Robert W. Pillow

<p>I appreciate everyone taking the time to respond. With my SLR equivalent lenses, I can compose with a very dominant foreground element, which is challenging with their rangefinder brethren. I've been shooting with a Contax G2 and the 21, 28, 45, and 90mm lenses for about a year and half. The composition problem related to parallax is well manged by the viewfinder that re-masks according to focus distance.</p> <p>Thanks again!</p>

<p>Thanks, everyone! I hadn't thought about the parallax issues.</p>

<p>Why is the minimum focus distance of so many rangefinder lenses so much greater than their SLR equivalent focal lengths? For example, a 20mm AF Nikon has an MFD of about 10 inches, while a Zeiss 21 mm is 1.9 feet. Thanks!</p>

<p>Wouter, Brad, and JDM;</p> <p>This has been a really fun debate for me. I appreciate the three of you taking the time to respond to my comments. I enjoyed looking at your pictures.</p> <p>It's great that you feel comfortable with digital and its archive technology. I use digital because the initial work flow is faster and results in consistent output. However, I am not satisfied with current digital archive technology. It's easier for me to maintain film originals in my file cabinet than to buy storage and transfer individual files, libraries, or catalogs from one device to another. (I do this electronic file management grudgingly.) The concept of cloud storage does not have any appeal to me because it seems like another on-going task I do not want to take on.</p> <p>Although I do not believe that my work will be of much interest to anyone in 50 years, at least who ever comes across my analog pictures will know what they are. That's me. Your mileage may vary. If you're happy with the existing technology, that's great. Use what ever suits you best.</p> <p>Thanks again,<br> Robert</p>

<p>JDM,<br> The only problem I see with digital is the archive question has not been answered to <em>my satisfaction</em>.<br> It's easier for me to maintain film originals than to continue to buy storage and transfer individual files, libraries, or catalogs from one device to another. The concept of cloud storage does not have any appeal to me for similar reasons. That's me. Your mileage may vary. If you're happy with the existing technology, that's great.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Brad, I'm sorry that person lost negatives -- and probably everything else -- because of Katrina, but I know people who lost digital images without enduring a hurricane. For example, a friend of mine saw a smart phone turn into a brick while attempting to update the operating system.</p> <p>The difference between digital and physical media -- to me -- is that to preserve analog images you do not have to be a RAID-5, -10, or -50 storage specialist or depend on someone who is. I'm not convinced the average person wants to be in that position. Some people find shoe boxes with envelopes of negatives and prints easier to manage than setting up phones and computers to back-up somewhere.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Wouter, my guess is that you won't make a mess, regardless of which media you choose. I'm not really worried about preserving my work for posterity. I do wonder, given the history of electronic recording devices, if a generation or two will end up undocumented -- so to speak.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The point, Wouter, is that unlike other art forms, digital imagery is not tangible; analog is.</p> <p>Your point about the risk to analog from natural disasters is valid. Yes, a certain amount of technology is required to see an analog image, optimally, but it is fairly low-tech compared to what is required to maintain and interpret a digital image. Not all analog imagery is immediately available; pictures need to be developed. In that interim, something could happen to the image, but after development the work is archived, automatically, and, with care, is available to see a long time without high-tech support.</p> <p>Here's a real life example. Last weekend, when I came across a box of Graflex Century negatives that my father shot and sleeved in the 1950s, I held them up to a light see what was on them. I could do that because glass plates, and negatives, slides, and movies on celluloid, and other media -- paintings and sculpture, for example -- can instantly be recognized as images. As far as I know, and my knowledge is somewhat limited by my experience as a database administrator, it is pretty hard to see an image on a hard drive, a flash drive, a CD, DVD, or BluRay, without a computer and a monitor.</p> <p>By the way, I have back-ups -- digital and analog.</p> <p>Rest easy, Wouter, and have a nice day.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The only problem I see with digital is the archive question has not been answered to my satisfaction. I have a file cabinet of slides and negatives that has never crashed. That said, I continue to use digital most of the time. The work flow is easier, but I think electronic storage is costing more money than that file cabinet.</p> <p>I thought I was a closet Luddite until I saw some archive comments made in "Side By Side", a documentary about movies going digital, and “Time Zero: The Last Year Of Polaroid Film”. Both documentaries, which I saw on Netflix, touch on the longevity of digital media.</p>

<p>The only problem I see with digital is the archive question has not been answered to my satisfaction. I have a file cabinet of slides and negatives that has never crashed. That said, I continue to use digital most of the time. The work flow is easier, but I think electronic storage is costing more money than that file cabinet.<br> I thought I was a closet Luddite until I saw some archive comments made in "Side By Side", a documentary about movies going digital, and “Time Zero: The Last Year Of Polaroid Film”. Both documentaries, which I saw on Netflix, touch on the longevity of digital media.</p>

Nikon D800E, 14-24 AFS, at 17ish mm, 40 seconds at F16<div></div>

Thanks, Charlie! Could you tell me the model number please?

<p>Good evening!</p> <p>Does anyone know what users get for a lens hood for the Contax 21MM F/2.8 Biogon T lens for the Contax G System?<br> I've looked around the web for 55 mm diameter hoods that cover the 21 mm focal length, but cannot really identify anything that would work. I've considered getting a 82mm hood and a 55-82 stepup ring.</p> <p>Thanks for your help,</p> <p>Robert</p>

Thanks, Stephen.