rob_oresteen

<p>Thank you guys for the quick responses. I forgot to menion that Shen Hao makes a 6x17 120 back for it as noted at Big Camera WorkShop.</p>

<p>I can always shoot 5x7 and just use the middle crop of the imgage as well, given there is such a huge amount of data in a 5x7 neg. </p>

<p>Hi all - for a future purpose, I am assembling my pro/con list to either investing in a Shen Hao 4x10 or a Fuji 6x17 / Linhoff 6x17 system.</p>

<p>I get the difference between sheet fed and roll film, 120 clearly being more convienent, however my question lies with the versatility of movements of a view camera vs. more convience of 120 roll media.</p>

<p>Do any of you shoot with 4x10 on a regular basis and if so, do you find the need for movements? Peter Lik shoots with a Linhoff I believe and he apparently does well selling his enlargements.</p>

<p>One reason I ask is that a system from Linhoff or Fuji with a 105mm lens would run around $3,000 to $3,500 where the new Shen Hao 4x10 is half of that at around $1,600. I have a nice Fujinon 210mm 5.6 lens already, so film holders would be the other part of the equation.</p>

<p>I plan some day to make 20-40" prints via a pro lab and or via a Platinim-Palladium method generating digital negs from a printer.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your ideas.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I am a fan of primes over zooms...I frame with my feet as been noted above.</p>

<p>1. However, that therory assumes one has complete control and freedom to walk where they want. If covering a parade or social event, a sharp prime is not much help if it has too little or too <em>much</em> reach (50's are nice, but a 35 up close is really cool, imho :) ).</p>

<p>2. I hear the 100-200 ETRS zoom is magnifico, according to a 30 year pro who used daily for cash-paying customers. She also used the 45-90 with great results. Truth be, that great pictures spring forth from zooms and primes - and if the indian is having a good day, we might find it very hard telling the difference from the two.</p>

<p>3. I assume someone using MF gives up the hopes of traveling light...the thought of making it easier for me because I shoot a prime lens when working MF is not relevant. But the thought of using a lens I know and trust is, size be damned! But, in truth, I think you can shoot the whole world 60% of the time with a normal lens.</p>

<p>I love 'Blads...they are cool. But my inexpensive SQ with the 80 2.8 can hang any day with a 500C/M w/ Zeiss 80 2.8...</p>

<p>20x20 prints?...it's really about the indian at this point fellas...</p>

<p>Sam - I have shot a lot of Ektar and there is no need to worry about it being "unforgiving". It's a great film. You can under over/under expose a couple stops without any repercussons - I imagine you can expose within that range.<br>

I just looked at some Portra I shot. Umm, not so impressed with the color saturation. This is great for weddings and portraits, but not so much in my opinion for landscapes or things.<br>

If it were me, I would shoot in this order:</p>

<p>1. Ektar @ box speed<br>

2. Fuji 400H @ 200<br>

3. Portra 160 @100<br>

4. Portra 400 (new) @400</p>

<p>But, as mentioned earlier, shoot a roll of each and see what you like best. It's worth the test.</p>

<p>Or Velvia 100!</p>

<p>"I would feel bad that the B&G had to scramble to find another photographer"</p>

<p>Why? They do not appear that concerned about their wedding Photography, why then, should you?</p>

<p>The cheaper or free-er wedding photography becomes for the bride, the less your time and talent are valued.</p>

<p>Decline - they can find someone local for $500.00 who will do it on the drop of of dime and give them exactly what they deserve.</p>

<p>Thank you all. I will look into it.</p>

<p>I am a fan of getting a new body rather than spend money on servicing (my brother would wince at this!).</p>

<p>The tinkering I do is to rotate the shutter lock a few times, remove the back, trip the mutli-exposure lever to get it all going again...I never thought about cleaning the contacts on the lens...great idea.</p>

<p>I am sticking with the SQ system and probably will never go the route of a 'Blad. The reason is simple the 80 2.8 Zenzacon lens. I have shot with, and seen many examples of the Zeiss 80 2.8, and frankly, my specific lens is as good or arguably better. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the help, guys.</p>

<p>I have run about 20 rolls through my Bronca SQ. I believe this is the SQ and not the SQ A because there is no mirror lock up feature on the right side.</p>

<p>Anyway, time to time the shutter release will freeze and it takes some tinkering to get it to fire again.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, I have had some blank exposures mid roll, sometimes 3-4 at a time...the shutter cocks fine and releases and advances another frame...any ideas what may be going on?</p>

<p>I know like all cameras it should go in for servicing, but maybe there is an SQ expert that could throw a pointer or two my way.</p>

<p>I am also thinking about picking up a second body, an SQ b or SQ ai...prices are cheap at KEH.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I thought I would post a few from a recent session I did.<br /> 400H shot @ 200, M3 w/Zeiss 50 2.0, @ f4</p>

<p><img src="http://roboresteen.com/hostedpics/027277-R1-27-29A.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://roboresteen.com/hostedpics/027277-R1-34-36A.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>@Dave Henderson</p>

<p>Great point: "Logically thats the same image quality, and 95% of the capability, for half the price. Most of the differences in features are not terribly relevant -to me."<br>

Great point #2: "Exposures longer than 8 seconds will be a real problem, so if you do night photography, or long exposures to blur water-----."</p>

<p>Now that I am getting my feet wet (no pun intended) with longer "water" exposures on the digital side, this would be a consideration.</p>

<p>I have a SQ, planning on building a 4 lens kit, 50, 80, 110, and something longer (any suggestions?), and adding mint condition B & Ai bodies, just to have around.</p>

<p>After I shot with the SQ w/ the 80 last winter, I realized the image quality from the lens was superb...maybe not Zeiss, but then again maybe just as good.</p>

<p>The Leica mystique is not immune to "digital rot".<br>

There is a world of difference between a M6 and say a Rebel 2000 with good L glass, RF vs. SLR not withstanding. Though both can produce excellent photographs, given Leica's overall quality and build, the community votes with it's pocket book and deems the Leica more desirable for what ever reasons, outside of being sharp wide open. But at f4 are things the same? Who knows?<br>

But when it comes to digital, the M8 has a tiny sensor and the average specs to back it up. The new Rebel T2i's and the 60D have superior sensors and image quality. When shooting digital, you can have your M lenses and M8's, I'll take my Zeiss/Contax adapted glass on a BETTER digital camera like the Canon Rebels, all day long.<br>

The M8 may hold in price because it's a *Leica*, but, like anything digital, the price ultimately will drop. It will never go up. Digital is the 800 LB Gorilla even Leica can't beat.</p>

<p>@ Scott - tis true...I'm sure his colors are "correct' - just look at the grass and imagine yourself being there - </p>

<p>I shoot it at 200 for what ever it's worth.</p>

<p>From Rob Skeoch's Big Camera Workshop (<a href="http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp">http://www.bigcameraworkshops.com/default2.asp</a>) </p>

<p>Here's a good example of what Ektar 100 can do when placed in front of great color: http://www.youtube.com/user/thepicturedesk#p/a/u/0/JTdQccBp5mg</p>

<p>I like it and use along with Fuji 400 Pro H as well as E100G. It's all good for me...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Deb, nothing gained by going digital, even the full frame bodies...they just go down in price too soon.</p>

<p>I would love to have the chance to shoot with your Leica kit!</p>

<p>- Rob</p>

<p>I have used a '53 Rolleiflex 2.8C. Optics are classic Zeiss: very good. However good that camera is, you just can't get closer than 3/4 body for portraits. That's an issue for me as I like to crop in tight, or at least have the ability to do so if I wish. But other than that, it is a great camera.</p>

<p>I'm seriously looking at a C330. The prices are next to nothing and Mamiya never made junk. I like the idea about being able to change lenses...deffinately getting a 110 for that puppy - a perfect portrait lens. Weight? Not an issue...since when do we carry around TLR's and worry about percieved conveniences? I actually like the fact they can see me coming with the big-ass "Professional" blazened on the front...all the D90 guys just part and ,make room for a real camera! JK. Well not really, I still laugh at digital shooters (I'm still one) who love the fact they can shoot at 800 clean, especially in bright sunlight, but that's another matter...</p>

<p>I would like to try an Autocord based on everything I have ever heard. Again, nothing like making excellent pictures with tools that at times cost less than most point and shoots.</p>

<p>I still wish I had that Yashica 124G that my brother got me when I was a kid...</p>

<p>Since you can manualy focus consider the Zeiss 85 1.4. You can buy it new with the Canon mount for $1,100.00 or get the excellent Zeiss w/ the Contax mount used for around $650.00 - $750.00 and use an EOS adapter, about $45.00.</p>

<p>I have the latter and the image quality is excellent and the backgrounds can be that creamy, sweet Zeiss boketh your clients will love.</p>

<p>Bob Krist is a well known Nat Geo photog that shoots with Nikon D300 and now D300s...FF is nice to have, but a real photographer can make a great image with anything. Not that these are the very best pictures out there, but they were done with a 1953 Kodak Retina w/ a fixed Schneider 50 mm lens.<br>

Foucus by "guess", exposure by "sunny 16" - <a href="<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboresteen/sets/72157623140587309/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/roboresteen/sets/72157623140587309/</a>">Kodak Retina 1 w/ Fuji Velvia 50</a><br>

If i can do this with a camera that has no auto focus or meter without a bunch of lights going off, you should be able to get outstanding images with your Rebel. Just use good glass and good light, sun or artificial.</p>

<p>Jeez - I'm am going to post blind here...I haven't read Reichmann's letter but if he is suggesting that Leica should include Live View (I actually *sell* cameras for a living and I refer to it as "Dead View") in an upcomming model, I have to respectfully say the idea is moronic.</p>

<p>First off, most shooters think that Live View sucks. Of course, maybe not my 19 year daughter and her friends when they want the 2-3 person group shot, but I am talking about the majority of all good shooters, enthusists to big name pros.</p>

<p>This is why:</p>

<p>1. Slow to focus.</p>

<p>2. Instability of the camera becuse it is moved away from the body, becoming the recipient of exaggerated body movements from extended arms. The best place for a camera is in close to one's body with elbows tucked close to the sides.</p>

<p>3. Harder to accurately compose because of the distance from the eyes as well as ambient light masking out the viewing area.</p>

<p>Live View is a "me too"technology that Canon and Nikon just could leave well enough alone. They should have let "5%" Olympus have their LV (since the E-300) and call it a day. But, they thought it was a selling point to convert the point and shoot crowd over to the DSLR. I can't speak for the rest of the community, but in my store, when LV is mentioned, almost everyone agrees it's a non-starter when they realize what will be involved using it.</p>

<p>Most customers upgrade to a DSLR for one main reason only: speed. They are sick and tired of missing shots as they do with a pns. They want that camera to fire when they see the shot and not amoment to late. When they see how fast they can zoom, compose and fire when the camera is placed up to their eyes, Live View suddenly becomes a very dumb idea.</p>

<p>Out of hundred's of camera sales this past year, LV was the only reason, on one occasion, someone had to have the Nikon D-5000 over the D-3000. Fine, spend another $200.00. They would have been better off with the 35 MM 1.8 for $209.00.</p>

<p>So I guess I might better read what else he has to say, but really, Live View?</p>

<p>The truth is always in the print. Forget what we see on our monitors.</p>

<p>What I believe is that the FF digital bodies with great glass can probably hang with MF capture of the same scene or light conditons.</p>

<p>How ever, for 2 main reasons, the immense capture area and movements of a view camera, 4x5 or larger sheet film in the hands of a good photographer will out class image quality and the resulting print of digital capture by many miles. No need to compare.</p>

<p>The new E-600 is sweet as well. I'm not sure if it can be had body only. I've shot about 100 frames with the 12-60 and image quality is superb.</p>

<p>It would be nice if Olympus comes out with a FF or larger E-5 with lens to match. I doubt they will do it - but they should.</p>

<p>On my 30D, I shoot on landscape set to +3 or +4 and the colors are sweet. Not over the top or muddied as some one said earlier.</p>

<p>I also shoot with a Zeiss 85 1.4 or the 25 2.8 for what ever it's worth.</p>

<p>I took out the new Olympus E-600. If set on "Vivid" the colors are wonderful, rich, and clean. Set to default, they look like doo doo.</p>

<p>I used to be a believer in setting the camera neutral and do everything else in post. Not so much anymore. I typically shoot RAW, try to get it right at exposure and do little as needed (color wise) in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I notice the last post to this thread was 4-29-07, just before I found KR's site.<br>

Anyway, for the most part I have found he advocates what be believes to be the truth as to what is needed to make great pictures. For the most part I agree with him. I am a sales manager for a major camera retailer in the US and I will tell you there isn't more BS about equipment than what comes from Japan or Germany.<br>

Case in point, have you seen the in store poster from Nikon promoting "Vibration Reduction"? It shows a picture of a boy with a diagonal through it. One side is sharp as a tack (of course more than likely on a tripod and lit by a pro), and the other side (the "blurry side") with about 20 PX's of good ol' Guasian Blur added from Photoshop! The lie: buy the Nikon VR stuff and your pictures will look like this (the sharp side).<br>

Now that's a REAL LIE folks, yet, I don't hear many of you complaining about that.<br>

As far as his film vs. digital debate and the approximate linear resolution of film translating to mega pixels in digital, well I have read from many sources who I trust that if a comparion can be made, your every day ISO 200 color film has the equivalent resolution of around 11 MP, Fuji Velvia 50, Kodak Tri-X and some others have the equivilant of around 22-25 MP's.<br>

Of course, this could be debatable, but the larger point Ken makes and I tend to back up with my results, are that film is just as good as digital at sometimes a fraction of the price. Some think is looks better and has a more consistent, faster work flow than digital but that varies person to person. Of, course, any one can make either medium work well for them.<br>

There is a slight trend to use and incorporate film in some shooters bags. Kodak just released Ektar 100 for 120 - Kodak must feel that even though 120 is more niche than 35 MM film, the cost justification is there, even in 120, today, to tool up and distribute a new emulsion.<br>

The only thing I don't like about the "digital revolution" is that many kids today are literally afraid of film and need everything auto, 24/7. It's more about their computers (digital cams) than it is about making pictures. After spending the past 5 years in digital, I am getting back into film. I will always use digital for it's convenience, not necessarily for it's quality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ken -<br>

"If Olympus can produce an ELS-5 with the above wish list, then the C’s and N’s will be eating dust."<br>

I am with you on the wish list though I don't see a huge need for 5 to 7 fps...that to me is not a deal maker or breaker when someone is looking at N/C or Olympus.<br>

But even if Olympus makes the camera you and I wish for, I don't see them breaking the strangle hold N/C have on the minds of most serious amateurs or pros: they need to show up with Canon or Nikon kits or they feel they won't be taken "seriously".<br>

Of course this is bogus to us, but that's the way a lot of them think, images be damned! I manage a camera store near Chicago and I see it every day. Of course I sell 420's and 520's right over Rebels and D-60's, which is fun.<br>

Olympus would need the stature of an Ansel Adams to represent the line to make a serious dent in N/C's market share. It's kinda sad when Nikon has Ashton Kuchar shooting a D-90 and that's all they need!<br>

OK - I'm going way off the reservation here...why not just make a medium format kit similar to the Leica S with a couple great lenses and call it a day? Why not make a 30 MP kit with an equivalent 14-45 MM zoom that rivals the 'Blads and Leaf's but at somewhere around $5,000?<br>

Then why not make a simple but great 4x5 view with 3 good primes?</p>