robert_edge

I looked at your profile and your photographs and some of your posts. I'm left with a question, which is: why do you want to buy a 35mm rangefinder camera, and a Leica in particular, in the first place? Just a question, perhaps impertinent.

Of course, now someone will say that they are not street or documentary (in the sense understood here) photography.

 

Why do I have the feeling, having read the quote in one of your photographs from Ghandi, that you might want to push that question :)

I love these photographs. If you want to do it, they are the beginning of a book.

 

Spring is overdue :)

 

Do the people at the University of Guelph help out?

"i was shocked"

 

I'm sure that you were. I guess that at that point you had a choice, and you made one, didn't you.

Mr. Cahn,

 

When one responds to a thread on this or any other internet site, especially a thread started by someone to is new to the area, it is basic manners to disclose that one is a vendor of the products that one is recommending. Especially when you write like you are a consumer, as in "I just got a 5x7 Osaka and was amazed at how good it is..." Ain't a hard concept to understand, I hope. The fact is, Mr. Ellis did this thread a service.

Rory,

 

The way the market is, you might consider buying a camera second-hand. I say that as someone who has a psychological bias against buying things second-hand. But the fact is, these days you can buy large format cameras and lenses in wonderful condition at a signficant discount from buying new. There are a lot of people who own these cameras, but have barely used them and want out.

 

Also, if your heart is set on a field camera, well and good, but if you are prepared to consider a monorail camera, have a look around. For example, you can buy an Arca-Swiss Discovery, second-hand, for an amount equal to or less than a new copy of some of the field cameras that you are talking about.

 

You may find it useful to have a look at the classifieds at www.largeformatphotography.info and www.apug.org.

 

Cheers.

It's been a while, but the manual may talk about using "in-between" speeds and apertures. My recollection, which may well be wrong, is that it is supposed to work for speeds, but not apertures. If I don't know off the top of my head, it is because I have not found it to be an issue in practice.

 

You are way ahead of me on figuring out the new Sekonic meter :)

"Every leica person dreams of finding an old Leica at a garage sale and an owner that has no idea what he has!"

 

I'd like to think that that isn't true.

Seb,

 

Looking at what you posted and Alex Shishin's stab at it, I for one think that if that is from a negative you should take it to a really good printer. I think that it has the potential to be a wonderful print.

This evening, I had a Sekonic L-758 meter at a typical pub, at least where I live, after dark. Incident readings at ISO 400 and f/1 ranged from 1/15 second in the brightest part of the pub (at the bar under lights illuminating the bar) to 1 second in the darker parts. Locally, this pub is a bit brighter than what one would encounter in a typical lounge/dance club/jazz club.

Ken,

 

The suggestion to use the edges of the patch rather than the centre comes from the Mamiya manual for the camera. If you want to read it, you should be able to get a copy from the Mamiya USA site. If not, send me a message and I'll give you the .pdf.

 

I agree that the L-758, which I purchased myself about two weeks ago, is a very nice meter. You have probably noticed that the Mamiya, in manual mode, can be set only to full apertures and speeds. In automatic mode, it is apparently more precise, even though the steps are not shown in the viewfinder. Myself, I have not found this an issue, whether using reversal or negative film. Just thought that I'd mention it.

Peter,

 

For an example, have a look at the photo in this thread that is eight posts down: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00KXqR

 

It was taken in a bar about a week ago. I just looked at the negative. The description is right, except for one thing. The film wasn't HP5+ 400 (which I realized must be wrong right after I wrote it), it was Delta 3200.

There isn't a hope in this world that you are going to shoot in a bar, at night, at ISO 400, 1/6oth, f/1.0, not to mention the issues that you are going to have with apparent depth of field. Of course, in a bar with windows in the right latitude in summer ... To find out what's doable, just do a few meter readings in your local bar/pub.

The thing that strikes me about Seb's photo is the formality of it, almost 18th century painterly. If there is more information in the negative, a good printer could really do something with it.

 

Your photo is the opposite in style.

 

The two make a great contrast.

Christopher, that photograph is such fun.

If, as I suspect, there is a lot more in this negative than is shown in the scan, I think that this photograph has wonderful potential.

I really like photograph 21.

Here's the entry to the Arri/Zeiss pages on their new T1.3 primes: http://www.arri.com/entry/products.htm

Jeff, why do you say that? A Canon f/.95 has recently been the subject of quite a lot of favourable discussion in the Lecia/rangefinder part of this site, and historically, there have been cine lenses at f1 and below. Indeed, Arri/Zeiss are currently pushing cine lenses at T1.3, and Stanley Kubrick used a lens that is said (correctly as far as I know) to have been f0.7.

Just a heads up that the Cartier-Bresson photographs are truly scrapbook, meaning very small.

 

The other ICP exhibit, of Martin Munkacsi's work, is really interesting.

On the other hand, maybe people think that this is junk and that I shouldn't post at at all :)

Obviously, the "fast" part comes from a sweep of the camera during the exposure. Negative is 6x7. Quick scan, nothing done in Photoshop. I think that I need to find out how to post some photographs, especially medium to long view photographs such as this one, so that they are a bit wider than 511 pixels.

rrr<div></div>

The silence is truly funny.

 

My hat is off to Clyde Rogers for being the only person who was able to visualize what might happen if one had a camera body in one hand (or maybe on a tripod) and a lens, separated from the body by a flexible homemade bellows, maybe connected electronically, in the other hand. A good enough concept for the American Society of Cinematographers magazine to discuss, but apparently not here, at least with the example that I posted :)

"It would be easier to use an enlarging lens..."

 

An enlarging lens would work just fine.