erik_a._flickinger1

I have the GS645 which has the manual focus 60mm F4 lense and I mostly love the camera.No bellows like the 75mm which seem to be problematical.Has a brush guard thingy to protect the lense which is kinda cool in an off-road 4x4 way.

Actually is something of the Isuzu trooper of med format, if hassies are the rolls royce,Rugged simple and flawless at what they do. My use is generally abusive environmentally,I'm a wetland consultant who takes pictures for a hobby, visual inspection of edges blown up reveals no noticeable distortion at 16x20. It is sometimes a pain to focus quickly. I have given alot of thought to the GA645's but I am cautious in regards to battery life and reliability. Plus no DOF scale.

also, GS645's seem to be getting cheaper every day.

good luck,

 

<p>

 

Fl1ck

I second the issue of avoiding old old cameras. A second hand rollieflex E or F 2.8 or 3.5 can be had fairly cheaply if one shops the ads in shutterbug. Either camera ,espesially the f, will provide the quality of image equal to anything else including Blad,no mirror slap either very easy to hand hold. Which brings me to my point; get one with a meter,see how accurate it is, if nescessary compensate or repair inaccuracies if any. The tlr is light and reliable,perhaps it would be carried more often if an additional meter didn't have to be carried about. I have found my meter on my 2.8F generally sufficient. and gawd what a camera!By the way, I paid $700.00 for mine with prism,quick release ,shade, all mint.

 

<p>

 

goodluck,

 

<p>

 

Erik Flickinger

Dear Tapas,

The 2.8 GX is the latest and newest with Thru the viewing lense flash,ttvl metering,LED readout in viewfinder, Improved focusing screen and perhaps others, Uses battery for meter.The 2.8F Xenotar Which I own and LOVE uses a selenium cell for metering thru a mter "window" along and just below the top of the camera.No batteries and I have found the meter accurate. Lenses are essentially the same and are superb,Perhaps some differences in coatings but I can't tell. These cameras are a delight,reliable with uncompromizing Quality both optically and mech.If money is no object get the GX otherwise get the 2.8F,also accessories fit both!

Good luck and let me know what you do I could go on but must run out

 

<p>

 

Erik A. Flickinger

I'll pat myself on the back for starting this thread, Thanks everybody now we are discussin'.

IMHO,there is always a best tool for the job. 35mm af for Desicive Moments(sp),etc.etc.,we all know the drill.

What i have noticed and it bugs me are landscapes that are just pictures of the outside. Mostly taken with blads and wisners these photos often have little to recomend them outside of "THE BIG PRINT". A really large Grainless Supersaturated gee look what I can do.

I actually began to worry that I myself was falling into this trap. The dullest subject taken with my Fuji,or Velvia through my Rollei tlr was impressing me visually but sometimes anything can look good(ask Pres. Clinton).

I became tempted to sell my Nikon gear and go whole hog Med format. Then I wondered, Why is the size what matters, art is art right?

Again thanks to all who responded I really enjoy the dialog

bye,

Flick

An interesting thought has occured to me.Has the quality of your photographic CONTENT increased with the transition to medium format, or are many photographs simply finer grained prints of subjects rendered interesting by the medium alone. AS art, Is a 5x7 print from 35mm inherently inferior to a

16x20 print from a 6x7. subject matter being the same? This debate has ranged through High-end audio, Performance vs. Recording quality.Perhaps an interesting thread? In art, Does size really matter?

Lee,

I too wish to thank you for all the work you've done maintaning the digest, I've personally benefited greatly from all your hard work.

Andrew,

I wish to thank you for picking up the reins,so to speak.It would appear that we are in good hands, thankfully there are people out there with the capabilities and knowledge to keep the digest going so that the semi computer literate like myself may benefit.

 

<p>

 

 

Thanks to both of you,

 

<p>

 

Erik A.Flickinger

Now this is what I call a thread!

I have spent upwards of 2 years researching what medium format "system" would best suit my needs. I had Nikon fM2's,F2's,F3's,F4's,N90's You name it, and all the big glass too.I also noticed that I was getting pretty good,high key portraits,B&W landscapes, you name it.It must be in my genes My grandfather was a pro photographer and built a very successful studio, which passed to my uncle whose skills suffered in comparison yet was truly a great salesman.My cousin took over on my uncles untimely death and ran the company out of business in a couple of years. Anyway sorry for the aside.

Noticed that to me the structure of my photopraphs was without fault but that grain was really bugging me. I could see the next step was med format but which one.Also noticed that I didn't use my telephoto zooms at all any more

Bought every book I could find on medium format,including system books on Hassie etc. One thing I could not find; The experiences of those people who use the equipment.

Then I found the MFD!

The experiences and advice of the contributors to this forum have been invaluable to be.I have found benefit in nearly every arcane discussion of accutance,resolution,format size,manufacturer,whatever.

The threads on resolution are boring to many artistes,The discussions of photo criticism are perhaps tedious to the more techniquely oriented, yet both extremes comprise the fundemental universe of our shared passion.Without the technical we do not have the tools of our art.

Anyway I learned that no "system" suited me.I learned that FOR ME I prefer to shoot handheld that is my WAY.Business and family needs afford me little if any free time,my photography is generally impromtu.I learned that the Pentax 67 needed a tripod,not for me,same with most med.format slr's,

Got rid of most of my 35mm,kept some for Kodachrome or convenience and bought a Rollei 2.8F,and a Fuji 645S.

I guess now is happier ever after time,

Thanks to all who read this far,and espescially to all of those who contribute to the digest

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

keep shooting all,

 

<p>

 

Erik A. Flickinger

Ira,

A perfectly worded fundamental question.The answers provided are absolutly to the point.

You Probably will be amazed at the differance.I recently went through the same thing you did. Should I switch to med. format? Would I really notice a differance. I would highly recommend ADDING a med. format camera to your life but don't dump all your 35mm.For me some photos warrant finer grain and a longer or smoother tonality and other times the photo depends on the "decisive moment".

For what its worth, purchase or trade for a reasonably priced high quality simple camera, Fuji rangefinders are great for scenics, Twin lense reflexes are ideal for all but macro. I have purchased a fuji 645 w/60mm (about a 37 in 35mm) and a rolleiflex 2.8F (tlr W/80mm = about 55)havn't spent more than $500.00 on each and get beautiful prints. Still use the 35mm stuff for action, kids and such.

Yeah, you can tell the differance,and anyway those who can't, shouldn't.

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

 

 

<p>

 

See yah,

 

<p>

 

Erik

You don"t say how old your son is,but I'll assume he's old enough to learn to handle a 6x6 and not get frustrated, Does it matter that the camera has a Zeiss lense like Daddies?If so than you must provide him with at least a rolleiflex 2.8F with the planar,I'm sure the xenotar would be an anathema.Or perhaps junior would prefer an sl66 which with the 80mm planar would almost be like pop's? I don't suppose that junior has expressed why he wishes a med. format camera. Certainly it is not for the purposes of learning. A 35mm would be simply too plebian for the young man to work with I suppose. What with inexpensive camera bodies, lenses,filters and that kind of thing. Not to mention learning the process of seeing what the camera sees. A roll of 35mm provides for up to 36 relativly inexpensive mistakes and occasional miracles.I saved my money and bought my first camera 25 years ago, a Nikkormat, tough,used nikkor lenses available. It's Just in the last few years that the quality of my work justified moving to med. format.The single least important concept to me is not how fine the grain is but what idea is conveyed through the image.You have to first learn how to take pictures before the print is a concern. So many creativly bancrupt artists hide behind big prints with fine grain yet the photo conveys nothing.When the photograger has developed their "eye" then it is appropriate to pursue a finer print. Then one may find utter disatisfaction with a smaller negative. We read about it all the time within this digest;good photographers often have a sort of epiphany when seeing their work through a larger medium, but mostly only when the quality of their vision warranted the larger view.

Help your son purchase a used Nikon or Canon 35mm, He'll know which med. format system to buy some day, on his own.

Dear Martha,

 

<p>

 

 

Odds are the camera you have purchased is a Rolleiflex 2.8f. Lots of stuff is available for this wonderul camera. B&H photo sells new and used accoutrements such as prisms, grips etc.Several books are also available.Note that new these cameras are $3-4,000 dollars. These cameras were available with either a Zeiss or Schneider lense of either F2.8 or 3.5, every "expert will tell you one or the other is better depending on there own prejudices.Suffice to say the F3.5's are a half stop slower and the Schneider Lense cameras seem to sell used for a bit less money.

If you wish to learn more purchase a shutterbug magazine and peruse the ads. the B&H advert. has info on the rolleis and books are also available from them or "A Photographers Place", and even from Borders.

I spent a coule of years deciding the best med format system for myself. Researched everything, read everything.Decided no "system" was best but that some reasonably priced cameras did,within some limitations,offer the best of all worlds to me,The Rolleiflex 2.8F being one

and lastly, have fun dear

 

<p>

 

Erik

Richard,

Two possibilities exist regarding the 9X9. There is a photograph in the "TLR users manual",Ian Parker, Hove Photo Books;available from "a photographers place";see shutterbug mag.,on page139 is a special Rollei,it is perhaps 18 inches tall maybe a 9"X9"!.There was also a 6x9 prototype I am not aware of any placed in general use.

 

<p>

 

Erik

Richard,

Two possibilities exist regarding the 9X9. There is a photograph in the "TLR users manual",Ian Parker, Hove Photo Books;available from "a photographers place";see shutterbug mag.,on page139 is a special Rollei,it is perhaps 18 inches tall maybe a 9"X9"!.There was also a 6x9 prototype I am not aware of any placed in general use.

 

<p>

 

erik

traded in my Nikon N90 (F90) for a used GS645w (60 MM lens).Like it dont love it. Great quality of image, Very handy, Lens focusing aperture and shutter speed are too close tho for my liking, however like everyone says its all trade-offs.Missed my N90 a little,(Kept my F4S),Until i saw my negs & prints Wow.