ok, camera nuts...

[jabbr]

The Zone System is brilliant. When properly used and applied to large format photography the tonality and artistic result is incomparable. One can use special developers to tailor the DR of the scene to that of the film.

 

That said modern digital sensors have evolved and now exceed film in both absolute sensitivity and DR. Of course the cost of an 8x10 or gasp 16x20 digital sensor is prohibitive for artistic photography.

 

Regarding DR, aside from the sensor’s consider HDR techniques! One point is that while film photography depends on optical and chemical techniques, digital photography enables a host of mathematical techniques that are otherwise unavailable.

[jabbr]

19 hours ago, gmgraves said:

All of my interchangeable lens Nikons required me to multiply the focal length designation of each lens by a factor of 1.5. My last two digital cameras were a Nikon Coolpix P900 (24-2000mm equivalent optical zoom range) and my current camera is a Canon Powershot SX60 HS (20-1300 equivalent optical zoom range). The Nikon died after a year so I decided not to replace it with another Nikon. I find the Canon a much better camera in every way. I went the non-interchangeable lens route because, at my age, I was getting tired of schlepping a bag full of lenses along, and it made me think twice about taking a camera with me when I went on a trip.

 

Totally get that, and still have my Leica M3 and M6 because the form factor let me bring them with me everywhere.

 

I switched to a Canon DSLR (ultimately 5DII) and found that the form factor resulted in my not bringing it everywhere ... too heavy and bulky and obtrusive.

 

... the Sony (A7rIII) is smaller, and allows me to use those sweet Leica lenses (manual focus). No question the newer lenses are heavy. I can also use my Canon interchangeables on the Sony. 

 

It depends on how irritated you are with the current IQ ... If you've met AA then I'd consider getting a full frame mirrorless (Sony EF allows adapters to everything) and a manual 35mm pancake-ish lens to go along with the kit lens.

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, accwai said:

I thought he meant Leica lenses with something like this:

That’s what I meant, the old 35mm Summilux https://kenrockwell.com/leica/35mm-f14.htm is tiny and while not the best sharpness of a modern lens, has a nice old fashioned glow ... oh god they are now >$2k on eBay!!! In any case that, along with a Sony a7 body will let you shoot in available darkness...

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, charlesphoto said:

Leica did make a compact camera in conjunction with Minolta called the CL, and two lenses for that (a 40 and a 90). They may have supplied some electronics for the SLR's, but in general were all German designed and built (and consequently the electronics were always the weak link). Leica did have a few lenses made in Canada in the '70's and '80's to exacting German standards. 

 

The Leicaflex R3 was essentially a Minolta design, and I’d say that the SL/SL2 were the last truly Leica native SLRs...

[jabbr]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

the reality is that lenses are spotty. For instance, the Nikkor 90mm f2.0 portrait lens was one of their best lenses while the 135mm f2.0 was one of their worst and Canon’s equivalent lens was excellent. The Leica 135mm f3.5 was an extremely good lens while their 135mm f2.0 was not as good as any of the three Japanese lens of the same focal length and lens speed. 

 

Are we still comparing Leica R (SLR) to Nikon/Canon? This is like comparing a Porsche minivan to a Honda Odyssey! 

 

135 kinda pushing it for rangefinder. The Leica M shined for street and unobtrusive photography. When you want to take great photos without having a hunking camera. Also compare only wide open 😉

[jabbr]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

No, not the R lenses. I’m talking M lenses, and yes, while there are much longer lenses in both the Leica screw mount and the M bayonet mount, but the 135 is longest lens that the M series could use with the built-in rangefinder graticule and parallax compensation. 

 

Leica & Zeiss make a huge variety of cameras and lenses that I’ve used in both consumer/artistic as well as technical settings. Indeed the Leica camera division split from the technical division which incorporated Wild-Heerbrug — now Leica Geosystem (I have an Aviogon 6” that I removed from an old RC-8 camera — it’s a Bertele design and was the basis of his Biogon). Leica Microsystems is another division (where I first used R backs for recording purposes).

Similarly Zeiss, and I’ve used the Contax SLR in conjunction with Zeiss equipment. 

 

Back in the day there were a whole host of attachments to allow technical photographs to be used with the M such as bellows and this contraption called the Visoflex which — introduced in the 1930s! — converts the M into an SLR

 

In any case I loved using the M3 and M6 rangefinders with 21-90mm lenses, but now use these lenses on my Sony A7r-iii camera with adapters — it also takes my Canon 200/2.0 (sweetest portrait lens ever) 300/2.8 — as well as the awesome new Zeiss lenses, Hassy w adapters etc.

 

I never tried a 135mm lens on an M rangefinder because the region of interest gets tiny in the (optical viewfinder) — rangefinders work great with wide angle though.

[jabbr]

Let me add that back in the day you’d need to play with developers & chemical techniques to add the micro contrast that was a hallmark of the Leica lenses — nowadays it’s easier to dial in a bit of “clarity” in Lightroom. At the same time the digital sensors have crazy high resolution and the newer lenses have kept up so we are seeing aspherical designs everywhere (thank god for computers) 

[jabbr]

8 minutes ago, charlesphoto said:

a virtual bargain compared to hifi and will maintain almost 100% of its value. 

Yes absolutely — I’ll add that with the in-camera image stabilization in the Sony, I was able to pick up some of those rather expensive Canon tele primes (non-IS versions) for attractive prices

[jabbr]

2 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

This. Just announced. Screw a bigger amplifier, speakers, whatever. I want this. Owned a 500 C/M for years, and then an SWC (stupid, stupid to sell that a few years back). I even have a. tattoo of a 500 C/M. I want this.

 

https://www.hasselblad.com/cfv-ii-50c-907x/

 

Very nice. I’m curious — always respected Hassy but never owned — what is the difference between this vs H6D?

 

... vs digital back on 4x5 camera? 

[jabbr]

14 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

If priced right ($6k is the rumor I read) they'll sell a ton of these. Get your vintage Hassy gear now!

Ah!

[jabbr]

13 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Kind of a silly Q. A camera is merely a box to hold and transport film. 

Reread the question — I was asking wrt digital backs — Hassy seems to have several different systems. Folks with digital experience know that a digital back for an 8x10 will not typically have an 8x10 CMOS sensor — I’ve heard of using scanners! 

 

In any case compact size, ability to use manual lenses and attractive price make sense. 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, accwai said:

Hmm... 250mm centered on 8x10 has about 64° angle of view. 50mm on a 135 frame is like 47°. So the 250mm would be more like a semi-wide. And worse, garden variety large format normal lens design covers about 70°. Using that for semi-wide could be problematic in a lot situations right? So one either go to a true wide angle, which is big and expensive, or a super normal design that can cover to about 80°. But I would imagine the latter would be extremely rare. I'm no expert like you guys but wouldn't 360mm be closer to normal lens for real use? And it's possible to save some weight with process lenses if one's willing to accept an f/9 aperture correct?

 

There are a bazillion view camera lenses. The size of the image circle allowing for tilt/shift determines the appropriateness of a lens for a format eg 4x5 or 8x10. Schneider has been around forever. Super-Angulon designs have IIRC 90deg coverage and I’ve seen out to >110 degrees. These need not be big and bulky — the retrofocus wides are huge in comparison. But yes 300-360mm considered normal for 8x10 with roughly 50 degrees circle (more or less)

 

Regarding size of ultra wide angle lenses the Goerz Hypergon ! https://www.cameraquest.com/hyper.htm — today’s 35mm lenses are gigantic in comparison

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

There are a lot of parallels between cameras and HiFi sound...

 

both are distance sensory systems & use a fair degree of neural processing, require amplification...

 

both technologies have undergone a rapid change, approximating a step function, from digital techniques

 

both tend to be hobbies but both have a pro component

 

 

 

Yes in many ways. No question that the artistic properties of lenses / films / chemistry  / papers is subjective and individual choices and passions are entirely understandable!

 

 yet I’ve never heard of anyone using esoteric power supplies on their enlargers, or special cables to connect their cameras and computers or insisting on linear power for their photoshop/Lightroom workstations etc. 

 

I’ve never heard of a photographer who feels the brand of disc drives in their network storage affects their image quality or gasp is ever concerned with their brand of Ethernet cables!

 

 

[jabbr]

18 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

True, but what about all the talk I see about micro-contrast?

 

It never seems to be described, much less defined...  is it crazy talk?

 

But I won't argue against your point, as that's the only possible example I can think of.

 

Roughly equivalent to the “clarity” slider in Lightroom — DXO has more fine grained manipulations. 

 

Also never heard of a photographer insisting that something evident evident in a photograph couldn’t be measured. 

[jabbr]

On 6/24/2019 at 4:34 PM, gmgraves said:

But I understand that a company called “LargeSense” makes a self-contained 8x10 camera, but it only has a resolution of 3888X3072 pixels (!?) with one enormous 9X11 inch, 32-bit sensor (probably a composite sensor). Unfortunately, the camera is monochrome only, but it has a facility to allow multi-exposure color pictures using filters (there’s an old saying: “Everything old becomes new again” - shades of three strip Technicolor!). The LargeSense LS911 is very expensive; I wonder if the model number is a clue that this camera at US$105,000 is about what an entry-level Porsche 911 would cost?

 

Very expensive. Of note digital radiography plates have similar pixel counts (roughly 170 pixels/inch) and so not super enticing.

 

I see here is a Fotodiox adapter for the Fuji GTX -> 4x5 which allows stitching (landscapes and stills) and this is an interesting option with the GTX 100 (megapixel) camera which is $9,999 ... hmmm ... let's see, do I need that more or less than a 100 Gbe Ethernet switch 😂😂😂

[jabbr]

30 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

OTOH, I often see photographers insisting that measurements are not important...

 

 

Perhaps because the camera makes the measurement for them ... of course art is art but there was always a huge amount of engineering behind a Polaroid point & shoot etc. I don’t see the same amount of pseudo science so-called directional cables — can you imagine someone cryopreserving their Nikkor? Only if on an expedition to the summit of Everest 😝

 

No question that for artistic effects an old lens may be better than something super sharp — that’s perfectly fine — that’s art not pseudo science 

 

[jabbr]

1 hour ago, accwai said:

Hmm... for the few real photogs and musicians, making art is only natural. But us regular folks have neither the talent nor the technique for that. All we can do is click away impulsively with the camera or bang away arbitrarily on the instrument. That can't possibly be art. 

Oh contraire! https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-history-polaroids-art-ansel-adams-andy-warhol/amp

 

Common object, snapshot as art is a “thing” best known in popular culture via Andy Warhol etc. You should listen to some avant- garde/modern music 😉