markdeneen

<p>Charles - -<br>

Yeah! I am a newbie to the XA, and have only had mine a month or so, but I am seeing the beauty of this little gem already. I really like that it is so small it doesn't draw attention out on the street. I have gotten some excellent results with mine and I am taking it more and more as my pocket camera.</p>

<p>It's funny, I guess, but I never would have even considered carrying a camera like this a few years ago. I considered them all "junk." I was obviously ignorant of a great little camera. I also enjoy my Canon AF35ML, although compared to the XA, the ML is huge and bulky.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm just saying: stop telling me about how one of these two is <strong>better</strong> according to you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Wouster, but people have personal preferences over everything in life. And that includes everything from cameras to cars. Did you read the OP at all? It's just like the thousands of other posts where someone says they prefer MF cameras, or they prefer Nikons, or they prefer prime lenses, or they prefer Photoshop, or Rodenal, or McIntosh, or ball head tripods, or leather camera cases, wide angle lenses, or Fuji, or Tamron, or Zeiss. Do you make the same comment every time someone expresses their preference - "Stop telling me how wide angle lenses are better for you! I'm a photographer!" </p>

<p>I think forums aren't for you Wouster. Because that's what people do on forums. They post about THEIR interests in the subject matter, and their interests includes their preferences. You have to ask yourself Wouster - why are you posting at all in <em>this</em> thread? If you don't want to hear about people's preferences STOP READING AND POSTING, right? What is compelling you to keep reading posts you don't like? Now, you understand why people refer to your attitude as "defensive" - right?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Matt-<br /> Just keep digging and spinning Matt - it gets funnier with each twisted explanation you attempt. Now we have an "ironic homage" too? Good grief - can we get any more pretentious here? Matt - that sounds ridiculous and foolish. Please, stop yourself, will you? I don't want or need an apology from you. And If I need to relax?-- I'll just come back here and laugh at your failed attempts to flaunt Shakespeare. And, as for your new affectation of being "exasperated - *sigh*" - I beg you to say it aloud to yourself and hear how insufferable that sounds.</p>

<p>I've told you before Matt - address the <strong>content</strong> of the posts and we will get on just fine. Say anything you like about the content - that is what the forums are for. I'll answer accordingly. You could have (and should have) said anything about the content of my post. You could say it wasn't funny. You could say it was dreadful, boring, pointless. All of those are fair comments about the content. But you chose instead to accuse me of being disingenuous by commenting directly about my motivations, my person. Matt, it is exactly as if you wrote, "You are a liar, Mark." And you can wrap that in any pretentious disguise you like, including "ironic homage" and it's still the same attack. Do other people let you get away with this crap?</p>

<p>No one else made posts like that Matt. No one but you. No one else ever does that, except you. Are you seeing the pattern there Matt. You are an abusive character, attempting to hide it behind lame excuses - "It was just a joke" - "I was being sarcastic" - "You're being defensive" - "It was an ironic homage". All just excuses made after the fact to cover what is simple abusive posting.</p>

<p>I will tell you now for the third time in the last couple weeks: My character, my motivations, my mood, or my reasons for making a post are not appropriate subjects for you to comment on. Get it? This is not the <em>Psychology Today</em> forum, or the <em>Freud</em> forum, understand? If you won't learn that forums are not your playground for attacking people, I will spank you hard every single time you do it. I've paid my money here too, and believe me, I don't have any intention of putting up with your condescending affectations and abusive posts.</p>

<p>Well ok Brad. Now you made yourself more clear. It isn't that posters here have no business being interested in film, it's that <em>no one</em> can be interested in film, not even a 20 year professional! </p>

<p>Well, I think people, besides laughing, are simply ignoring your protestations Brad. People are shooting film, people do enjoy it, people do think it gives a look they prefer to digital, and therefore some of these people are going to write posts about their choices, their experiences, their cameras, their oh-my-God-dare-I-say-it "media," and their emotional perceptions about soul, and depth, and liveliness.</p>

<p>Will everyone present objective data for each post? I hardly think so, Brad. I think this is an opinion forum, isn't it? Words like authentic and alive and less distracting are subjective propositions, just like good tasting is subjective. I'd hardly expect this to be a scientific forum with hypotheses and proofs and theories abounding.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently acquired a Yachica A and then moved "up" to a Yashica MAT. I really like them a lot. I found it quite easy to remove the hood and ground glass and clean it all up in there and WOW - what a difference that made in VF brightness and clarity. I've never connected any kind of strobe or flash though. Good luck!</p>

<p>Chuck - nice!</p>

<p>Pretty neat! The pictures for my eye lack a little contrast. Are these right off the scanner? My scanner is too flat and I always have to add some contrast for the right DR. Nice shots though.</p>

<p>I've taken many pressure plates off many Canonets. Notice that just one spring clip has a horizontal slot. The others are all vertical. I raise the whole plate up with my fingers to stretch the clips a bit. Then I use a needle nose to pull the right front clip back wards until it is out from under the pin. You can now easily rotate the pressure plate clockwise to release the left front clip (the one with the horizontal slot).</p>

<p>The clips are spring steel and intended to take a lot of "curve" without changing their basic shape. So pulling up and bending it back JUST ENOUGH to clear the pin works every time for me. I've done about 6 of them.</p>

<p>It's only one roll of film. I'd get another roll of simple B&W and load it carefully indoors and then go in the back yard and take 12 pictures, and then go inside and properly unload and take it in for developing. Short story - try again! For all you know the lab goofed up, right? Make another try for $3.</p>

<p>I wonder if Robert Caldarone is looking for some reassurance in this 2009 interview here on photo,net.<br>

http://www.photo.net/learn/film/interviews/robert-caldarone</p>

<blockquote>

<p>RC: Yes, without a doubt. Film sees the world in much the same way our eyes do. There’s a resolution film has that you’ll never get in digital, its ability to capture subtlety: all the beauty and color tones found in the human skin, and reproduce them three-dimensionally, with a naturally-shallow depth of field. The ability to control depth of field in my beauty, portrait, or fashion work lets me smoothly focus the viewer’s attention where I want it, and can be easily manipulated at even the highest resolution. Nothing offers more depth than film. Unlike digital capture, it will never leave you flat. - <em>Robert Calderone</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>RC has a lot of interesting things to say in this interview. It was quite a good read. He - a veteran professional - also seemed to indicate that film was "more alive" looking than digital, but you know, I am sure he's just a another boring crank looking for reassurance or comfort.</p>

<p>Jim Douglas--<br>

Can you describe some aspect of the hoax, without you you know, naming names? What's an example? I think I understand hoaxes like "Windows", but I can't say I've ever heard of this angle on photography.</p>

<p>Here's some interesting discussion about Ilford films (circa 2007):</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Given all of which, there is every reason to view the future of film with optimism, albeit on a different scale to that which it enjoyed just a few years back. Now that the industry has recognised that rather than competing for market share, digital and film have each settled into their separate, though often complementary, niches, they can be viewed as parallel markets. As far as anyone can anticipate future market trends, it seems that film in general will be with us for some time yet, with black and white maintaining its own dedicated following.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Source: http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/14778/black-white-film/</p>

<p>PK - -<br>

Great info! Thanks. I probably will experiment some. I am very happy that the frames don't begin to overlap - that would make it useless. As it is now, they creep a bit, and then realign! Odd, huh? And so far, I have only used one kind of film. So, I might be in for other surprises! Thanks again for the input.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Almost every guitar amp manufacture now makes cheap low wattage tube practice amps.....snip.,..I doubt anyone would have thought that would happen 5 years ago. I would not be suprised that the younger generation is starting to pick up film cameras and views them as something cool.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tube equipment never disappeared in either the musical instrument category, or the home audio category. All major MI manufacturers still make tube equipment at nearly every economic level. In home audio, by far the most exotic products are super high-end tube amplifiers, which can cost into 5-figures easily. There are 5 or 6 plants in Russia, Eastern Europe and China still making vacuum tubes. (A great many owners of tube amps also listen to vinyl LPs on turntables that can cost $20,000, and even much more.)</p>

<p>There are a lot of parallels between that anachronistic niche market and the film camera argument. Not surprisingly, there is the same level of shall we say <em>tension</em> between the camps of the CD and the LP as sometimes appears here with digital v. film commentary.</p>

<p>With vinyl v. LP, oldsters simply held out against the "bad sounding CD", and then youngsters began jumping in around 10 years ago. It's a well documented phenomena that has been written about quite a bit. With tubes v. transistors, again oldsters never gave them up, and that got supported by many musicians who prefer the tube sound.</p>

<p>Thanks for reminding me about this very similar phenomenon Stuart!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Shun Cheung-<br>

Here's the first remark you posted to a question of why these threads exist: <em>"Because some people feel uncomfortable and need re-assurance." </em>There's absolutely nothing in the OP that suggests he is either uncomfortable or needs reassurance. Nothing. He says in fact, "Now, I'm a very content owner of a Bessa R3M." Sound uncomfortable to you? Is he asking anywhere for reassurance? Your comment is a brush-off and abrupt dismissal of the OP because you don't think this topic is right for the forum. Your comment is sarcastic and adds nothing positive - that's crystal clear. It's a <em>defensive</em> remark protecting your own interests, and immediately discounting the interests of all others. How much clearer can it be?</p>

<p>Notice how many posters ARE interested in his comments. In spite of your attempt to utterly dismiss the topic, people are avidly responding to it, because it IS interesting to people. The forum category is "Casual Photo Conversations." I read the rules of this category, and I see nothing wrong at all with the OP putting his post here. You have a "+10" flag by your name. Maybe after 10 years you no longer have interest. Here's the simple solution: don't read such threads. If you see something you don't have interest in, what's wrong with just passing it by? Aren't there also brand new people on this forum? Is it possible they have never read any threads about why someone like film? Is it your specific job to determine for each post what is interesting for everyone else?</p>

<p>Now, in this post you declare "unfortunately, the OP is focusing on the wrong thing." Really now? You are judging what every poster ought to focus on? But ok, let's say that is your motivation - - then why not suggest that in your FIRST post to the OP? Why dismiss him with that defensive post?</p>

<p>There are hundreds of threads here about <em>cameras per se</em> that aren't necessarily about "improving photo skills" directly. Are you going to go to each of those and castigate people as "needing reassurance and comfort" when they darned well out to be "improving their photo skills"?</p>

<p>As for giving anything a rest - - is that your call too? You decide when people have said enough? I usually find that means a forum member is assuming he alone is always entitled to the last word. Is a few more posts going to "break the server?" Isn't it generally held common sense that when <em>you</em> are tired of it, <em>you</em> stop reading it?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I could also quote several other posts you have made in the last week if you would like. They pretty much show the same attitude.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Marc Bergman,<br>

Well obviously we'll have to disagree then on what is <em>defensiveness</em>, and was is an exposition and critique ON defensiveness. I am sorry you don't discern the difference, but I can't change anyone's basic interpretations of writing, can I?</p>

<p>I would invite you to read the OP again, then read responses #1, #2, #4, and #5. In other words, 80% of the initial responses were fairly hostile, and defensive for no good reason. Pay attention to the initial responses of Wouter Willemse and Shun Cheung. I think anyone will realize those are high defensive remarks. <em>After reading those</em>, I made an effort to understand why they are being made. That was my commentary on the defensiveness.</p>

<p>I think those are very poor and unhelpful responses to a very innocent post. Not that those guys don't have the right to make them - they surely do, of course. But, I have a similar right to comment on them, and I did so.</p>

<p>I thank you though for drawing attention to the issue of <em>false equivalency</em> which is burning like a fire throughout our society.</p>

<p>Professor K- -<br>

My frame spacing is not dead even. On one roll it is nearly consistent at .25" or so. On the other roll it ranges from the .25" to just touching edge-to-edge. No overlap, but just touching. The lab I send it to had no trouble scanning it. I think it depends if I "tighten the wind" right after loading. I may not have done that on the first load.</p>

<p>The meter seems to work fine. But in the 2 rolls I have shot thus far I just used my handheld meter for all exposures. I probably would never use the meter as it isn't coupled and I prefer an incident reading most of the time. Which means, I will be carrying my meter, so why not use it?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"People who use digital get all irritated when other people start talking film."<br>

"There's something though about film oriented threads that puts the digital boys on the defensive to a very obvious degree."<br>

Yet in reading the rest of these 2 posts one could easily see who is irritated and on the defensive.<br>

I use both. I like both.<br>

Here is a completely digital image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Marc Bergman--<br>

Since you quoted me, you are therefore referring to me. I'd like to suggest to you that reporting on a story is not being the story. In other words, my reporting of "defensiveness" isn't the act of being defensive, any more than reporting a robbery makes one a robber.</p>

<p>Defensiveness is people who come into the thread and say, 'Why are you even talking about this? It is boring! It makes no difference!" That's what I was commenting on.</p>

 

<p>Real world film.<br>

When I shoot outdoors on the street I carry 3 cameras so that I don't need to change lenses. I had my pocket-able 'Nikon OneTouch' (probably a sub $100 camera in the day) and I caught this.</p><div></div>

<p>Real world film. This was a couple weeks ago. I used a new to me Zeiss Super Ikonta w/Ektar film. I love the detail, clarity and romantic color rendition. This was processed and scanned by an outside service. This is exactly what was on the DVD back to me.</p>

<p>EDIT: Oh yeah - I loved using this 1953 camera. It is made wonderfully and is just darned fun to use.</p><div></div>

<p>Update: These expert comments have been a wealth of valuable information. Seriously, this has sorted out a million questions for me on Leica. I thank all you experts for taking the time to sort out the fine points. I am saving up a bit to get a nice example of what I finally choose. Much will depend on whether or not I will just do the 35mm lens, or if I will go down to the 28mm too. I have other RFs so I have a lot of range right now. I think it will depend on what kind of Leica lens I can best afford to mount. I want my "Leica rig" to be really top-top notch - not just an average example, so the glass is really what I have to solve. That can really cost some dough! I'm probably looking at two months before I have enough saved for this, as it gets more expensive the more I learn! Thanks again.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why do we need so many threads underlining the difference in recording medium?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why do we need so many threads underlining the difference in _____FILL IN THE BLANK____?<br>

How's this for an answer: Because it is what people are interested in. How many threads ask about the differences (which are miniscule) between the latest Canon digital box versus the latest Nikon? it's virtually endless, and why? Can YOU tell the difference in pictures between a new Canon 18MP box versus a Nikon 18MP box? Of course not. And yet, people keep having threads about it! Go figure, huh? If you've seen one kit zoom lens, you've seen 'em all. Does that stop anyone from asking about them? Of course not.</p>

<p>There's something though about film oriented threads that puts the digital boys on the defensive to a very obvious degree. Suddenly there is a host of "hardware and media is unimportant" comments, but look at the number of hardware and media posts just on this Forum! To hear these comments, you'd think everyone out there had the same little generic black box with unknown innards and pictures just magically came out the back end.</p>

<p>Hmmm? Anyone here visit the MF pages lately? LF pages? Rangefinder pages? Go to a museum or gallery and check out the photography section. How many pictures are B&W and how many are color? And yet, how many digital users shoot pictures in B&W? Not so many, right?</p>

<p>Well, it certainly isn't as simple as "it's just media." It's not just media. It's cameras and lenses and film grains and chemicals and physical processes ("workflow" for the digerati) and expectations, and emotions and history. Does anyone simply reach into the closet and grab whatever box is handy - - Oh, ok, I grabbed a digital. Oh, ok, this time I grabbed a film box. Anyone? No, of course not. Do you walk into the store and say, "Give me a media box for taking pictures!" Of course not. They execute distinct preferences, and then they operate on that preference. Taking pictures with film is necessarily going to be different than with digital. Isn't this dead obvious? So, why on earth wouldn't people in a "photography forum" have a lot of chatter about these differences? What is making digital users so utterly defensive? THAT is the question.</p>

<p>Why not simply pass those threads by? Where does the impulse arise to jump in and say, "It doesn't make any difference!" The existence of the threads alone is proof that it obviously DOES make a difference to some people. Are they less important for that decision?</p>

<p>What do you suppose would be the reaction if every film person jumped into every Nikon v. Canon latest digital box thread and yelled, "It makes no difference - bits are bits!"? My guess is it surely doesn't make a difference, but I would never think of jumping into that thread and making that statement. How is Film v. Digital less important, less useful, less interesting than the age old Nikon v. Canon debate?</p>

<p>The photographic industry needs hobbyists. Without hobbyists it is dead, gone and buried. Perhaps a company or two would survive to make digi-capture boxes for professionals. Hobbyists enjoy spending time doing and talking about the hobby. Why discourage this? Why this snooty attitude that such threads are a bore and ought to go away? If you don't like them, why on earth read them? And why comment?</p>

<p>The history of photography is thus far written on <em>film</em>. If anything, there ought to be MORE film v. digital threads, not less.</p>

<p>Tony - I hope you post some pics when you get it back. I think you will like it. I am taking mine out this afternoon again if the light holds!</p>

<p>here</p><div></div>

<p>Graham--<br>

Both of mine were 6 x 6 models. No, the lens isn't interchangeable.</p>

<p>Ray--<br>

It is a HEAVY camera. About 1.4kg. But it works very smoothly. I did have to study the film loading carefully, and there is a little odd switch on the top deck you must engage in order to get the proper frame lock to engage on the first wind. Once the film is in, this is a easy camera to use. The rangefinder is coupled and the patch is very easy to line up. Focusing is a breeze, and feels very precise. The aperture and shutter speed are set on the outer lens dials. The shutter cock is also on the outer lens dial. There is a meter on the top deck, but of course it is not a coupled meter. I don't bother a bit with it, I use a hand held incident meter.</p>

<p>The camera features double exposure protection, which is really GREAT. My previous Ikonta did not and I usually managed at least one double X per roll. Is it smooth? Does a bear poop in the woods? This thing is GERMAN and although 60 years old it is tight and smooth and precise. I am no expert, this is only my second Ikonta, but you often here people say the Super 533/16 is the best folder ever made. I am really looking forward to fun with this camera.</p>