charles_hess2

<p>It works just fine on the D700. It's an excellent lens, though I use the 35/2 and 85/1.4 for most of my work. When having to cover events, press conferences and the like, the Tamron is attached, confident that it will get me the crisp images I need.</p>

<p>I have the OpTech Hood Hat for my 85/1.4, works great and is easy to slip on and off between shooting sessions.</p>

<p>Keh usually has a good supply of G1 and G2 bodies, all extremely low-priced. To the OP, I agree that you should send it back, given the number of used bodies available and the hassles you'll go through getting it repaired.</p>

<p>I disagree with the OP. In this day and age of the multitude of little, silver p&s digicams, I actually think that chrome would be better at 'stealth' than the traditionally preferred black cameras. There are so many photographer wannabes sticking little silver things up to their faces out there, so putting a chrome Leica to one's face certainly won't attract much attention. I've always felt that a chrome object at the face is much less noticed than putting a black/dark object to your eyes...less contrasty color next to light skin tones.</p>

To answer the OP, yes, of course the Hasselblad is still relevant today. For me, a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar, Ilford Delta 100, Fuji's Reala, and an Epson V700 make MF film shooting extremely relevant, relaxing, and fun. Quality results from your Hassey vs DSLRs? You have nothing to worry about. Enjoy.

I've had a few G2s since their inception in 1996, have never had an issue with them, and once you get used to the quirks, it's a great

camera. The Zeiss G lenses are suberb.

Selling them to places like keh or B&H would not get you much. My best successes with selling gear at my prices..film and digital, has been right here on photo.net.

As others have said, shooting wide open...at f/1.4...will give you razor-thin DOF, putting most everything in a very soft blur. There is probably nothing at all wrong with the F6 or the 50/1.4.

Well, I'm not an average Leica nut but have used center-weighted metering for years with perfect exposures with a Contax

G2, Mamiya 645 and 7, and a Rolleiflex. Matrix-metering can be fooled just as easily as CW, and they both serve a

purpose, as does spot metering. Nothing wrong with suggesting a light meter for the Leica M, but their CW meter works

perfectly fine.

Shot in the dark, but could you have bumped the AF setting to C (continuous)?

Better camera? If you mean by adding the video capability, they can keep it. Does Canon's latest greatest have a sturdier body, better AF, better flash capabilities? No. Nikon doesn't need to retaliate, as the D3, D700, and D300 are just as capable as their Canon counterparts. If you consider switching systems because of megapixels and video, it wouldn't make much sense.

I use the LCD on my G2 only when I manually change the ISO, the rest of the info found in the viewfinder. Prices are so low now for the G1 that you can get one without the bleed for low cost. Plenty of G1 and G2 bodies generally found on keh.com.

Don't sell the excellent Tamron, it'll work fine on a FX camera (check Tamron's website).

John and Michael...great to read some posts from Baltimore...I spent 6 summers doing grad work at Peabody at Mt. Vernon and go to the Inner Harbor every chance I get. I dated a girl that lived in Curtis Bay (tough neighborhood) and remember frequenting the White Castle at 3am near the campus. :-) John, I'll check your street shots.

C. sold my M7 (also previously owned an M6), never saw much difference in image quality with my Contax G2 and Nikons, no question about the craftmanship. Have since returned to rangefinders with a Zeiss Ikon and am having a ball with a Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar. Film still in my life, just not with Leica at this time.

I was able to pick up a 3.5F Planar with a working meter that has been dead-on accurate. It is a great street candid camera, as the shutter is silent and you can pre-focus on a set distance. Many people have no idea what you are doing with that funny-looking box you are holding. I usually hold it in my left hand, left index finger on the shutter, and wait for the moments. :-)

Douglas...well, what's the verdict? You've gotten several suggestions, so I'm interested to know how you made out with this.

Captain Jack...not sure where you are coming from, but I've used both Canon and Nikon, found Nikon to be no more difficult to mount lenses quickly and easily than with Canon.

I also have a Rolleiflex 3.5F. The light meter is dead accurate and haven't felt the slightest need to get a handheld meter.

Unless you are posing large groups of people, why not use CW metering since the emphasis is generally on a main

subject(s) rather than the whole scene in the frame? AV and CW metering is used on my cameras probably 90% of the

time.

I recently purchased a used Rolleiflex 3.5F Planar from keh.com and was amazed at the excellent condition of the camera. The meter is dead-on accurate, the shutter accurate, and it operates as smoothly as a new camera. I bought a Maxwell screen and am having a great time with this quality camera, so much so that I've been using my Contax G2s less, and the DSLR not at all. :-)

I would definitely look to Keh instead of ebay...for obvious reasons.

Ha, I thought my camera-buying days were over, owning two Contax G2s and a Nikon D300 with top glass. So, I wound up buying a 'new' Rolleiflex 3.5F TLR and you know what? I've had so much fun using it and enjoying the reasons why I like film in the first place that the D300 is slowly gathering dust. I certainly the D300 (for work), but for fun... :-)

Looks like the article was written before the DP1 actually hit the market. Now that it's out, the consensus seems

to be that, despite the fine image quality, it has a number of quirks, the most important being that it is slow,

slow, slow. It is no longer is appealing to me, based on user reports.

Glad to read that it's OK. I just purchased a Rolleiflex 3.5F also in perfect condition. The first rolls through it have been a joy to view and the meter is dead accurate. Enjoy!

With the criteria you've listed, both/neither lens would fit the bill. The 1/4 is larger and heavier, but more robust. It is very

sharp wide open, but at f/1.4, your DOF is razor thin. The bokeh on the 1.8 is fine, but I love the creamy-smooth look I see

with the 1.4. AF speed...you are talking milliseconds here, so I don't think it makes a difference either way. CA...seen on

both lenses under backlit conditions, but that's an inherent problem with many/most lenses, in my opinion.

So, you have a bit of a dilemma...if price is not a factor, I'd certainly go with the 1.4. Size and weight...1.4 much larger

and heavier, so the decision will ultimately have to be yours based on what winds up as the most important consideration.

Well, I have no techno-babble to support what you are asking, but I've used the Contax G2 heavily since 1996, have shot wide-open on many, many occasions, think the results could rival any and all brand equivalents.