donald_brewster

<p>Looking to upgrade the flash unit for my G2 kit from the TLA 200 for an upcoming trip. My choices are a Metz 40MZ-2 with the SCA 382 module or a Contax TLA 360. Both certainly seem similar and either should do the job. Prices are comparable. Is there any practical/pragmatic difference between the two in real use? Anyone done a hands-on comparison? Any particular preferences? Yes, realize both are bigger flash units, but looking for some additional oomph in the output and some more flexibility with bounce flash and whatnot. Thoughts?</p>

<p>Katharine Thayer, the Oregon gum printer and photographer passed away this past weekend. A memorial service is being planned for sometime in April. For more information contact Heather Thayer at hthayer@visi.com</p>

<p>Gowland Pocket View:<br>

<a href="http://www.petergowland.com/camera/">http://www.petergowland.com/camera/</a><br>

Kerry Thalmann's review of the Toho:<br>

<a href="http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm">http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/toho.htm</a></p>

<p>As you have already seen, you'll get as many answers as photographers. Folders are fun to use and compact, but they typically aren't as sharp as a TLR. In addition, the bellows and the arms are always a weak spot on these cameras. I would only suggest buying one with a coupled rangefinder (which are more expensive). Particularly for portraits a TLR is far preferable in my view. The Mamiya was a workhorse for wedding photographers for many years (and many of the used ones on the market have been heavily used). I personally find them too heavy and bulky and I don't really need the various lenses. One of my favorite cameras of all time was a Rolleiflex 3.5E. Built like a tank and nicely balanced in my hands. I preferred it to the 2.8 models for weight and balance. That said, I go to a Mamiya 7II for the most part these days as my travel camera of choice. In the long run with any classic or vintage camera, condition matters. Get the best condition camera you can find and have fun.</p>

<p>As you have already seen, you'll get as many answers as photographers. Folders are fun to use and compact, but they typically aren't as sharp as a TLR. In addition, the bellows and the arms are always a weak spot on these cameras. I would only suggest buying one with a coupled rangefinder (which are more expensive). Particularly for portraits a TLR is far preferable in my view. The Mamiya was a workhorse for wedding photographers for many years (and many of the used ones on the market have been heavily used). I personally find them too heavy and bulky and I don't really need the various lenses. One of my favorite cameras of all time was a Rolleiflex 3.5E. Built like a tank and nicely balanced in my hands. I preferred it to the 2.8 models for weight and balance. That said, I go to a Mamiya 7II for the most part these days as my travel camera of choice. In the long run with any classic or vintage camera, condition matters. Get the best condition camera you can find and have fun.</p>

Well stated Howard.

Great enlarger. As has been mentioned before, get the book "Leica Darkroom Practice - The Focomat Manual" by Rudolph Seck, and pay attention to what bulb is needed. MC head seems to be harder to find, so probably the best to start with. Color and B/W heads more easily found. Make sure you have the negative carriers you need as these can be expensive and hard to find. Various optional peripherals can be hard to find (and are expensive), but are useful, such as the Quartz Focometer, the Focotimer, and the voltage regulator. For 35mm, it can't be beat.

If you are going to use it rather than put it on the shelf, I'd suggest the 3.5F, particularly if already serviced.

 

While I personally prefer the look of the Xenotar lens, it isn't really worth comparing to the Planar -- they are both equally great. However, I do not think the premium the market charges for the Planar is worth it (maybe that is why I prefer the look of the Xenotar). Furthermore, I prefer the weight and balance of the 3.5 to the 2.8 models. The 2.8 feels front heavy to me.

 

Bottom line on buying a Rolleiflex TLR is condition, condition, condition. Buy the best condition one you can afford. The other issues are ultimately really secondary.

 

If you are really concerned about lens performance, take a look at the Chris Perez lens tests noted above.

R Bellows and Luminar adapter.

I use an 80 Summilux because it is what I have. The 90mm 'cron is quite good as noted above.

Pick the one in the best condition and don't look back. I prefer the Xenotar (partly because usually cheaper), and I prefer the 3.5 to the 2.8 (better balance). But it all comes down to condition when you are dealing with 50 year old cameras.

http://home.online.no/~gjon/large_format.htm

A&I on Highland.

Still there as of just now. http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

 

Forum is at http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/

http://afgen.com/clora_bryant.html

http://www.acfnewsource.org/art/lady_with_a_horn.html

http://www.cmt.com/artists/az/bryant_clora/bio.jhtml

 

I believe a documentary on Clora Bryant came out in 2004. Couldn't find any mention of the photograph you are enquiring about.

Alpa's are really cool (especially if you are left handed), but the repair stuff is tough. Contarex the same way. I love mine, but it is a brick (but what lenses!). I've gone the Leica SLR route and it gets a tremendous workout and I'm very pleased with the camera and lenses. The other great suggestions have been the "obsolete" Canon and Olympus systems. If I were starting a new "vintage" SLR system, that is where I'd spend the money. Great optics and great values. have fun.

http://www.cmp.ucr.edu/ or http://www.eastmanhouse.org/ or the like.

 

Donate the collection and let the photo museum do the deaccessioning if they can't use certain of the pieces in the collection. They either get the camera or the money to use on something else.

Ries, Davis and Sanford, Berlebach . . . .

I don't know that they will come close to the modern Mamiya 6 and 7 or a Fuji, but the folders do have their charms. Certo66 is a good person to deal with and get a sense for good folders. I've used many over the years. The Ensign Autorange 820 is my favorite, followed by the Bessa II (with Heliar or Color Skopar), the Zeiss Super Ikonta (with Tessar), and the Moscow 5. Obviously, I have a taste for the coupled 6x9 versions. The Moscow 5 is a good inexpensive way to get into the folder camp. Condition matters a great deal for all these cameras. I've lost a couple due to drops and bumps -- the folding arms are very sensitive. Have fun!

A fairly economical possibility is a Rolleiflex TLR and the Rolleinar close-up lenses. Not as sharp as specific macro lenses, but I've found them to be useful and very portable and lightweight.

What Ellis said.

 

You can check out the Jensen Optical website at: http://www.DURST-PRO-USA.net

 

They also have some 8x10 enlargers listed on the Bay.

Yes, 4x5 and 8x10. Good advice above. Depending how you see, a 135mm, 150mm or 210mm is a good lens to start with 4x5. A 240mm, 300mm or 360mm for 8x10. If you want the classic German over-built engineering, find a nice used Linhof. There are plenty of good wooden field cameras on the market, both new and used. Ebony is the top of the line. Speed Graphics about as simple and inexpensive a place to start, but these have little to no movements if you need them since they were primarily press cameras. Cheaper alternatives such as Shen-Hao and Tachihara, and medium price such as Zone VI, Canham, Wisner, Deardorff will all do the trick. Toyo, Wista, Toho are also good names. Do take a look at Tuan's LF website: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/

 

Call Midwest Photo (http://www.mpex.com) in Columbus and ask for Jim who will steer you in the right direction. Check out Kerry Thalmann's large format website: http://www.thalmann.com/largeformat/

Hi Shelly. I can't do the math either. Basically "normal" is defined by how you see and what you shoot. If you primarily shoot tabletop, a 210mm may work best. If you shoot landscape, a 135mm may work best. As has been mentioned, "normal" for 4x5 runs from 135-210mm. Many people start with a 210mm lens and then work wider. I've found over the years that I see slightly wide (40mm for 35mm, 80mm for 6x7), so I use a 135mm as a normal lens for 4x5. My current lens set for 4x5 is 90mm, 135mm, and 210mm.

I second Pico's suggestion. I will add the 135mm and the 150mm f2.8 Schneider Xenotar as another option.

It isn't low cost, but I've always liked the old Linhof viewer. Maybe because it is the only one I've ever used (it came with the camera), but I've always liked having it in the hot shoe and getting a quick read on a scene.