adrian_seward

There are some old messages speculating on whether a minolta dedicated

flash would work with the GS-1 TTL. Has anyone settled this? If it

is true, will any dedicated Minolta flash work or are there certain

ones to look for?

 

Thanks,

-Adrian

I got the standard 127mm ektar on mine. It has a really nice look to it, actually. I've since picked up a 200mm, which is why I was looking for a second body. I never use the 200 because my rangefinder is set up for the 127.

 

I have 2 canonets too, and that market is strange. Seems to be all over the place, and the chances of getting a dead one are so high. I would love to find an Olympus RD, but I'm sure I'll never find a cheap one.

 

I'm also currently looking for a medium format folder with coupled rangefinder, and I'm clearly not the only one looking. I'm surprised that they would be so desireable, but prices seem quite high. The Moskva is reasonable, but others aren't. Not even the Iskra.

 

I must confess, though, I almost always shoot digital. Most of my shooting is for work/school, which is digital, and I never seem to have time to shoot and develop film.

I bought a fairly nice crown graphic about 18 months ago for $100.

(ebay) As I recall, it took me about 4 tries to get one at that

price. The others I watched went for only a little more.

 

It seems to me that they are going for more these days. Is it my

imagination? Or are people suddenly really after these? I've been

looking for a second, but there aren't any I can afford.

I also really trust KEH. I have gotten a lot of items from them that are better than I would expect from their grading-- "bargain" items that turn out to be real bargains.

 

I also have had no problem with returns. I got a canon EOS body once that had a really weird problem. I forget what it was-- i think it was that it would rewind when you tried to access the custom functions. Anyway, they were happy to offer a refuund or repair.

 

I sent it back and they repaired it and had it back to me in about a week. I've had it for many years since with no problems.

 

So, yeah, everybody makes mistakes-- KEH fixes theirs.

I'm surprised no one has pointed it out yet, but f22 with a 35mm camera probably looks similar to f64 on a 4x5 camera. If you're thinking of ansel adams, f22 on your EOS might get you MORE depth of field than he had at f64 on 8x10 film.

 

as has been discussed endlessly relating to digital camera sensor sizes, the larger your format, the less depth of field it has.

 

This gets complicated, but you can sum it up this way: To obtain the same field of view (the same framing) on a larger format requires a longer lens. (50mm is normal on 35mm film. 150 or so is normal on 4x5 film. 360, I think, is normal for 8x10.) The actual amount of depth of field that you see depends on the _actual_ size of the aperture. However, the aperture is labelled with an f stop, which is a ratio-- it does not tell you what the actual size of the aperture is, it tells you how big it is in relation to the focal lenght. Since the f stop is a function of the focal length, f22 on a 50mm lens is a much smaller hole (50/22) than f22 on a 150mm lens (150/22).

 

So you may actually have MORE depth of field at f22 than f64 on a view camera.

 

As mentioned above, with a view camera the difference is that you can cheat be shifting the plane of focus so that it is NOT parallel to the film plane. Thus you can get part of the frame focused on the foreground and part of the frame focused on the background. This is not more depth of field, it's just a matter of being able to maneuver the in focus area in a strange way.

Terminology depends on where you are. If you're in a theatre, it's a gobo, pattern, or template. We don't have cookies. We do have doughnuts.

 

Anyway, it might be tough with a flash. These are usually used with lights with more sophisticated focussing abilites. If your flash is a point source, then you will get an image. With a theatre light, you can focus it to your liking.

Uh, do you own a 20d? And a point and shoot?

 

Try comapring them and see how many shots you miss with the point and shoot.

 

The 20d can be an super-expensive point and shoot if you want it to, but that justmeans you bought the wrong camera. I know a guy who is deeply dissapointed with his digital rebel because he dosn't understand why it isn't like a point and shoot. Is there anything wrong with it? No. Is it the right camera for him? No.

I have to admit that in all my years in theatre I never checked EV or lux... but I can tell you this-- within a spot, there is less light than your eye thinks. Outside of it, there is usually almost none-- or at least that's the goal. I hate to think how often I used to have to put a new coat of ultra-flat black paint on the floor. And still, our lighting was really limited because of how much light bounced off that floor and ended up where it shouldn't be.

 

When I shoot perfomances I usually use ISO 1600 and the fastest lens I can. The real challenge is that there may be plenty of light on the main subject, but the rest of the photo is going to just look black. You'll often be dealing with very strong contrasts.

 

As a theatre ligthing person and a photographer I can tell you that most designers couldn't make things harder if they tried. As a designer I was always trying to get people to accept less light. You'll find that in most productions. The lighting people are loving the effect of less, and everyone else is asking why they can't have a bit more.

 

I worked one show where they had a Q&A with the audience and everyone wanted to know why it was so dark. They explained that at very low light levels you tend to see "trails" whenever something moves, and they had created the peice around that. It's true and it was very effective, but a lot of people did not appreciate it.

 

Anyway, it's a great challenge to shoot this stuff, and I think it's a lot of fun. If you've got a digital SLR, that's great-- set it for 1600 or 3200, take your fastest lens, and have fun. If you're shooting film, you're going to have trouble getting anything out of color film. Try some 1600 b&w. If you're shooting digital, you'll learn a lot fast from the review on the LCD. If film, you've just got to give it a shot and see what you get. It will take experimentation.

 

You may find that you need to just pick an exposure value and not pay too much attention to the meter if you are taking wide shots. Wide shots may have a lot of black, unlit area in them that will fool the meter.

 

Sorry I can't give you EV's or anything-- It depends what kind of concert you are talking about.

 

Anyway, enjoy it! The only way to learn is to try it.

I think the situation is more like: you spend what little you have on a camera, a lens, scrape together enough for a few holders, hangers, tanks, supplies, etc... and hope to do without a meter for awhile because you're out of money. That version sounds familiar to me.

 

After all, one of the great things about large format is that with that giant negative you can still get really fine images without the latest, sharpest lenses or even a modern camera. Great bang for the buck, but when you're trying to get started it adds up.

 

Of course, in my case, the equipment is defintely _not_ the limiting factor in my images. But that's another story...

A lot of people have done this. WOrks fine.

 

Another alterrnative worth considering is the Sverdlovsk 4 meter.

 

You'll find them on ebay for $20-30. They were made in the 80's in Ukrania I believe. I've got one, and for $20, I'm perfectly happy with it. It seems quite accurate. It agrees with my EOS cameras and my fancy Seconic meter.

 

It's a little odd to use, but I actually really like it-- you look through it like a spotmeter, but it's not a spotmeter-- it has an angle of view like a moderate telephoto.

 

The problem I had with using my camera as a meter was that I would have different speed films in the two cameras and inevitably expose one or the other wrong.

If you have a 1-button mouse CTRL-click=right click

So what is the difference? I see that TX is not available in sheet

film-- only TXP. Is there a noticeable difference? I like to push

TX. How does TXP respond to Diafine?

I have a 20d and a 10s. Both have dust on the focus screen. I tried to clean the screen on the 10s, and if anything, made it worse. I say leave it alone and try to ignore it. It won't affect your pictures. Thus far the 20d has not had any dust on the sensor and i change lenses in all kinds of places. Hope I stay that lucky.

 

I also just loaded 25 sheets of 4x5 film. Now there's a dust issue.

 

Oh, and don't worry about dust on the lens. Brush or blow it off, but don't go crazy trying to clean it. you can scratch the lens trying to clean it, and the dust will be back before you know it. It takes A LOT of dust on the lens to have an effect.

Definitely. When I'm using a view camera, if I'm not sure about the shot it doesn't seem worth setting the camera up-- I'll come back later, or I might shoot some digital shots, see what I like, and come back with the view camera.

I once broke a big chunk off the ground glass of an 8x10 cambo by letting it snap shut after I took the holder out. Ever since, if using a back with a lever, I close it very gently.

Assuming the groud glass is there, the next thing to figure out is how to open the shutter for fucusing. It varies a lot depending on the shutter. Don't forget to close it before you take the picture. You need to:

 

1 Open the shutter and open up the aperture to focus

 

2 close the shutter and set the aperture to the desired value

 

3 insert film holder

 

4 remove dark slide from film holder

 

5 trip shutter

 

6 replace dark slide and remove film holder

For your purposes, one thing that I would definitely keep in mind is that a wounded lens can be had for a song and still take fine pictures. Small scratches totally destroy the value of a lens, but often don't do much to the image.

 

(Also, if someone had given me a prsitine lens on a 4x5 when I was in high school, it probably would have been scratched when I was done.)

 

As for sources-- ebay can be good. Craigslist can get you incredible bargains, but you have to look every day and you may never find anything. This kind of equipment is the kind of thing that is probably in closets and storerooms all over the place totally unwanted-- you just have to find out who has it. Try putting ads on Craigslist or in your local papers (esp. the little classified-only tabloids) explaining what you're doing. I bet someone around you has the stuff.

 

Other items can be improvised. My dark cloth is just that-- some dark cloth. If the kids have access to 35mm slr's they can use those as meters. I did that for a long time.

 

Roll film holders won't come cheap-- the really cheap ones won't work with the calumet.

 

I know it can be tough, but you might also think about grants or maybe a sponsorship from someone local. If I hadn't just gone back to school I would be happy to help. It might not be too hard because you wouldn't be asking for much. I bet $2000 could get you everything you need.

I think the problem here is that the inside of the camera will cast a shadow on a 4x5 piece of film. If you move the lens and the film back, you clear the obstruction of the camera body. Obviously, if you move the film back, you have to move the lens back by the same amount.

 

You could just mount the new back at the same distance as the original but I think you would not get a 4x5 image. Actually it also might not be physically possible. I don't have one, some I'm not sure, but maybe this will clarify your question for someone else to answer.

Good for you. I didn't ask. I was thanking someone else.

Brian,

 

Thank you, thank you , thank you for your very clear encapsulation of what some of us have been arguing. It is hard to stay clear and even-handed (or even rational) in these discussions and I think you have put it all together very clearly.

You should consider what kind of shooting you want to do. I have the two cheapest 4x5 cameras you are likely to find, and they do completely different things, so that's an important consideration.

 

One is a crown graphic that I got for $100. It's fairly easy to carry and easy to shoot handheld, but if you want movements it's not a good choice.

 

The other is the Calumet cc-400. It was, I think, $227 with lens and film holders. YOu also need a sturdy tripos. It's heavy and slow to use. It's no fun at all to lug around, but it does give me a pretty good range of movements, so I use it a lot more.

 

So the suggestions above are right on, but you have to decide which will suit your needs.

 

I got both of mine on ebay, ,which is the best way to get a bargain, but also risky. It helps if you know a bit so that you don't end up buying the wrong thing.

 

Maybe you can find someone to loan you one for a few days. Where are you?

 

good luck!

A rangefinder with fast film. No flash. I like my canonet for these occasions because it is very unobtrusive. No one notices it, people don't feel put on the spot, and no one takes it very seriously. It doesn't look like a "real" camera. With 1600 film and no mirror vibration it's never too dark to shoot. I can almost always get away with 1/15 at f1.7 if I have to.

 

If it had to be color, then a DSLR, but again, no flash.

A rangefinder with fast film. No flash. I like my canonet for these occasions because it is very unobtrusive. No one notices it, people don't feel put on the spot, and no one takes it very seriously. It doesn't look like a "real" camera. With 1600 film and no mirror vibration it's never too dark to shoot. I can almost always get away with 1/15 at f1.7 if I have to.

 

If it had to be color, then a DSLR, but again, no flash.

No, obviously you are not. It was over when you posted a rant about Dean's cams. So don't pretend to be the good guy. You keep saying you're done and telling people not to harass you via PN. If you didn't respond it would just go away. Isn't that what you want? You have to let someone have the last word or it will go on forever. If the things you say are true, there is no harm in letting us chatter on because you've got the better cameras and your users know it. I think that's great for you. This circus must cause you so much stress and take up so much time. So don't respond and there will be nothing for Dean or Noah to reply to, right? You have responded so many times that this page is the second result for "william littman" on google. That doesn't help you.

 

I don't know Noah or Dean and maybe they are as bad as you say. Maybe they're worse. I don't care. Looking back at Kai's posts I see that he was introduced to you the same way I was when someone posted some photos from their camera and you popped up with this nonsense. At first I didn't know what was going on. Now I wish I didn't.

I thought everybody was ready to give it a rest. It seemed to me that Dean's last post indicated that he was ready to forget about this discussion and about the cams.

 

Well, at any rate we must be headed towards a record of some kind.