aplumpton

<p>What Edward mainly said, except that if you do a lot of PJ and prefer a normal focal length the 55mm f1.8 AF lens might be a better choice than the Loxia, if mainly for the AF feature.</p> <p>I have a Loxia 50mm on my Sony A7RII and am very happy with it, but like Leica M optics, you have to focus it which doesn't comply so easily with fast moving situations. I do only occasional PJ type photography, but I usually find that the images do not require the same high level of resolution that other subjects require. In such case I would look also at the new Sony 50 mm f1.8 AF lens, at a fraction of the price of the Sony Zeiss 55mm. Reviews of it should be available shortly.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I googled Precision Camera and saw varying kinds of comments on their service. Glad that you had a great experience and hopefully that is the norm.</p> <p>But what interested me in the OP was that apparently Precision Camera is the only authorized service centre in the USA? I checked the Sony site in much smaller Canada (10% of USA population) and here is their statement: "Across Canada we have a broad network of Professional Authorised Service Centres with expert staff ready to help you get the most out of your Sony equipment." So are there not more Sony service centres south of the border?</p>

<blockquote> <p>mirrorless dropped 11.4% from 2015 to 2016. How is that "constant sales?"</p> </blockquote> <p>Taking figures from one year to the next is not completely representative and simply shows shorter term blips. However, From 2013 to 2016 the figures vary much less about a "pretty constant" mean value (and certainly compared to the great variations in the similar period DSLR figures). <br /> <br> What is more important in the data shown is the very much more significant variation and drastic fall in DSLR sales. Those figures are more revealing, unless the source of the data is somehow flawed.</p> <blockquote> <p>The cell phone is the King these days<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Different tools for different needs....<br> <br> And a purchase of a versatile and more complex DSLR was overkill for the need of some persons, until the cellphone more closely responded to that less extended need.<br> </p>

<p>Pity, cannot enter his site (His email registration box doesn't open). </p> <p>Indigenous and environmental groups oppose various pipeline projects. Elsewhere in North America, The Kinder-Morgan pipeline west from Alberta to a shipping point north of Vancouver City has been given the green light by the Trudeau government. Another, eastwards to Sarnia, Ontario, and then south to the US has also been approved by the federal (but may also see court actions). The opposition of indigenous people to the Trans mountain pipeline from Alberta to Kitimat (norther BC near coast) has effectively stopped that one. I see not many photographs of opposition rallies, so such images are probably needed to show the other side of the coin. </p>

<p>Looking at those figures, I would exclude mirrorless from the drastic fall of DSLRs. Apart from a 10 or 15% stronger year in 2012, sales of mirrorless have been pretty constant in the succeeding 4 years, despite cellphone inroads. Mirrorless, a more recent trend (if we exclude Leica) than the DSLR, is still gaining adepts day be day. The Sony FF line, for instance, has received many new optics from in-house and Zeiss over the past year or so. I would put my money on them in the coming years. More advanced photographers still need the highest quality possible and cellphones are not there and may well not be in the foreseeable future.</p>

<p>Why everything boils down to extremes is odd. If you use a digital camera like mine you have the choice of RAW, RAW+ jpeg, Jpeg extra fine, Jpeg fine and Jpeg standard. At least 4 levels of quality of which 3 of differing degrees of compression. Yes, standard or highly compressed jpeg is far from RAW quality and likely the best for many casual snapshots or low resolution screen uploads or transfers. I am not sure of the degree of compression of Jpeg extra fine on a full frame camera of 42 MP, but I think I can comfortably assure those who run down all jpeg compressions that the results are often very impressive, provided other factors (including quality of the optics, light and exposure conditions, the in camera math used to transfer the analogue pixel information to digital values, the quality of the rest of the camera firmware) are all at high level or compatible with the range of values in the digital image.</p> <p>Not all of our trials and explorations in photography end up in the creation of images for 20 x 30 inch prints, just as it is not imperative to seek the perfection of RAW in all cases. I often reserve the latter for the more serious image creations and use the extrafine jpeg, even at lower set MP resolutions, for other work.</p> <p>I recently mounted a fairly large exhibition (54 images) of C41 and inkjet prints, mainly 12 x 18 inch, but also 20 x 30 inches, made from this extra fine jpeg capture mode and the image quality was extremely fine. In the few cases where my darkroom B&W prints were compared to similar digital derived B&W prints, at similar sizes (16 x 20), no real difference in tonality or resolution was evident. RAW may have been better, </p>

<blockquote> <p>every artist I know when working in digital media shows it "digitally" </p> </blockquote> <p><em>(my quotation marks)</em></p> <blockquote> <p> </p> </blockquote> <p>So "digitally", unless you really want to say, "shows it on on a digital screen", means also "printed digitally", another option. Which is back to the question of exhibiting a print or not. I disagree that every artist is uniquely exhibiting his work on a digital screen (if that is your reasoning). Most artists I know, while treating or promoting their work on a screen are exhibiting and selling their their digital creations on canvas, paper, aluminum or other matrices. </p>

<blockquote> <p>"I never really consider the photographic process finished until I am holding a print in my hands."<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>A lot can be said for that. There is nothing wrong with screen images, but do you not think that while an artist-painter might copy his or her work and show it electronically on a desktop or portable screen, most viewers would prefer the original canvas or paper to appreciate it. Photographs have a texture that screens cannot duplicate well. This is more relevant to large size image viewing than to viewing 4x6 inch photographs. </p>

<p>This guide below provides the information you may need. While the special head for VCC may be an alternative (which in your case probably shouldn't be necessary), the magenta and yellow filters of your enlarger colour head will allow you to print variable contrast papers.</p> <p><a dir="ltr" href="https://www.ephotozine.com/article/printing-with-variable-grade-paper---darkoom-guide-4709">https://www.ephotozine.com/article/printing-with-variable-grade-paper---darkoom-guide-4709</a></p> <p>You will want to look at the single filter table (scroll down to it) and the Durst column of the table (not the Kodak column) as the Durst filters are similar to yours (Other enlargers may follow the Kodak values).</p> <p>I use a Dunco colour head (not sure which one, as it came from a 3rd party supplier) on my Leitz enlarger and it works well. You should have no problem, as long as you follow the table and the tips on printing VC papers (in that guide or from Ilford or others).</p>

<p>Gerry, they may mention the metal, but it is likely to be its common pentoxide form (Ta2O5) that is the compound of high refractive index added to the multi oxide (and other compound) glass melt to improve that aspect. From a personal viewpoint, if I were to buy a "speedboster" and not worry about cost, it would probably be the Metabones.</p>

<p>I print or have printed my digital images regularly, but for only a small part of my photography. About 100 to 120 small prints and 20 to 30 large (to 12 x 18 inches, one to 20 x 30 inches) prints each year (excluding those prints for exhibition or sale, which is also of limited output for me).</p> <p>I think that the ease of making and accessing digital screen images too easily ignores the considerable cost, uncertainty and complexity of their maintenance and preservation. While I love the efficiency of the process of casual or commercial digital image making and its short term ease of transfer to others, I dislike the considerable cost of the storage equipment and software needed to keep the images for future viewing and the uncertainty that the systems used today will allow sure access in future.</p> <p>A casual C-41 or inkjet print, whether 4x6 inch or greater, may or may not be permanent (accurate colors, etc.) 20 or 100 years from now, but their tactile presence is I think their value, and they can be easily stored in photo books or otherwise. The longevity of my B&W darkroom prints is probably better, although whether that is significant or not for casual prints is a question. Once in a while my sister-in-law, inheritor of many casual family photos, will display some from the late 19th century and query the event or persons pictured in them. A good example I think of the tangible quality of prints.</p> <p>A number of my larger books (mainly those of reference nature like monographs or atlases) have many small prints wedged between their pages and to open them from time to time for whatever spontaneous reason allows me to see again a casual print of some personal value from 10 or 20 or more years ago, a recurring pleasure. Will I do the same with my extensive digital files 10 years from now? Maybe.</p> <p>I occasionally print at home digital images to see how they look on paper, but I mainly use commercial printers (from Walmart up in quality) on occasion for prints as my printer and my printing ability are both limited. About half of my printing there is for personal need (or given to friends who may be interested) and the other half for occasional exhibition and/or sale. I admit that they do not get much in the way of presentation afterwards, usually ending up in the home archives(attic) if not occasionally on a wall or a record put within the pages of a reference book.</p> <p>My year end cards to friends (Christmas card and general seasonal greeting card) are home-made. The image I choose for the front side of them changes from year to year. There is some possibility that it will end up on a string or on the top of a cabinet and be visible for some short period of time for my friend and his community of acquaintances. So maybe 50 cards with a printed photo will be viewed by at least the same number of friends and probably more, potentially over a month period before discarding. This and the pleasure of viewing other small prints will sustain my interest in having prints of my images.</p> <p>When I send a digital greeting by e-mail, the image will likely be viewed only once and by one person and then deleted or forgotten. </p>

<p>I can understand your point C. Watson, but discussions are often a function of the title and supporting information of the OP and "...dies amid rape scandal" was the directed focus of this one. If it had stated instead "....dies. Was his photography important?", the contributions might have been a little different.</p> <p>If he is so apparently guilty of the charges of indecency and rape, then the posts are evident public reaction, although we see much more focus on scandals related to avoidance of income tax declarations by companies, politicians and (today) famous soccer players. Scandals are as instantaneous and revealing as photography. Their repetition may not change much in society, but they still makes news.</p> <p> </p>

<p>These last two posts by James and Rick V.J are quiite interesting. Despite some production elsewhere, It shows how much photography depended on German design and production of small cameras until the early 50s. I believe that Japan as well as England, France and other European countries also had pre WW2 manufacturers, but Japan did not really arrive on the world market until the middle of the century. Why was there not more widespread production of small higher quality 35mm cameras before that war and after? Perhaps someone can suggest why. Of course, large cameras (Kodak, Graphic, Deardorff, others) were produced in North America before the war.</p> <p>It's probably my unusual sense of good design but I really like the appearance of the 35 of this OP. Cool. It and other non RF variants shown seem to be inspired by the classic Barnack rounded ends and fairly similar placement of the shutter selector wheel (albeit related to different shutter mechanisms) as on the Leica screw mount body.</p>

<p>Thank you for your invitation, which if weather permitted I for one would accept. Hopefully your weekend in the capital will be sunnier than ours, 500 miles to the north. Happy weekend!</p><div></div>

<p>Mark and Gerry, Touché regarding Norman Rockwell. A senior moment (increasingly common as my wife notes...). Happily, many fast Leica primes like the Summicron don't extend too far back. What is interesting in Ken Rockwell's appraisal of Canon optics on the Canon adapter are the photos that permit some judgement of quality (I don't know if they blow up for detail evaluation or not).</p>

<p>If you Google "Kipon Baveyes adapter" you should find Norman Rockwell's test made with several other optics than the 35 cron. He indicates that it does work in regard to field of view and speed, but the (significant?) downside is that optical quality is poor. He did say that each lens must be tested to know how it works, but he was not positive about the optical quality. Based upon his comments I think it may not make sense to use a high quality lens with it if you are looking for results of equivalent quality. But the advanntage of getting a wider view or high speed may be most important to you. </p> <h1> </h1>

<p>Thanks to Benoit for placing the general aspects of age, consent and varying social perceptions into some context that one can relate to now, and in the past. It doesn't answer the questions suggested by the OP about one photographer, but it allows reflection on the possible events that may never be fully known. </p> <p>I would not enjoy, for example, being a politician and aspiring to be clean cut, fair and honest. Although not a deterrent if I was so motivated, I think that whatever I would do at least someone or some interest would be able to make some case of a failing or error that, real or not, would show me in bad light. A professional photographer is also a public person, like a politician. He may err and not be seen, or he may not err and be judged wrongly on a supposition. He may err and his victims, for one reason or the other, may have not spoken when it might be more effective to do so. Harcelement today is quickly noted, visible. Ask the RCMP or the Canadian army how many complaints have been raised by women (mainly) and men in their service. The numbers are high. How all this relates to the present case may not be known. Coming to a conclusion of sorts is difficult without having all the facts. </p> <p> </p>

<p>As usual, your exposures exhibit very fine tonality, independent of the equipment you test. The appearance aspect of this model of the 35 is refreshing and really attractive (my mom wasn't available to comment), a nice departure from omnipresent chrome of other less attractive Kodak or other models, or the apparent "technical" appearance of the Argus competitor. RF viewfinders of that day seem almost always to be squinty and poor, including that of the expensive Leica, with a possible exception called Contax. If the Kodak lens was that good and if it had an accurate albeit limited speed shutter, that should have stirred the amateur photographer's passions. I wonder how well it sold in the early forties?</p>

<p>How much real difference exists between a 7k$ Leica APO 50 mm f2 lens and its 2k$ non apo version? How much can be seen in even moderate size (11 x 14 or 12 x 16) prints?</p> <p>How much real difference is there between an engineering plastic built Sony 50mm f1.8 FE lens and its mainly metal 55 mm f1.8 Sony-Zeiss FE option? How much can be seen in even moderate size (11 x 14 or 12 x 16) prints?</p> <p>Such differences (however small) aside, does the considerable extra cash buy you a more uniform manufactured lens, free of lens element decentering or other assembly vices? Is that the advantage?</p>

<p>Perhaps a simple squeezable rubber bulb air blaster is a safe and useful solution for dust removal. Like cleaning a digital sensor, holding the camera with the open area downwards is probably good practice when using it.</p>

<p>Addendum - The Sunpak 500 and 600 series are so-called "potato masher" style flashes, employing, like the Metz 60 series, a bracket mounting. This I think suits the small size of the M cameras, unless a very small flash unit is used on their accessory/hot shoes. </p>