jsbc

I bought all these camera in 2000 in the hope of flipping them. I got stuck and I'm still sitting on a lot of unrealised loss. Might as well use them.

No, really, FILM is passe. Why not use outdated cameras as well. At least it would be consistent.

Jon:

very envious. Waht kind of film/ scanner do you use?

Peter A says "Wait another decade or so before you go throwing money at cameras - in the meantime spend your money wisely on beer, chicas and fast cars - and use great cheap cameras to make interesting shots about it all."

This is the best piece of advice for a youngster, assuming that Garrett is one. And Peter A is a good practitioner in documenting beer (all those out of focus shots), chicas and fast cars.

Has there been a change in Elite Chrome 100's formulation?

When I used it 2-3 years ago, it looks good, but there was disturbing magnetas in the shadows.

I am most happy with 100-G, but if the Elite Chrome has been changed, and it is much cheaper, I would not mind giving it a try.

Donald:

Now that you have redefined your Manual focus expectations, my experience with the D70 is that it is quite difficult to Manual focus: even though there is an electronic rangefinder, on accoun of its small VF. The VF is actually quite bright, but not optimised for manual focus. I have a 35 F1.4 and I mis-focus a lot at the wider apertures.

Jim wrote:

"I "zone focus" all of the time with my slr primes, using their very accurate marked scales. They don't put these scales on the lenses for decoration. I use a 20/2.8, 35/2 (both AF-D) and the 45/2.8. "...

Well good for you, Jim. I have more or less the same lenses, and I always mis-focused if I use the larger apertures. Even for the 45mm Ai-P, it takes less than a 7 degree turn to go from 2m to infinity. In comparison, for my Summar F2, it takes almost 90 degree to cover the same distance! For my Nikon 24mm F2.8 AF, it only takes a 3 degree turn to go from the 2m mark to infinity!

I second on the utility of the 45-80, given it covers most focal lengths I care about, and obviates the need for changing lenses.

It balances really well, which is what I care most when considering the weight of the system.

I think with respect to comparable lenses, Nikon is slightly more expensive, eg Nikon's 17-35 F2.8 vs Canon's 16-35.

Also Canon has more tilt/shift lenses.

But I do not respond to spoil the party. After all, Nikon is more innovative in some aspects (flash technology, etc). I think in Nikon's case, most VR lenses are supposed to be better lenses. It would make more sense if Nikon has designated a special pro line, but given all the confusion and overlap regarding G lenses, the old AF lenses, etc, I understand Nikon's hesitancy.

Bottomline - you have to do your research on a case by case basis. The new 200mF2 would be definitely a luxury lens sans peers.

It's actually a slippery path Robert. Once you get started on slides, you'll appreciate (1) good lenses (2) need for accurate metering. Unlike digital, a lens' ability to produce contrasty pictures shows up instantly.

Of course, in most cases, the results justify the effort. Scott Eaton believes the ultimate judgement of film/slide/digital depends on the final printed medium. Be that as it may, the very first time I look through a slide with a good quality loupe, I felt like a hero (using Philip Greenspun's words).

Get a 40F1.7 Canonet and use your SLR lenses/body on your trip to India.

The whole package probably costs less than US$800. Buying any set of primes etc with an old camera body will set you back at least US$200. And the system is not completely reliable either. The manual system will be redundant after you finish the trip.

Lenses are tougher than they seem, as long as you don't drop them. The camera body you have is not great, but there isn't anything cheaper in EOS land. I dare say your system will survive the trip. I don't think there will be hefty repair charges when you come back.

This is most confusing... as "Asian" really denotes people/things originating from the Indian sub-continent, as the term is used in the UK.

I definitely know "yellow" is disparaging, while "white" is OK and "black" is now the preferred term (although I don't know why this is so). So will "East Asian" do as a stand-in for Oriental?

Why film over say, a digicam?

I think a digicam is fun, (I have a Ricoh GX), I have a D70 and a FM, F100, etc.

I still think slides give you a totally different visual experience. And Negs still much more convenitnet and natural colors than a DSLR before you run through a photoshop.

And, most of all, crap lenses really show up with slides etc, but less so with dslr. If Marco has crap lenses, I would say don't bother.

But Marco in some cases has some of the best Nikon lenses (I love the 17-35 F2.8) why waste it by not spending a few hundred bucks on a body?

F100's are great! Esp if you already have AF lenses. It depends whether you want to try manual focus, but I think FM2 for less than US$300 is a steal.

By the way, shoot slides, neg's. It seems expensive, but trust me, the number of keepers will be higher than dSLR (not attributing anything mystical to film, but to the fact that you will be more scrupulous with film).

For TLR you are 1 stop slower at least, and you have even less DOF.

For me, I used a 35 F1.4, reflectors, flash (but very very scrupulously and always bounced when they are 1/mnth old).

Actually I think a dslr would be better because of the sensor's high ISO.

I have also used supra800 on occasions.

I have maxwell screens installed and they are a big improvement over the old screens.

However, Hasselblad's AcuteMatte with a 80F2.8 is still much much brighter. Is this usual/ to be expected? My 2.8F's mirror looks OK.

Tito:

I agree. When in the 50's (so I was told) a M3 is 1/12 the price of a Porsche 356, Leica was a status symbol.

Right now, Leica is still expensive in relative terms, but in absolute terms it is hardly a status symbol ? Two Gucci handbags would cost more.

I like to talk about equipment, and share a good joke about people mistakening the frame window as a flash etc, but most of these stories about the inability of people who are not interested in cameras to recognise Leica's are kinda boring.

Of course, when I used Rolleiflexes in the past, some women did approached me in the past to ask me what I instrument I was using. However, the Leicas never prompted such questions.