marek_fogiel
-
Posts
455 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by marek_fogiel
-
-
Go to Nikon Coolscan 9000 with the rotating glass holder, or modify the normal holder and use anti newton glass with it. A cheaper alternative is Minolta Multi Pro, but it is no longer in production, and a more expensive alternative is an Imacon scanner - almost any version is very good, although AFAIK they do not use digital ICE.
As for the quality, in colour there is no contest, in B&W your limit is in the tonality of 8 bit processing, not in sharpness, you have an example here:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1459260603&size=o
Avoid flatbed scanners( unless you get one of those Like Scitex or Fuji Lanovia that cost a fortune) if you want MF quality.
Also, be prepared to learn how to expose/develop your B&W negs for lower density, suitable for scanning.
-
Harvey,
Without the hood, at infinity it blocks about 15% and at close up 18%, with the hood 20 and 23% respectively, but I have learned to live with this. As you know this lens is a killer:
look up the biggest version.
-
I will be quite abrupt: before you try anything else, go to B&H or similar, and try the Zeiss Ikon with the 35/2 Biogon, This is a dream street shooter's set up. If you feel like you have to go to 28mm, then your choice IMHO should be the Bessa R4A with a compact 28mm like the Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH, I also wear glasses, so I've been through the same selection process. Take a look at my photos here:
most have been taken with the ZI or Bessa R4A or R3A. For even more feedback, lookup www.rangefinderforum.com.
-
I will be quite abrupt: before you try anything else, go to B&H or similar, and try the Zeiss Ikon with the 35/2 Biogon, This is a dream street shooter's set up. If you feel like you have to go to 28mm, then your choice IMHO should be the Bessa R4A with a compact 28mm like the Leica Elmarit 28/2.8 ASPH, I also wear glasses, so I've been through the same selection process. Thake a look at my photos here:
most have been taken with the ZI or Bessa R4A or R3A. For even more feedback, lookup www.rangefinderforum.com.
-
This is my favourite portrait lens, it has a softness mixed with high contrast and incredible in and out of focus passage, which is unique. The lens has been built in such a way to overlay some diffuse spherical aberration on images between f 1.5 and f4.0, with the focus (due to shift phenomenon) optimized for f 2.8. Here you will find some f2.8 portraits:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157601234693316/
At f5.6 the lens starts behaving like a modern 50mm with impressive sharpness and very pleasing smoothness.
Here you will find test shots done at apertures from f 1.5 to f8.0:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600947495044/comments/
And here you will find several shots done between f5.6 and f8.0, where the lens rivals any modern sharp 50mm:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600916687014/
-
I have just shot the first roll with the R4A and the C Biogon 21/4.5 - this is a very nice combination, due to the compactness and parallax corrected framelines. I have also shot this camera with 25mm, 28mm,35mm and 50mm, although in the last case I prefer to apply the 1.35 megaperls magnifier to the VF. The camera is ok, and probably better built than any Bessa so far, but it is not a Leica, and not a Zeiss Ikon either. The noise is bearable, and the shutter/AE is good. The rewind crank is a PITA though. The best "natural frameline is the 28mm, and generally this camera "likes" compact lenses because the VF is close to the lens mount. If you can afford it, get it, if not, sell your M7 and with the money you can get the R4A and a ZI, you will end up having a superior set up in all respects.
-
Gianluca,
Stuart has a good point, look for a 50$ camera first just to see if rangefinder does not limit your style too much, if you find it interesting, then my suggestion is the following: go to the bay, look for MATSUIASTORE, and buy from them a ZI with the 35/2 Biogon ZM (io compro da loro regolarmente, e mi arriva tutto senza tasse o dazi da pagare ;-) ). This is the best there is in terms of RF experience for general photography, when you will look through the VF you won't believe your eyes, and when you will have developed your first roll you won't believe these are your negs either :-) . Spend the rest of the money on the BEST scanner you can afford.
Now, why not a MF rangefinder? Because the greatest things about the rangefinders are: the available light readiness, portability and speed. If you put a good film in your ZI (Acros or Delta 100 or similar) and shoot at f4.0-f5.6 handheld at 1/250th or faster, the results will speak for themselves.
Here are a couple of examples, at infinity and close up, both at f4.0, and this is not a top resolution film:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1217248456&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1240549537&size=l
The MF does not let you shoot so well in low light, and the dof is more problematic, just to illustrate the point - this has been shot with the CV Nokton 35/1.2 at 1.2 and 1/15 handheld:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1140589233&context=set-72157601490684129&size=l
There are limitations: for me RF's are no longer winners over SLR's above 75mm, and obviously no good for macro. If you want to make huge blow ups, the MF cannot be substituted too.
BTW, take a look at rangefinderforum.com, you will find a lot of extra information there.
-
I second Edward's opinion about bay 50 filters, you will find them quite affordably on the bay, and you might also find a polarizer for the Distagon 40 - I have never seen any other filters for that lens around.
-
Well, I think the main point about a "serious photographic experience", is to understand, that photography is mainly not about dull shots of interesting subjects (this is what you describe as "photo-suitable-events"), but rather about interesting shots of ordinary - not necesarily dull - subjects, just take a look at these:
A fork
A pipe and glasses
Obviously, interesting subject, important context, unusual lighting or perspective all can contribute to make a great photo, but the only essential element is what YOU see.
I took up making photos after 30 years of "absence", because I felt the quality of inkjet printing has become good enough to enjoy the whole photographic process again without the need for a darkroom. I have a camera with me every day when I get out from home, and try to make pictures of things that strike me, but also I try to assign myself some themes, and work on these over time. This is an example of a shot that "happened" to me when driving to the office:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1217248456&context=set-72157601175708450&size=l
and this one "happened" on the way back home:
This is a set of shots made mostly during my lunch time interval:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600129466148/
and here's a small subset of photos taken while I take my daily coffee:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157601490684129/
If you feel the pinch to photograph, just grab the camera in the morning and start looking around... something surely will happen.
-
RB67 is basically a tripod camera. Take it into consideration, as it limits the type of photography you want to do. If you want narrow dof high quality photography, and slow down a bit using film, then a Leica or Zeiss Ikon RF with some of the best lenses will give you quite unique types of shots. If you want to stick with MF, I think the Hasselblad F lens line ( for the 200 and 2000 series cameras)has some unbeatable optics for narrow dof, and this kit is much lighter than Mamiya.
-
Lukasz, I think that as long as you are satisfied with the prints from the lab, for you there's no point to get too sophisticated.
Shooting film can actually be quite beneficial to cut down on the habit of machine-gunning your surroundings, and make you choose your subjects and composition better. I would not be satisfied with the lab output, hence the misunderstanding above. If you like colour, the only extra hassle (contact sheets, etc) could be to try colour negative films like Reala for landscape, Portra 160 or Fuji 160 as an all-rounder and Portra 400 for portraits. Remember to expose at half the box speed.
As far as Bessas are concerned, I use two: the R4A and the R3A, and the main reason for having them are the VF magnifications (0.52 and 1.0)which are different from the Zeiss Ikon (0.74), which I consider the finest RF camera for the money. The Bessas are small, light, reasonably sturdy, but the RF base is short, so even with the R3A it is better to use a VF magnifier for the 75mm and 90mm lenses.
The RF alignement can easily go off, so you have to make sure someone in Warsaw services them, and generally it is a good idea to keep a half case on.
The wear resistance and reliability, I would say, are medium, but the VF is good, and overall it is a nice camera to start with in the rangefinders. I would say, the best starter kit would be the R2A with the 35/1.7 Ultron (or 35/2 Zeiss Biogon, if you can afford it).
I repeat: for me, these cameras excel in the B&W photography, and one of the reasons, is they are fun to shoot with in low light, where you get issues with mixed lighting and huge contrasts, so the slides are out of the question and colour negative is difficult to balance. BTW, if you scan your slides, try to shoot Astia as much as possible. If you want more explanations, you can mail me at mfogiel@yahoo.com.
-
MARCO, if you pass by Piazza Duomo in Milan, you can find a splendid album of his photos at the Mondadori shop for peanuts among the remainders. As others have said, he is good at lighting, and also he likes to burn in some details in the prints aggresively at times, so the visual impact is more dramatic.
-
Lukasz, I think you haven't got the cost equation quite correct. If you really want to enjoy your photography, in your situation (someone with no time for a darkroom) you should compare the digital route with film+scanner, so to start with you should consider, that unless you get a first rate scanner (like a KM 5400 used or a Nikon CS 5000 or 9000) you stand little chance to produce prints that can face a comparison against digital.
Having said this, I think you should take a look at traditional B&W photography, because at least for me, it is difficult to make colour prints that have the same visual impact, and in B&W, simply put, the digital still sucks.
If I were in Poland today with little money to spend, I would either do traditional B&W with a darkroom finish, or I would shoot digital (with regret).
I was in Warsaw in march, and I run out of XP2 - I bought 10 rolls in a professional shop/lab (na Dzikiej) and discovered the price was almost twice what I pay in Milan, while the development cost 15% more !!!
So, your choice is not that easy, you either should limit your ambitions and shoot slides, or you would have to face significant investments in terms of time (if you go the darkroom route) or money (if you go the digital or scanning route).
Last word about the rangefinders: until you don't try a good one, it is useless to explain why the rangefinders are great. I have done photography for more than 35 years, and I have bought a RF recently just for a try, bercause I wanted a small camera for low light shooting - now I wouldn't use an SLR film camera any more, unless it would be for close up or tele... If people keep on paying a substantial premium for rangefinders over SLR film cameras, even today, there must be a point to it... If you just want to taste this, don't waste your time on Canonets - borrow a Zorki or Fed from one of your uncles, and try to shoot a few rolls, there's a lot of info about this type of cameras on rangefinderforum.com.
-
Antonio, if you mainly shoot B&W and no close ups, there's no doubt SWC is the preferred route, but things get a bit different once you want precision in close up sharpness, or polarizers/grad flilters for landscape. I do have the 40 Distagon and the SWC, and the latter gets used more frequently, I also have the RMfX attachment for ground glass focusing, but it really is a PITA to use. If you do not intend to make big blowups, the only difference you will notice is less distorsion with the SWC, but it is true that an SWC and a rangefinder with a 50mm lens make a terrific carryaround combination.
-
Lukasz, two things come to my mind:
- if you only shoot colour, then I'm afraid you should take a hard look at digital cameras again, the advantages are numerous and substantial, having said that, I do not find any current DSLR to be really much to my liking, I still use (on occasion) the Fuji S3 for its film like colours and DR, but it is basically a tank, and the VF is a PITA
- the RF route is in my opinion the best for someone who always wants to have a camera at hand, who likes people shots (no makro, no tele), who likes landscapes without pretending big blowups. The RF's let you shoot faster than any other type of camera, including the auto everything electronic crap, and with the right lenses in the range till 50mm you can get quality not obtainable elsewhere. But nowadays, for me at least, the RF's are primarily B&W tools. I also wear glasses, and for that reason I use Bessas, and above all the Zeiss Ikon rather than Leicas. I suggest you try a ZI with a 35mm Biogon, and if you don't like this, rangefinders are not for you.
If you want to see some photos with the technical background included, look through my portfolio here:
Most of this has been done with RF's or FM3A - my normal holiday shooting set up is Bessa R4A+Biogon 25/2.8 (on a short strap on the neck), Zeiss Ikon+Planar 50/2 (on a long strap on my neck) and a Nikon FM3A+85/1.4 Planar (on a long strap on left shoulder) this covers most of what I need to do. Don't get rid of the OM's as they are useful for lenses over 75mm and makro.
I also work 10 hours a day and commute, that's why I always have a RF with me, every day.
For more info, take a look at the rangefinderforum.com and rogerandfrances.com, if you want to subscribe, also look at the reidreviews.com.
-
Do you shoot exclusively in colour ?, if yes, and you don't need to print big, then digital could be an option, but FWIW the only really high quality sensor DSLR on the market is the Fuji S5.
If you shoot B&W, forget the digital for at least few more years.
-
Petr,
I wear glasses (the thin type) - I have tried various RF's including the 0.58 and 0.72 Leicas, and in the end I settled on the following:
Bessa R4A - for lenses between 25 and 28, possibly 35mm.
Zeiss Ikon - for lenses between 35 and 50, possibly 85mm (possibly with the 1.33x mag).
Bessa R3A - for lenses between 50 and 90mm (75mm is ideal, esp with the 1.33x mag).
Out of all the RF's I have looked through, the ZI has the best viewfinder by far, and I really like it, however, I believe you should start with the Bessa R4A, as it gives you the best vision with the wide angles - you could buy the megaperls 1.33x viewfinder magnifier to use it with the 50mm lenses too. Then the choice of a second body for the 50-90mm range is quite vast, including the used market.
-
Before going to Milan, try these:
Padova -
Color Color
tel 0498712422
Treviso -
Fotografia
tel 0422431431
Venezia-Mestre -
Master Color
tel 0415310531
-
I use this lab for the traditional B&W:
http://www.laboratorioimmagine.it/
and this lab for C41, E6 and SCALA:
I scan myself, but while CHROME does this service for sure, I am not sure about the first one.
I'd suggest your best bet would be to shoot ILFORD XP2 and scan it yourself, you will get your costs back very quickly. Take a look at my flickr, most of this has been done this way:
-
Bob, you said:
"For someone looking to get the most quality (in B&W) from large (9X12 or 12X18 prints), for the most value (dollars spent) which options should I be looking at."
It is obvious that MF will give you better negatives, but MF is much more limiting to your shooting.
In 35mm your best option(for the buck) for the 12mm-75mm focal length range is either a second hand M mount body (there's a lot of information on the choice on the net), or a Bessa Rxx camera. The best performance/price lenses are those from CV, while the ZM lenses on average cost 1/2 of the Leica eqivalents and are are often considered superior.
For the 85mm-> FL I suggest you should use an SLR camera, and there's plenty of cheap stuff from most brands with fantastic glass, including the bargain OM series and lots of others. An important factor to the effect of the final quality of the print, will be if you print in a darkroom, or digitally, in the latter case you should spend as much money as on the camera and lenses, on the best possible film scanner and a good printer with cutting edge B&W printing capacity. Take a look at what's going on in the rangefinders forum and on apug, you will find more information there.
If you want to take a look at my flickr gallery, you will find lots of examples of B&W shots taken with rangefinders and SLR's 35mm, as well as some MF stuff - I have always included some technical info on the equipment used.
-
Alex,
The Zeiss lenses in general, and the ZF line is no exception, have a common characteristic of an extrordinary 3D rendering. This may be more pronounced in some lenses than others, but generally you will find it stands out clearly. This is not always present in the Leica glass. There's a whole long thread about it in the "alternative digital lenses and systems" forum at fredmiranda.com, in a thread called 3D effect.
Another differentiating feature, is strong micro and macro contrast, which some may not like, as they prefer a more neutral rendering of Leica, especially with digital, where the DR is often wanting to start with.
Finally, and this relates especially to the latest lines, like the ZF and ZM, these lenses have a very consistent colour rendering and the best coatings - read: flare control, ever produced by anyone.
I find, that out of the ZM lenses I use( 25,35,50MP,85) the absolute top is the 50/2 Makro Planar - this is a lens you can use with confidence at any distance, with any aperture and against the light.
I tend to shoot more with the ZM lenses lately, but have some examples of the ZF shots as well in these portfolios:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600939299824/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/59177039@N00/sets/72157600129345564/
-
To get the flavour of "true" rangefinder photography, get the Bessa R and the 35mm. The rangefinders can be shot at least 1 shutter speed lower than SLR's, you should be ok with 1/15th of a second for static subjects with this lens, you might even try 1/8th ( take multiple shots). Generally speaking, for low light photography 400 or even 1600 ISO films are better. If you scan, ILFORD XP2 (exposed at 200-250 ISO) will give you a good compromise between speed and fine grain.
-
Take a look at this photo:
BTW, this was shot 31 years ago... maybe today's biometars are sharper...
-
Steve,
The main reason why you might enjoy shooting film, is B&W - digital is simply not rendering the tones and resolution as well. If you put on top of it the pleasure to shoot with a small camera equipped with a fantastic lens, which you can focus well even in very dim light, and with which you can frame your shots in a very effective manner, then a RF still has a lot of appeal.
I feel, that to get the best performance ovarall (without taking a mortgage), in terms of ease of use (aperture priority autoexposure), framing and focussing (BIG bright viewfinder and long rangefinder base), lens quality (fantastic performance at acceptable prices) is to be found in the Zeiss Ikon camera with the Zeiss lenses. Mind you, unless you get a first rate film scanner, the thing doesn't make sense, so add a coolscan 5000 or better to your purchase list.
Hasselblad for street shooting? MF advice needed.
in Medium Format
Posted
Barry,
The short answer is: yes, but there are far better tools for the job.
So, in the first place, I second the idea of the SWC - if you load it with a 1600 ISO film, you can shoot it at f16 most of the time outdoors, and the sharpness will be amazing. This one has been done with a 400ISO film at f11, to give you the idea:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1454617012&size=l
You can also do something silly like pulling out a 500 EL/M with a 60 Distagon and do this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1196316254&size=l (sorry for the lousy scan, this was done on a flatbed)
or a 500 C/M plus the 100 Planar and shoot this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1425333602&size=l
But honestly,before your arm drops off, for what you want you'd be much better off considering a top quality 35mm rig, for example with the Nikon FM3A and the 25/2.8 Distagon ZF you could shoot this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=484319483&context=set-72157600129345564&size=l
or this;
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=484251968&context=set-72157600129345564&size=l
and with the 35/2 Distagon ZF this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=494049907&context=set-72157600129466148&size=l
and with the 85/1.4 Planar this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1448922050&size=l
or this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=1428332042&size=l
and with the 50/2 Makro Planar ZF you could do this:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=866865568&context=set-72157600939299824&size=l
But then, if you really are serious about street photography, you should use a rangefinder for the 12-75mm range and an SLR for the rest.
Take a look at my shots here:
or even better, take a look at the shots of a professional reporter here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aglimpseoftheworld/
Good shooting!