ralph_jensen

August 28, 2010

"I just learned yesterday that Leica dropped making film cameras."

</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1729979/leica-we-producing-film-cameras">False rumor</a>.

August 27, 2010

I'm hoping to find an M6 in Canada. Also, a lot of M6 - not even the TTL - are selling for 1500$ US, which seems to be a lot higher than what one reads in articles. For example, KR mentions that a used M6 can be found for just under 1000$. This is far off the mark it seems. I've also read other articles that claim such fantasy.

</blockquote>

I just did a completed auctions search of US eBay; recent final prices for M6 body only (no lens, no special edition) ranged from $949 to $1600, with 24 recent auctions ending between $1000 and $1400. Didn't check eBay Canada, but obviously finding one in the low-$1000 range isn't a "fantasy" (unless perhaps you limit the pool to Canada). As Marek pointed out just above this, I would also say it's worth monitoring rangefinderforum.com classifieds; I don't know about shipping to Canada but that site attracts sellers from all over the world so it should offer viable hunting for you.

Even KEH.com has three non-TTL's for (just) under $1300 right now (two of which are in EX condition), and they have an excellent return policy if you're not happy.

August 26, 2010

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Leica-Adapter-Olympus-Panasonic-DMC-GF1/dp/B002U4WQHE">Micro 4/3</a>

June 30, 2010

"What is an FSU camera?"

</blockquote>

<a href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=What+is+an+%22FSU+camera%22%3F">Let me Google that for you....</a>

June 4, 2010

(Maybe this is old news to y'all, but I just heard about it now and didn't see it posted here yet.)

The RZ digital probably won't find its way into most RZ shooters' bags anytime soon, what with its $18,000 price (that's without a lens) and a 1.5 crop factor (e.g., the RZ 50mm lens effectively becomes a 75mm). But it's a start, right?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1006/10060301mamiyarz33.asp

June 2, 2010

"Yes using a single prime lens forces you to consider photographing differently but by and large your photographs all start looking the same."

</blockquote>

Not necessarily. For example, most of <a href="http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&q=henri%20cartier-bresson&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi">these photos</a> were taken with a single prime lens, and a lot of people think these pics are pretty OK.

Of course, such proficiency demands more from the photographer and less from the camera, but then that's what is meant by "learning to see."

June 2, 2010

"What is the value of limiting yourself this way? Isn't there at least equal value in choosing the right tool for the job at hand?"

</blockquote>

Dan, I'm sure you're aware that "limiting yourself this way" is a traditional (if controversial) method of learning to see photographically. For example:

"I'll say this: A year with a single Leica and a single lens, looking at light and ignoring color, will teach you as much about actually seeing photographs as three years in any photo school, and as much as ten or fifteen years (or more) of mucking about buying and selling and shopping for gear like the average hobbyist." -<a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/a-leica-year.html">Mike Johnston</a>

May 26, 2010

"All of the thoughts posted before, fall into frame set by the dominant western theology around the abhrahamic religions. The dominant idea of that frame is to consider sex to be bad and something that needs to be done with."

</blockquote>

Not true. None of the abrahamic religions (and I'm fairly familiar with all three) regard sex as "bad and something that needs to be done with."

"Sex outside of loving and committed relationships" is condemned by these faiths; but "sex" as a whole is most certainly not.

The myth Pierre repeats is a common one among those who are not well-versed in those faiths. But many married persons of faith - including in the abrahamic religions - have sex more frequently than nonbelievers do, and they're certainly not doing it out of a sense of duty! (Sorry about the diversion; now back to the main theme of the thread.)

May 24, 2010

I know this isn't an earth-shattering issue, but humor me, please:

1. This is the only forum-website I frequent on which, after you write a response to a thread, it doesn't take you to your response at the bottom of the thread but instead brings up a largely blank page that merely gives you the option of returning to the top of the thread.

2. This is also the only forum-website I frequent that has as a daily occurrence, in all of the forums at one time or another, multiple identical responses in quick succession from the same individual (there are sometimes as many as four or five of those identical responses in a row).

I'm not sure why/how #2 happens, but it seems to me that #1 and #2 might be related. Is there something in the site architecture that precludes transporting new posters from the "Confirm" button straight to their post at the bottom of the thread?

P.S. A bop on the melon to the first smart-**s to post multiple identical responses to this thread!

May 24, 2010

I agree with Stuart: there are numerous online communities where one can often buy gear for less than it goes for on eBay (in the same condition, I mean).

Also, compared to eBay there's usually more honesty about an item's condition in those communities, and better photos of the items.

Best of all, the gear sold in those communities often comes with far more accountability than on eBay. In the online communities the equipment is often being sold by long-time, respected members of those communities who care about their reputations among their 'virtual' neighbors with whom they spend a lot of their time.

May 24, 2010

Five thoughts:

1) With all due respect, if you've seen some prices that are less than eBay, why not buy it from those places?

2) If anyone here posts a "secret source" for Mamiya 7 bargains, chances are that someone else here will snap them up!

3) Mamiya 7 and 7ii bodies have been selling lately on eBay for $550-630. I don't think you're going to do much better than that no matter where you buy.

4) Unless the 7ii has something you really need that the plain 7 does not, be open to buying a 7 (not 7ii). The 7ii often commands higher prices because it's (often marginally) newer than the 7, even when the particular 7ii may not be in as good of condition as the lower-priced 7 and may be only a year or two newer (e.g., 1999 vs. 1997). Fortunately, it's usually pretty easy to tell whether a particular 7/7ii has been abused, lightly/gently used, or just plain used an awful lot.

5) Buying Mamiya 7's can involve some juggling and reselling because sellers often don't list lenses and bodies separately. If you see a great price on a Mamiya 7 kit (i.e., a package with at least two pieces, body and/or lenses) that has something in it you don't want, quickly figure out how much you could dependably resell the undesired item for and if the math works, go for it.

"5" can require spending more money up front but can be cheaper in the long run than waiting for your ideal components to come up listed individually. Just be SURE that you can resell the undesired components for the price you need to make the transactions sensible.

May 22, 2010

Hi Kevin, if I read your latest question correctly, you're asking "Isn't digital more of a direct-to-file process than film (which has to be scanned, effectively requiring the photographer to work with a 'second-generation' image), and thus digital would be superior?"

To my mind (I can't speak for others), you're right in the sense that in a digital vs. film faceoff when the recording surface area and ISO are equal, most (but by no means all) photographers in 2010 would opt for the digital image.

In other words, if it's a choice between a 21mp, 24x36mm sensor and a 24x36mm piece of film, both shot at, for example, ISO 200, the resulting digital file will generally be judged superior. Same with a 30x45mm digital sensor vs. a 30x45mm piece of film. (Erwin Puts captured a tiny bit more on ISO25 b&w 35mm film than a Leica M9 sensor, but in practical use most photographers aren't going to shoot that film.)

But most of those in this thread who are suggesting "film" are not claiming an even-for-even advantage for film. They're saying that a 6x7 or larger piece of film, well scanned, can often best a smaller (e.g., 24x36-sensor) digital image, just as a sheet film image can often best a (smaller) medium-format digital image.

Thus for single-image capture (no stitching), especially with regard to convenience, a medium-format digital camera might be seen as optimal. If you can swing the cost of medium-format digital, there's a lot to be said for it (luminous-landscape.com and getdpi.com probably have more discussions of the $25,000-and-up MF digital options than anywhere else).

But the price of medium-format digital is pretty steep, and not very many non-pros can afford it. Therefore a lot of photographers who can't spend more than the price of a new car on a MF digital camera choose instead to shoot medium- or large-format film, which has a much lower entry price (think "hundreds of dollars" instead of "tens of thousands"), and then they do high-resolution scans of only their best film images (not of all of them).

May 21, 2010

Kevin, I have the new 24mm TS/E II. It is a phenomenal lens, and I understand the 17mm is also (I haven't used the 17).

But unless you're going to use it for stitching, a TS lens doesn't really do anything to resolve your initial dilemma about printing larger.

You're simply going to need more pixels if you want to print big, whether you get them [1] from stitching several of your 1DsIII exposures together, [2] from a higher-resolution sensor (like the Pentax 645D), or [3] from shooting onto a good-sized piece of film (MF or larger) that you then scan.

Those are your three basic options.

May 21, 2010

Kevin, <a href="http://www.drumscanning.com/rates.html">this page</a> illustrates the relationship between scanning various negative sizes at different resolutions and then printing them out at 300dpi.

Read the text and not just the colored squares if the relationship isn't clear, but it's pretty straightforward. For example, a 6000x9000-pixel image would print at 20x30" at 300dpi (because 6000/300 = 20 and 9000/300 = 30). I'll not get into ppi/dpi/spi distinctions here; they're not super-important for this discussion.

The Nikon 9000 can scan film in one pass up to 56mm x 83.5mm, I believe (that's considered "6x9" for many camera manufacturers). A drum scan - as this place specializes in - can usually pull more information out of a piece of film and can scan larger film in one pass.

There also are places that can do Nikon 9000 scans quite affordably for you: as one example, <a href="http://www.digmypics.com/pricing.aspx">this company</a> charges $8 for 4000dpi scans of 120 film up to 6x9. (I've never used them and cannot address quality etc.)

May 20, 2010

"I just use whatever tool it takes to get the shot. Composition is everything from an audience's perspective (or at least mostly), which makes gear less relevant."

</blockquote>

So carrying a bag full of tools (different focal-length lenses) somehow "makes gear less relevant"?

For what it's worth, HCB -- one of the all-time kings of composition -- used just one focal length the vast majority of the time.

"Using one prime lens" and "finding good compositions" are by no means mutually exclusive, and some would say they are quite compatible.

May 20, 2010

"One of the commercial photographers who saw my prints was an RZ67 shooter who immediately told me he was going to cancel his plans to travel to Europe and instead use the money to buy a digital camera."

</blockquote>

But what would he take pictures of with his new digital camera if he had just blown his travel budget?

May 19, 2010

"Where exactly are people getting the latest info regarding this Pentax camera?"

</blockquote>

Nobody knows too much about it, because as you note it hasn't been released (and its availability in the US will come even later than elsewhere). But even only in promised form it's the big wild card in the Medium-Format market: any photographer thinking about investing $30,000-40,000 in a MF digital camera has to account for the prospect of a $10,000 40mp* MF camera coming along in the near future.

*that's "what's so special about this Pentax": the combination of sensor size, resolution, and price, coupled with the prospect of at least some compatibility with lots of Pentax MF lenses that are already out there.

Not that the Pentax 645 digital hasn't been promised before....

<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05031502pentax645digital.asp">March 15, 2005</a>: "Pentax has today announced the development of an 18.6 megapixel 645 Digital medium-format camera which will be revealed at the Photo Imaging Expo in Tokyo on March 17th 2005."

[Long pause] <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1003/10031002pentax645d.asp">March 10, 2010</a>: "Pentax has finally unveiled its much anticipated 645D medium format digital camera."

That second link has various photos and specs (see also <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax645d-1st.shtml">this</a>), but I haven't been watching closely to see who else has covered it.

The 645D is supposed to start shipping in Japan <a href="../pentax-camera-forum/00WPaB">by the end of May</a>, but that remains to be seen. Go to any of the various Pentax forums at photo.net and elsewhere for updates if you're interested; few matters relating to any Pentax camera escape discussion on those forums!

May 19, 2010

Hi Kevin,

I've been following the <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00WPVM">long thread</a> you started over in the MF forum, and it's been very interesting.

Re: your questions above:

First, don't read too much into the opinions of the wedding photographer you met who said that nothing comes anywhere close to the Leica R lenses. Consider: there are an awful lot of professional photographers and successful businesspeople who photograph as a hobby/passion who could justify the purchase of any camera they wish yet who do not choose to shoot Leica. Amazing! Perhaps they didn't do their research and thus are unaware of Leica (unlikely), or perhaps they've found that other cameras better suit their needs.

For example, for wedding photography, a $40-50,000 Leica S2 kit would likely be overkill. Sure, it would work, but it isn't as suitable for weddings as some 'lesser' cameras in some pretty important respects, such as "being able to shoot in very low light" and "having an identical backup body." A pair of 20-plus megapixel Nikons or Canons with good lenses and multiple flash options would be a far better choice, most wedding photographers would say.

Re: your two boldface questions:

1) Nobody knows how well the S2 will hold its value. On one level, resale value doesn't matter unless you expect to sell it before you earn from it the amount it has depreciated, and you shouldn't buy it if that's a likely prospect. But since you asked, all anyone can say is a guess. If the new Pentax 645 digital is as good as claimed, it could radically change the medium-format market and the Leica's value could drop dramatically. Granted, assuming you could find buyers who both covet and could afford a used S2 (and that's a tiny percentage of photographers), the Leica may hold a higher percentage of its value than less prestigious brands. But a $2000 Canon 5DII losing 50% of its value over five years is only $1000 depreciation, while a Leica S2 losing only 20% of its value over the same period is $5000, so notions of "retained value" are clearly relative.

2) The S2 lenses are no doubt exceptional. But they're not miracles. There are limits to how much information even the world's greatest lens can record onto a 30x45mm sensor, and if another manufacturer makes a better sensor with almost-as-good lenses, the S2's advantage is instantly negated.

--------------------

Re: your personal needs (and again, I'm referencing your comments in the <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/00WPVM">long thread</a> at the MF forum):

There aren't many photographers who would say the ideal landscape camera is also the ideal wedding camera (your 1DsIII isn't a bad choice if the same camera must be used for both).

If you can really pull together the $30-40,000 entry fee for the S2, that money might be better spent on....

For landscape - either the Pentax 645 (if you want to use digital) or a 6x7cm-or-larger film system with a healthy budget for high-quality scans and also

For weddings - a pair of good DSLRs (one for backup), some excellent glass, and a comprehensive lighting setup

Even after those two kits are assembled you'd still have enough change (compared to buying an S2 with lenses) to buy a high-performance computer, which you'll need to process the huge files you're going to get. Good luck with your quest. My main advice re: this query would be to not assume that any Leica, even the most-expensive Leica, is the 'best' camera for all applications.

May 16, 2010

"I like the fact that a square sensor will capture more of the image circle, and the crop loss would only be minimal."

</blockquote>

Standard "full-frame" sensor: 36mm x 24mm Largest square sensor that could fit into current lenses' image circles: 31 x 31mm

Dimensions of 36x24 image cropped to 4:3 proportions 32 x 24 (768 sq. mm) Dimensions of 31x31 image cropped to 4:3 proportions: 31 x 23 (713 sq. mm)

Except when you crop to a proportion that is squarer than 4:3 (e.g., 1:1 or 4:5), a square sensor using current FF lenses requires throwing away more pixels than 24x36 sensors require. The only way to change that math would be to introduce entirely new lenses (with larger image circles and thus would not fit the EOS mount), which seems rather unlikely.

May 13, 2010

Yes, the lenses are unique to the S2, and in fact most of them are not yet available (a new one was <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/1005/10051104leica35mms2lens.asp">announced </a>this week).

In addition to the Leica forum Steve linked above, here are the North American writeups I've seen:

<a href="http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12243">Guy Mancuso/Jack Flesher</a>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-s2-first.shtml">Michael Reichmann</a>

<a href="http://www.reidreviews.com">Sean Reid</a> (paid site, but $30/year is well worth it for any Leica user)

<a href="http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2010/02/28/the-leica-s2-digital-camera-review/">Steve Huff</a>

I'm sure there are plenty more....

May 11, 2010

Over the past couple of years more than 1,000 photographers have responded to a <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50837">poll</a> at rangefinderforum.com asking "Which b&w 400 film?" Tri-X came in first, followed by HP5+, then Fuji Neopan 400, then TMax 400, then Delta 400.

Not particularly scientific, but some of the comments/recipes in that thread may be helpful.

May 9, 2010

Mätt Donuts wrote, "You have likely forgotten some of the difficulties of film (no auto whitebalance, can't change ISO, HDR is harder, doesn't hold near as much EV as a RAW file)."

</blockquote>

Steve, you forgot to add that changing ISO with each new exposure isn't particularly difficult when shooting sheet film!

May 9, 2010

Kevin asked: "I'm assuming products like [Genuine Fractals software] are not of sufficient quality to help with my present situation....?"

</blockquote>

Hi Kevin, there's no magic bullet or free lunch when upsizing digital photo files; you're essentially guessing at information that wasn't in the original capture. (If the uprezzing programs were miraculous, a lot fewer people would be shooting medium- and large-format film!)

In the detailed <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/its-bigger-bu-1.html">comparisons</a> that I've seen, GF doesn't do appreciably better than bicubic uprezzing in PS ("A lot of the time Photoshop's Bicubic produced the best results of all, most especially when the photographs contained fine and subtle texture and detail," as your distant foliage shots have). So if you're not thrilled about what you're getting with enlargements in PS you won't see much or any improvement with GF.

(For those who missed them, here are <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/02/its-bigger-but.html">Part I</a> and <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/03/its-bigger-but.html">Part II</a> of Ctein's Part III upsizing comparison linked above.)

Ian wrote: "For hobby, it's fine to buy into film. "For professional use, it's nuts."

</blockquote>

If your job is to deliver a lot of photos under a deadline, that's certainly true. But if you're a fine-art photographer selling prints (whether small black-and-white prints or huge color prints), it's not true. Large-format film is preferred over digital by many photographers and many print buyers.

May 8, 2010

Anyone try ISO 50 on the 5DII?

Many people think he's a bonehead, but in this case it's easy to test his credibility for yourself: Ken Rockwell says he ran tests at various ISOs and for what it's worth he thinks the only way to really get rid of shadow noise with the 5DII is to shoot at ISO 50. He also addresses NR, ALO, etc.

Scroll down on this page to 06 May 2010 > Canon 5D Mark II noise:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

May 7, 2010

Kevin, have you tried stitching several of your 21mp 1DSIII files together? I know stitching's not for everyone, but I'm just wondering whether it's an option for you.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ralph_jensen