phil_brown3
-
Posts
36 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by phil_brown3
-
-
<p>I just burned of a couple of rolls, one in my 3.5 Tessar MVS and one in my 3.5F Planar, same subject and honestly the only difference seems to be a bit higher contrast on the Planar</p>
-
<p>I selected an M3 with a DR Summicron. Don't have that one but I'm staring at another now. <br>
Still shoots great</p>
-
<p>Have both Rolleis and Hasselblads. These days I find I use the Rolleis. I have a 3.5 Tessar and a 3.5 Planar. I use the Tessar for B&W, Planar for color. <br>
I use a standard lens 90% of the time and the Rolleis are just easier to haul and use.</p>
-
<p>I use Nikkor 28mm and 35mm PC lenses all the time on my NEX5N. Works great, no problems or drawbacks that I can tell.</p>
-
<p>It depends what you mean by setup. With your budget you may find a Hasselblad and a couple of lenses from a private party. Might not look good but you can hammer nails with a Hasselblad and then take a picture of what you built.<br>
There are many RF 120 cameras in the $500 range and a couple might do. I used some Fujis this way.<br>
That said, buy a Rolleiflex. 3.5 are around in quantity. Tessar or Zenotar makes no difference, both are great. Don't bother with a 2.8, it really isn't worth the way higher price. One that is used is better than a cabinet queen, they don't like to sit around. Don't pay extra for the built-in meter. <br>
And being forced to used one lens will do wonders for your pictures.<br>
And so will the square format.</p>
-
<p>No Bronica.<br>
Ever.<br>
Unreliable.</p>
-
<p>I've had a 240 for about 8 months now and just got back from England and Paris with it, 4 ienses-50 Summicron, Contax 28-80 zoom, Nikkor 20 and a Nikkor shift 28-and my Blad with a 150. <br>
I'm a 40 year Leica shooter so that colors my opinions. And 80% of the time I use a 50 on the Leica or an 80 on the Bald. I had reasons to take the Nikkors. the 20 was to shoot a famous bike shop in Paris and the shift was for York Minster. I had the zoom on a lot.<br>
Here's my review: it's a great digital camera with the Leica viewfinder system on it. If you like the Leica viewfinder you'll love it and if you want it to be a pseudo DSLR it can be. <br>
BUT it's not a modern auto everything camera. You still gotta do the work for the most part. You gotta figure out the ISO and settings yourself but isn't that part of the gig? Control of light? If you frame and pray it isn't for you.<br>
If you've never used a Leica and want to get a 240 I think it would be a good idea to find a used M2 or M3 and find out if you like the viewfinder. It's different.<br>
And you can use most any lens you can think of.The camera doesn't care. My favorite adapter is the Alpa/M that's RF coupled for those of you with extra Macro Switers cluttering up the place. You can send the overflow to me.<br>
Did I mention I really like mine?<br>
Phil Brown</p>
-
<p>I shoot it at ISO 50 and am happy with the results.</p>
-
<p>As long as you don't need speed triplets are great. My 2.8 Elmar is a fine performer as was my 3.5 screw mount.</p>
-
<p>There's a reason Leica won.</p>
-
<p>Don't trade the M4. You won't reduce the cost of the 240 by much and you will reap the benefits of a backup camera that can shoot film.</p>
-
<p>I believe Ken Rockwell has tried it and a collapsable 50 Summicron is OK. I wouldn't try an Elmar because they protrude further back.<br>
Phil Brown</p>
-
<p>I'll be trying an A7 later today and hope to have some answers.</p>
-
<p>I've had a Super Pilot for about 35 years and it still works perfectly. <br>
And I have a Pilot 2 from the same era that still works fine because it was stored away in its case fro many years.<br>
Pilot 2s show up on ebay frequently. I bought a new one about a year age. Works perfectly.<br>
Try the Wein zinc cells for the battery.</p>
-
<p>The chemical composition of the glass in some 50s Leitz lenses causes the haze. It can't be cleaned because it's in the glass itself, not on the surface. Not just Summicrons but it's most common in them.</p>
-
<p>The only problem-if you can call it that-with a Medalist I or II is that they don't deliver crisp color by today's standard. In the 40s lenses were really designed for b&w and color correction was in its infancy. <br>
But if you like the look go for it.<br>
BTW, I have a Medalist II</p>
-
<p>It made 114000 euros.</p>
-
<p>Depends which 3.5 you have, Early ones take the clamp on hoods and filters, later take 39mm filters and the slip on Summicron style hoods.</p>
-
<p>Collapsable Summicrons can suffer from haze. Don't accept the seller's claims that they can be cleaned. They can't. The glass goes hazy.<br>
That said the Canon 50/1.4 is a terrific lens. Get one if you can.</p>
-
<p>During my years as a 35mm shooter-Leica mostly-I always carried a Rollei with me. They're light, I had a meter with me for the Leicas and sometimes I just saw things square.<br>
Now digital has killed 35mm color but I still shoot 35mm B&W and I've upgraded to a Hasselblad for my 6x6 work-or fun, actually. And I still carry a Rollei.<br>
Now my biggest problem is convincing my lab that I really compose for a square format and don't want it cropped. </p>
-
<p>I don't have a favorite focal length lens. There can't be a favorite focal length because not only is each scene different, what you want to frame within the landcape will be different.<br>
That said, wides can be difficult. I carry a 6 or 8 foot step ladder when ever I can to get rid of the annoying foreground in my wide angle-28mm and below-landscapes. People think I'm nuts-especially when I'm right at a canyon edge with it-but I like the result. <br>
Many times framing is about exclusion so a short tele may be a good choice.<br>
Modern zoom lenses offer a quick way to experiment with focal lengths. And don't be afraid to move around. Sometimes even 3 feet can be enough.<br>
Many of my best pictures over the years have been taken with a Rolleiflex. One focal length. Period.<br>
Phil Brown</p>
-
<p>quote:</p>
<p>The m3 has framelines for 50, 90, and 135mm lenses. The magnification of the finder is too high to accommodate 35mm framelines. So unless you are willing to use bulky goggled 35mm Summicron or Summaron lenses, or add an external optical finder in the accessory shoe ...35mm and the m3 is not the ideal combo. That's why they made the m2.</p>
Actually the entire viewfinder-outside the 50mm frame-on an M3 is about 35mm and works quite well.
-
<p>I use both an M4 and an M4-2 as well as an M2. <br>
The M4-2 is the knock around camera-I hate black cameras-and the chrome M4 and M2 are the main shooters.<br>
Nothing compares to the feel of the M4 and M2.</p>
-
<p>Disclaimer: I was a TV cameraman.<br>
I like the NEX. But I'm used to looking at a viewfinder like that. I'm really a Leica M shooter but I take an NEX along because I can use my Leica lenses pretty easily. <br>
I like the images with the kit lens and my Leica stuff. </p>
Looking for Herbert Keppler article in September 2001 Popular Photography
in Classic Manual Film Cameras
Posted