brian_nelson5

Besides 35mm rangefinders, another (pricey) candidate might be in medium format, such as the Mamiya 7. It has an

almost silent leaf shutter in the lenses, and can be used both in manual and auto modes. The shutter is battery powered

and the meter takes its readings from a small area just below the center of the frame. The camera is roughly the size of a

full-frame DSLR, but probably weighs less, and the lenses are not massive either. A roll of 120 film yields just 10 large

exposures, which means that you won't have to make 36 exposures before developing your film.

 

Also, there are just a handful of amazing lenses to choose from, which although not cheap, compare very favorably with

high- end 35mm choices.

 

It also depends, however, on one's artistic sensibility. Mamiya is almost clinically precise. Being able to mount Soviet

lenses, and whatever other fun things out there, could point towards the M-mount lens choice universe. Heaven help me

with that one!

<p>Thank you, Julian, it's not every morning I wake up to being considered quite in that league based on my having not been deterred by the complexities of the x100's menu. Your encouragement is refreshing. Whether comfort with the menu system is due to any degree of ingenuity or talent, let alone intelligence or hard work, however is far from the case. Closer to the point, it's likely more the experience of some truly awful menu systems in combination with feature overload, and incomprehensible owners' manuals. I'll refrain from adding any more sarcasm, however. :-)</p>

<p>I have to wonder about the intended purpose of the individual mode ISO settings as well. However turning auto-ISO on and off is not such a huge inconvenience once the exact position is the settings is memorized. I'm leaving it on as a result to give it a try for a while and see what it can contribute.<br>

In general, assuming the camera is as durable as the swiftly outdated digitals that clutter my storage, this one promises to be useful for many years due in large part I think to its relative simplicity and versatility. Just as with quality film cameras.<br>

Possibly, the reviewers were covering their posterior parts by mentioning as many things as they could in order to ward off the inevitable, merciless thrashings they would suffer at the hands of the nitpicker brigades. The snarling tone of discussion boards would have brought forth an even more violent torrent of invective. Experts would have assailed each others' opinions, and launched personal attacks, with venom, if not biting sarcasm... </p>

<p>Prediction? Moi? I guess Nikon and Canon won't want to cut into their sales of high-profit mass produced and very popular, and capable, equipment. But with iPhones coming on strong in the P&S side, maybe they'll have to do something different.</p>

<p>Prediction? Moi? I guess Nikon and Canon won't want to cut into their sales of high-profit mass produced and very popular, and capable, equipment. But with iPhones coming on strong in the P&S side, maybe they'll have to do something different.</p>

<p>That there are shortcomings to be found in the x100, is a fair statement, and the price is pretty steep unless having a fine viewfinder and simplicity of operation are priorities. I decided to order one to see for myself if it was going to be worth it.<br>

Before the x100 arrived, though, it turned out to be good idea to have read the DPReview article, and mainly the appendix (!) which lists all the various (and justified) criticisms. It tipped me off to the pitfalls, and helped to learn how to use the camera with less difficulty.<br>

Good things have been reported about the camera technically; no need to repeat them. Nontechnically, the experience of using it is like seeing through a rangefinder, as well as a through-the-lens, and in addition, the playback and menu options can be seen inside the viewfinder so that the LCD screen on the back needn't be used. These features work remarkably well. In practice, the viewfinder system is more effective in the sun or in dim light, or darkness for that matter, than any camera film or digital I've looked through. There's little or no need to look at the camera to operate it, after some practice. It's a relatively simple camera (the manual is not thick and full of fine print). I liked using the camera almost instantly. I never warmed up to any of the digitals I've owned--Nikon, Canon, and Olympus--none of which was cheap, all of which were frustrating. <br>

Hooray for the little guy.</p>

<p>After one day, I can see this camera is fun to use. A fine companion to the MF rangefinder and Holga, and just right for making digital negatives for alt process. <br>

Suggestion, however, before running out and buying one, take a look at the DPReview piece, that lists an appendix of things that are illogical, mysterious, or stupid, about which much whining is to be heard. Some of it, is actually funny. (I guess I'm referring to the whining.) About the camera's shortcomings: so what? There's workarounds. <br>

Oh, but that viewfinder...delivered as promised, more than I'd hoped for...great in the blazing sun, as in the dark of night...and it even takes a screw-in cable release.</p>

<p>This site provides lots of resources to get going on night photography both film and digital:<br>

http://www.thenocturnes.com/resources.html<br>

I've had the best results so far by using a small digital camera to approximate low light exposures. And I do mean approximate, because I haven't found exact correlations. My Pentax digital spotmeter has not proven to be of much use to me after twilight.<br>

For black and white, I've used Acros 100 because it has very little if any reciprocity effect. But, an exposure that works on a digital camera for, say, ISO 100, f8, 5 seconds may not work in film if a high contrast situation, as in a mixed-lighting street scene. I'm finding that this film may require twice the exposure time as my digital camera for comparable settings.<br>

That film is very fine grain, which may not be the look you want. Maybe a very high speed film will work better for you.<br>

With film, you may need to expose for the shadows, and to avoid losing detail in the highlights, especially urban situations, shorten the film development time or have your lab do that for you. Another method might be to use a compensating developer, such as Diafine, if you do it yourself. <br>

A wide aperture will provide very little depth of field, so exposure times will have more effect on one film vs. another in order to offer more flexibility in that department.<br>

No matter what, making records and keeping track of them is very important. A digital camera can also have a recording function so you needn't carry an extra light to see what you're writing.</p>

<p>I want to eliminate the risk of broken glass if a picture frame falls to the floor, and am considering the use of acrylic sheet instead of glass.<br>

The cost of museum-grade acrylic glazing is prohibitive, and the prints will simply be kept in a low-UV environment or displayed intermittently. <br>

Does standard acrylic sheet damage photographs from outgassing any more than archival? <br>

Can acrylic sheet be treated in some manner to adequately reduce dust build-up from static charge, and also not create an additional outgassing issue?</p>

<p>A willingness to crop is the price of admission to rangefinder-land, but the payoff is the rectangular format. The tools are both phenomenal. <br>

I suggest, go out with some cardboard with square and rectangular cutouts and see if one format feels more natural to your sense of composition.</p>

<p>I decided on a Mamiya 7. It's a mixed bag of nuts, all these advantages/disadvantages. In addition to things already mentioned, you may want to give some thought to how the camera feels in your hands. The controls and layout are set up like 35mm cameras. To focus with a rangefinder is a different experience than through the lens. Although the Mamiya 7 is bulky, it is light and you might (or might not) have better luck hand-holding it or leaning against a tree or rock instead of carrying a tripod. It's worth a thought if you plan much hiking. Might also compare how well you see through the viewfinder in blazing sun and in very low light.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>From the guide number for a particular flash and film speed, calculate the desired aperture based on the distance from the subject (aperture = GN/distance). On the camera, find the right combination of aperture and shutter speed to match the aperture needed for the flash. Bingo - a 1:1 ratio for fill flash.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Edward, I'm following this discussion with interest and do not understand the calculations you are suggesting. Would you mind demonstrating how this calculation works with an example? or more helpful yet, an example with two slightly different scenarios--one in which the foreground subject were 2 stops underexposed, and another in which it were 3.</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>May I suggest that you think of the problem in terms of slowing your Tri-X down to ISO 100? Just mount your ND .6 ND filter, which cuts the amount of light to your Tri-X by 2 stops, to get the equivalent of ISO 100 film. Then set your camera's (or off-camera light meter's) ISO to 100 while the ND filter is mounted. Change it back to 400 when you take it off.<br>

By using the ISO setting in conjunction with ND filters, you can reserve the exposure compensation adjustment even with your ND filter mounted on the lens, for what it's commonly used for--shooting into the light, etc.-- without having to figure everything out all over again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both a Rollei TLR and a Mamiya 7. The Rollei is a lot more compact, might be less obtrusive sound-wise, but on the other hand, it seems to make people friendlier when they notice it, which may not get you the picture you want, but could prevent some aggravation. Other thing is, you can get an idea of what a narrow depth of field looks like both through the viewfinder as well get an idea of it through the help of its detailed and visible DOF scale, where with the 7, you're on your own. The 7's viewfinder is bright, works well day and night. And there are other significant issues in the composition department. Other thing to consider is that the Rollei's controls are positioned differently than with rangefinders and SLR's, and might feel awkward. And then there's the choice of fixed vs. interchangeable lenses. One is an antique, the other contemporary. One square, other rectangular. Both inspire.</p>

<p>What has been only lightly touched on in this thread is the look of film vs. digital prints, and left uncontroverted is whether "normal people" go up to a large print or are content to view it from afar, whether film or digital. Normal? Who's that?<br>

Granted, Photonet may consist largely of more or less well-adjusted, regular folks; but whether "our" own habits as photographers will differ widely from a presumed "normal" mode of enjoying photographic images is questionable in my own observations. And what about the customers' viewing habits, people who are not just casually interested? And not only on first viewing, but later on if they feel like immersing themselves in the image more deeply, as they would after paying for a print. Speaking only of myself, I know that I first look at an image from wherever I may first encounter it whether from close up or afar, and if it's interesting, go in for a closer view or viewings later on. This is most especially true in the case of large prints, because viewing it close up helps to "enter" the space being represented on the flat surface of the print. I'm not referring to technicalities of resolution, but to what it looks like subjectively. Sharpness is important, but I don't feel that is necessarily all there may be to it.<br>

More having to do with the look of the print, and maybe more to the point of the subject of the film vs. digital print: do inkjet printers render blacks with the saturation of photographic paper, in continuous tone? I don't know if the best of them do, so I'm interested in what opinions there are on that, and whether it may be considered a decisive factor for those who like Kevin may wish to explore film photography. </p>

<p>Kevin,<br>

Re using a digital as a light meter, I've been using a compact digital camera along with my MF gear partially to assist with determining exposure, and also to view things in black and white through the digital LCD. I enjoy that. (I hardly print digital images. I'm a recreational photographer and I find working in a darkroom relaxing, even meditative.)<br>

The digital can be helpful in very low light when the spot meter is useless. The readings are not necessarily comparable, however, especially with different types of film and length of exposure. For general daylight, I use a Pentax spot meter, especially in bright conditions.<br>

Although operating two cameras is distracting, and can be misleading, having the compact digital along can be useful as a note-taker and visual diary, and certainly as a way to share images.</p>

 

<p>It's great how this discussion has such long intervals between posts. They were all written before I even had a MF camera. <br>

I have both a Rollei 2.8f and the Mamiya 7ii, and I'm going with that one on the quality front. Admittedly, it's based on short experience in MF, having got a Rollei 2.8f only 1 year ago after returning to wet darkroom B&W printing after looking at some photos I'd taken 30 years ago and decided right there and then, this was for me. But just a few months back, I found out about 35mm rangefinder cameras, which I'd never actually held to my face, and once I'd seen how to focus with one of those, it was all over for the Rollei. I didn't know about MF rangefinders at all. Then I put a friend's Mamiya 7ii in my hands, and just got one right away, which has been wonderful. The ability to see what you are looking at is so much better than off the Rollei screen, even with the new improved one, that it is really no comparison in bright sun or in moonlight. So that gives me a better chance of getting a sharp image right there. The method of focussing with the rangefinder is much easier for me to use than either the Rollei or manual 35mm SLR, and I had to see it to understand what all the fuss has been about.<br>

Whether the lenses are marginally sharper in one versus the other isn't that important to me, although it seems to me that the Rollei has no advantage in the optics so far as I can tell. What matters is composition, and in that respect, the 6x7 provides more capability, even when considering the desirable characteristics of the Rollei screen. When I think of famous paintings, the proportions are usually rectangular, but less so than with 35mm. Generally speaking. It seems more natural to my eye. To get that with a 6x6, it means cropping. With 35mm, it means cropping. With 6x7, I'm getting all the negative to use to get those proportions, so even if the optical quality is equal or less, when it gets to the print, I don't see how the Rollei can produce a sharper one for my purposes.<br>

Probably, the more relevant question is whether one lens vs. the other produces a look one prefers. Maybe the Mamiya doesn't have the charisma of a Rollei, or maybe it's the other way around. Thing is, I find the Mamiya one heck of a lot easier to handle, and I've noticed a big improvement in image quality arising from that factor--i.e., better-looking prints, regardless of why that may be.<br>

On the other hand, the Rollei has an ingenious DOF indicator, and the Mamiya's is deficient. So there is one easy way to get a sharp vs. blurry picture to keep in mind.<br>

One more factor in the sharpness equation arises from how one holds the camera when off the tripod. I find it much easier to keep the Mamiya steady while composing. When pressing the shutter release, both are very quiet, but it's easier for me to hold the Mamiya steady--even less force involved, and the motion is straight down toward the front of the head, as opposed to the squeeze on the Rollei straight into the belly. If one must shoot handheld, it could make a difference.</p>

<p>On the topic of lens reset when turning on/off the EP-1: go to Menu AF-MF, scroll to Reset Lens, turn off. It still pulls the front lens element back into the barrel, but does not reset to infinity--returning instead to the distance last focused on.</p>

<p>On the topic of lens reset when turning on/off the EP-1: go to Menu AF-MF, scroll to Reset Lens, turn off. It still pulls the front lens element back into the barrel, but does not reset to infinity--returning instead to the distance last focused on.</p>

<p>Good morning, Yoshio!<br>

I still have my CP 5000, and it does take fine pictures...although I have to add that it was a difficult camera for me to use owing to its interface. Very handy, though. In the interface, the G7 has been much easier to use...and it's pretty tough, as proven by the dents on it. And, I can use that wide angle Nikon on it by shortening the Canon lens adapter. Complaints I do have, but I'm not sorry I've had it, all things considered, and now I pass it along to my wife who is more flexible and less fussy. (Not a single complaint in that department! :-) !!) Maybe I get to borrow it once in a while...</p>

 

<p>I changed my mind about the EP-1, not based on anything besides my own preferences, even though the things that bothered me about it when I bought and returned it are still there (shutter, aperture, focus adjusting). So I'll take the plunge again. Why the change of heart?<br>

Two things happened: <br>

1.) I went out on a trip with my ancient Canon G7, and there was a perspective adjustment--same handling complaints, only worse when I stopped to think about it, plus it has the inherent limitations of a small-sensor P&S. A couple of fairly disagreeable ones, I find.<br>

2.) The GF1 came out, and looked great, except that the Jpegs are said to have a color shift, and it doesn't have IBIS, plus, its ergonomics has some issues of its own in the very same respects.<br>

3.) I added one other: the EP-2 came out, and wasn't much different and I don't want an EVF, so, I decided the EP-1 plus the Panny 20mm f/1.7, which happens to match my film camera's view angle, is about as much as I can reasonably expect to have available at this time for what I'd like to be doing.<br>

For me, it makes more sense to adopt the half-full outlook: it's such an improvement over the P&S, and also isn't a big thing to carry around, so the drawbacks just don't matter as much as they did at first.<br>

Regarding the focus reset issue, I agree completely that is not nice, but maybe it's not that serious of a problem unless you are really in a hurry, in which case maybe one might leave the camera on when appropriate and just put in one of the extra batteries you will probably be carrying around with you anyway...that is, sooner than you will otherwise also be doing. I keep thinking: glass half full. :-)</p>

<p>Chris, about mounting foreign lenses on the EP-1, a couple of questions for you (or anyone) who does or wants to have an EP-1 (or now the Panasonic GF-1) to enjoy the virtues those lenses bring to photography:<br>

Assuming the camera is in manual mode, and the user turns a ring on the lens to set the aperture to a given mark, does the camera recognize if that setting is f/1.4 or or f/4? My next question is whether the readings of an external light meter would be usable regardless of whatever lens is mounted.<br>

Also, do you know if the focus markings on another type of lens would correspond the actual distance? Do you (or anyone) know if the magnified zoom-focus system works with foreign lenses?</p>

 

<p>I like the results using Diafine, which in case of mistakes, is better than no results at all. I've been there a few times with some of the others that need temperature control and exact developer times. And, it's practical to take with you on a trip somwhere that you plan to spend some time and want to check on your negatives before you return.<br>

But there are other folks around besides me who like it for what it does well, which is for contrast control. So far, I haven't blown any highlights, so I expose for the shadow areas without too much worry about losing detail in really strongly lit areas in the image. That comes in handy at night in mixed lighting, but it also worked nice shooting into a pond with bright clouds and the sun reflection, while still being able to capture some detail under water. If you do your own enlargements, you can burn in the nearly overexposed areas with a low contrast filter on the enlarger. And isn't it nice to be able to capture, for example, the way the sun looks through a thin cloud, as reflected on the surface of a pond, as well as the detail in the shadows?<br>

It also creates very smooth texture owning to the fine grain, which may be a disadvantage if you prefer to have grain in your images. One other thing is that Acros 100 has little or no reciprocity failure when taking long exposures--like many seconds or minutes--so you can use aperture adjustments to control exposure times the way you normally would in daylight.<br>

So, diafine helps me out in a few ways. Later on, I'll give other developers a try because not everyone uses Diafine and there must be good reasons why.</p>

<p>These responses have suggested some thoughts. Having seen how functional the cellphone touch screen can be, it's not hard to imagine a set of traditional controls arranged on a touch screen that would be convenient to use, maybe even be customizable. (They could even throw in a distance and DOF display to rival the Rollei's.)<br>

The EP-1 rooftop viewfinder might turn out to be useful with the fixed 17mm lens. It's bright, clear, and offers a view of the surroundings. No closed in feeling, or having to aim the camera like a basketball. Of course there is no rangefinder, which would be nice to have. Just for fun, I'm going to take another look at old 35mm rangefinders to see if I might like one of those now. </p>

 

<p>These responses have suggested some thoughts. Having seen how functional the cellphone touch screen can be, it's not hard to imagine a set of traditional controls arranged on a touch screen that would be convenient to use, maybe even be customizable. (They could even throw in a distance and DOF display to rival the Rollei's.)<br>

The EP-1 rooftop viewfinder might turn out to be useful with the fixed 17mm lens. It's bright, clear, and offers a view of the surroundings. No closed in feeling, or having to aim the camera like a basketball. Of course there is no rangefinder, which would be nice to have. Just for fun, I'm going to take another look at old 35mm rangefinders to see if I might like one of those now. </p>