mike_earussi1

<p>If you don't mind manual focus, the older 150 f3.5 is an excellent lens and doesn't cost much.<br> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=Pentax-A+645+150mm+F3.5&_sop=15</p>

<p>Depends on your definition of "good" as well as which filter you're wanting. Many companies make decent UV filters. But if you're wanting a polarizer then you really have to pay a lot of money for a good one, with the B+W being the best. </p>

<p>It's true that with the new BSI chip its low light capability will be better than the original A7r. But in comparison to the much larger pixels on the A7II there may not be much difference. So unless you just needed the extra resolution I'd say buy another A7II.</p>

<p>Why not just pace yourself and so gradually finish the job? If you did 10/day how long would it actually take, 6-12 months? At least you'd know the job was done right and you also wouldn't be worried about someone's carelessness destroying your prints. </p>

<p>I personally would have two different camera systems. For portability I'd use the Pentax 645 and for studio the RB/RZ system. That way you have both the ultimate in MF portability and the best studio camera.</p>

<p>Neither are consistently sharp in the corners regardless of f stop, though the 17-50 is somewhat better overall. I personally wouldn't want either.</p> <p>But if you're wanting a superbly sharp zoom lens (and money is no object) the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 A is excellent. Couple that with the Sigma 50 f1.4 A and you've got the best combination on the market.</p> <p> </p>

<p>What you're wanting is the Pentax 645. It is the smallest and lightest weight MF SLR ever made (that's assuming you're wanting a pentaprism and built-in metering) If you're considering 6x6 then 645 will get 15-16 shots/120 roll vs. 12 for a 6x6 saving you weight and bulk on film. Plus the 120mm macro is excellent. It is also the easiest top operate. The only real drawback is that it requires four AA batteries.</p> <p>But if you're wanting a camera that doesn't require batteries then you'll also need a selenium meter of some sort.</p>

<p>I can perhaps answer a few of your (many) questions.</p> <p>Like all camera systems there are some lenses that are better than others. I haven't used them all but of those I have used the 200 f4 was definitely the best and the 35mm fisheye the worse if you shoot color due the extreme CA. The second worse is the 55mm f3.5 for the same reason plus the corners never get sharp no matter how far it's stopped down. The later 55mm f4s are better.</p> <p>The 90mm f2.8 is considered good (I've never shot it), better than the 105mm. The 45 and regular 75 I've shot and both are sharp lenses, except the 45mm has the same CA problem as the 55mm.</p> <p>The 135 macro is decent, but not as sharp as the other lenses. The newer 100 macro is supposed to be better, but as I've never shot it I can't say for certain.</p> <p>The 400ED is superb (this from a friend who owns one). And the 165 he also considers good. </p> <p>Just be aware that the focal plane shutter has a very strong kick when used on a tripod between 1/60 and 1/2 sec. and will definitely affect sharpness. The only way I found to eliminate this problem was to drape my 10 lb. camera bag (filled with my other Pentax 67 lenses) strap directly on top on the pentaprism (adding weight to the tripod itself did not work). But the weight of the camera and lens actually adds to its stability when handholding with the grip. I've successfully shot the 45mm lens at 1/30 sec and obtained razor sharp images.</p> <p>Like all cameras it has its strengths and weaknesses. You definitely want the metered prism and the grip, and it needs to be used on a good solid tripod. </p> <p>Good luck, and have fun. </p>

<p>A lot. Color film processing involves more steps and more precision. For color printing you need an enlarger with a color head, a rotary processor and preheated chemistry. There's no leeway for experimenting with time, temperature and chemistry, the process has to be [fairly] exact every time to ensure consistency. I had my own color darkroom for 10 years, but when inkjet printing (and Photoshop) surpassed what I could get from the darkroom I got rid of it. </p> <p>As for mastering B&W printing, that's its own separate art form and can take decades of constant work to truly "master." So if you've already put in that much time and effort, congratulations. But if you've just been at it for only a few years then you have a ways to go. Color printing has pretty much been obsoleted by digital. But true high quality BW printing still has a place in fine art. So for color my recommendation is to use digital, but for B&W, if you have already mastered it, use the darkroom.</p>

<p>A small room painted white with lights bounced off walls and ceiling (no direct light on subject) will also work. </p>

<p>It's not enough to have talent, you must also have passion. If you really love photography and practice it all the time, you'll keep getting better. Then what talent you do have will increase.</p>

<p>You have only two choices:<br> 1. use a wider aperture lens, such as a 50 f1.4 or 85 f1.8 if you need the extra reach, and shoot them wide open.<br> 2. buy a newer camera that can be used at a higher iso without being too noisy. <br> But doing both would be the best solution. </p>

<p>This is a headshot (of which you're very familiar):<br> https://d38zhw9ti31loc.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Crystal-headshot-new.jpg</p> <p>Whereas these are portraits (two very different beasts):<br> http://www.laboiteverte.fr/les-portraits-de-yousuf-karsh/</p> <p>The headshot follows a fixed "formula" for everyone. The portrait is unique for the individual. </p>

<p>All cameras eventually become outdated, the question is do you like the camera as it is?</p>

<p>Reminds me of this "rating" system:<br> A. Talks to God<br> B. Talks to Angels<br> C. Talks to Self<br> D. Argues with Self<br> F. Loses those arguments<br> :)</p> <p> </p>

<p>I've been experimenting with Phototex which can be used to make murals of any size:<br>

<p>I made a similar comparison several years ago between the Sigma SD1 (which uses the same chip as the DP3) and Fuji 6x9 90mm and found the SD1 much better:<br /> Fuji: http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771283<br /> Sigma: http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771284</p>

<p>A wide angle lens enables you to get closer to your subject, and if you then fill the frame with your subject and also shoot the lens wide open (just make sure you use a lens that is sharp in the corners wide open, which is hard to find) then the background will be diminished and more out of focus in relation to the foreground. But if you stop down the lens to where the background is in focus then the background will be busier than a normal or tele lens, as a wide angle lens includes <em>more, </em>not less, background information. </p> <p>As Michael points out, the best way to diminish the background it by using a telephoto lens wide open, but I can see the difficulty with doing that in a crowded wedding situation, hence your mentor's advice.</p>

<p>You're not going to get better results in the center with the 5 element lens of the Planar vs. the 4 element lens of the Tessar, just the corners will be sharper. If that is important to you then get a Planar/Xenotar, especially if light weight and portability are important (the F3 is my favorite model, especially with the glass plate back which takes sharpness to a whole new level).</p> <p>But it's really nice to be able to change lenses, though why just a consider a Hassy? If you want to stick with 6x6 then look at the Mamiya 6--superb lenses, light weight, quiet and small, with four lenses vs. just the one of a Rollei. Or if 6x7 then the Mamiya 7 has the best MF lenses ever made.</p>

<p>Stella, in order to both simplify your life and reduce your costs you can also expose photographic paper directly, which will make a negative that you can then contact print for a positive. This was actually the original way photos were made: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calotype</p> <p>and though they are a bit soft compared to glass negs, they do have their own unique look. </p>

<p>There's a lot of old Xerox copy lenses floating about. They will have very short focal lengths and cover about 8x10. This may be what you have.</p> <p>And Dan is right, there aren't many (if any) LF lenses that cover 30x40 at infinity, and if they do exist they won't be cheap. So if you do want to cover that size at infinity an actual pinhole is your only real option.</p> <p>Of course, if time and money are no object then you could try this:<br> http://petapixel.com/2012/04/03/wet-plate-photography-with-a-giant-format-van-camera/</p>

<p>My first suggestion would be to get your leaf shutter speeds checked (each speed for each lens). In this age of electronic precision many don't realize that the marked speed on <em>mechanical</em> shutters can vary widely, sometimes by up to one stop, especially if they are old and haven't been CLA'd recently. The most accurate meter in the world won't help you if you're just assuming that your shutter speeds are accurate without checking first. </p>

<p>Mukul makes a good point, unless you plan on processing yourself (which is both expensive and complicated with color) then finding a good lab first before investing in equipment is important.<br> As for 6x7 equipment:<br> 1. The two easiest cameras to handhold are the Koni-Omega and Pentax 67, with the Koni being more compact, lighter in weight and cheaper to buy. But it is a rangefinder and has only a few focal lengths available (58/60, 90, 135, 180). The Koni also has the advantage of having leaf shutter lenses which produce no camera vibration on a tripod, whereas the Pentax has a focal plane shutter which has a pronounced "kick" on a tripod causing camera shake and consequently fuzzy photos if shot below 1/60 sec.<br> 2. For studio or tripod only work the Mamiya RB/RZ systems are best, and with their built-in bellows are excellent for macro work. They also have leaf shutter lenses. They can also be handheld but are too bulky to do so comfortably.</p> <p>It is possible to find old 6x7 slide projectors, but they are not common, and bought new can easily run over $1,000.</p>

<p>If money is no object then get the new Sigma 35 f1.4 Art lens. If money is an important consideration then the new Sigma 30 f1.4 is still better than the original version. Of course, the Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is just as good and far more flexible if you don't mind the slight loss of aperture.</p>

<p>I've use black felt to repair old Koni-Omega bodies and backs successfully. It's readily available at any material store, and for the size and amount you want you can probably get it for free by just asking for a sample. And if you're worried about removing it in the future then it can be installed using either rubber cement or double sided tape.</p>