mr._kenny

i have both a 34mm tube marked pq -- works great with the 90mm -- and a 17mm tube not marked pq -- pretty useless as stated above -- and it works fine too.

steinar, get the 16mm tube, you will be very happy with the extended focal distance.

bashir, the 2x teleconverter is not a very good performer. and you will have a heck of a time getting any light to the finder at the apparent f11 apeture. forget a microprism center -- too dim! i'd get a 1.4 extender and lose just one stop, or trade your 5.6 and get the f4.

a plaubel makina 67 -- although i've never owned one i do like how that camera goes about its business!

hey patrick, good to see hear from you again, i've been in audio hifi land lately -- what a bunch of whiners!<br />

for me when i want portraits and i have some time, i reach for an slr. i find rangefinders in tele lengths and close distances just too hard to get right -- i shot a 75mm summilux recently, and the lens is... well great... but not what i would choose. i would choose an eos 3/85mm f1.8 (f1.2 is impressive no doubt, but it's slow slow slow and heavy! like medium format lens heavy!) the 135.2L comes out on top too, you can use canon's excellent 1.4x extender on it, it's now a 180/2.8, which i think is a handy length with a tube. this is what i shoot in medium format, a 180mm f2.8 with a 1.4x extender, and adding a 17mm ring to get in close. works for me. <br />

the thing about portraits is i so prefer medium format, it's not even funny. 35mm slrs are a great choice for their length and speed, both exceptionally cheap for what you get, but they just don't have that same smoothness over 8x10. if you're ever out here -- come on by, you can shoot my rollei yourself!<br />

 

all the best my freind,

 

kenny

the birdman of sacramento is one hell of a photographer!

if you are a microsoft office kinda guy, i think most web hosters can use your front page- built web pages. the pages are pretty what-you-see-is what-you-get, and the software has some handy features such as site cataloging and site mapping, both of which will help you with the maintenance and usability of your site. <br />

for free hosting, you really should read the fine print very very carefully. you may not own your images on the site. and if i'm not mistaken, photo.net is very much like this -- you surrender your copyright when you upload to photo.net. <br />

 

good luck,

be careful too if you are using an old lens and a condensor enlarger, you could decement the lens with the heat.

big yello's digital products are surprisingly easy to use and give a decent snap. the UI on the cameras i've used is good, eye relief in the little pos viewfinder is ok and the cameras hold well with one hand. a lot of them come with the docking cradle. and they are cheap. and some come with schneider optics, which kick a**. i'm happy to hear of their successes with the digital stuff, their film has almost never let me down.

cameron, i know you are aware of this fact and that this thread is about the owners of the lens who are equally aware of the facts, and i am not dismissing your photo <i>because</i> of it, but man, if i had a lens that flared that bad with two candles on a table, i'd ebay it.

not silly at all charles, a very practical thing to memorize for a color photographer.<br />

i'm starting to fear i'm memorizing the wrong facts about cameras -- dates, rarity, exclusivity -- rather than useful ones.

i was thinking the same thing al. a very intelligent use of dollars, i might add, his nikon gear supplementing is leica (or vice versa) rather than the old round-hole/square peg dillema a lot of leica folks get into.

dan, you state many good points, but the gist is: if the panasonic is built on the same factory floor as the leica, would you pay more for the leica? how much more? this camera (panasonic) is not going to be cheap either, i wouldn't be surprised if it were $1000. much cheaper than it's leica badged twin, but not cheap nonetheless.

another vote for red-color news soldier. stunning -- especially the cultural revolution imagery.<br />

my favorite book published last year was the reprint of willam eggleston's guide. # 2 was los alamos, also by eggleston. david douglas duncan's book is good, and cheap for a photo book.

acutally kodamatic was decided to be a copyright/patent infringement, and kodak was ordered by the courts to discontinue the cameras, the film and rebate anyone who purchased said items. the film itself was fine, the tools were fine.

i have a 35 lux and the 135 T-E, and i feel like i'm a one lens guy, the T-E stays at home unless i specifically know i will be using it. <br />

if you held a gun to my head and said "pick another lens" i'd have to go with the 75mm lux, moreso for the thrill of the unknown than for actual use. for head and shoulder snaps i use a reflex camera. plus it's damn expensive for what it does and its ease of use.<br />

the 135T-E's f4 is pretty good, but it's still about 1 stop too slow to really work for me as a portrait lens, and the 135-E is not an option. but for shooting distant things, it's fine. i bought paul N's 1.25x mag to increase my keepers with that lens, but i don't need it at all (using a .72.) <br />

you can get one for stupid cheap right now, it's a thinking man's travel tele. the 1.5m minimum focusing distance sucks on ice, though. make sure you get a hood, they can add $50-100 to the price.

digicams are point and shoot cameras, no better no worse. it's pretty depressing, isn't it?

</center>

what can i say my freind.... if you were shooting out of the bottom of a skippy jar it would come out great. your composition is great, i really really like the 'surreal atmosphere' one, fantastic!

great moment neville! it's a little dark on my CRT monitor.

hi carla,<br />

the best way to use your meter is to get a gray card for about US$5 from your local photo shop -- sorry i didn't catch where you were posting from. angle that about 45 degrees away from the light source towards your camera right where the subject is seated. you may want a bigger one, count on spending $10. <br />

bracket your shots, working 1 stop over, one stop under and one on the money. take the best one, and note if it's the over exposed, under exposed or right on. write this down, it's very important to understand how well your equipment works in a given situation. also keep in mind that your camera's spot meter is not all that tight, it's probably around 5 degrees at best. totally useful, but not for exact exposure readings the 3-4 feet away from the subject you're standing from.<br />

i would also suggest you have the subject stand a little closer to the window, you might be able to get a bit more light out onto the film. the result is that the shadows get stronger. further away, the light will wrap around the subject. the number one way to control shadow density in a scene is to manipulate the subject to light distance. even a softbox gives hard (directional) light the closer you pose the subject to it.<br />

i wouldn't fool with a reflector just yet. get the basics of the one-light down, and get a good working arrangement with your subject! this is vastly more important than all the technical stuff.<br />

btw, your snaps are good. a little work will make them great.<br />

 

all the best

so mike, <br />

first off, People Who Post Images get a big ups from me. if you have the snaps and the time to share with us, thank you, thank you very much. and double big ups for printing and scanning paper, not the lazy man's (i.e. me) way out.<br />

it's cool to see your connection with people in the images, kind of the anti-butt shot, if you know what i mean. i feel like i know the people you know, and i don't know the people you don't know either. and your framing is, as usual, excellent. well done, mate. looking forward to the next installment.

you know larry, what you just said makes more sense to me that 99.999% of the stuff said here, my blarg included. <br />

well said, sir.

hello Karel, <br />

the biggest question in my mind about your photographic needs isn't your equipment, but rather your shooting style and your subject.<br />

from your description of your lenses, i'm thinking that you like available light photography, which i am sorry to say isn't all that easy with MF compared to 35mm, both for size of camera reasons and depth of field reasons. if you are looking to get into available light people photography with medium format, you'll use a tripod 90-100% of the time. it sucks, i know, i now use a rangefinder when i want available light snaps, especially indoors.<br />

if you are willing to use/can use a tripod and are careful with your exposure and development, you can go a long way with 35mm gear, farther than you will get handholding just about _any_ MF gear and dropping off your negs with someone else. it's like buying a porsche 911 and driving around on bald tires. certainly there are exceptions, and you can shoot MF handheld very effectively under certain conditions without support, but don't sell short your technique and just make the jump to MF. i was in denial about that point for a long time when i got my rollei, and really the results sucked without the tripod most of the time. it(MF) wasn't worth the effort until i slowed down and used a tripod and really worked on my darkroom skills.<br />

 

of course your photos will be far far better if you use the tripod and the dev WITH MF, but that's not the question!<br />

good luck with all that!

the detachable base/3x loupe chimmney finder rocks. it's the brightest and the lightest. plus you can flip it out of the way for easier waist level use. also you can detach the loupe and use it by itself on slides and contact sheets, which is nice. <br />

the 90 finder is pretty bad, i find, but i don't own one, it's not a prism at all, it's a group of mirrors -- porroprism.<br />

the 45 is cool for using the rollei at eye level, which is sometimes great but always laborious, especially with heavy and/or slow lenses. eat your spinach, the 45 is also far heavier than the other two.

i bought a lo- miles (black paint)lhsa and i have no problems using the s$!# out of it. it's <30 ft. away from me 95% of the time. <br />

would i have paid $2700 for it (close to an MP?) no, but i don't make fun of folks who do. well, maybe the hermes one seems just f'in sybaritic, 'dee-luxe.' <br />the m6 is a damn good camera, that's all i care about. if you think so too, great.