Jump to content

larry_hensley1

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by larry_hensley1

  1. I vote for a 20 mm lens. Down the road, buy a used body with the features you want and keep your current camera for a backup.

     

    <p>

     

    For landscape photography, a very wide lens truely opens up a new dimension of photography. Some people take time to adjust to the angle of view, for other landscapers it's intuitive right away - like taking the blinders off.

  2. Thanks for the good information. My primary interest is landscape photography, both color and B&W. I'm looking for locations close to the Canton-Akron area for morning and evening shoots, but expect to take weekenders within a few hours radius.
  3. Hitchman's guides cover a single area while each Photo Traveler newsletter covers several, usually unrelated subjects. Both publications can be helpful, especially for a first time visitor. The risk can be the temptation to rush from site to site as described in the guides without "seeing" in your own way.
  4. After 11 years of use, I concur with Mr. Cheng regarding the versatility and ruggedness of the Pentax 645. The meter is very good and seems a cut above most MF systems on slide film, IMHO. The lens DOF markings seem to be calibrated to produce the sharpness level required for an 8x10 print, so for greater enlargements set the hyperfocal distance and use an aperature 1 or 2 stops smaller than indicated.
  5. I agree with Henry that the only physical differences between 120 and 220 film is the paper backing and length. The convenience of 220 with Velvia is irresistable for me (30 exposures of 6x4.5cm). If you switch films frequently, from B&W to slides etc., with only one back, the shorter 120 rolls may be a better choice. 220 is more prone to fog, but rarely is this a problem in practice. Larry.
×
×
  • Create New...