Jump to content

christian hilmersen www.

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    370

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by christian hilmersen www.

    Alaska cruise: M gear or Nikon SLR?

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    The obvious answer would be to take the Nikon. I would say take the camera you enjoy shooting with. For me that would be a rangefinder and a 50mm. I have plenty of other equipment, but I quite often find that the equipment gets in way of the experience....and that even though I might get more "good" pictures using more flexible equipment, I end up getting more "very good" pictures when I limit myself. If you really shoot a lot, I am sure you can deal with more equipment. I think the first picture in the <a href"http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/aa-07-worked.shtml">What Worked? What didn't?</a> article on luminous landscape is a great example of the type of photography I really hate - as a non-professional photografer, the photography is second to the experience. I think the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/ND-m8-aa.shtml">"Iceberg gravyard"</a> picture is the best picture in there - and it is taken with a rangefinder...so nature pictures with a rangefinder is possible, but maybe not ideal. Personally I switched to a rangefinder after a trip to west Norway. I got som good pictures of puffins - but you have seen similar things before - and I ended up leaving the slr and just enjoying the scenery and taking pictures with an Olympus mju.

    First pictures in a while - mountain/skiing...

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    There is very little snow here as well (Norway), but above 1200 meters there is plenty - probably due to the fact that temperatures have gone up . We have hardly had any days with below -20c degrees this year. It is really scary to see how fast the glaciers are disappearing... (Luckily I have managed to go skiing every weekend since october.)

    These pictures are from "Fl�tatind". The summit is only 1600 meters. From the top you have a view across the atlantic in one direction. The second picture show the view in the other direction.

    See <a href="http://www.fjellforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=7643">www.fjellforum.net</a> for color pictures, and the view in the other direction.

    First pictures in a while - mountain/skiing...

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Basically I haven't taken a picture since october. I took this and a few other

    pictures on a mountaineering trip I had two weekends ago. For most of the trip

    I used a red-filter and tri-x.....a choice I regret. Combined with inaccurate

    exposure (as I said, I am out of training) the results looked like they had

    been taken in the Sahara - the pictures were grey and borring.

    The exposure wasn't dead on for this picture either - but with Fuji Acros 100

    it was saveable (making quite a nice 45x30cm print).

    <img src="http://www.fjellforum.net/download.php?id=5742"> <br>

    Without red filter (but correct exposure): <br>

    <img src="http://www.fjellforum.net/download.php?id=5741"> <br>

    Thanks!

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    I have no idea about the price - but they were not that expensive new. I really like my Konica Hexanon 50mm. It fits the M6 very well (see. www.hilmersen.net for OOF charateristics etc - I love it, but it is subjective). The M6 does not have 40mm framelines.....

    please citique this series of photo

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Seems like it is under exposed or badly fixed. It also seems like you have to check your dark-room: it seems like half the picture has been exposed to light: there is a diagonal across the picture. On the left of this diagonal it is lighter, and to the right it is darker. I am taking about your attached photo. Some of your other pictures look nice. Generally you have to adjust curves and sharpen when scanning for web. (Sorry for not taking the time to go into all the other pictures now - the PC I am on is blocking the thumbnails...)

    Mamiya 6 vs. Leica M6-----not the same old question.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    "I have read and followed comparisons in magazines and the web regarding 35mm film versus digital. The general conclusion is that DSLRs with large sensors out resolve 35mm film starting around 6 to 8 megapixels. This doesn't hold with point and shoot cameras because of the small sensor size. Digital is more critical of over exposure, so the contrast range is an issue. I tend to underexpose and watch for clipping. The shadows can be effectively recovered in Photoshop. "

     

    So have I. I will just remark that I was only taking about the best b/w films e.g. delta 100 souped in a t-max developer and scanned on a good scanner. If you really believe that the resolution is as good with a 6mp camera I am really really surprised. That you and others prefer the completely noise freee images from a digital camera is a different issue.... For some pictures I acutally prefer my 5mp Olympus to the Leica - but the resolution is not even close. The 1ds MKII pictures that I have printed didn't really blow me away either - and I am taking about b/w picutres that requires a lot of detail/resolution....

    Mamiya 6 vs. Leica M6-----not the same old question.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    The quallity you will get from an M8 will not be as good as from an M6 with good 100 iso b/w film. With faster films or color the table turns. So if the the quality from an M6 isn't good enough, forget about the M8. The tonal range in a digital is less than in b/w film. I do not have an M8. I base my statement upon a resolution and tonal range test of Canon 1DsMkII vs a Canon 1 film camera with fuji 100 asa b/w film(astia?) scanned with a minolta scanner that I read in a magazine. (I must also mention that the magazine concluded that the 1ds was superior anyway (i.e. they prefered the look of digital). This photo is with out a doubt something you can be very, very proud of and it suits the square format perfectly. There is also nothing that has nicer tonality than the agfa 100 asa film in mf. With this film your results will not be as good with a M6 - it is nice but grainy: you need the extra size. I have not used 25 asa films with the leica (something like gigabit films or rollei..), so I am not sure the extra speed you get from the lenses/larger DOF can help you achieve similar results with the m6. Regarding the size of the digital equipment, you must remember that you will have to bring a charger and an external disk-drive and a waterproof case to put everything (at least the disk-drive).

    Mamiya 6 vs. Leica M6-----not the same old question.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    I notice that I am the only one that does not find MF sharper than 35mm negs..... IMHO it is wrong to compare using the same film. I have to use two stops faster film with MF in order to handhold (and to get the same DOF). MF lenses are slow (the Mamiya 6 lenses are f4 aren't they?).

    Regarding print size from 35mm. 20x30cm is absolutely no problem if developed correctly. With fuji or ilford films 30x45cm is usually not a problem (the negative has to be perfect) - anyway the scanner is the limiting factor (Nikon 4000 dpi multipass using vuescan). I must also say that I did not use to like tri-x, but really like it now souped in tetanol ultrafin plus (i.e. t-max style developer). It scans nicely, but will show some nice-looking grain. As mentioned tonality is what you really will loose.

    Mamiya 6 vs. Leica M6-----not the same old question.

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    I have a Hasselblad 501 and a Leica m6. With the same iso film the a shot taken with the hassy has more tonality. But, I tend to shoot with slower film (astia 100 og delta 100) with the leica. With the scanners I have, I find that 100 asa and leica is a very good combination. 400 film is good to, but you will get a 35mm look.... What I find is that it has taken me some time to get good prints, but now I am quite consistent: good exposure, good scanning, good ps-work and good printing is the key - all of these require training. I choose the hasselblad when:

    - I want to controll a narrow DOF (a SLR issue - I guess)

    - when I want a square format

    - when I want the hassy out of focus look

     

    I choose the leica for:

    - mobility

    - simplicity

    - when I do not want a narrow DOF

    - in difficult light conditions.

     

    Lenses: I have Konica Lenses. I prefer these to the Hassy lens. These lenses have 10 aperture blades (the hassy has 5 I think). The result is that the OOF areas become smooth and natural looking. With the hassy I get pentagons.

     

    Notice:

    Sharpness is not an issue. If anyting, the leica/konica/100 iso b/wfilm/nikon scanner and vuescan combination is sharper than the hassy and flatbedscanner combination. The 35mm negatives also seems sharper. (I hardly ever use tripods or flashes...)

     

    Tonality is different. Sometimes I prefer the 35 tonality, sometimes the 6x6.

     

    Hope this helps.

    Making the Switch to Leica

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    The D-Lux 3 seems nice, but I guess I will guess I will continue to use Olympus for SLRs - weather proof bodies and lenses is really nice for the type of photography I use it for. A protective case? I would save my money. Yes, it will protect - even from use! Film cost? I you develop yourself it isn't that high is it? You should remember that a removable hard drive etc quicly adds to the cost of a digital wonder. Seems like you are needing an excuse to buy the camera...IMHO that you want it, and that it will give you pleasure should be enough.
×
×
  • Create New...