warren_williams

<p>Scott<br>

I agree that the 5D and the new Canon TSE lenses are great and the 5D offers some real advantages in architecture but how do you fit this kit into the phrase "limited budget" in the original post? I am sayong that a limited budget approach is to get a full frame digital body over a film body and get an older 28pc (which are less available for Canon) for a combination with superior image quality. Since the poster expressed a preference for Nikon - this is a Nikon solution superior in image quality to a Canon film solution.</p>

<p>If getting an image 11x14 or larger is your goal, you would get better iq with a D700 and an older 28mm pc - superior to any 35mm film or small sensor. A 17mm on full frame is overkill for most exterior architecture but great for interiors. Again though the shift is less important in interior shots and the D700's ability in low light is great. Go with full frame (Nikon) digital - you won't be sorry.</p>

<p>I am considering one of the Voigtlander Vito series and would like a rangefinder. I'm trying to figure out the differencce between the Vito CLR and the Vitomatic 2. Both seem to have rangefinders and built-in lightmeters. Are there other differences I am missing?</p>

<p>I used the Panasonic Lx1 & Lx3 and was considering going to the LX5 but with Nikon's announcement of the P7000 I am reconsidering. I love the LX series but have always missed an optical viewfinder (one tat would cover wide and telephoto). I was going to commit to the electronic viewfinder of the LX5 but with the introduction of the P7000 I am wondering if I woudl be happier giving up the LX advantages (24mm f2 lens among others) to enjoy the limited optical finder of the Nikon over the electronic finder of the new LX5. Does anyone have opinions of these two viewfinders?</p>

<p>I am thinking of buying a 110 for my SQ and notice that there are two versions - an older one that goes to 1:4 (is that right?) with an aperature of f4 and a 67 mm filter and a much more expensive f4.5 that goes 1:1 and a 72 mm filter. A source lists both as PS lenses but i'm not sure this is correct - is the older one an S lens? Does anyone have information about comparisons between the two in terms of weight, bulk and sharpnss. I'd like the 1:1 but I think the 1:4 is probably sufficient for my everyday use and I could always add an extension tube to get more. On the other hand if the f4.5 is sgnificantly sharper, maybe I'd spring for it.</p>

<p>You are askaing a rather tricky question. As stated I woudl buy a Hasselblad, preferably one that had been rehabbed by Dave Odess (particulaly get a rehabbed back - a lot of the medium format stuff on the market is old pro stuff and has been used hard). For a simple setup, the price difference with a Bronica is rather small and the resale is probably better. BUT if you begin to add lenses or through the lens flash monitoring or auto exposue or a motor drive the Bronica becomes much much less expensive and from most people's reports there just isn't a difference in image quality. I went through the same thing - bought a Hassie but couldn't bring myself to spend $1200+ for a 40mm when the Bronica 40 is $350 or less. Sold the Hassie and just got a sqa today. You live and learn.</p>

I just got finished refinishing a new (to me) Kodak 2D. In setting it up, it seems that the front and and rear standards are not parallel. That is, when I set the base level, and the rear vertical, the front is off vertical by about one bubble width. Rather than getting into bending the front brass brackets, I suppose I could set the front vertical first and then adjust the rear tilt mechanism, but I wonder how critical this is anyway if my f stop is 16 or smaller. Does anyone have any thoughts?

<p>I just putchased a Kodak 2D in fairly good shape. The bellows is red on the outside (leather I assume) and a

dark fiber on the nside (silk?). The insids is lightly spotted with mold and I was hoping someone could tell me how to

remove it without damaging the cloth. Most of it wipes off but I assume I need to kill it so I won't return.<br />An

y ideas on what to treat the esterior with ( it is not moldy).</p>��

<p>A lot of good advice has been mentioned but here are some more thoughts. The three LF camera types - press, field and monorail all vary in their ability to do certain tasks. What do you want to take pictures of? If it is buildings, you will probably want a bag bellows and a wide angle lens like a 90mm (equal to about a 24 on a 35mm camera). If it is landscapes you could start with a press or field camera or even a monorail (if you don't have to carry it far) and a 150mm. Another thing to consider is that many LF cameras are cheap because of pro's going to digital but accessories can vary in price wildly depending on the make of camera. There is a lot of Sinar and Toyo equipment out there and prices seam to stay low on accessories.<br>

I do a lot of buildings so I got a Shen-Hao - one of the few field cameras with a bag bellows available. I also got a reflex viewer (heresy among some LF purists) but I like it much better than a dark cloth. Lots of choices to make but if you avoid overspending on items, most pieces can be sold for what you buy them for.</p>

<p>Thanks Fred for your comment butI gave you the wrong impression, I don't own any zeiss lenses now. Also, I am looking for something in the 50's to early 70's vintage.</p>

<p>I've mostly used Japanese cameras and (Nikons and Mamiyas) but have owned a few Zeiss lenses. I've used a Rollei 35 with a Tessar and a Hasselblad with a few of their lenses since sold.<br>

I would like to flirt with Zeiss again, particularly of 50's or 60's vintage but not invest too much money. Is there a 35 RF or SLR which would take some Zeiss lenses and not set me back more than a few hundred dollars.<br>

My ideas so far:<br>

I have a Kiev 4 - perhaps pick up their 35mm and 85mm Jupiter lenses and hope for the best.<br>

Get an Exacta and the 35 and 135 combination.<br>

Try a Contaflex and live with the limitations. (no Sonnar, sigh)<br>

Any other ideas. This is a lark, but I'm looking for the optical and aesthetically user experience without getting something that will break quickly or cost a fortune to CLA.</p>

 

<p>I think Andreas Feininger said it best in Total Photography. Dynamic subject (moving stuff) - use 35mm; static subject - use MF or larger. If your subjects move you will lose too many opportunities using the slower, less flexible mf cameras (few zooms for instance). For static subjects if you don't use MF you'll suffer too much loss in image quality that the eye will know is there (small details like leaves in landscapes).<br>

Digital has changed this somewhat. A good full frame digital SLR with a good lens will produce an 11x14 to a 12x18 which is pretty indistinguishable from a medium format film camera. A 35mm just can't (well maybe a Leica with a state of the art lens and a tripod). If you are doing this for image quality I would stay with FX digital - cheaper than a MF camera and MF scanner. If you like the film experience get any high quality 35mm and limit yourself with 8x10.<br>

Oh - isn't it interesting how many people feel Ken is a jerk but they sort of agree with him.</p>

<p>Get a Leica CL with the meter operating and a 40mm Summicron ($700) or Voigtlander and take it with you everywhere - it's small enough. With the money you have saved, get a Fuji 6x9 90 or 65 for more careful thoughtful work and blow the doors off any, yes any, Leica lens and body combination. You'll be shocked by the B&W quality from a 6x9 camera.</p>

<p>An (evidently) minority view. I have the 24 pce and love it but needed something wider for walking around and interiors of buildings. After investing in the 24 and intending to lug it around I went for the 18-35 Nikkor. It's much lighter and cheaper than the other zooms that people have mentioned, the 3.5-4.5 speed was no problem with some building interiors with the D700's good high asa performance. As a bonus I could share 77mm filters with the pce) Readily available for $400 used, I would get it and see how you like it. If you really need those extra 2mm or 4mm then you can always trade up.</p>

<p>I stand by my original statement. If your goal is to reduce foreground by some percentage then you need to rise (or tilt) by that percentage of the negative. If that doesn't get you enough of the building you want then you have to move back or shorten the focal length. You may be limited by your lens coverage (image circle) of course but no camera movement can compensate for that.</p>

<p>Francesco<br>

I actually remember this kind of calculator in one of the Large Format Photography books from Linhof. As a general way of thinking, the horizion of te photo with a level camera will be at the camera position - say 6' above ground level at the subject so roughly half of th negative will be foreground (in front of or "below" the building). To get rid of all foreground you would need a rise of 4" in "lanscape orientation". This is rarely necessary. Most "useless" foreground can be eliminated wirth 1/3 negative height rise (2 3/4" for 8") if you want more forground for context then less rise is necessary - maybe 1 1/2" for an 8" negative. As a comparison most PC lenses allow 11mm rise on a 24mm negative dimension.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a M2 and a 40mm Voigtlander Nokton. I am trying to decde if I am happier using the 50mm framelines or the 35mm lines. Fefore I file anything, I exparimented and have found that by not mounting the lens fully, the 35mm lines engage. The lens is about 1/16"-1/8" away from engaging the release button. Will this alter the focusing accuracy of the rangefnder or have some other adverse affect on operations. The mount is stiff enough that I don't believe it will turn while I focus or fall off by accident.</p>

<p>If you don't mind waist level viewing, one of the Mamiya TLR's would be a good choice. Reliable, simple, good optics, interchnageable lenses, accessories and very inexpensive. For eyelevel work a Mamiya press is very affordable, interchangeable lenses, reliable and will give great results but it does weigh a ton. The Fuji 6x9 rangefinders don't have interchangeable lenses, are more expensive but light weight for their size, modern sharp optics, and take great pictures. All of these will give a "classic camaera" feel - no built in exposure meter, no electronics and nicely machined metal, even if not quite up to the Nordic alternatives. As a beginner, I would personally stay away from anything with a moving mirror and/or an an interlocking back until you are sure you want to make a commitment to medium format work. Think simplicity.</p>

<p>I have a love/hate feeling about this whole film vs digital thing. The hate side is that it feels a little pointless since predicting the future of art and/or technology is difficult at best. On the other hand I've personally invested in both film and dignital (Mamiya 7, Leica, 4x5 and D700) and am noticing some interesting things in my own photgraphy.<br />I don't do photography for a living, but I use digital more and more when I really don't want to miss the shot (trips to far away places, family shots) - like a professional might. I use film when I want to let the film dictate what I shoot (walking around in a city with my Leica, not switching lenses and concentrating on framinig the pictures.) I suspect it might be the simplicity of the cameras rather than film per se but it makes for a very different experience.<br />I remember reading that new art technologies rarely replace older technologies. Oil paints offered many more options than older tempra and were embraced by many artists but people still use tempra when they want that unique look which can't be reproduced in oil. I can see a time when color film might die, since it is dependent on more advanced manufacturing technology and developing chemistry but it's hard t see why some won't be using black and white even if it means coating their own plates. For now and the near futrue, we still have film and film cameras available to us that people 50 years ago would have been happy to have access to. Enjoy a golden era.</p>

<p>I just purchased a M2 and am meeting some resistace when I try to mount a lens. I purchased a 40mm nokton with it and the lens is very sensitive to alignment when I try to mount it. I have to tilt the top of the lens slightly and then push in the bottom in. The metal spring piece in the camera mount makes it very stiff to turn into place. I also have a 50mm summitar with a no name LTM adapter and it seems to mount easier but when I insert the lens, I still seem to feel some part of the lens rub something as I push it back into the camera. Is there something wrong with the mount and should I return the camera? How much clearance should there be between the camera body and the lens barrel?</p>

<p>Scott<br>

As I said what James wants does not exist. He already said the Hasselblad is out of his price range, so any of the Mamiya rangefinders are too. The digital option is not heavier than the Mamiya - my 7 is only 8 ounces lighter than my D700 and the lenses would more than make up for that weight difference. The Hasselblad 150 can focus nicely for portraits making it popular - the Mamiya will not. Sure you can crop but you are beginning to turn a medium format into a 35mm without the versitility. I love my Mamiya 7 but vereitility is not it's strong point. I want a travel/street camera to be wither versitile or compact - the Mamiya is neither. The Leica is compact and the full frame digital is versitile.</p>

<p>What you are looking for does not exist. The Mamiya 6&7 are the closest but a three lens kit will weigh a lot, cost as much or more than a Hasselblad, the longest rangefinder connected telephoto will only be the equivelent of a 75mm +/- on a 35 - and it can't focus close enough for portraits. The wides require seperate finders and all lenses require you close a body curtain before changing lenses - not quick. The Pentax offers little advantage over the Bronica when you add the weignt of the required batteries - it is fast though. One of the Fuji rangefinders either in 6X4.5 or 6x9 might be a good bet but no interchangeable lenses - though models are available with wide lenses. After buying and selling several systems I've come to believe that medium format cameras are best used as slow "thoughtful" cameras for locations where lugging a ton of stuff is acceptable. Unless you can live with the limitations I've listed, get a Leica or a full frame digital SLR and live with 11x14 prints.</p>

<p>I started out in photography with a Bronica S and loved it but it finally jammed on me several times and I got fed up with the reliability issues. After many years and the price of Hasselblad falling I decided to give it a try. After reading many posts I decided to get a refurbished body and back from Dave Odess - for a little more money I felt I would be guaranteed a body that would be reliable and wouldn't need an imminent CLA. I got it and was very happy with Dave and the camera. If you stay with the common lenses - the older 50, any of the 80's and 150's and many of the 250's they can be had at reasonable prices, particularly if you don't insist on the latest versions. Unfortunately I realized I needed a 40mm ( I do a lot of architecture) and the used prices of the new 40's are very high (the older 40's were very heavy and not as good in terms of image quality). I decided to sell the system and go with a Mamiya 7. I always liked the rectangular format and I am happy with the purchase. Having tried many different systems, the Bronica/Hasselblad seems the best thing for field work and portraits. If you need the fancy glass the Bronica prices are much more affordable but I think the Hasselblad offers some advantages in durability, repairability and (perhaps) image quality. I think you should ask yourself what kind of photos you want to take because each medium format system does seem to be tailored to some niche in terms of subject and handling (on or off tripod and lugging around all day vs in a studio or at a single location).</p>

<p>The first thing I want to say is your daughter has a great eye and her technique seems to be keeping up with her vision. I'm an architect and spent six years in Southern California and the photos brougt a tear to my eye ( particularly Autentica and Hilltop Cleaners - my favorite) I also admire that she can see a building as a building like Hill Top and as patterns like Mondrian's Hanger. I find both quite effective. On the other hand, while I like Munch Munch, the slight distottion from tilting the camera up drives m a litle batty (the architect in me) - looks like sloppy technique. Several other photos have this problem to sime degree. Asuka Chair is wonderful - the tight cropping and twin vanishing point adds to the mystery. While one or two of the beginning shots don't do much for me and the last two seem redundant, I think they are a great group of photos. The one easiest thing to do to add variety while staying with the architectrue is to get closer. As a secondary benefit it will make her think about what specifically to include or exclude in a photo although she seem to be doing a pretty good job on that. I woud also try printin some of the images in black and white - I think several would be very successful.</p>

<p>I know the topic has been driven into the ground but I still find the discussions very interesting. I think it is something a lot of us are still arguing with ourselves about. I do a lot of amateur architectural shots and I bought a D700 so I could get full focal length out of an older 28mm PC. The 11x14 prints I am getting out of digital certainly rival any 35mm results I was capable of, or even the results I got from 6x7 at 11x14. The ease of use over my 4x5 view camera/darkroom path is also significant. My reality is that 11x14 is as large as I normally print so the D700 is getting a lot of use but the view camera is still there and my path if I want 16x20 and above. The ability to automatically geotag my photos is just icing.<br>

I think the real question is how soon 6x4.5 digital backs are available at prices affordable to an amateur. This could happen within 18 months and when it does, I’m a little worried that the medium format cameras unable to take auxiliary backs like the Pentax line and the my Mamiya 7 may be expensive doorstops. Hopefully with the large amount of good glass out there someone will make adapters to fit these lenses to something that can hold a digital back.<br>

Ultimately, nothing beats real estate. With the price of sensors falling, there is nothing stopping manufacturers from making cameras with larger sensors. Certainly 6x7 sensors should be very hand holdable on a camera that looks like an RB or a Mamiya7. Digital’s advantages of instant view ability to confirm you got the shot, flexibility to set scene appropriate ISO and ability to store larger and larger numbers of photos on smaller and smaller devices far outweigh only disadvantage of being a need for battery power (something pros accepted some time ago). Film just doesn’t have any inherent advantages over digital capture. It’s hard to see how film will have very much appeal outside of art and niche advanced amateur circles. I’m sure film will be available for sometime from Kodak or a descendent and some 3^rd world countries but the question we’ll be asking ourselves is why use film with it’s chemicals and disadvantages when image quality will be with the digital capture path.</p>