warren_williams

<p>Karen<br>

I woudl recommend getting either the x100 or xpro1 and trying it for a while - if yoiu buy it used yoiu can sell it for what you pay for it. It's the only way to really see if the OVF is important to your style. I've found that not having an optical viewfinder just dosn't work for me. You may find that you depend on the electronic viewfinder so getting the xe1 woould make sense.</p>

<p>Oliver<br>

If you are doing landscapes and cityscapes, and have found medium format to be a valuable way to go, I think you will see a big difference in even 10x15 from a D800 over a D700. I do a lot of architecture and always felt te D700 was a lot like 35mm or maybe 6x4.5. Based on just a few days with the D800e , it feels more like my SWC or a 6x9 level of quality. As I said - I think for photos with a lot of small detail, the differeences will be obvious and give you that "tactile" quality that MF seems to proivide.<br>

-Warren Williams</p>

<p>Fiji x100 if he can live with just a 35mm equiv lens otherwise a Panasonic LX5 with a 24-90. Very small, very good color quality, full manual overide and very good image quality (not as good as the x100 but very good. I have both and woldn't give up either. The LX5 takes a supplememtal EVF which is ok in a pinch. The lx5 goes in almost any pocket but the x100 is jacket pocket only.</p>

<p>I’m an architect, so I really had to get a college degree to practice, but it is is a good example that “creative” professions can benefit from formal education. Like architecture, a photography education can’t teach you creativity, but you can learn the technical side much more efficiently than you can through experience and, like architecture, the creative side depends on absolute technical mastery. I went to a posh undergraduate school that insisted we get an undergraduate liberal arts degree before we learned the technical ends of architecture and I’ve always been glad I had the liberal arts background. I know it’s a cliché, but liberal arts education really does make you good at knowing how to learn. This will be helpful ten years from now when you’ll be practicing photography (or marketing) that doesn’t look anything like you will learn about over the next four years. Think of all the folks who learned about photography in 1990 (what’s a histogram).<br>

I liked your portfolio – you have a gift of making people feel at ease in front of a camera. On the other hand your subject and technical range on display are a bit narrow. You’re living in one of the most fabulous cities on earth, but I don’t see any photos of it. If you want to spend a life doing this, a good place to start is to take photos well out of your comfort range. Force yourself to take a roll (oops I mean 36) photos a week, print them up and really look at what worked and what didn’t. I would love to see you get a liberal arts degree, get some photo classes under your belt (along with some self-exploration) and a few summer jobs (likely unpaid) working with some professional photographers to see what the career is like from the inside. I wish you the best of luck – it’ always a key ingredient in any life plan.</p>

<p>Adam<br>

If you are really interested in landscape get a Shen-hao w/bag bellows, a 90 Super Angulon and for under 1400 you will take photos that even on a mediocre scannr will far surpass the D800E. The setup will also let you concentrate on the image an not 51 exposure points.<br>

Don't take this the wrong way. I have a 800E on order and welcome digital's convenience but I don't intend to give up my 4x5 anytime soon (I did sell a lot of medium format gear over the last 18 months though). Certain subjects just scream for certain tools.</p>

<p>I am waiting patiently for my D800e to arrive. I have a Kirk L bracket for my D700 - does anyonr know if it will fit properly on my D800 or do I need a new one?</p>

<p>I sympathize with your dilemma. I started 25 years ago with a Pentax 6x7 with a 45mm lens -loved the results but hated the weight. Got a Bronica SQ and a 40 and had the same problems. I bought a Mamiya 7 with a 50mm and didn't warm up to the finicky lens swaps with the inner shutter and sold the system. I kept reading and decided to try the Mamiya 7 again with the "legendary" 43 but was no happier. I hated switching between the rangefinder and the viewing finder, hated the hard to see meter (at least with glasses) and hated the general feel of the camera. Went through Hasselblad 500, Plaubels W67and Fuji 6x9 gsw on the way. All the while full frame "35mm" digitals were getting better and better.<br>

I have ended up with the SWC, an old version with the first 'T" coating and it was love at first sight. Setting the focusing by estimate - pretty easy for most of my architecture, urban and nature shots and looking through the uncluttered viewfinder with the bubble level on the edge of my field of view allows me to concentrate on the image. I feel it really does have the best weight to image quality ratio of any camera I've owned. To cover my bases I also have a Nikon full frame system and am enjoying it too. Photography never has to be an either or game.</p>

<p>I would like to second the vote for the Panasonic Lx series - the lx5 goes from 24 to 90 and is beautifully compact but still feels right (I got a leather half case increasing its bulk which makes it feel better in my hands) If you find you really need increased IQ there are many larger sensor cameras coming out but for 99% of family shoots the LX5 will do everyting in a very small package. Get a flash with more power and you have a great combo. I have a great 9x16 on my wall of a Tuscan hill town which still impresses me and my other cameras are a D700 and a SWC.</p>

<p>You won't be sorry - the camera has really changed my phototraphy for the better.</p>

<p>I have an older SWC and have no problems seeing the image with my bifocals on. Had a horrible time seeing the Mamiya 7 focusing window - could never see the meter.</p>

<p>Thought I should add to the confusion. For me, the only reason to go to medium format is image quality and you just don't get much of a jump in IQ with a 6x4.5 camera when accounting for less depth of field. If you want to print square ( I LOVE the square image but itis not everyone's cup of tea) then go for the Bronica SQ series - a basic Hasselblad will cost the same but additional lenses are usually 2x what the equivalent Bronica glass will cost you. The whole WL finder is also a whole zen thing that you either love or hate.<br>

If you want a rectangle and want to go in the field get either a Fuji rangefinder (fixed lens but killer quality and rather light weignt for it's neg size) or your original choice the Pentax 6x7. A basic Pentax w lens can be had for under $600 from KEH - first class glass and easily hand holdable particulalyl if you trip the mirror first. It handles like what you are used to and at eye level is among the most ergonomic of the medium format slr's. The results from a Pentax 6x7 neg should meet anyone's standards. The only thing the Pentax gives up is an interchangeable back and in this era of scanning I assume you are always using color neg film anyway.</p>

<p>I have owned several medium format cameras including a Pentax 6x7 system (including the shift lens), a Plaubel supershift 6x9 and a 6x12. I got a SWC a year ago and have never used a camera that produces such a high number of "keepers" After pondering why, I think it may be the camera's simplicity. It is an older model so the viewfinder just has the image in it - not even the leveling bubble of the later models. Using the camera is a very purposeful experience wirh no distractions. Set the exposure, set the focus and take the picture. In regards to the use of shifts, I'm an architect and take a lot of buildings but I'm beginning to think that our convention of shiftig lenses to "get" all the building is a misleading approach. What we are really doing is getting rid of what we all have come to believe is boring foreground which takes buildings out of their environment. The SWC makes me place the buildings in that context. </p>

<p>I would like to try a 6x6 folder for mostly outdoor photos. I am thinking of a postwar model to get a coated lens and a newer (relatively) camera. I know the Ikontas and Super Ikontas are generally regarded as among the best but the postwar prices are steep. How do the post war Olympus six chrome and the Mamiya six (older fixed lens folder notthe interchangeable len model) measure up to the Ikonta and Super Ikonta for both image quality and overall level of mechanical quality. I see their prices are quite a bit less and the Zuiko lens has a seemingly good reputation.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a postwar Rollei Automat and heard good things about a book by Fritz Henle. In looking at he used book sites there seem to be two guide books by him - Fritz Henle's Guide to Rollei Photography from 1956 and "A New Guide to Rollei Photography from 1965. The latter vesion seems to be somewhat cheaper at $20 vs over $30 fort he earlier guide. Are there real differences in the books such as quality of photos? Does the new book included a lot of technical info int he Rollei SLR's tha I wouldn't be as interested in?</p>

<p>I have had use an 18-35 for several years and been very happy with it. I choose it for it's low weight (and low cost) and have been happy to have it when I've been out walking all day with a few other lenses. I am disappointed that Dslr photography has become the province of bloated body/lens combinations that rivel the old medium format outfits. Also, in my opinion, with modern auto focus and fx iso's of 400-600 being practical, I think 2.8 lenses are appealing to the prejudices photographers acquired when using slide film in the old days. Maybe wildlife or sports photography needs 2.8 lenses but most other subjects do not - certainly not in the wide focal lengths.<br>

Light fall off and barrel distortion have not been a problem in most of the images I've taken but when they are, they are two of the most easy defects to fix in post processing. I just don't see the value of tying money up and having to lug around heavy lenses for what you describe as occasional use (and your not being a pixel peeper). If you find you really need wider, with the money you save you can pick up a 14mm lens or even a Bessa L and a 12mm combination and have some real fun with interiors.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a SWC and after getting back my first roll I was sorry I didn't have the camera when I went to Venice last year. I'm an architect so the wide angle view felt perfect for the close quarters and the light weight is great for carrying around all day (lots and lots of time on your feet in Venice). There is also a real advantage to carrying only one lens but your image choices go down (I'm not sure this is a problem in Venice). Just some observations and an excuse to get a SWC for your trip.</p>

<p>Thanks for all your comments. I was hoping to trade max aperture for size but it looks like I would be giving up performance as well, particularly since the 3.5 seems to be remarkable. For whatever reason KEH is charging significantly more for the 5.6 - maybe it has achieved cult status. Thanks again for your help.</p>

<p>I am interested in getting a 60mm for a general use lens and am attracted to the older 60mm Distagon - I think there was a 5.6 model. The lens seems to be much smaller than the current 3.5 and most of my photography is outdoors so the f5.6 won't be a problem. I understand the older design was softer at the corners which is a concern but would this go away by f11? Is distortion also less well corrected when compared to the newer 3.5 model? I have a SWC but am finding the jump to the 80mm focal length to be too much in some circumstances. Most of my photography is of buildings when I am walking around so weight is a consideration but perhaps I shoud just accept the heavier weight of the newer 60mm.</p>

<p>Does anyone know if the old hasselblad quick release plate on the bottom of the camera is the same as the new H series plate. I have and older SWC (Pre CM) and I want to ge an arca style quick relaease plate to attach to it so I can use the camera on a Kirk ball head. If a quick release plate is advertised for the H series, will it fit on my older SWC. The arca style plate appears to have two ridges on either side so the H seruies plate width seems critical.</p>

<p>Susan<br>

You've received a lot of good advice, but I thought I would add my two cents. First, if your subject and shooting style will accommodate it, you should try large format (4x5). Scans on any moderate priced scanner will look good up to 13x17 and you can tell which shots deserve to be professionally scanned for larger prints. I think you will be very surprised at the quality and a good LF setup with 1 lens can be had for under $1000. <br>

Another thing worth trying is the Gigapan system - a device which automates panning a camera for stitching - quite amazing. Models are available for digital p&s cameras and DSLR's.<br>

I think the variety of responses points to my perception about the state of the art - affordable digital capture is hard for high quality 16x20 and above but scanning MF with enough quality for 16x20 is also horribly expensive as well. The next generation DSLR will probably convincingly overtake MF film in image quality. MF film will continue to be used because people enjoy this approach to the photographic process, not to get ultimate quality. There is a lot to be said for finding equipment and a process which appeals to you. Ansel Adams owned a Contax and a Hasselblad as well as several view cameras. I think any large format, medium format or 24 MP approach will take you where you want to go but the experience of using them will be very different. Only you can decide which is best for your style.</p>

<p>The only reason I can think of for a future professional to invest in a medium format camera system is that the school demands it. You will learn much more about your future life as a professional and the technology by buying a good quality DX Dslr from Canon or Nikon and beginning to invest in quality FX lenses you can use in your professional life. Somewhere down the road invest in a 20 MP fx body and the image quality will handle most professional assignments you'll ever run into. Even in architectural photography (I'm an architect) most architects and clients are happy with the product of a DSLR and a perspective control lens. True the medium format digital on a specialist body with rise like the Cambo wide has advantages but far too expensive for most (professionals included).<br>

If you need to learn about film and camera movements, get an old monorail view camera and a roll film back - minimal investment and all resealable. There is a reason why students can afford used Hasselblads - the pro's are abandoning them in droves not because they want to but their professional careers demand it</p>

<p>Scott<br>

Yes it has. At the conference I was at, some people from Notre Dame had photographed parts of the forum in Rome with gigapan and had images which were incredible. They said they at one point pointed the divice straight up and photographed an underside of an arch 40'+ in the air and then examined the stiched image to get details that were not visible to the naked eye. We are just at the beginning of real high res capture of large scenes</p>

<p>Scott<br>

I thought you might like to know that this idea of a DSLR being an effective tool for documeiting architectrue is getting a lot of attention. I was just at a conference about documenting historic builidngs and a large format photographer there made a convincing case that unless you are going above a 20x24 print, a 35mm ff format 20 meg camera and a shift/tilt lens is the way to go.<br>

For historic preseervation where the accent has been on archiving the trend for years has been B&W because of color shifts in all slides and negs over time. Digital color has become a possibility. A process where you include a standard color chart to calibrate the "real" color is a must but the digital data won't shift over time. In spite of having to transfer files regularly to new media because of technology changes, this is a ***HUGE*** deal to historic preservationists.</p>

<p>Scott<br>

I'm not trying to argue a point - I am genuinely confused about the push to tilt and shift lenses. I understand using tilt on a large format with the depth of field problems of the average 90mm on 4x5 - even if rarely needed for most architectrue where most of the subject is at infinity usually (as appposesd to landsape where you might want a near bush in equally sharp focus to a distint hill) With the 35mm format though the dof of a 24mm (let alone a 17mm) just seems to make tlt a usless option. I could see the need for product photgraphy but not landscape or architecture. I say this having recently killed my credit card on a Nikon 24 pce - but I got it for low color firnging and the extra 4mm over my 28pc. Am I missing something and should I stasrt playing around with the tilt mechanism?</p>

<p>Scott<br>

I agree that the 5d is a good choice but I really question the need for tilt in most architecture shots so I don't understand your claim of more functionality for this application - they are not "game changing" lenses for architecture where a tripod mounted, slow process makes their automatic features and tilt <em>less</em> important.<br>

My first post was mostly about avoiding film if you want to get good prints above 8x10 with small detail which is the lifeblood of architecture photography without needing to go the high end route of a 5D and the latest TSE. Those refinements may make adifference above 16x20 and worth going after (I'm waitng for a higher res body to replace my D700) but Roman's restricted budget may make the 16x20 tradeoff acceptable.</p>