will_legge

I shoot with a Mamiya 6. A 1/30 of a second with the 75mm and 50mm

lenses is easy. I have made a number of very sharp images at 1/15.

Occasionally I can get by at 1/8, but I have to stop drinking coffee.

The 150mm lens is a different matter. I try to keep it at 1/125 or

faster. The Mamiya uses a leaf shutter and I can hold it steadier

than a camera with a focal plane shutter whether it uses a mirror or

not.

 

I have no problem focusing it in low light.

 

I find the film size makes up for the slow lenses. I have found I

have adapted and developed skills to let me shoot in in low light at

f/4. Actually, everytime I use a 35mm camera with an f/2 lens, it

shocks me how obscenely fast it is.

 

If the lens speed will be a concern, try using one of your 35mm

cameras at f/4 only to see how much of a problem it will be for you.

Can you give a link to the article. It sounds like a lot of balony to me. What a the criteria of the tests? Was this a Digital camera image compared to scanned film? What was the film scanned? At what resolution? Displayed on a monitor? Printed out optically verses digitally at 5x7 or 20x24. Ecetera, ecetera, ecetera.

 

Without the article, it would be difficult to comment. But if this is simply a blanket statement, it sounds like the reviewer does not understand a great deal of things about imaging and resoution.

 

Or is this a troll?

I would forget digital. The power problems alone would be a headache.

 

Unless you have photographed alot at that altitude, I would go with

color print film over slide film. You will have a greater exposure

latitude and you won't have to burn as much film in braketing. I have

not been to that height, but after spending a lot of time at 3,000m

in the Japanese alps and then moving to a completely different area

at 4,000m in Tibet, I was quite confused by the difference in the

quality of light. It was tough to judge contrast and brightness.

 

I would look for a camera with auto and manual exposure. Especially

one that will work if the batteries go - you can always use the sunny

16 rule. Even badly exposed pictures are better than none at all. You

can also pack a tiny light meter. I prefer handheld meters over

camera meters. Gossen and Sekonic both have good tiny meters.

Practice before you go. You will find after using a meter for a while

it is possible to guess exposures for certain situations quite

accurately and the meter is just varifying the noddle is working.

 

A Nikonos is a care free climbing camera. Just need to equialize the

pressure from time to time - just remove the lens. But they are built

like a tank. But not everyone likes guess-timation focusing, but this

is not a problem for landscapes. Nikon FM3 as mentioned above would

be a good camera. But both these will be heavy.

 

Whatever you do, have a great time and come back safe. As most

climbers know, it isn't getting to the top that is the goal, it is

returning to the bottom.

I have the Minolta Spot Meter F. The current model and based on the non-flash version of the one NASA uses. I have had no battery problems, except when I forget to turn it off. It is very accurate.

I put a carabiner on the monopod hand strap and clip it to the bottom

of the shoulder strap on my back pack. When I am using it I let it

dangle - be careful not to trip. When it is not used, I just strap

the bottom of the monopod to a point at the top of the bag and let it

hang upsidedown with the carabiner still attaching the monopod's hand

strap to the bag's shoulder strap.

I found the one lens, one camera idea very good. You realize

photography really is not about equipment. I would not limit myself

to one shot as you need to experient. Not everything that looks good

in the viewfinder turns out that way, and not everything that looks

bad end that way either.

 

Visualization is OK, but you can get so focused looking for what you

want that you miss the beauty that is already there. I perfer using

my camera to explore. Visualization tends to rest only on what you

know and limiting the possiblity of discovering something new.

What type of camera do you want? Buy that.

 

As far as low temperatures, digital cameras are more suseptable to

loosing power. But there are ways of using them in those conditions

by keeping them warm in your coat when not shooting. A film camera

also uses a battery, but the load is less so can last longer in the

cold. Whichever you use, take spare batteries.

 

To give you an idea how much temperature can affect the batteries, my

medium format film camera can take 8 to 10 hour time exposures at

room temperature. At the freezing point, I have one 15 minute

exposure and then it needs a new battery. This battery is only for

the meter and shutter. The F80 also has film advance and AF and the

digital camera is running a monitor, CCD, and computer as well. You

will have to test how the cameras will actually perform. Most

manufacturers don't give performance data at low temperatures.

 

Altitude mostly affects the operator.

Whatever you do, there is no guarantee of success. Do what makes you

happy. A degree in photgraphy or biology may not bring you what you

want. If you have photographic talent, more people will be impressed

by a biology degree. If you don't have any photographic talent, it

may not matter which degree you get. A photo school can teach the

nuts and bolts, but how good the pictures are are up to you. Of

course, if you don't enjoy science, four years studying biology will

not be fun.

It is purely in the result. If the photographs are good, they were

made by a good photographer. Having read a number of biographies, I

noticed that no two artists became successful the same way.

I would sent them to Bronica for servicing. Call them and explain the

problem to see what they want to look at, but probably they will want

everything - the back, body, and lens as well as the film.

 

I hate sending stuff to get fixed, but it tends to be the quickest

and easiest way to solve these kinds of problems. This will also

determine if you bought a lemon. There may have been a reason for the

price.

A little thought about Tokyo. It is not like a Western city that has

one definite center. Tokyo has many centers surrounded by quiet

neighborhoods. Downtown is loosly defined by a circlular railway line

called the Yamanote line. The major centers on that line in no

particular order are: Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Shibuya, Yurakucho

(Ginza), Tokyo (Marunochi), Akihabara, Kanda, and Ueno. I'm not sure

you could find a more disorganized city. There are other interesting

places within that circle as well as a couple outside it.

If automation (AE, AF) is important to your photography you may want

to think about the Contax 645. Rollei has more auto features but at

the price of size and a big battery.

 

If you travel with equipment, total the weight of the kit is

important. Medium format can get heavy quickly. The Mamiya

rangefinders are the best to travel with. The Hasselblad and other

SLR camera systems get heavy quickly.

 

I would not try to buy everything at once. The way you work is

personal. For example I would probably stick with a waist level

finder because of weight and size, but other will find the correct

view in the prism more important.

 

Tripods? A carbon fiber tripod with a magnesium-alloy ball head would

be my choice because of weight. But if you don't normally use a

tripod, why start now. A compromise would be a monopod.

 

If you shoot quite often, I would recommend to start with three

lenses. In a spead of 50mm, 80mm, and 150mm or there abouts. You can

easily convert the approximate angle of views of your 35mm gear and

get a medium format equivalent. Those three are about equal to a

28mm, 50mm, and 85mm in small format. But carrying more than three

lenses can be a real burden. Especially Hasselbled lenses.

 

I would try out a few medium format systems if you can. They all have

their strengths and advantages. I don't like the basic Hasselblad

models because the mirror does not return after the exposure. It is

like someone shutting the door on what is going on. Some of course

don't mind this. As an eye-level camera, I find the Hasselblad

uncomfortable. You can add grips to it, but that makes it bigger. It

is not that Hasselbled is a bad camera. It is a fine camera and many

people are happy with it, but it does not match the way I like to

shoot and it becomes a hinderance. (Just for clarification, I shoot

with a Mamiya 6 and a Horseman SW612 (and a tripod as little as

possible.))

Well, if he is selling it and at a good price, this should answer

your question.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "stain." I would need to see a picture.

Glass does not stain. Especially in patches. Coatings do separate.

And it is possible to get strange stuff it optics - dropping them in

ponds do nasty things. It could be fungus, which can be cleaned, but

if it has destroyed a coated surface, it would not exactly be as good

as new. But these are guesses to the true problem.

I use a Mamiya 6, Mamiya 6MF, and a Horseman SW612 all handheld. You

certainly do not need to use a tripod and the number of good frames

have nothing to do with format. Depth of field is not a problem.

 

I think the Mamiya 6/6MF are great medium format cameras. Very easy

to use, light, and great images. The Horseman is a very specialized

camera and I would not recommend it without qualifications, but I

enjoy it and do a lot of work with it.

 

Mamiya rangefinders can go out of alignment and need to be sent back

to Mamiya. I have done this three time with the 6 and once with the

6MF. I have owned the 6 for over ten years and the 6MF for about six

years. I understand the 7 and 7II is better designed.

 

If you travel with your equipment as I do, the Mamiya 7II is the best

system (if you like rangefinders). I think the type of camera (RF,

TLR, SLR, View) is very important and can impact your work. I would

borrow or rent some of the cameras you are interested in and see what

they are like. You could also take a roll of film into the camera

store and run it through one of the display models - ask first

though.

To print color you need a filter pack to balance the print. Color

enlargers make this easy. A projectors light source is too bright for

printing. They may be difficult to focus to make 8x10 prints as well.

If you are making black and white contact sheets, it can be done with

an ordinary 40 watt light bulb.

 

Where does your distain for E-6 come from? Kodachrome will also fade.

All color material does. To run an E-6 line requires the same level

of control as C-41. I would recommend a Jobo processor.

"I've always argued that the idea of an image having to 'stand on

it's own merit' is limiting. It implies that each photo must tell the

whole story, which is too simplistic for the work that Calle (and

others) have produced. "

 

An image to stand on its oun merit does not imply it needs to

encompass the whole work. But the image should add to the work. To

add a piece of wood to a house that does nothing to the structure or

ornimentation does not make any sense. Likewise, a weak image in a

body of work does not add to the body - I find it will actually

detract from it.

 

I prefer a body of work to be made up of interesting images. Using

images that have no value in themselves is not going to add up to

anything. At that point, the only thing you can do is try to convince

the audience that somehow the photographs are important, but that is

just skilled retoric (and the king will still have no new clothes).

Which means, the photographs can be eliminated and the whole thing

can be written down since it is simply an idea.

 

Now if you find the concept interesting. That is fine. The images are

just illustrations of a point, like a graph or chart. I don't find

information very satisfying.

 

Calle's work just says something about Calle. I can't identify with

Calle's view of this experiment she invented. It is too contrived.

The images don't interest me. I feel short changed and simply want to

say, "so what?"

A number of Japanese manufacturers have made gold cameras. A gold Pentax LX and Minolta CLE come to mind. Most limited edition cameras are only for the Japanese market. A few make it to Europe. They are not sold in the US because they are unpopular.

Obviously consumer cameras will shift to digital for the most part. But the report of the death of film is overexaggerated. It will be here for many years to come. I see film and digital working side by side. Photographers will simply benefit from two different processes.

 

I wouldn't worry about the emphasis in the media. They are getting a lot of attention with digital photography. The camera market was flat before the digital boom and camera manufactures can't get enough - even though they don't get a lot of money from it. But camera magazines and advertising rarely relflect how photographs are really made.

 

As far as cost, I do not see a large difference between film and digital. The money just goes to different places. Digital is far from free. I would use what you enjoy.

Sam asked, "When building a house does every board need to support

the weight of the family that will live in it? Does the house need to

be constructed entirely of ornate finials in order for it to be

worthy?"

 

No, but then you are oversimplifying the complexity of architecture.

Having "significance" or "merit" would not imply the part would need

to be structural nor ornate. Many walls in a house are not load

baring nor ornimental. But a wall will have a significant impact on

the structure. The placement of the walls are significant as they

determine the floor plan and so impact the spacial qualities of the

structure. Replacing the door to the bathroom with a wall would have

no merit. Just putting in a wall because it is a wall would make no

sense. You would want all parts to add to the total structure. Even

the electrical system is important. You would not want to live in a

house with a 5amp system and only two outlets.

 

The execution of a work is important. If it is badly executed it will

be weak. I don't like living in badly designed houses nor am I

interested in poorly made art. The architect's or artist's intentions

are not enough.

Fuji make inexpensive 6x9 rangefinders with fixed lenses. One with a

normal and one with a wide angle.

 

Don, could you tell us what you expect from a medium format system.

Do you think it is just as flexible as 35mm, but with just a larger

piece of film?

 

Having read your post, I have the feeling that photography is a hobby

for you and your experience is limited. I don't mean this in a

negative way, but medium format require slightly different skills

than 35mm. It is not as flexible and way more expensive. Depending on

the type of camera you get, you may have to make large adjustments in

your working style. For example, if you get an SLR like a Hasselblad

with a waist level finder, the image is reversed left to right. So as

you look at the image and the subject moves to the left in the finder

you must move the camera to the right. You can get a prism to solve

that problem, but only at large expense to your wallet and to the

weight and size of the camera.

 

The medium format is more difficult to travel with. It is

significantly larger and heavier than 35mm. Film takes up more space

and can be tricky to load in the field.

 

If you really want a medium format system, I would look at 6x4.5.

That format can have a greater selection of lenses (especially longer

focal lengths) and the cost is somewhat less. It will give more

shoots per roll - reloading in harsh condition can be a pain in the

neck. The film size is significantly larger than 35mm. Pentax and

Mamiya have good systems. I think Bronica also has a 6x4.5 SLR as

well as their rangefinder camera. (Some cameras have an external

battery pack connected to the camera by a wire so you can keep the

battery warm inside your clothing. Just don't put the camera down and

walk away from it without removing the battery from your coat.)

 

See if you can rent or borrow some medium format cameras to play

with. That will give you a better idea of the benefits and

weaknesses. You will hate the camera if you get to your destination

and you don't use it. Or it prevents you from doing what you want.

(You will just come back to photo.net and dis all the medium format

users as snobs who don't know what they are talking about.)

 

As far as working in the Antarctic, Kodak has a technical publication

on working in those conditions. You can download it for free from

their web site.

What do you want to learn? What are your expectations? Why only 10

months?

I've take a Mamiya 6 and a Horseman SW612 to some hard to reach

places. Both worked very well. Both were easy to carry. I've brought

the Mamiya on a couple of 800 mile treks and the horseman I have

carried on a few 300 mile treks. Both have been taken up alpine

mountains as well.

 

I prefer 220 film when I can get it because it takes up less space. I

clip it to my bag in waterproof roll-film containers. The containers

are have silver tape on them to help prevent the sun from heating up

the film.

 

The lens choice is limited for both of these cameras.

 

But why medium format? It will be a huge investment for equipment

that you might not like. and then to carry that on a important trip.

I would take the gear you are used to. You can make large prints from

35mm as well as project them.

 

As far as cases, get small bags to hold the equipment while you are

working. Buy a Pelican or other water-proof case to store them in.

Slide the Pelican in a day pack to carry that. If you jump off the

zodiac and land in the water, your gear will be safe. The daypack

should have some space left to carry other things you may need like

rain gear, food, and water.

 

I would not use a tripod if I was jumping on and off zodiacs all day.

It could not be used on the craft and it is a pain to carry, never

mind getting in and out of boats with. If you don't usually use

tripods, why start now?

Your habits will dictate the lens you should keep. I would shot for

the next six months and see how much you use each lens and which

gives you a higher percentage of good images.

 

I agree with you that a three lens kit is nice. A simple spread of

wide angle, normal, telephoto. The lenses are so close that I would

image one will spend a great deal of time collecting dust. It might

be a good idea to sell it and reinvest the money into your

photography. An extra back, some extension rings, a flash unit, film,

a weekend in Paris, something like that.

The B&W mode is an RGB file an so it gives no benefit as far as file size is concerned. However in the B&W color mode, tonal relationships are displayed on the monitor when you shoot so you can see if tonal areas separate in the image. In color, red and green will seem very different, but in black and white they can be the same.

Thomas, every response I have seen in the philosophy forum seems to

be individual views. I have seen nothing based on any kind of

objective proof.

 

I entirely agree that "uninteresting" is a subjective comment.

Jonathan's post was looking for what we thought about a particular

work by a particular artist. This suggests he wanted what we thought

about it. That was my answer.

 

Now, how valid an individual view is is up to the person responding

to it. They must judge what was said and the source. Since I have

been here a short time, there is not much to say about the source.

But that does not invadildate my comments. It points to the fact

there is not universal acceptance of this work, and, I hope, a few

reasons to why not. Just because I don't like the work, does not make

me wrong (nor right). But unless someone can come up with

quantitative measurements for an art work, subjective opinions are

all we have.