brianam

<p>Tom, I have a Fujinon W 150mm, the single-coated early one. It's maybe not the most contrasty lens I use, but it's solid. It can cover 5x7 with a small amount of movement, which is why I purchased one. Note that if you're looking for a newer model Fujinon, those are commonly referred to as NW or CM-W.<br>

But as far as what lenses to get started with, not sure why you'd want a 150 if your interests are landscape and portraits? A normal lens is "neither here nor there", as it were.<br>

As some folks mentioned above, you may be better suited with a 90mm (or at the most 135) for landscape , and for portraits a 210mm or longer. FYI a 300mm on 4x5 is roughly equivalent to a 90mm in the 35mm world; 210mm on 4x5 works out to about 60mm. (using angle of view on longest dimension.)<br>

good luck.</p>

<p>If you want maximum portability, a folding MF camera is ideal. But it does come at the expense of interchangeable lenses, and ease of using filters & accessories. I have a Fuji GS645 folder, the older bellows model. Had it serviced and it works great, really sharp 75mm lens. Though it's admittedly a quirky choice.</p>

<p>Also have Mamiya 7II's and a 3-lens kit, and a Fuji GS690III. Totally love these, but I've found them much more comfortable on a tripod. (esp. the 6x9) YMMV of course. Though, unless you're willing to use 400 speed films, or you only shoot in the brightest light, you may find yourself worrying about camera shake as you stop them down. The concern for which of course grows with increasing frame size. I've seen posts for years on this forum suggesting that you can handhold an M7 down to 1/15 or similar. Personally, with only 10 frames on a 120 roll (8 on 6x9), I'd rather just mount it, hand meter the scene, and spend the extra time getting the shot right.</p>

<p>the later years of Olympus OM cameras also meter off the film. OM 2N, 3, 4. Might've come before the Pentax LX? Longest auto-exposure is likewise 2 minutes I think, though the OM 4T might've be 4 minutes? eithwer way, pretty awesome really.<br>

Like you I loved that capability, but low-light photography, or infrared or other long exposure -- at some point gets impractical with an SLR. I moved to MF rangefinders, now using an M7II and Fuji 6x9. even Holga :-)<br>

The 7 is great for long exposure, and has a bulb setting unlike the Fuji's T. <sigh>. <br>

But, as another reply said, you really should use a handheld meter. I use a Sekonic 508 most of the time, and a Gossen Luna-Lux when the light is getting really low.</p>

 

<p>Brian, I asked a similar question a couple months back. see the replies at: <br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00TDL8<br>

Seems like the recommendations here by Godfrey and Lex on those exposure tables would be useful as well.</p>

 

<p>Do the Horseman RFH's work only on Horseman cameras?  or can these be used on other Graflok-standard cameras as well?   e.g. SpeedGraphic?</p>

<p>thanks everyone for the replies! <br>

Bob - good point, hadn't considered.  And, i have a Sekonic L-508. love it, use it all the time. but low-light sensitivity isn't it's strong suit. Heard that a Gossen Luna Pro (old one) might be the trick?  true?<br>

Bill - thanks for the dpreview link.  as a film photog, I've never looked there. :)</p>

<p>the Zuiko 85/2 --especially the MC-- is a great lens. Keep it by all means. if you're starting a kit around it, you may want to consider 24/2 or 24/2.8, 50/1.2 or a 50 macro, and 135/2.8 at the long end.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>is there a compact digital camera on the market that can make Time or Bulb exposures? <br>

I'm a film photographer, but I'm considering buying a small (I hope) digital to use as a lightmeter. I know that many digitals get some sensor issues with long exposures (mine are ~15 seconds to 15 minutes), but I would only be hoping to judge adequate exposure when there's too little light for a meter.</p>

<p>Is there a compact that would work, or would a DSLR be required for this?</p>

 

<p>Welcome back to the OM fold. :-) I own and have used these lenses (for close to 10 years): 24/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, 50/3.5 macro, 85/2, 100/2.8, 135/2.8, and 35-70/3.5-4.5. </p>

<p>Of all, the 35/2.8, 50/1.2 and 85/2 are far-and-away my favourites. The 50/1.2 and 85/2 are both outstandingly sharp, and the out of focus areas are just beautiful. These are the best Zuikos primes, along with the 90mm macro, and 100/f2. </p>

<p>The 35/2.8 isn't all that razor sharp, but that's sort of it's charm. there's a butteriness about it...it's nicer than the 35/2.</p>

<p>My 35-70/3.5-4.5 is for sale here on pnet if you're interested. It's a fine lens like others here have said, I just don't use zooms at all. It's in great shape...I think I used it once after getting it from KEH in EX grade.</p>

 

<p>does anyone know whether this film (Rollei IR) can be scanned by airport X-rays?<br>

I'll be traveling soon, and hoped to bring along some IR films in both 35 and 120. I recall that HIE could not be x-ray'd ever ...and of course couldn't be exposed to any light outside the camera. </p>

<p>by the by, per the original thread: I've found a happy place in using this film:<br>

- in my rangefinder cameras (retain normal composing/focusing with the IR filter on!) and<br>

- assuming an ISO of 12 (w/ R72). I've given up on hand-holding. At 25, I hoped I could still shoot this on-the-move, in hand. But it was still underexposed at least one stop. Down at ISO 12, it's tripod work only.</p>

Miguel, I'm adding another vote for scanning C41 B&W. I know you've already dismissed this, but consider:

1) The use of ICE can be no small matter sometimes. Say you've just returned from a long trip, and need to scan & cleanup a large # of films...all that spotting is just *daunting*. scratches are a killer too. ICE can be a real saviour.

2) If 400 ISO is an issue, maybe toss on a neutral density filter? I've not minded the extra 2 stops. quite handy generally.

 

I shoot Ilford XP2 and love it off my Nikon V. I've scanned many silver B&W's (FP4, TMX, APX100,etc) and for me nothing scans as clean as the C41 black and whites. Those films, and the great color slide stock still on the market have kept me shooting film.

plastic & toy cameras are just so much fun to use, they epitomize the sense of "let's see what comes back" about traditional film shooting. like the shot you posted, I've landed on using my Holga for B&W films about 90% of time -- the chromogenics (XP2, 400CN) work great and scan well. i've found color print films to be less interesting somehow (unfortunate since they're much cheaper in 120) but a cross-processed roll of slide is always fun here & there.

 

The Diana camera seems to have been recently reintroduced, at prices almost 2x of a Holga. anyone used one of those yet? any reason why a Holga shooter should get one of those as well? are they worse? :-) i.e. plagued with *more* vignetting, light leaks and warped lenses then the Holga? one can hope!

Mathew, I'd say the 50/1.2 is worth its cost. It's probably my single favourite lens among the dozen or so OM primes I use. Its bokeh is wonderful, and it's stupidly sharp. I scan my slides on a Nikon V and the 1.2 never disappoints to be among the sharpest work. In OM lore, I think the 50/1.2 is only equaled by the 90/f2 macro, and the rare 100/f2 portrait.

fantastic!

- Opened, it looks like a Fuji 645 folder, supersized. I own one of those Fujis, and have to say that a metered, folding MF camera is a wonderful thing. Do wish it took filters more easily.. but that's a concession.

- Closed, the top deck more closely resembles the Voigt 35mm RFs.

 

it's a knob winder? kinda funny...

this may qualify as a start-aleck answer, but: Travelling + 6x7cm film = Mamiya 7. Not an RB or GS-1.

I should think the concessions made going by rangefinder vs. SLR *for traveling* are worth it. ...just a thought.

an important, but yet unmentioned corollary to this question is whether those of you using the 64-bit versions of Windows take advantage of their broader app-addressable memory space. As in, are some of you using XP64 with 8Gb or more of RAM, and working on very large PS files?

say, medium or large format scans of high-resolution? or heavily-layered files?

 

that's where this really drives to, right?

Yes, I second the above request for more info!

 

Though, if a person is looking for easy change of 120 formats and pinhole, Zero Image sells wooden pinhole cameras that go anywhere from 6x4.5 to 6x12. viewfinder is a little lacking on wooden pinholes though ;-) . score one for modified Holga.

My recent experience may help you: I just rented a Fuji GSW690III a couple weeks ago, to try before i purchased. Afterwards I decided that, while the 6x9cm neg sounded great, since 1) the usable negative is more like 6x8cm, 2) the lens isn't interchangeable, 3) it could be lighter & smaller, and 4) it doesn't come with a light meter, that I'm going with the Mamiya 7 instead.

 

I've rented the Mamiya many times before, but i didn't take to the 6x7 dimensions; I'd prefer something more rectangular. Given all of the above though, I'll take the Mamiya and a couple lenses, and if i want a different proportion I'll crop or I'll get a 6x12cm back for 4x5", or a Fotoman 612.

Cheap? $300 for a used 50mm lens doesn't seem cheap, but the 1.2 has always been for a select audience. Prices seemed to have fallen last year at some time.. recall seeing one or more on KEH for lower $200s. But i think they've moved back up again.

 

I bought my f/1.2 years ago for night walks out around the city steets...i have a dozen zuiko primes and this is honestly my favourite. It's stunningly sharp past f/4.

 

Few photos outside the 35mm-85mm band ever "work" for my eyes, so what a great thing olympus made awesome lenses at those lengths, and points in between! :-)

A la Stuart's reply above, here in San Francisco I just rented time on Nikon 9000 at Adolph Gasser. It's $30/hr, but 1/2 price on the weekend.

Robert, yes i too read that here on the wonderfully-useful photonet forums. and... it didn't work. I've wrapped a section of 120 backing paper around the pressure plate, and it appears that HIE still is getting light bouncing back through it. (?) confounds me, but since HIE ain't cheap, I won't any longer fool with that and will find a smooth plate somewhere. the responses have been helpful, thanks all!

Really want to shoot some more Kodak HIE -- but the dimpled pressure plates in

any of my four OM bodies just ruin this stuff. Worst affect is in a blank sky.

 

Anyone know a source for the flat plates?

 

Alternatively --and I speak heresy now-- I've considered trying out one of those

much-loved cameras from other makers, like a Nik*n, Can*on or C*ntax. ;-)

Are there any bodies from those makers to avoid when using infrared?

Concur with the above replies on the hand-holding feel of fast Zuikos. I don't have a 90/2, but of the Oly lenses i do own (10?) my favourite is the 50/1.2. Mostly becuase it feels "just so" in the hands.. well and it's stupidly sharp. :)

 

I have a 85/2 and 100/2.8 and really don't use the 100mm much. Mine's a silvernose (shouldnt matter) but lacks drama that the 85 brings. I guess "drama" in my usage translates to contrast.

Sounds like those of you who own the 90/2 say it has all that contrast plus increased sharpness? Woah, sign me up!

 

Regards filter sizes, i bought a few 49-55 step-up rings and every filter i use is a 55mm on a stepup, with a folding rubber lens hood on the front.

interesting there's such an array of feelings on that lens here! I'd always heard it was somehow inferior, so i've stuck with a 35/2.8 which is my most-often-used lens outdoors. The 50/1.2 is the next.

I probably really want a 40mm, but don't want to pay the price commanded by the collectors. Anyone here have one they'd like to offload? :-)

Ah, using 120 backing paper to cover the pressure-plate dimples?

Great tip! that's a better idea than what i was going to do my OM-1: black electrical tape with a little bit of photo-flo.

And when I'd take that tape off one day, coulda been a sticky scene...