michael_bizon

"Still, photography as we've known it is a dying beast"

true, and yet I wouldn't trade any of my outdated euipment for anything "latest and

greatest". I guess it depends on what you do for a living, and how you view your images.

If technology allows you take some great images from a moving vehicle, then for most it's

a wonderful thing, I still prefer to stand in one spot for a long time, waiting for the light to

get just right, sometimes I have to go back to that spot a few more times. My life is

frantically paced already, I enjoy the slowness of my euipment, it allows me to pause for a

moment, and take a breath and focus.

Definately a sharpness issue, the 24mm f2 nFD uses "all spherical lens elements" 9 groups

11 elements, whereas the 24mm f2.8 nFD uses "select optical glass" 9 groups 10

elements.. I mainly use the 24mm f1.4 'L' for field reasons, but I believe the f2 is just as

sharp. And as Mark pointed out, the 24mm is always used. Good Luck!

You must be in Oregon, cause I haven't seen the sun here in months. Pulled out my B&W

kit for the effects. I went through Death Valley the other week (to Vegas) on my way back

to Oregon (Grey!) and noticed that some flowers were already coming out! (Hope!) There

is no such thing as " used up subject matter" just used up "attitudes", find something that

compels and work it through! The images you create should be for you, and you alone, if

and when you feel you created something unique then please share it..

Depending on where you live, the Lowepro Dryzone Rover is a great pack for wet weather.

It's a little more than $100, but it seals the gear completely from the elements, that's why

it comes with it's own hydration pack on top with room for more gear or food. Access isn't

too bad, as with most packs it has it's ups and downs. I use this primarily for day hikes

when I know I'll be hiking for awhile. I'm 6'2", so it your any taller then this pack may get

a little small (they make only one size) but so far it's been good for what it is designed for.

And since I'm in the inclement weather alot, I'm happy to know my gear is fine.

I'm not sure if there is anyone who sells RRS, I ordered directly from them, and I'm glad I

did. Fastest shipment I've ever seen. I haven't seen prices anywhere (including Ebay) that

are less than ordering from them. They recalled my PCL-1 base, they found that there was

a lesser quality bolt inside of it (not all, just certain dates built), they sent me a UPS label

and off it went, back in a few days, had I purchased a used one? My Contax might be

lying in wreck on the ground. For the money, I would gladly deal with them again directly.

Good Luck, and Happy New Year....

The Kodak backs run upwards of $3000 to $5000, they're around 16mp. To head up the

ladder to 22mp or beyond, prices start at $12,000(used) and head into the stratosphere

from there. "I never mastered the 645 film" The beauty about MF's like the Contax 645, is

it doesn't care which back you have on, ie: 120 film, 220 film, B&W, Velvia, digital, etc. etc.

You would still have to know the camera's system to use any of it. At least the model you

have can be set in fully automatic mode. If money is no problem then; Phase One, Leaf or

Sinar backs are all top dogs. Good Luck! and Happy New Year.....

I use the BH55, but I've looking into the BH40 for weight savings. The thing that sold me

on the RRS system is the PCL-1 base, this item with the L-bracket opened up new worlds

for me, and with my Gitzo mountaineer, the overall weight isn't to bad for strenuous hikes.<div></div>

I remember when William Ackerman finally added a voice to his music, he had a difficult

time with the move, finding a voice that could compliment his music. Turns out his music

complimented the voice..

Trust Mark's advice, unlike the F1's (new or old) which can easily be removed, the A1's

(AE1, AE1p etc. etc) are alot more fragile. I took one apart to clean the finder and screen

and almost ruined the set-up, use air, if not then send it off! Good Luck

the Canon Lens book shows the fdn 200mm f4 with a 52mm thread. the newer FD lenses

were either 52mm, 58mm, or 72mm, good chance you have one built for an older lens.

The 135mm f2 is a great lens, on par with the "L" series, one of my favorites and I tend to

grab it more than the 85mm f1.2. It's also as heavy as the 85mm, so if weight isn't a

concern then this is a great lens to have in the quiver.

The Canon Lens book claims it uses 52mm threads, however I doubt you could use a

polarizer with this lens. I have one sitting in a box somewhere, I'll check it out, but if your

looking to keep a zoom of this focal length then I would say the 35-105mm f3.5 is the

ticket.

I have used both lenses, still have them both, but I shelved the f2 one. why? mainly

because it doesn't have 72mm threads like my other lenses. I always felt as far as image

quality went both were on par with each other, but for some reason my "L" lenses tend to

hold up better in the field? The "L"s downside is their price and weight.

Sarah, good luck with the camera's metering system. I think Pete has explained everything

there is about it, however, when in doubt, go ahead and bracket! it may cost you more in

developed pictures, but it also insures that you'll get the best image, and that's what it's

all about...

Ashwin, The F1 is one of the best bodies ever made! and the glass for it by Canon is

some of the best! nothing wrong with a simple and proven system..

good point Mike!,

it's irrelevent for me to answer who produces a better photo.

and as I have said I have received an answer to my posted question, many answers in fact

for there to be Substance in the Digital World, all one has to do is type "Control P"

so a photographer with a camera spends an hour composing an image and takes it, are

they the same as a photographer who captures the image in two seconds and spends an

hour in photoshop to make the image presentable, ? at some point graphic design starts

to come out, and for all it's worth, is way more than I know and I don't for one minute

pretend to know much about the subject. Am I less of a photographer??

This subject could have been presented better by me, as John said: My OT could have been

better. There really isn't an easy answer to the important questions here either, (that's

why it's a philosophical remark) in hindsight I really shouldn't ask any of this at all, the

answers are right in front of me and asking a group who is so steadfast at their own

systems and opinions, it's hard to gather momentum and move forward. Each one has

their own thoughts, it's a bummer since so many hold the same passions, and yet due to

the technologies they hold in their hand, they have already lost the important part of the

question?

maybe I expected a little too much out of this group, but instead of stimulation it's full of

ridicule, and childish remarks.

I have found many to help out, but even they are reluctant to say much do to the

harrassing members who stand on a high box.

INTELLECTUAL HONESTY is what it's about, and not many could add some of their own?

well then there isn't much to talk about is there, so far it's been a waist of my time, and no

matter if it's digital or film, it's something none of us could afford!

So thank you to the members who provided positive insight, the rest well!

and by the way Brad I clicked on ya: and I hope you make alot of money selling pictures of

a Fat Man lying Face Down on Concrete, cause that wasn't art! keep telling yourself it is,

I'm sure Jeff is!

choosing digital or film is not the moral question (not for me anyway) .

It's more along the lines of if I sign up to digital photography, then I also sign in to the

technology industry, computers, hardrives, scanners, copiers etc. etc. the list is endless,

and for some of the systems if one goes down-your shut down! It's questions like that I

have, that started this rambling in the firs place.

thanks for all the inputs

Phylo concerning music, and I agree with you on it, you cannot hold music and also

music is one of the few arts that aren't based off the eye, culinary being another big one,

smell and taste..

In retrospect, of entering this question into the philosphy forum, it is truly difficult for me

to describe the kind of question I need to, (I posted this late last night, should have went

to bed instead). For some I believe it's easier to follow the path,( because all the cows are

heading there that means the pasture is greener) but I constantly have to step back and

decide on the outcome (it's not a bad feature to have in photography), (but a terrible one

to have when communicating to other photogrpahers)). I'm not worried if I do digital or

not, it's more of a moral question for me, I couldn't step into the arena until I gathered a

little bit for information (not techno crap like reading a manual) but about the difference in

mind sets, for I do believe we as a race are furthering ourselves from the natural world, am

I willing to take another step away from the physical one??

With a Piano, a mistake is easlily heard and everyone in the room will know. With a

photograph a mistake is subjective, their opinion or yours. Both are hard and never

ending to master.

God! your reducing me to your level;

First off your extremely disrespectful, when you constantly "quote people saying" then

hand them back a negative counter-statement. Teachers in grade school do that, so you

must think we are all a bunch of children.

Second I doubt you ever hear anyone hammering at you, because It's doubtful you ever

slow you own opinions long enough to hear anyone else's.

And third oh forget!

Jeff thanks for all your wonderful input, you have been extremely enlightening in this

philosophical conversation. I'm so glad I posted such a simple question that a chimp

could figure it out.

Thanks Fred,

I am new to this group, and I'm sure my remarks can stir up some conflict, but at the same

time I respect other peoples opinions. However I'm not new to photogrpahy, and I am

constantly improving my technique to capture the image the best way I can.

Apparently talking about technology and the future is something that gets many people

going, I get constant hammering among my peers about leaving film behind and going

digital, maybe I will, maybe I won't, but I can't make a good argument for or against it

unless I try it. I hate hipocrites (especially if I'm being one).

Thus the digital substance, I view photographs as a substance (art) so do many people,

how have they made the transition so easily, what were some of the clues, going from

negatives (transparencies) to j-pegs and raw files, entering the technology world, from

the craft point of view, I'm just trying to understand that's all, I'm sorry if I haven't gotten

exactly the right question out, but I will keep at it.