asimrazakhan

<p>yes it was casual. I'm more into enjoying photography rather than dissecting it. we were out on a desert expedition in our two Land Rover Defenders and I saw these camels. So we stopped on the side and took some shots. The shutter speeds were fast enough to not need a tripod. It was bright enough to use an optimal aperture. sorry i didn't set up a fully scientific photo studio in the middle of the desert. i just wanted a photo of a couple of camels!</p>

<p>Maybe the Rolleicord doesn't function up to full potential. Since 1969 it has only seen about 4 rolls of 120 go through it. By its looks, it can be considered in 'Like New' condition. But maybe from the lack of use it doesn't function as well as it could. But I don't see how the sharpness of the lens has been affected by lack of use over the past 4 decades. There's no fungus on it at all. </p>

<p>Take note that the Pentax Limited lenses (31mm, 43mm, 77mm) are considered some of the sharpest lenses in the market. I think there's even a Luminous Landscape article stating that these ARE the sharpest AF lenses available. I used to have the Pentax 50mm and 28mm before I upgraded to these three Limited lenses and I did see an improvement in my transparencies. The Limiteds are a tiny bit sharper but colors are noticeably richer. Compared to my old 28-200 Tamron lens, these Limiteds blow the zoom away.</p>

<p>.... but nothing scientific</p>

<p>once again... google 'DOLLY ZOOM'</p>

<p>you know, i think everyone actually agrees with each other. we are all saying quite the same thing. some are saying it with more detail while others are assuming some detail. which makes me think that we should all go back to my original answer on the first page... about shooting the eiffel tower from the same disctance with a 50mm lens on three different formats. the results are the same except that 120 film covers more of the scene than 35mm format; or inversely, the smaller format is cropped compared to the larger format.</p>

<p>to get a more complete understanding about what everyone's talking about... google DOLLY ZOOM. If you get an understanding of this, everyones questions will be answered. it's a camera effect often used in horror movies... especially hitchcock thrillers. the camera moves back while simultaneously zooming in. the person stays exactly the same size but the walls in the back start moving closer (which is what you refer to as compressing depth).</p>

<p>but take note that this cannot be achieved with a prime lens. the angle of view (the focal length) must change with the distance you are from the subject. so yes, everyone on this forum is correct.</p>

 

<p>... per square centimeter the 35mm image is sharper.</p>

<p>I am not picking any fights here. I just want to share my findings with you. And I love medium format.</p>

<p>Both cameras had Provia 100F slide film.</p>

<p>I took some sunny desert photos with a 1969 Rolleicord that i think has a 3.5 lens (i don't have the camera with my right now so I can't give any more specs). I was shooting at f/11 with a fast shutter speed.</p>

<p>I took the same/similar photos with my Pentax LX using their top of the line 31mm f/1.8 Limited and 77mm f/1.8 Limited.</p>

<p>I cut the Rollei 6x6 slide down to 40x40 and mounted it onto a Superslide. So I was using the sweet spot of the lens... the center. But yes, I know I am losing the MF advantage by doing this.</p>

<p>When projected, all the pentax images blew away the Rolleicord. The colors are much richer and they are sharp from edge to edge. The Rollei was a bit dull and not sharp... especially the edges (even considering I cut off about 1.5 cm off the height and length). For example, in the pentax photos I could count the eyelashes on the camel. In the Rollei photos it was a bit blurred.</p>

<p>Now I understand that I'm not printing these photos and instead I'm projecting to approximately the same size. Also, by cutting the 6x6 image, I'm losing the medium format advantage. </p>

<p>But I wonder, if we are talking per square centimeter of film area, are there any MF lenses that are as sharp as 35mm lenses even if the MF image were cropped down to 24x36mm? I'm guessing a Mamiya 7 lens, a Hasselblad 100mm lens, and even the Rolleiflex 2.8 would be as good as a 35mm lens.</p>

<p>hahahahahaha.... thanks James, it's noon here and you brought out my first laugh for the day.</p>

<p>if you buy from a store in ontario, you will be paying 14% more for taxes. it would most probably be much cheaper to buy from KEH.com and have it shipped to an address in buffalo,ny. then you just cross the border and pick it up. and coming from keh.com, you'd most probably get a better piece.</p>

<p>but the problem is that you have to know an address on the other side of the border and be able to take 1 hour journey.</p>

<p>otherwise, the main stores where you'll find leica equipment used are 1. downtown camera, henry's, and vistek.</p>

<p>toronto also has a lot of people posting privately on craigslist. definately check this out. oh and a lot of the photo.net users are based in toronto, so you might even find what you are looking for in the classified ads on this website. the same goes for the ads on rangefinderforum.com</p>

<p>good luck.</p>

<p>where are you traveling from?</p>

<p>I still think the cricket is analogy correct. Longer lenses do compress distance. If you look in wikipedia under the subject "Perspective distortion (photography)", you will find a lot of examples. I have cut and paste the following statement from there as well:<br>

"Longer lenses magnify the subject more, apparently compressing distance... Wider lenses tend to magnify distance between objects..."</p>

<p>yes, using a tele lens decreases the angle of view, increases the magnification, and does compress. you remember correctly from the good old days of film.</p>

<p>do you watch cricket by any chance? if so, when you see the camera angle when the ball is bowled, the wicket keeper looks like he is standing 1 or 2 meters behind the batter. but when you see the same scene from the side, you realize that the wicket keeper is actually standing about 20 meters behind the batter. this is because the camera used for the bowling action is an extreme tele lens. its compressed distance between the batter and the wicketkeeper.</p>

<p>Here is my understanding... and i only shoot film.<br>

if you take a photo standing in the same spot with two cameras, one APS-C and the other full frame, the compression of the images will be the same because the angle of view of the lens does not change. the only thing that is changing is within the two camers (the sensor size). therefore, one sensor is just cropping the same image as the other.</p>

<p>A good way to understand this is using the various film formats. </p>

<p>Imagine I have a Nikon (24mmx36mm) full frame film camera with a 50mm lens, a Pentax 645 camera with a 50mm lens, and a Mamiya 6x7 camera with a 50mm lens. Each camera has a roll of slide film in it. You are standing about a 100 meters in front of the eiffel tower. </p>

<p>Let's start with a 50mm 'standard lens' in the 35mm format. This lens has a diagonal angle of view of 47 degrees. When I take a photo of you I only get you with the base of the eiffel tower in the background.</p>

<p>When you move up to the 645 format a 50mm lens still has a 47 degree angle of view, but since it has a larger film size/sensor size, it becomes a wide angle lens. When I take your photo again, you are the same exact size in the photo but now i also have more of the eiffel tower in the background because the film size is larger.</p>

<p>When you move up to the 6x7 format, a 50mm lens is very wide but it still has a 47 degree angle of view. when i take your photo, you are still the exact same size as the first two photos but now i should be able to see the top of the eiffel tower.</p>

<p>Now if you take the three slide film photos and place them one on top of the other, you will see that everything in each of the slides fits perfectly on top of each other. you will be the same size in each, the eiffel tower is the same size in each, the trees all fall one on top of each other. the only difference will be that the eiffel tower is cut off at the top of the Nikon image and not in the Mamiya image. </p>

<p>so basically, a 50mm lens is the same angle of view no matter what the format (aps all the way to large format). therefore the compression displayed in any format will always be the same as well. </p>

<p>shane,<br>

are you the same shane that works in uskudar, istanbul?! the shane i know signs his emails with SMC, which would go with your name.... so just a guess.</p>

<p>welcome to photo.net!</p>

<p>oh and to answer your quesiton, i use the same technique as the first response... while shooting film, and the results are just fine. at times, if the sun is really bright (even at a sunset), you can expose for the sky and overexpose by 1 stop. this will make everything in the foreground a bit more visible and less of a sillouhette.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Many people prefer portrait (vertical) oriented photos for a variety of work they do. So could you say that the square format is well suited for portrait oriented shooters because "the square is the widest vertical".</p>

<p>Does this even make sense? And do you agree with it?</p>

<p>I guess how I see it is; if you have any vertically standing photo where the width and height are NOT 1:1 (ie. 645, 6x7 or 35mm formats), then you'd often prefer it to be wider (to get an idea of whats to the left and right of the border). But if you go wider than the height, then its no longer a vertical oriented photo. </p>

<p>So would you say that rectangular format shooters (ie. 6x7, 645, 35mm) that find themselves always shooting verticals would be better suited going with the square? or do you think this is a false statement? </p>

<p>When I translate the following page it seem that Astia and Provia are both discontinued?! Someone tell me this isn't so! I don't care too much about Astia but Provia is up there with Velvia!</p>

<p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://fujifilm.jp/information/articlead_0066.html" target="_blank">http://fujifilm.jp/information/articlead_0066.html</a></p>

<p>I have always used Velvia 50 or 100 in 35mm format, but recently I fell in love with Provia when I discovered how to pull out its warmer tones and make it a bit more saturated. </p>

<p>Now I'm worried that Provia's days are limited. Does anyone have any ideas or predictions on how many more years I can shoot Provia or Velvia?</p>

<p>Worse come to worse, I can always shoot black and white film and send it to DR5.com for converting it into black and white slides (like scala). Or even worse, I can always start drawing! :)</p>

<p>ok i know i can do this! but this is my last try.... one reason i'm still shooting film i guess! :)</p><div></div>

<p>ok... so it said that the width of my photo is more than 700px. so i made the width smaller. now its telling me that my height is more than 700px. forgive me everyone. but the next one is it!!! </p>

<p>i hope its all worth it in the end! aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh</p>

<p>This is my first contribution on these weekly photo postings. The original was taken with a Pentax LX using Velvia 50. This was scanned by taking a photo (using a Pentax KX) of the image as it was projected on the wall. It is much sharper in its original form.</p>

<p>I travel quite a bit, and recently I've come across Leicas in Dubai, Korea, USA, Canada, France, and Turkey. Prices in each place varied tremendously. Is there a country or even a dealer that is highly recommended for buying a Leica. I understand that Hong Kong should have a good selection and great prices. How about Singapore?</p>

<p>So where did you buy your Leica and was it new or used?</p>

<p>Does anyone regularly put their Leica M on a tripod? If so, is there a quick release plate that fits nicely under the Leica body? Please share images if its not too much of a hassle.<br>

thanks</p>

<p>deleted double post... sorry</p>

<p>I have a home in Dubai, though now I'm currently residing in Turkey. Photographing in Dubai is very relaxed. You can photograph without worries just about anywhere (malls, airports, mosques, etc). Police don't see photographers as a threat in the UAE. The only thing that I would suggest you refrain from photographing are 1. women (unless you have their permission) 2. people on the beach... especially women.</p>

<p>And do NOT offer an Arab money to be photographed. It would be considered a cultural insult. If you did, I wouldn't be surprised if he turned around and offered you double to leave him alone. Just kindly ask and everyone will be all smiles. You'd be surprised how much people love to be photographed.</p>

<p>On the other hand, if you offered a labor/construction worker (usually Indian, Pakistani, Bengali, or Sri Lankan) money for a photograph, I'm sure he'd be delighted considering how little they earn.</p>

<p>I wonder if the british couple that Dan mentions is the one that was jailed for publically having sex on the beach. That's a bit more than a public display of affection. In the UAE its common for couples (even the fully covered arabs) to walk around holding hands, hugging, and even kissing on the cheeks . You just won't see full-on tongue action. And if you did, you definately don't want to be photographing such a thng... unless you want to be considered a perv. :) I'd actually love to take a photo of you taking a photo of such a scene. It would be great for my small 'street photography' collection. I can already imagine the photo... you'd be sharply in focus with the kissing couple blurred in the backgroung bokeh. hehehe</p>

<p>My wife is able to get much better photos of women in the UAE than me. She once got a photo of a fully covered woman walking right by a scantily clad woman. In the background was a mosque next to a modern styled building. </p>

<p>I was wondering if anyone knows a way to temporarily remove the swing-arm of the Pradovit P300. This is the part that swings back and forth when going from slide to slide. It also swings up to be able to remove or insert a slide. </p>

<p>I want to be able to replace it after doing a slight modification.</p>

<p>thanks for any help</p>

<p>well you could actually just spend about $200 and get a medium format camera such as a classy rollei TLR... or spend just a little more and get a sexy hasselblad 500 series with lens and back. carry that around someone with a $5000 digital camera and they'll feel like an amatuer in front of you no matter how big their lens... especially if they're constantly in program mode! :)</p>

<p>you've gotta take control of more than just your 'preview' button.</p>

<p>So I was in Cappadocia yesterday. Thats the historical place in Turkey where they have cave houses carved into steep vertical hills. You can do a google search but here's the big news...</p>

<p>My wife and I were walking around a market area taking some photos when a crowd of tourists got off a bus. I noticed that everyone had a point and shoot except two people with SLR's. One had a Nikon and the other (a Japanese couple) had a white version of the Kx. Thats when I realized that there were a lot more Pentax SLRs than Nikons. And there were no Canons! My wife had her Kx and I was using my MZ-S and LX to shoot Provia slide film. Between the two of us we had a wide angle zoom lens as well as the 31,43, and 77mm prime lenses. </p>

<p>So I thought I would share with you that perhaps Pentax is taking over the SLR world. Or perhaps Pentaxians are more adventurous and end up in locations like Cappadocia. Or maybe it was just a coincidence. ;)</p>

<p>Lately I've been attracted to the square image. It's geometry reflects simplicity and minimalism to me. A square is just a circle with four corners. :) But beyond that, I recently realized that with my 35mm film gear, I usually take 50% or more vertical shots per roll. And I shoot mainly travel photography... scenes, outdoor portraits, street shots, etc.</p>

<p>The way I've been seeing my 35mm vertical shots is that I wish they were a bit wider. The vertical 35mm photo seems too tall and narrow. I think even the 6x7 vertical shot would be very nice. I wonder if 6x6 would be the winner for me or would I find it too limiting at times.</p>

<p>What makes you PREFER the square format? </p>

 

<p>Thank you very much Luis.</p>