenses pretty affordable. For example, great bargains can be found for the non-floating elements 65mm wide angle lens. Due to its availability even the latest 180mm W-N is pretty inexpensive on the used market.

 

Or you can always buy RB67 lenses which fit your RZ. They are dirt-cheap and even the oldest at least as good as the Mamiya TLR lenses -- most are probably better and the larger format is a big plus.

The 420EX is a great ETTL flash unit and will totally be sufficient for almost all applications. There is no reason to get the more expensive 550EX, if you want more features, try the current 430EX.

The AE prism is pretty accurate -- however, the waist-level finder is much more convenient: twice the viewfinder magnification for easier focusing, brighter viewfinder, MUCH less weight and bulk. The RZ with a prism is not a great camera for hand-held shooting.