rjjackson

thanks for the info so far.

 

i have a good friend with a hexar af. this beast has been haunting me ever since i have seen what it can do. in fact i can say that this camera is what inspired me to start shooting small film again. but alas, the hexar is too big. i carry a hassy kit with big tripod, and 35mm is really a second priority. also, i have an ae-1 and eos both with 50/1.4 for when i need a reeeally fast lens. small/light matters. i need this camera in my pack pocket, and not around my shoulder... basically i like the XA but but can't use it wide open.

 

i have looked through the flickr groups but found very few specifications about fstops and, as you point out, these images are very poor lens tests as such. i will say, though, that a quick look through flickr is very promising in low light.

 

gary, thanks for pointing out the iso limitations. i read this in th specs but somehow overlooked it. do you have any scans of lens tests handy?

howdy,

 

i am about to buy a flash, but before i do i would like to get an idiot check from you to make sure i'm on the

right track. i would like to buy a Metz 45 CL-4 and use it on both film and digital cameras for indoor/outdoor

fill/bounce, etc. right now i do not own a good speedlite but i have access to (and have done) borrow or rent

just about anything. i want only one flash unit (i will borrow a speedlite for backup when absolutely necessary).

 

the film camera will be a hassy 500cm with 60 and 150. the digital will be an xti or 5d, or whatever comes along

down the road, with typical lens configuration for events/portraits (and both seem ok with voltage sync up to 250v).

 

since the cl-4 is an apparent marriage with the 500cm, i am mostly worried about working with this flash on

digital. for my digital, i have experience wiht studio slaves, 580ex, a manual ez flash (which was very easy to

use despite the warnings against it), etc. i am reluctant to buy an ex speedlite because i was not terribly

pleased with the strange angle of light for portrait shots and i think it will be a severe compromise to use on

the hassy. the slight off centered position of the cl-4 will give me roughly the same angle of light for

landscape or portrait shots.

 

i understand from the archives that it's possible to use this flash on digi cameras, but nobody seems to

elaborate on how convenient it is. how about metering? will the cl-4 and DSLRs work well together? is the CL-4

my solution?

 

thanks,

 

rj

hi all,

 

so i am considering buying a contax t (original rangefinder version). i would like to hear from users and see

examples from this camera shot open at 2.8. i'm not expecting magic, i just want to have a clearer idea of the

results wide open since i will very likely be using this at 2.8 or 4 with b/w film at iso 800 or 1600 nearly all

of the time. the archives are full of descriptions like "superb" etc. i am sure it's amazing at f8 1/500 while

basking in the sunshine, but so is every other camera i own, even my 1938 645 folder and XA. i need something

very fast, quiet, small, etc, that i can rely on in difficult light for serious work (whatever serious means).

 

any help with be great.

 

best -- rj

hi greg,

 

i have used a few folders and i think your leak is coming from the latch on the side or from the springy spool sprocket thing. in sample strip 1 image 2, your leak follows a pattern that indicates the light entered where it was still wrapped around the spool but exposed to open air inside the camera (the space between the spool and the mask leading to the bellows). is the frame bent in any place? can you post a picture of the camera with the back open? check very carefully around the spring that holds the spools tight and where the latch or hinges are. welcome to soviet fotography :)

michael -- that looks like a tree climbing puppy. didn't you know they are friendly as could be? jk, nice capture and it looks exciting to be so close to such a mysterious animal. also, forgive me, i didn't read through all of your post the first time and didn't see your suggestion for trying out a long lens as well. so anyway, i agree with you that it's a good idea and opens up more possibilities. besides wildlife, a long lens will do a good job at mountain tops, moon/horizon, etc.

hi ryan,

 

in general i encourage my friends to try out all sorts of equipment and often i loan them bits i am not using to get a sense of what matches their needs.

 

maybe your question is really whether it is worth it to rent a wide angle lens to see if you like shooting wide angle? if so, then i think you certainly should. a small (relative to the price of the lens) fee for a few days of use is a far better way to find out that you don't like shooting wide angle than laying down cash you could use on other equipment, later to go through the hassle of reselling it.

 

while you are at it, rent a long lens as well. with all three in hand, you will have no (technical) limitations in isolating and capturing your subject. after your trip you can assess your interests and later reconfigure your approach and make an appropriate investment when the time is right.

 

also i would agree that super wide angle is a very difficult way of working, but rewarding when you accomplish what you set out to create. don't be too discouraged if your results at first don't meet your expectations.

 

in my dissatisfaction with regular wide angle lenses, i have been building pinhole cameras capable of extremely wide angles, somewhere around 130 to 160 degree angle of view. as i see it, there is no better use for these than as landscape cameras. and boy, do they capture it all -- even more than i can imagine. to begin, i would suggest (if you are looking for suggestions) concentrating on near-far relationships. maybe i need to try out the 38mm biogon. anybody got a spare sitting around :) ?

 

rj

hi nicole,

 

i have something to add about your question about over exposure. but first, is this dslr your first digital camera after experience with film?

 

overexposure with digital can be a little complicated. in short, blown highlights are gone for ever and, in my opinion, do not look appealing in digital prints. the most efficient way to control your highlights is to constantly watch the histogram on your screen. make a quick test shot before that special moment shot and if you are over or under use the exposure compensation button to add or subtract a half or full stop for that critical moment shot.

 

in very contrasty light, you may simply be forced to decide to blow highlights, but generally i think it is not a good idea. for example, on the one hand, in the (excellent) suggestion to shoot under a tree in the shade, any direct sunlight peering through the leaves will result in uncontrollable blown highlights. on the other, if you are shooting with the face in contrasty direct sunlight, your meter may get confused and meter for the shadow while blowing the highlights on the face. in this situation you would be wise to stop down a little and expose for the highlights. (here your photoshop skills will come in handy for making an apparently more balanced exposure).

 

i want to reenforce the two best bits for you so far: shoot in indirect light, use a good speedlight (minimum) with bounce or fill flash (not direct flash). rent one and practice if you can't afford one. i would also like to add that shooting digital increases the tendency to make many exposures. abundant memory is no compensation for taking the time to think through the basic mechanics of composition and exposure. if it's not right the first time, think about what you need to change before making another shot. depth of field? perspective? etc.

 

good luck

 

rj

<div></div>

hi daniel,

 

i think the main reasons to use fast lenses are to have more options with low light and depth of field. for portraits, a long fast lens will let you narrow the DoF more extremely than you might for street shots. also, if you need the kind of sharpness achieved by stopping down one or two stops, the same logic would follow with your f4 lens. so you'd be shooting at 5.6 or even 8. as such your control of DoF is reduced, especially on crop factor digital bodies.

 

you mention that you already have a 50/1.8. on a crop frame, this is a very capable portrait lens with some patience and practice. when i use digital equipment for portraits (rarely), i use a 50/1.4 on 1.6 crop at f2.8. this combination is only awkward if more than one person is in the picture or if i need to include more of the torso. for head shots though, so to speak, it works very well. if i were to rely on digital for portraits, i would use an 85/1.8 because this more closely matches what i'm used to in med format.

 

ciao

<div></div>

canon ae1!

 

also, you might consider finding a club or social gathering where you can handle lots of cameras and get a feel for what will suit your needs. or better find someone who might loan you an old clunker and shoot a few rolls of film through it. it won't take long to determine what specific bits of kit you will need. as others have said, the challenge will be to isolate your target; acquiring the tools is the easy part.

 

good luck

rj

oddly, i just made a rough calculation yesterday that i could buy film and chemicals for 6,325 frames shot on 35mm b/w for what i spent on my last digital body. i shot less than half that number of frames through the digital body it replaced, and ended up with far fewer "usable" images than when i think with a film camera in my hand. ok i know my results are anything but scientific, but it amuzed me.

 

manu, my best suggestion is to commit to the process you enjoy most and that suits your needs best. they are so different. dodging and burning with film is done with your hands and tools you cut out by hand, and so on.

 

that said, i have two suggestions. a sony/zeiss-lens p200 (or whatever is current) i found to be a fantastic compact digi. for compact film, look at a contax t2 or, if you have a bit more budget and space to carry, a g2.

mike,

 

i agree with what others have said. digital editing is completely different. try adjusting contrast in photoshop and learn about layer masks and dodging with a gradient tool.

 

i am curious, did you use a filter? it looks as if maybe you had a light yellow filter and the jerseys were blue (just guessing). perhaps a green filter would have separated the values of the grass from the jerseys a little more?

 

rj

i have a 208 as a backup and have experienced the same problem. i believe the needle collects static electricity. it has happened to me around heat mostly, and goes away after i get away from the heat source (halogen lamps).

 

let me know if you find a solution.

<div></div>

hi rachel

 

what focal length are you using? the suggestion offered by charles for a longer lens will allow you to decrease your depth of field. it might be interesting to have an extremely short depth of field where you isolate one narrow plane of the airborne drops and suppress the surrounding environment into a blurry background. so a long lens (200m) with wide open f-stop (small number) and very fast shutter will give you just a small collection of frozen drops suspended in a blurry background. as i see it, with the waves and drops both sharp, they compete for attention. also i like the suggestion for trying to get lower to the ground, with some of the drops going above the horizon.

 

good idea -- keep working at it until you create what you see.

hi david,

 

just a note on your question about EV. the exposure value corresponds to a combination of ISO, F-stop, and Shutter speed. an EV will give you a range of possible options on a scale that all yield the same final exposure. (from adams, exposure = intensity X time). so for a given EV, if you were to increase shutter speed one full stop, you must decrease aperture one full stop to give the same exposure. to increase your EV by a factor of one, you must increase either intensity or time by only one stop (not both). so if your EC works in 1/3 increments, you must move it three notches (not one) in order to compensate for a difference of one EV.

 

here is a real world example. outside right now my meter gives me EV 15. so at ISO 100, i may pick f8 and 1/500. (a rare sunny day in kiev!). with your r-60 filter, i would be decreasing intensity by a factor of one. so my new EV through th filter is 14, and i must change my shutter, for example, to 1/250 while still at f8.

 

hope this helps.

 

rj

hi mariam,

 

i think if you are looking for specific suggestions it would be very helpful to give some idea of what your objectives are with the camera. small and light? big with many options? you also didn't mention whether digital or film?

thanks everyone for the feedback. based on your suggestions, in the end the decision was between the ef-m and rebel X. i went with the X since, i reasoned, if i'm determined to use manual focus explicitly i'll dust off the ae-1. keh should be shipping it shortly.

 

best -- rj

thanks for the replies so far.

 

puppy face: with the split screen added to a 600-series, will the auto focus still work well?

 

i think small and light is a higher priority than autofocus for what i have in mind, but i have found the auto focus, at least on my 50, to be a little frustrating, and was hoping to have a convenient manual focus option included for shooting wide open. the 600 is looking like a good solution if both auto and manual work with the split screen.

sorry, i meant "clumsy access to manual exposure", not "manual focus".

hi all,

 

i want to throw an EOS film body in my bag. can you suggest a small, light, and

inexpensive body that works well with manual focusing? the choice it seems to

me is between the elan and rebel. apart from "clumsy" access manual focus and

exposure comp, why is the rebel a poorer choice than the elan for shooting an

occasional roll of 35mm?

 

(for reference, i have long used an ae-1, but now use digital EOS with 50/1.4,

17-40/4 for work, and numerous all manual medium and large format cameras for

pleasure).

 

thanks much,

 

rj

hi dora,

 

as many have suggested here, the reciprocity departure of your film has a much greater impact on the exposure than the exact f-stop and will make it very difficult to over expose your images with pinhole photography, within moderation. sometimes i use a red or 2x ND filter for even longer exposures and my experiments have shown that with some (traditional grain) films such as neopan and fp4, the difference between 1 minute and 4 minutes in flat sunlight has very little effect on stationary highlights. remember also, you can always add or subtract a little development to control your highlights.

 

rj

clint,

 

i picked up a very small and robust certos rangefinder unit for a song at a market that i keep in a little bag with a small hood and 32mm snap on filter for the ikonta. while accurate, i found it very cumbersome to use this device in close quarters. if you need to use this camera for portraits or rely on a focus closer than 3 meters with open aperture, then i think the rangefinder unit might be useful for you. but if you're out in the sun at f8 beyond 5 meters, i think it won't be so useful.

 

rj

hi russ,

 

i have a 520. i have found that a small amount of leather cream very lightly applied will help to keep your bellows supple. there are myriad suggestions for patching up pinholes in the event that your camera develops one. i have had some problems with static and dust inside the body. i found that a bit of anti static spray and a good brushing out keeps this under control. it appears that one of the light seals is losing fibers, i am considering whether to replace the seal, but i probably will not since it doesn't leak light.

 

if you go into my site, you'll see under "new" some shots with aspect of 6x4.5 are shot on this ikonta. the focus for nearby subjects is rather fussy unless you have a rangefinder handy to get an accurate distance reading. otherwise i love shooting with this camera. it comfortably fits in my back pocket. i never use the viewfinder and hardly ever take a meter reading. the focus has been the challenge for me using this camera.

 

 

 

let me know if i can help

 

rj<div></div>