gnashings

<p>John - I was really hoping you would be kind enough to satisfy my craving (and I am sure many other CMC members') to see some portraiture after the initial shots form this lens. Great results, I think she will love that print more than the "actual" photos. </p>

<p>Cliff - Very interesting work, and especially the second image - a treasure for sure, any photographic criteria aside.</p>

<p>I own all these cameras, and I really can't say a bad thing about any of them, and my experience with the Viv wide angles is that they are quite decent performers, so I think you had a very good day:) The 50 1.4 Tak alone sells for more on eBay than you spent on the whole lot.</p>

<p>Too cool for words - really neat camera and some beautiful old lenses too! </p>

<p>Kodak certainly had a flair for designing cameras that looked like the love child of a 1920's sky scraper and an early diesel electric locomotive:) Personally, I think that's AWESOME!<br>

That pic you took with it really shows this is a no kidding picture taking device!</p>

<p>Dave, great post - and I really, really enjoyed the little video. Never saw one of these in the flesh, and never knew how the curious little shutter design worked - it was very cool to have it explained and demonstrated.</p>

<p>Rick - your pictures are always a pleasure to view. I don't know how to really explain it, but aside from being great images and well taken, the word that comes to mind is sincere. I look forward to seeing your posts because I know I'll look at the pictures several times with a genuine smile on my face. <br>

As far as getting Lucky, I only managed to get Lucky in B&W... which means I might have been dreaming ;)<br>

Seriously though, the film was incredibly curly, the grain was like jagged boulders and very irregular - but, the old time, thick emulsion certainly had a "look" to it, and an exposure latitude that was just insane. I actually enjoyed the results, although I wouldn't suggest it for portraits;) Or anything that isn't made out of... you know... stone.</p>

<p>Very well done, great shots - #3 is spectacular! Spotties just beg to be shot, they just feel right - everything you need, nothing you dont, and in my experience, very reliable.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>it looks like an outboard motor with that flash... :) Still, I think its captivating in its own way - and who could argue with JDM's point? </p>

<p>Henrik -</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I mean, what is the point of using e.g. Velvia, if you change the colour saturation afterwards?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>As was very astutely pointed out by Mr. Rochkind, these are digital representations of film images. I believe the more exceptional the medium, such as Velvia - which is very specific - the more work is needed to make it appear on a screen as it does in "real life". And I think that's really the source of the question we have been discussing.</p>

<p>Of course I agree with the spirit of your post, I think the central message of it is spot on.</p>

<p>David - I am glad that your first picture illustrates the proper safety precautions and procedures one should observe before handling an untested CMC ;)</p>

<p>Jokes aside, you have a lovely set of images here, and a camera that really performs incredibly well. I was surprised by how well the automation worked on mine, for what is a very simple system it just seems to "know" the right exposure even when I am sure it will mess things up due to tricky conditions. The lens, is of course, as advertised by anyone who has used it - exceptional. Having said that, I think I am a little too OCD stricken for this camera, and knowing that its doing things without me telling it to (even if they are the right things, probably better than what I would have done given the controls... lol) was just unnerving. I shot one roll, was very impressed, and never used it again. Yes, I am a very troubled person.<br>

Some beautiful vistas you have there, I really like Gull#2 and "waiting to dance" is absolutely incredible. Great job, and a heck of a find.</p>

<p>I think its really all about being up front about what you're posting - we all expect different things from the images we post, and as long as we are honest about what that is, and share the details, its all good. Its understood that some manipulation is necessary to make the images we post recover from the castration they undergo en route from a photograph to a digital image viewable on the interwebs. Personally, I can't devote (and frankly dont want to) the time and effort necessary to learn file processing to a point were the images I post come even close to resembling the photographs they are sourced from - so all my posts are here with a disclaimer, and are not merely intended to share and perhaps gain a critique of the image AS an image. Or maybe just for laughs. </p>

<p>I recently obtained a V500 off a kijiji ad for $50, and quite frankly, the amount of effort I have sunk into it already depresses me, and my scans still look like complete sh!t. I am learning that my pixel counting and file processing skills would require way too much work, all of which has nothing to do with photography, in order to arrive at a result which is not and never will be a...photograph. So for now, I will scan from print, make the simple adjustment I can and know how to make in order to as closely approximate the print, and let everyone's imaginations fill in the blanks.</p>

<p>Along with the venerable 50mm, the 135mm seems to be one of the most sorted out focal lengths out there, and it seems that short of a real train wreck in build quality, most 135's seem to punch well above their weight in terms of bang for the buck. I would be really surprised if the lens was anything less than competent, and would wager a good chance that it will pleasantly surprise you. On the other hand, these lenses were made by anybody and everybody with (most often) very little to set one apart from the other (among the third party, "budget" brands), so I would not go out of my way too much to buy one, as chances are one will come your way at a very good price if you just keep an eye out.</p>

<p>It will round out your kit nicely, and who knows, you may really like the way 135 sees the world - its one of those lengths that seem to take you off-guard, and are actually quite flexible and useful for a variety of tasks. I have a couple (both inexpensive, $5 and $15, a Soligor f2.8 and a Canon FD f3.5) and was really enamored with them once I decided to give them a go, having never really used that focal length very much before.</p>

<p>The FM will do everything you need or want for school and decades beyond. You also can not really go wrong with any Nikkor 50, or for that matter with the Series E lens. We could discuss options ad infinitum, but you already seem to be on the right path.</p>

<p>As far as recommendations go, you will get as many answers as there are people, and oddly enough, they will probably be all... well... not wrong. At least most of them. I know you will love the FM. The only thing I can suggest is that Canon FD bodies and lenses are on average a lot less expensive, and something like an FTb with a 50mm f1.4 could be had for less than an FM with a 50 f1.8. </p>

<p>Having said that, I think you already have a good option selected - run with it. And don't be a stranger once you get it - we could sorely use some art school influx, apparently our photo content tends to be very.. banal... All the best :)</p>

<p>Mukul - I absolutely agree, I was just making an observation, I don't think it really matters if you are using the lens creatively and working within its performance envelope.</p>

<p>I read the subject line and thought "Huh?! Miranda made a D SLR???" :) I kinda think they're good looking cameras myself, but I would agree that they have a more mechanical, masculine attractiveness.</p>

<p>Cliff is RIGHT. I would happily give one of my cameras away, but I don't have any that fit the bill. Besides, this is not a classified forum, I find attempts to peddle your crap on here to be in poor taste aside from violating forum rules.</p>

<p>I was going to continue being a smart ass about the whole non-manufacturer, non-low dispertion 3rd party air used in these cheap tubes affecting image quality... ;) oops...</p>

<p>The only thing I noticed is that non-macro lenses seem to drop off in sharpness towards the edges at the extremely close focusing distances, but that is not to say they don't produce beautiful images - just not clinically sharp edge to edge. </p>

<p>I think Matthew got it exactly right, if it is "broken", its broken in exactly the right way. You can get a tack sharp lenses all day long, but how many times would you have to drop them just right to get these kinds of results? ;)<br>

Lovely shots, I think you are right John, the portrait lens potential is definitely there. Thanks for posting these.</p>

<p>wow... it IS broccoli!!! :) from now on, it shall be known as the broccoli.</p>

<p>I would LOVE it - a link would be great!</p>

<p>Another fan of the pathway here. Mind you, I thought you did a great job with the tubs - I rather like that image as well. A Retina is one of those cameras that I always mean to get into...</p>

<p>Brett - all in good fun, and a good laugh for all of us for sure! A Yoid Left Hander! Now there is a rare beast ;)</p>

<p>Is it!? It can't be! IT IS!!! :D Congrats, that's a lovely Yoid Hander, very, very nice results too. You got some wonderful shots, I think the biggest compliment to a camera in this kind of role - it captured the memories and did it with a competence that will not detract from enjoying them for years to come.</p>

<p>I have to say, it looks a LOT better in your photo than it did in the listing lol</p>

<p>I agree with JDM 100%, and I don't think that his post is a condemnation of links per se, I don't see it as confrontational in the least - just a helpful suggestion that I think many of us (I dare say most) have probably thought to ourselves while looking at a post.</p>

<p>While I don't speak of myself, there is a wealth of knowledge here on CMC and a really broad spectrum of capabilities that really showcase the cameras we all love. I see the contributors on CMC as custodians of these items and the knowledge that goes along with them, and I would concur that keeping as much info inside these posts "for posterity" is a good thing indeed.</p>

<p>I noticed Gene M is mentioned by name - and again, I can't agree strongly enough about his status as an exception - his links are to HIS site, which in and of itself is a one of a kind treasure trove and obviously a labour of love - not some generic, faceless image sharing service. And where is Gene anyway?!</p>

<p>The only way to really do them justice is to get them onto photo paper. If you don't have an enlarger you can make a foray into contact printing using a dark room and any light source, and about $20 worth of chemicals. hardly scientific, and not very consistent, but I bet you'll have fun.</p>

<p>That is a hell of a find, I would love to get my hands on those, would be a lot of fun working with those.</p>