robert_edge

I gather from your profile that your background is in digital cameras and that you are currently using a fairly high-end Canon. As I read your post, given that you don't want to spend a lot of money, what you are saying is that you want to try a film camera, and a rangefinder in particular. I believe that it is entirely possible to do this without going back several decades. Just to get a sense of what is on the market, go to www.adorama.com and check out their used rangefinders. For example, the Bessa. If you just want to try a film camera, the Nikon N80 SLR with a 50mm lens is a great combination that you can probably acquire, in close to mint condition, for two or three hundred dollars.

Ken, yes, I'm going to ask that question.

Thanks everyone for your responses.

 

A few years ago, I asked S.K. Grimes for a quote for a filter adaptor for a large format 1950s Wollensak 10"/254mm lens, which requires a filter size and pitch that is no longer available. The price was actually pretty reasonable, not cheap, but not crazy either. I think that I'm going to ask them what it would cost to do an adaptor for the 40mm Summicron-C.

"Well, thanks for the advice, but I am not new to LF and am not seeking a magic lens."

 

Well actually that is exactly what you are doing :) You are serious need of reading this: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/chasing-magic-bullet.html

I think that I'd like to be able to use more than one filter without carrying around a roll of gaffer tape :)

In particular, you might find it useful to read this thread, which was started on March 14: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=24088&highlight=architecture

Robert,

 

You might find it very useful to raise these issues on the web site at www.largeformatphotography.info. There are some people there who do architectural work for a living. To take one example, one of the participants is a fairly well-known architectural photographer named Kirk Gittings: http://www.gittingsphoto.com/

Robert,

 

Depends where you are, but you are very likely to find that Sinar is the most common. Note that if you just need to rent lenses, there are a number of cameras that have adaptors to Sinar or Linhoff boards, which you are more likely to come across. This is not an issue that I face, but if you expect to rent large format gear, I do know that it is important for you to talk to people for whom it is an issue.

 

There are large format cameras with full movements that take a 6x9 roll film back. Indeed, there are cameras with full movements that can be optimized for 6x9 in terms of size. See, for example, Arca-Swiss. Given what you are talking about doing, you should really look into this.

 

I would suggest that you talk with an architectural photographer who is doing professional work whose clients could be anywhere in the European Union.

"so I put it in the lathe...

 

"...it can be reduced in diameter with a few strokes of a diamond hone

 

"If you have the Rokkor ... just line the bezel's threads with a strip of masking tape."

 

Believe me, I admire this, but I am not only not a professional machinist, I don't aspire to be an amateur machinist :)

 

I just want to know, as a new owner of an M3 camera, whether I am right that S.K. Grimes can fix this problem with a simple adaptor.

 

The one thing that I'm concerned about, if I read this post correctly (maybe not) is that that there may also be an issue with the Rokkor.

John,

 

Thanks, the Rokkor is on my short list, along with the Voigtlander and a couple of 50mm lenses. I just don't want to instigate a "which lens is best" donnybrook :)

I guess what I don't understand is why the many threads on this subject don't talk about asking Grimes or someone similar make a custom adaptor. I don't think that it would cost that much, and would make it possible to use a range of filters and an off the shelf lens shade. Am I missing something?

Ronald,

 

Is it possible to order a new shade from Leica ... without being extorted?

 

Of course, if I just have Grimes do a step-up ring, presumably it will solve the whole issue and enable me to use whatever filters I want.

I have acquired an M3 and 90mm lens. I plan to buy a second lens in the 40-50mm

range, possibly the 40mm Summicron-C. I have read several threads about the

filter size and unusual pitch and various workarounds. Has anyone solved this

problem by ordering a step-up ring from S.K. Grimes? Any reason not to go that

route? Also, is there a hood that will fit the lens off-the-shelf, or does this

internet page represent the state of the art :)

http://myweb.lmu.edu/sshepherd/Summicron40Hood.htm

 

Thanks

Given that it sounds like you are talking about doing professional work and given your references to travelling and renting equipment, bear in mind that some systems are much more common in rental houses than others. Also, you might consider 6x9, especially since you are talking about renting a digital back.

I would suggest that you consider a rangefinder such as a Mamiya 7 were it not for your statement that one of the things that you want to do is portraits. If you are talking about head and shoulder portraits, you can't do it with a Mamiya 7 without cropping. Otherwise, a rangefinder would be worth looking at, especially since you say that you want to use the camera handheld 90 per cent of the time.

Thanks, I'm familiar with the Rangefinder Forum and APUG (which has a rangefinder section), the others are new to me. Much appreciated.

Given your subject matter, you might find it useful to have a look at Julius Shulman's Photographing Architecture and Interiors and McGrath's Photographing Buildings Inside and Out.

 

For general principles, I like Stroebel and, despite the concentration on nature, Dykinga.

I have acquired a Leica film camera. Apart from this part of photo.net, what

are the major fora/forums for users of these cameras?

 

Thanks

John,

 

I probably should have added that if you look at the tables on the Schneider site, you will see that the smaller apertures can be particularly useful if you are very close to your subject. In fact, they can make the difference between getting a good shot and not getting one.

"... why do my 150mm lenses go to f64?"

 

"What kind of application requires such a small aperture?"

 

You choose the aperture based on how much apparent depth of field you want. Suppose that you are using a 4x5 camera with your 150mm lens and you are five feet from the subject. At f8, your apparent depth of field will be about .55 feet. At f32, your depth of field will be about 2.27 feet. At f64, it will be more. When you compose the photograph, you should choose the aperture that will give you the apparent depth of field that you want. You are in charge, or should be.

 

Of course, there are other factors to take into account when you choose the aperture. You may prefer 2.27 feet of apparent depth of field, but maybe the exposure will be very long and you don't want to worry about reciprocity failure. Or maybe it is a windy day and you are taking a photograph of a flower. Do you want to freeze the flower, which means a short exposure and therefor a fairly large aperture, or do you want to capture the flower moving, in which case you want a longer exposure and therefore a smaller aperture? Do you want maximum sharpness, in which case you may want to use one of the apertures for which the lens is optimized. Or is sharpness not a major consideration?

 

Personally, if I decide that my composition requires f32 or f45 or f64, I take the photograph and the hell with diffraction :)

 

You might find it useful to look at these tables: http://www.schneideroptics.com/info/depth_of_field_tables/index.htm

 

You might also try taking some photographs at f32, f45 and f64 just to find out what they look like. The experiment will only cost a few sheets of film.

 

Cheers

Ahhh, I posted before seeing Mr. Huff's reply. Perhaps he can elaborate on the process that his Main Photo is using.

I was just looking into this myself.

 

If you do a search here and at www.apug.org, you will find discussions about trying to develop Agfa Scala oneself. The discussions are not encouraging.

 

I gather that you are in the US. As far as I can determine, there are currently two US labs that will develop this film:

 

http://mainphoto.com/services/agfa_scala_film_processing.htm

 

www.dr5.com

 

DR5 uses its own proprietary process to made transparencies from Scala and other black and white films. In other words, it is not Agfa's process. I have seen conflicting statements about whether Main Photo's process is, or is not, identical with the Agfa process.

 

One caveat to this. Duggal in New York lists Scala processing on its home page. However, there is no price list for it. So perhaps they still do it, perhaps they don't: www.duggal.com

Ahhh, not quite the same thing as paparazzi and ageing actresses: http://www.harpseals.org/helpstop/dayofaction2007.html

 

:)

Jump ship in Victoria, spend a week on Vancouver Island, and rent a car for the wonderful drive through Washington State to Seattle to catch the plane back. Make sure that you have a telephoto for some of the stuff that you'll see in that area, such as eagles and killer whales.

That was my whole point in saying that the markings are not absolutes and that one needs to find, based on experience, one's own interpretation of them.

 

Saying that apparent depth of field is "largely mythical" and that one shouldn't "lose sleep over [it]" strikes me as going a bit far.

 

In both cinematography and still photography apparent depth of field plays an important, and controllable, role. In feature films, it is a major factor in the look of the film.

 

I believe, you may disagree, that paying attention to lens markings is a really good aid in learning, to the point where it becomes second nature, how the lens will behave as it relates to apparent depth of field across all apertures. Also, the original poster has expressed, in his profile (and indeed via the photograph in this thread), an interest in street photography. If he gets to the point where he wants to try street photography without using the viewfinder, knowledge of apparent depth of field is essential. That knowledge is also essential for any photographer who is using a camera that does not show apparent depth of field in the viewfinder, as, for example, the Mamiya 7II that I use myself.