alberto_c

<p>I'm with you, Charles. Wanting a plain FE (a Contax 139Q for me would be ideal, but I would sign for a K1000D or a OM1-D too) with a sensor, a back screen and three buttons to select, review and delete images, everything else unchanged.<br>

I don't feel such thing coming in my lifetime, though.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Keith:<br>

<em>No DSLR is small enough.</em><br>

Of course Nikon can do a mirrorless camera (they did some rangefinder in the past), but as you probably want to keep the lens to sensor distance, you won't gain too much size, except if you design it <em>à la</em> Rollei SL66.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Take a look at the Contax AX. It has even AF, so I can't imagine it without some kind of focus assist.</p>

<p>Very striking picture of the statue, at least for me has an appealing moody look and the background tram (rather oddly) not only doesn't distracts but adds to the picture. Nice series overall, although a flower shop is not a subject coming to my mind when shooting in BW.</p>

<p>Yashica Fx-3 is nice, only lacks DOF preview and AE. Contax 139Q is the other way around: it doesn't have a mirror lock up feature (available in the Fx-3 when you use self timer) and is battery dependant, but has DOF preview, AE mode and an optional winder to shoot continuously at 2 fps. I own both of them and are a joy to use (maybe not enough big for you). AFAIK Yashica FRs are more like 139Q.<br>

These are quite little cameras. If you want something bigger and are ready to throw some more money, look for some ST or RX. I think they are more affordable than AX.</p>

<p>As Alex said, there is no 70-300. There is a 70-210/3.5 though, but it is an older lens than the 100-300, and possibly not as good.</p>

<p>I don't like old equipment, I like quality and cheap equipment, which happens to be old. But if some camera maker launches tomorrow a film fixed lens rangefinder with an awesome lens and great mechanics (lets say a new Canonet 17) for 250$ I will be buying a pair, no doubt.</p>

<p>I used to be in a similar situation. In 35mm you could get a folding Retina IIa (IIRC), Voigtlander Vitessa or Zeiss Contessa. In medium format, I think you will end wanting an Agfa Isolette III (a 6x6 I know, but sooooo beautiful ... http://www.cleanimages.com/Article-MediumFormatInYourPocket.asp for you to see and enjoy). Take a look at http://certo6.com, anyway.</p>

<p>I'm 32 (no longer "young", but definitely not "dinosaur") and not going to drop film.</p>

<p><em>I had neve held one before. It was LN and a beautiful design and was NOT for sale.</em><br>

Are you still speaking about the camera?</p>

<p>AFAIK, Yashica ML (like M42 Yashinons) are just quality lenses, not Zeiss imitations. Maybe not stellar but high quality. 50/2, 50/1.9 and 24/2.8 are very capable lenses. If you find the Sonnar 80-200/4 expensive (I got mine for 175 Euros from this very forum) check the MLs 80-200/4 and 70-210/4.5.</p>

<p><em>Are DSBs really inferior?</em><br>

Yes they are. At least my 28/2.8 and 135/2.8 are. Sharpness could be so-so or OK, but <strong>lots</strong> of CA.</p>

<p>Finally, I you didn't know it, take a look at yashicaforum dot com.</p>

<p>I often carry only a 35mm (for SLR) when I want to travel light. Other times is the 40mm (Ricoh 500 G) or 45mm (Hi Matic 7s) when I bring a fixed rangefinder.<br /> From that experiences, the 35mm seems to be more versatile, but it is really a matter of switching your brain. Even with one lens (45mm in this case) you can make it to appear as wide-ish or short-tele.</p>

<p><img src="http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4463/alcazaba04td1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/7277/alcazaba01sgs8.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Aren't mid level DSLR capable of results of similar quality than 30 years ago top level 35mm SLR?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Marc Williams: The point is that some people DO see the difference, and don't care if their clients can or not ... it's called "pride in craftsmanship" ... and it is a very personal thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder why so many people think that pro gear is needed for taking wedding pictures, while nobody seems to think about photographic quality of the job, just because "client doesn't care".</p>

I just hope the last kodachrome roll ever shot will not be employed in face of a brick wall to illustrate a "film vs. digital" argument.

I consider my own body to be far more expensive and irreplaceable (even if it is quite "entry level") and don't hesitate to take it out... Be careful but not afraid.

I am with John Shriver, even 28mm can be tricky to master. It is quite deceptive when you try to fit a 10 miles landscape in a 24x36mm frame through a 24mm lens. One has to remember that "not enough foreground" ruins this kind of pictures. For that reason, cityscapes look usually nice (cities use to be full of foreground things) and distant landscapes look very flat.

 

Patrick Dempsey's commercial is funny ... but true!

At least another photo.net member, Ricardo Villagran, is also featured.

I am with Jed. I don't shot so many rolls maybe, but rather deceived with E6 processing from local labs, I could be sending to you 10-15 rolls every 3 months and take advantage of the Euro/USD rates.

I vote for a combination of underexposure (intended or otherwise caused to reciprocity failure) + "creative" printing from minilab.

If you don't need that f/2, give a try to the 28/2.8.

More rectilinear shapes in the out of focus objects show that the first one is the Macro (first version, as RS and D have circular blades).

<br />

<br />

Well, that and the image names ... ;)

<i>Sorry it's not from a film, it's digital file.</i>

 

<br />

<br />

 

Then you should post it in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1701">Digital Darkroom forum</a>

Did anyone mention the response of BW films to the different wavelengths (colours)? Think about the look of a typical shot on Ilford SFX, for instance.

In Northern and Atlantic Europe, April weather can become awful, so I would vote for Provence (France) or other southern destinations, like Maramures (Romania) or Sardegna (Italy), where you shouldn't go in the hot months of June-September.

When travelling, I usually carry with me a bag with two SLR film bodies, about five primes from 28 to 400 and a tele zoom. But, if I want to go really light, one body and one lens (could be 50/1.7, 35/2.8 or even my Ricoh 40/2.8 rangefinder) is all that I need. And lots of film, of course ...

 

Sometimes you can replace lots of gear just walking a little.

Great pictures and very user-friendly website (and bandwidth friendly, too)! I even resized the window to check whether the images are smart enough to change their display size. Very well done! I'm not sure about the thumbnails being square regardless of the format of the actual picture. It can be misleading when composition is an important part of the picture.

 

As a suggestion, you could add something like a "buy this image printed" link. I think that is more or less what Peter Mead says.