r_dolfs_putni__1

<p>Be honest to yourself. Is this a present for her or an excuse for you to get a photo trinket? Answering this may save you a lot of hassle further down the road.</p>

<p>And I am not judging you, I've myself have made this mistake a few times. And if I would give a film camera to my girl then it would be a restored fixed lens japanese rangefinder. Canonet or Yashica to name a few. My experience tells me that ladies are more into looks than technicalities.</p>

<p>I think the question might sound more like- "Is there any demand for film photography?"</p>

<p>I am not a professional photographer though for me it seems that there are less and less people who appreciate high quality photography. So please hush me by telling that I'm biased by the place I live in. In Latvia there are some fine-art photographers who dabble in analog capture, but the market for their work is nearing nil. Other professionals (wedding, comercial and photojournalists) just say that the client does not give a flying crap about the method of capture- if only the product is acceptable. Film is expensive and using such a material significantly ups the expenditures so the math is dead simple. Even medium format as a species is quite rare and endangered and used only as a luxury method mostly for high profile comercial work. Large format is mostly left for amateurs to fool around.</p>

<p>I would recommend getting the Flektogon 50mm if your funds allow it. Theres always the chance of getting a bad sample with soviet optics. I have seen sample variation so big that some of the lenses even surpass CZJ optics but the majority could be mediocre or downright defective. Here in Latvia I have talked with many photographers who tell stories of guys who used to keep several samples of the same lens because they behave differently. Some might have better performance up close while others when focused further. There are also legends of some lenses accidentaly getting elements from military optics. Anyhow- its always a lottery with soviets. Keep in mind that soviet industry was plan-bound and if the plan was not fulfilled then there could be compromise in quality just to fill the quota in time.</p><div></div>

<p>I have the 65mm MIR38b and yeah- it is optically better than Mir 26B. Though for me the 65mm length seems kind of strange. It would seem okay if this would be the only lens to use, but the 80mm f/2.8 is smaller and with a more flexible aperture range. The coatings on the 80mm also seem more effective.<br>

In any case- the 65mm is a nice lens, but I would never consider it a wide angle. The 6X6 frame makes the composition more calm so even the 45mm did not seem very wide to me. I would suggest trying if the 65mm fits for you and if it does then go for it.<br>

Since I sold the 45mm the 65mm stays more on the camera with the additional 250mm f/3.5 in the backpack. The 80mm has started to collect dust.</p>

<p>I am going to Helsinki tomorrow and wanted to know if there are any good shops in Helsinki where to pick up some nice 120 film. A suggestion for a vintage camera pawn shop might be nice too.</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

Rude.</p>

<p>I think that baning any of the ways to excercise misogyny won't deal with the misogyny itself. Can we ban talking at elevated volume? Can we ban fists? Can we ban a certain attitude?<br>

When dealing with any social problem that is rooted in the religious or traditional we must face the fact that logics work very badly. Religion and tradition are the products of purely mythological thinking which is only very loosely based on logics.</p>

<p>The DOF cannot change if the same optical system is used regardless of the image size. Think of it like cutting the center of a medium format frame. The only thing that changes is the field of view.</p>

<p>Well I am starting to see a rather interesting trend to mainstream-ise the medium format digital. After all the digital slr has done that. Maybe after a few years they will make a Pentax point&shoot with the 645D sensor, hehe. EVF of course...<br>

Anyhow- only the Phase One backs come close to true 645 frame. There is no practical way to photograph digitally 6X6 or bigger. Of course there are the scanners, but they are well... Unhasty.</p>

<p>Cheers!</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_sizes">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_sizes</a></p>

<p>Well Youtube hasn't killed off the multibillion film industry. The thing that I've observed might be called devaluation of the photo or... Desensetizing of the average eye? At least where I live the most common practice is making a compromise in quality. It seems that it is easier to buy something of a lesser monetary value than to try percieving a superior quality of a professional photograph. I'm not saying that everything expensive is good. Rather merely trying to show that it is very difficult to justify expenses on something as subjective or immesurable as a quality photograph(er). An aggravating factor in this could be the finansial crisis.</p>

<p>If I'd look on this more globally as clash between the classic vertical values and the post-modern horizontal value system then I'd rahter predict the uprising of the expert rather than the overwhelming sea of Jacks of all trades. To me it seems that this desensetizing could produce or rather destill the photographer comunity resulting in a natural selection of the... If not the fitest then surely the most talented.</p>

<p>Oh, the GAS! It's killing me...</p>

<p>Hmm... Kodak Portra 800 anyone? Colour film, in my opinion, gets very nasty at high sensitivities or when pushed. BW film just gets grainier but colour films lose colour and tend to look downright awful at high ISO's. Portra 800 might be an exception and still it isn't to everyones taste. Looks a bit crossprocessed and colours tend to pop- could be useful in capturing that rave mood You might be striving for. Though the 800 in colour is rather humble compared to the boundries of BW films.</p>

<p>It may be because of my humble experience with film, but still it seems to me that low light work should be done almost only via digital. Prefferably fullframe. An exception must be really long exposure work because digital sensors tend to get hot and stuff. If someone would tell me to do a documental low light work with my 6X6cm I would call him a sadist. Film mostly shines when used in calm circumstances when time is not of an essence. As others said- fine art, landscape and portrait work. The Nikon D3s on the other hand allows high frame rates, fast AF and quite usable ISO 12800 plus it shows right away if the exposure or focus had gone wrong. In addition you can have ultra fast fixed lenses and reasonably fast zooms from 14-200mm. The flash work also is more fluent and easy.</p>

<p>My advise would be to go and try various systems before the d-day cometh. Maybe I am wrong and the is light for the MF in a dark dancehall.</p>

<p>Just went through that myself. My suspects were the Pentax 645, various Bronies and the 67 Pentax. Probably the best thing to do is decide your priorities. I had doubts about the 6X4.5 frame, so I opted for something larger- the square. Luckily for me a curious offer surfaced and I went the Kiev road. In the end I got a kit of Kiev 60TTL+45mm f/3.5+65mm f/3.5+80mm f/2.8+250mm f/3.5 all FSU glass in near mint condition complete with filters and leatherish cases. In adition I got an ancient flash with a mounting frame and a leather case. The TTL prism was a bit optically defective so I tried to fix it and broke it a little, believe it or not- that actually helped. For the whole lot plus two developing tanks I had to pay about 120$... And that's more than 7 kilos of equipment!</p>

<p>I may cause a major firestorm, but... It might be worth checking out those Kievs. Just beware of the roulette. On the bright side- there are legends of some Kievs being called good cameras and well... If you get a good Kiev body then you always can swap the soviet glass for more prestige Zeiss. Just scrape off the "Jena"!</p>

<p>So, the deed is done. I broke the small lens. The result actually isn't that bad. The image is somewhat smaller and it is required to keep the eye rather close focused to be able to see it. So all in all it isn't an utter defeat. The result is the same as peering in the ground glass though my eyes get fatigued after a while. Maybe a new finder isn't such a bad idea. Or WLF...</p>

<p>Ok, I think I've found the problem. The distance between the prism and the magnifying lens (the one which is directly next to the eye when looking) is too great. The bad news is that the magnifying lens is epoxied in a cylinder and now it could be quite hard to get it moving again. After that it might also hard to glue it in again ensuring that it stays straight.<br>

Or I could try moving the prism itself...</p>

<p>Hmm... So then it's repairing or Arax for me. Well the pricing for a "new" prism isn't that bad either. About 60$ and until then the Sverdlovsk-4 will do the job just fine. By the way- that meter could in a way superior to many modern meters because it shows all the combinations of speed and aperture to get the right exposure on your film speed. Though it took about a month for me to figure out how to use it.</p>

<p>So I heard of this one exceedingly unbelievable offer to buy "the best soviet camera system" for approx. 120 bucks and being a gearhead that I am... Let me just say that in terms of weight per dollar in camera equipment this has been the deal of a lifetime for me. I got a nice looking Kiev 60 TTL with a standard lens, carrying case and metering prism. Plus- 45mm, 65mm and the beastly 250mm f/3.5 Jupiter all complete with leather..ish cases and filters. Everything is in mint condition. So you must understand how hard it was to resist such a deal.<br>

Still despite the price I can't help to not notice that the image while looking through the AE prism is a bit blurry. Image on the ground glass is perfect even under loupe so I think it's the prism finder. All of the optical surfaces seem to be reasonably clean so it can't be dust. The nature of the blur is like if a strong dioptric correction has been applied. Despite this there is no corrective lens installed. The next suspect might be my own defective optics because both of my eyes are a bit off so when using my Nikon D300 I dial -1 in the diopter adjuster. After some research using eyewear and less imperfect eyed friends I had to rule out the eye defect problem. This leads me to the rather obvious suspect- faulty prism itself. As this is still quite bright and early for me in the medium format leage then I should ask help from the more gritty (and witty). My experience with photo equipment is as follows- Nikon D60, D300, couple of Zeniths, Canon AE-1P and now the Kiev. The Zeniths had the worst finders I've ever seen but at least they were sharp and the finder on AE-1P is still the landmark for me in terms of finder largeness and clearness.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance and good hunting.<br>

P.S. It iss still managable to focus using microprisms and rangefinder.<br>

P.P.S. It doesn't stink for Christs sake!</p>