michael_barnes5

<p>OK so I want an M43, I think.</p>

<p>For picture-taking I love the IQ from film and the operation of my film cameras, BUT I want a digital camera for snapshots, video, and taking pictures of things that I'm trying to sell (like used camera junk). My use is not too demanding, the snapshots and video will mostly be family stuff and 90% of the time handheld. I have no digital camera, at all, not even a smart phone. The first lens will be a Panasonic 20mm f1.7.<br>

I'm debating on the PM1, GX1, and GH2.<br>

My thoughts on some criteria.<br>

EVF/OVF/LCD: My main application will be indoors so low-light. I don't like EVFs and I feel that I'd rather go LCD or OVF. I don't have to get a viewfinder though but if I did, I'd go OVF. I'd prefer a camera to not have an EVF but I wouldn't be disturbed by one.<br>

Flash: I prefer to not use flash but it might be handy for those moments of desperation. A flash would be cool, but not that big of a deal.<br>

Image Stabilization The main difference between Oly and Panny cameras. I read that it sometimes blurs the image at normal shutter speeds. IBIS would be cool here too but similarly, it isn't that big of a deal.<br>

Video: Now this is one of the reasons why I want a digital camera: this is the one thing that my film cameras cannot do. It isn't that I'm big into video or anything but being able to create video shorts is attractive. I'm not making movies, film concernts, but random 30 second to maybe 2 minute movies of random stuff. Besides image quality how do these cameras differ in this regard? The GH2 is supposed to be awesome but in what sense? I read that you cannot control the aperture with the GX1 so how does it select the aperture? Is it fixed or does it select it like P mode? Can you change the focus? If you pan a scene then can you have to focus on faces only? I'd take videos of people.<br>

My thoughts on the cameras:<br>

PM1:<br>

Small compact, good IQ, image stabilization, but no flash.<br>

The PL3/P3 doesn't interest me much because I don't think I need much external controls, flash, and a flip out LCD screen. It is the cheapest and smallest and looks nice. The IBIS will probably be useful but not that big of a deal to me.<br>

GX1:<br>

Small/compact, better IQ, flash, but no image stabilization.<br>

I'd probably go with this camera solely because the sensor... I hear is better at higher ISO than are the 12MP Olympus/Panasonic cameras. The flash is a bonus but not really a major weight. I also think it looks nicer too.<br>

GH2:<br>

Better IQ, best in video, but no image stabilization and bulkier.<br>

I'd go with this camera over the GX1 solely because of the video performance. I think this camera looks ugliest but not a deal breaker. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I have a 35mm Summaron but I find the f2.8 a little limiting sometimes. I think I would like an f2 lens because f1.4 lensees are not 39mm filter threads, they are larger, do not focus closely, and more importantly they are more expensive. Bokeh-wise, I do not care so much for out of focus really but I do want/need the speed for exposure. <br>

I'd prefer to stick with Leica because they generally have everything I need and the build quality is second to most*. (I've heard great things about Hexars, but they are pricey).<br>

I'm mostly interested in the V1-V3. It seems that the V1 is the collector piece and lowest in contrast, the V4 is the bokeh king and maybe overrated, so that leaves me mostly with the V2 and V3. Those that do not go V4 opt for the V3 but what about the V2? </p>

<p>I'm thinking V1 (goggled/canadian), V2, and V3 mostly. My biggest concern is wide-open performance because this is what I am getting one of these things for but is that wishful thinking? Should I perhaps just go for a Zeiss or 40 Cron? </p>

<p>I'm looking for some 120 RF and I have narrowed it down to these three:<br>

-Fuji GS645 (folder)<br>

-Makina 67</p>

<p>Well, honestly, 645 is large enough and f3.4 is fast enough. I have 120 f2.8 and f3.5 Rollei's and I do not consider that 2/3 of stop that big of a deal. I've never had a 67 camera and I'm sure that it looks better but I'm happy with my 6x6 cameras and have seen negatives from 645 cameras and wouldn't say they are any worse. From these two statements alone, it seems hard to spend 2x-4x more for a Makina 67...but...<br>

What concerns me about the GS645 is it's reliability and durability. It was only in production for a year or so and has a notrious bellow issue. But bellows can be replaced... The Makina has a solid reputation but isn't free from issues either (shutter linkage, I think...something like that). I'm not so interested in the Bessa III to be honest and I do not want a larger bodied camera (Mamiya, Fuji RF's, and etc.) so I'm thinking of trying the GS645 or waiting for a dead-metered Makina 67.</p>

<p>Any thoughts on the reliability and durability of these cameras? I would like a camera to put in a pouch and toss it in my bag. I do not meant to abuse the camera but I do not want to baby it either.</p>

 

<p>Thanks that is a possibility but if I were to get an F5 I feel that I'd rather just get AF glass, lol. Is this operation costly? Is the MF screen with a split-image easy to find?<br /><br />Well there aren't too many lenses that I want, just two or three AF-D lenses so I do not think those are too costly (relative to some of the G glass ): 20mm f2.8 AF-D, 50mm f1.8 AF-D, and 35mm f2.0 AF-D. That would make me happy.</p>

<p>I want to get an arca swiss L bracket fitted onto a film F.</p>

<p>So i have an F and some non-AI glass. i wanted to get an arca swiss l bracket to switch from landscape and portrait orientation on a tripod. So i got a sunwayfoto L bracket and although it fit the camera, I do not have enough access to the film hatch on the bottom of the baseplate. Argh.</p>

<p>However, since the F doesn't have a solid MLU implimentation I wanted a new body anyways...F2-F4 would be preferable. I found out that RSS did make them for F4's and F5's but the F4's are supposedly rare/hard to find, so I'm wondering if anyone uses a universal one on their F2 and F3's? I'd prefer the F2 but if one works better on the F3/F4 then I might opt for one of those instead. The F5 would be the easiest one for this application but then I would need some AF-D glass (or AI-S with MF screens) and neither of those options are the most appealing.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I'm thinking of a hasselblad. I'm interested in the chrome lenses because they look better in my opinion and more importantly they are single coated and of lower contrast (which I like for B&W). The disadvantage is the age and it is an older shutter.<br>

If my lens does have problems, then are there people who service these things? I read that Hasselblad doesn't service them but how much does their servicing cost? I figured that if my lens did die on me then it might be cheaper just to get another one.</p>

<p>is getting a chrome lens just a bad idea?</p>

<p>I'm interested in getting a Leica LTM as a compact shooter...to supplement my M3 and DR Summicron/ goggled Summaron. I'm going after compactness and portability over performance. I'm aware of some of the ergonomic quirks but i believe that those will not bother me; however, I'm concerned about the filter/hood issues because I want to use uv filter, yellow filter, and hood without braking the bank.</p>

<p>I think I would be happy with 1-3 lenses: 50mm Summitar/Summicron, 50mm f3.5 Elmar, and 35mm f3.5 Summaron. I would love to have a collapsible 50mm f2.0 (as I shoot in low light often) but in the future I would perhaps add a smaller/slower 50mm and a 35mm. I may or may not add the latter two lenses but right now my main concern is the first one.</p>

<p>Summitar vs Summicron</p>

<p>-Any experience in the drawing/characteristics? I'm leaning for the characteristics in the Summitar because it might be gentler for portraits (which is my main interest).</p>

<p>-Any experience with the heavystar adapter? I do not want to track down the expensive Leica one. The heavystar would probably be good enough and will allow me to use a generic 39mm hood.</p>

<p>-Any experience with the summitar filters/hood? I can alternatively track down the summitar filters and replace the glass with something modern (as I read some people do). Is this easy? Well if so, then does the hood stay in place? I'd prefer a lower profile hood but I read that the barndoor really works, albeit ugly.</p>

<p>I think I'd prefer the Summitar but I'm leaning on the Summicron for convenience.</p>

<p>Elmar and Summaron</p>

<p>Well these two lenses use A36 filters, unfortunately.</p>

<p>-How is the quality of these old filters? Worthwhile?</p>

<p>-Which hoods are recommended for these lenses? I'm not willing to pay more than say, $50-$70. I'm willing to pay money on a good hood but not if I am competing with collectors. </p>

<p>I'm dismissing the f2.8 Elmar because it seems a little redundant: the f2.0 lenses are faster/"better" and the f3.5 lens is smaller.</p>

<p>I decided to try a Leica LTM...a IIIc/IIIf most likeley, now the question is which glass? I can start a new thread for that.</p>

<p>Thank you for your advice.<br /> <br /> I'll have to elaborate a little more.<br /> <br /> I'm not concerned about the viewfinder. Maybe I'll change my mind...but I don't mind squinting with the retina iiic which is nowhere near the big bright M3. I also once owned a Canon IVSB and that viewfinder didn't bother me because it was not so bad at focusing but I sold it to go M. (I'm opting for a Leica LTM over a Canon this time around because I think that the divorced settup works better for squinty finders).<br /> <br />The Rollei 35 is great, but no rangefinder. I have one and like it for scenics but I like focusing for daily use. I'm not sure about the Minox...I'll look into it. I don't like any automated cameras. I love having control of the focusing, and exposure. <br>

The CL + 40 cron is a great idea.<br /> <br /> lens-wise, I think that the 40 cron shouldn't hold anything back to the Leica collapsible...I hear that it is a very good lens and it is more likely to be found clean. Price-wise, they should be similar enough to not matter between the two outfits ($500-$600?). I'd opt for a dead meter minolta branded body/lens because it is more likely to be cheaper.</p>

<p>I've read mixed things about the durability but I think it should be fine. I actually do not care about the meter and that seems to be the most common failure. Any size comparisons between the CL + 40 summicron and a IIIc/IIIf + 50 col. summicron/summitar? The former is undeniably more modern but is it more compact? I actually do have a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 LTM that I was planning on selling...wouldn't this lens be a bit big on the IIIc/IIIf if I were to go that route and keep the lens?</p>

<p>Well, part of me knows that the III/CL settup will be more compact but I am unsure if it is compact enough. Best thing I can do is borrow/buy one I guess and return/sell it if it is not. Thanks for all the advice/opinions thus far.</p>

<p>I have an issue.<br /> <br /> My M's are too large and my Retina is never ready. Is Leica IIIc/IIIf + collapsible Summiitar/Summicron (I want atleast f2.8 aperture) a good solution?<br /> <br /> Let me elaborate.<br /> I like my M3 + rigid 50mm when I want to shoot and I like my Retina IIIc when I want compact. Now, I think I want something in between for casual use. The M is ergonomic but a little too big and heavy. My retina is portable but the ergonomics work against me (I can't change the aperture/shutter speed on the fly, and that is important to me).<br /> <br /> I'm thinking a Leica LTM and/or a Leica collapsible.<br>

<br /> I'm not worried about how useable the camera and/or lens is from an ergonomic/image quality point of view. My concern is how much more compact it really is. Numbers can say one thing but anyone get a collapsible 50mm and/or bottom loader just for compactness and feel that it is worthwhile? </p>

<p>thanks David that was very helpful, I may reconsider this lens. leica lenses are notorious for these types of things. I'm not sure they are necessarily Leica-specific issues but buyers need to be more cautious becuse they are considerably more expensive than most other lenses. <br>

Would you consider the collapsible summicron to be a safer bet? I would like a collapsible and the only ones that are on my eye are the Elmar f2.8, Elmar-M f2.8, and coll. summicron. The Elmar-M is probably the sharpest but costliest.</p>

<p>How is this lens (the old one)? How is it at 50mm f2.8?</p>

<p>I'm looking for a decent compact/collapsible 50mm. I really love my 35mm f2.8 Summaron but I want something of comparable size (or smaller) at the 50mm focal length. My thinking is a 50mm f2.8 Elmar or 50mm f2.0 Summicron. I would be happy with the Elmar if it was a decent performer at f2.8, is it? The 50mm f2.8 Elmar -M is supposed to be wonderful and I believe it is comparable in design and since I only shoot bw film (ISO 400, mostly) I do not think I need the "benefit" of modern glass.<br>

I have no complaints on my 35mm f2.8 Summaron and it is my understanding that many of the slower Leica lenses are just slower and sometimes "better" than their non-aspherical faster siblings. </p>

<p>karim, thank you for your response.<br /><br />Which photographers/images do you consider to be better? And why? I'm only curious, not trying to reject your response. Lighting like all things in photography and life is subjective.<br /> <br /> I'm interested in understanding lighting so I turned to these images because they represent some things that I would like to dissect. Without any experience I fear that I might be completely off so that is why I seek the opinion of others. <br /> <br />I'm looking for samples of some environmental photographers to see which type of lighting I like best so I can move into the realm of artificial lighting more wisely...or stick with natural light. Perhaps an imitation or inspiration for a beginner.<br /> <br /> Many people refer to strobists.com but honestly, I do not like the lighting. It is too obviously strobed and dramatic for my taste. Many beginners seem to turn day into night or night into day and then things look too artificial for my taste.<br>

<br /> I'm not a lighting expert and maybe these images aren't the best showcase of what can be achieved but what attracts me more is that they look simple and natural. Ofcourse it can just be his style, which extends to the medium choice (looks like medium format film), focal length (looks like a standard or slightly long standard lens), and composition among other things. I only ask because I want to understand these things better. I think it has more to do with how he uses one light source (atleast that is what I think) and how he balances the flash as fill instead of key light.</p>

<p>True.<br /><br />I guess it wasn't the softness of the light that I was attracted to, but how this photographer used it as fill. Like I said, I don't have experience with lighting, so it is hard for me to understand how these effects were made.<br /> At first I think it was the modifiers that he was using but I think it is really the lower intensity.</p>

<p>http://agent-lee.blogspot.com/2010/03/ode-to-female-form-by-patrick.html<br /><br />Ofcourse it takes skill and I do not expect to be this good overnight but any suggestions?<br>

Indoors and outdoors his model seems to be softly lit and a little bit of glow. I would think that he might be filling in his subject with some sort of light but I am unsure. I like a lot of portrait photographers, mostly film, but the old Rollei photographers who relied on available light didn't seem to have this glow in their environmental portraits. It can be his processing skills but I think that some lighting was involved. <br>

I ask because I have no experience with artificial light but would like to get started. I'm unsure in what I should purchase so I figured that I would look around and see which styles of lighting I would like to imitate. This is what I like.</p>

<p>Vince, do you have any scanned samples? I feel that I can go about this many ways, really. I'm back and forth. I'm kind of worried about stand and semi-stand development but it'll be fun to try. Maybe a test roll but I hate wasting film, lol.</p>

 

<p>contrast was normal, more or less. This was taken indoors in a room with a large window around mid day. I'm leaning towards DD-X because it is convinient and i've always wanted to try that developer. I've heard great things about it.</p>

<p>I accidently exposed Fuji Acros at ISO 400 instead of ISO 100 in 35mm. <br>

Any recommendations on a two stop push? I have D76 and Rodinal and would prefer to use those although I would consider buying another developer if it was really "better". </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. Some clarifications:<br>

I realize that I can probably notice sublte differences between lenses but I seldom get a negative that I have disappointed by its lack of sharpness. And what I meant about quality is that sharpness is only one metric in measuring a lenses optical quality. <br>

I guess the F2 is not in its optical condition but neither is my Leica or 'Flex. I just prefer older and more primative cameras, I guess. I find the F2 and F3 similarly priced and since I don't use no meter, I see little reason to go F3. I figured that F3 is more accurate but for my shooting style, I'm not that precise anyways (I guess exposure often).<br>

I'm not really looking for sharpness. My main motivation for switching is improved ergonomics. I do have some Rollei's which I love, but I enjoy 35mm for different reasons: faster to focus, 3:2 ratio, low-light, ease-of-use, etc. I do not like MF SLRs all too much to be honest. They are too large and cumbersome. I just wanted a body that was slightly larger.<br>

I do process my own negatives and make prints, but even if I didn't, I'm not looking for improved optical qualities. As you have suggested, if I'm going for improved optical qualities then I might as well go large format.</p>

<p>With this siad. I think that I will stick to my OM's. I went to shoot today and they really aren't thaaat bad. I think it is just that this Nikon thing has got me curious. I will probably get an F2 + 50mm just to check it out. If it really feels THAT much better, then perhaps I will switch. However, I do not think the ergonomics will be that much better to justify a system switch. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I don't want to compete with collectors but browsing ebay many of these lenses that I have mentioned can be had for $100 or less. The clean F2's are expensive so I was thinking of getting photonic (even a dead one) for less.<br /><br />In regards to the FM2n, I'd rather go with an F3/F4 because I prefer larger bodies, that is primary reason why I'm leaving Olympus.</p>

<p>I prefer a mechanical shutter. I use my handheld meter or guess so I see no reason to carry batteries.</p>

<p>About the F2. I understand that they're old but i don't need a meter. Most of my cameras are quite old so I do not fear old cameras, and they're usually easy to service it seems. </p>

<p>I have two OM2's, a 21mm f3.5, a 28mm f3.5, and a 50mm f2.0. I'm not a pixel peeper but the lenses are good-enough for me but Zuiko lenses are known for being quite good. So now I'm thinking of going Nikon. The F/F2's and lenses (atleast the early ones..) have a reputation for being extremely durable and well-made. Optics, to me, are a bit secondary, I think. I want nice optics but I truthfully haven't come across many lenses that are bad. A minute drop in quality is fine, but it's incredibly hard to quantify what is minute and what is quality. <strong>My primary motive for switching is because I prefer the Nikon bodies: they're larger and heavier.</strong><br /> <br /> Here is my plan:<br /> Nikon F2; 20mm f3.5, 28mm f2.0, 50mm f2.0, 105mm f2.5. All non-ai. No strong desire for 24mm, 35mm, and 85mm. All non-ai because they're cheaper, "legendary", and probably good-enough. I prefer mechanical bodies and don't need a meter (if I stick with OM then I'm going OM1 for sure). I don't want to spend an incredible amount of money but I believe that these all can be had very cheaply. <br /> <br />Questions:<br /> 1. I'm happy with all these focal lengths speeds, but should I opt for a newer design for any of the intended focal lengths? Looking through ebay these all can be had for $100-$200, even the 20mm. The only one that I might go newer is with the 20mm because of the filter thread.<br /> 2. How do these stack up with the Zuiko's. I hate to ask a direct lens comparison but I figured I'd ask anyways. Zuikos are newer so one would think newer is better but Nikon has been known for making great glass too.<br>

<br /> If it matters I shoot all bw film and have no serious intention in going digital. I want this camera for walk-around mostly. I have MF for tripod work. The main appeal for OM is the size, really. However having a "better" body might mean more to me, not sure.</p>

<p>Jeeze, didn't realize how expensive these things are :(.<br>

OK so I want to mount these lenses: Canon 50mm f1.5, Canon 50mm f1.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.4.<br>

I'm most likely going CV or Leica but I have also considered metabones (Chinese ones made of brass). Going Chinese seems to be a hit/miss so paying the premium for CV/Leica seems like a better idea. <br>

My questions:<br>

1) Anyone have any issues with the type II adapters from CV? Apparently they do not work with SOME 50mm lenses, so I'm not sure if they will work with mine? type I is what I want but they're apparently discontinued? It would seem like a strange move to me, if they didn't work because these lenses that I mentioned seem pretty mainsteam.<br>

2) Any bad experienced with metabones or CV?</p>

<p>I'm thinking of grabbing a Kodak Retina IIIs + Curtagon 35mm f/2.8. <br>

Anyone have experience with this lens? Is this a good lens to use wide-open? Any samples?</p>