ok, camera nuts...

[charlesphoto]

And my daughter (named Leica) probably the most expensive - won't finish paying her off for a long time.... (currently going on seven). 

[charlesphoto]

36 minutes ago, 4est said:

If I were so lucky, I'd see her as an investment!

 

Ah, yes, of course! The return in love is priceless. 

[charlesphoto]

17 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Well, I wished that I had kept it EXCEPT for the fact that it uses film, a decisively obsolete technology (as far as I’m concerned anyway. You are reading a man who has gone the entire photography route including mastering B&W, E-6 color reversal, C-42 color negative, Cibachrome color and Ektachrome color prints. I had and used a cold-light head enlarger (35mm and two-and-quarter), and had my own darkroom. I don’t miss that mess at all, even if it was terribly creative. I’ll take a digital camera, Photoshop (or GIMP) and a good large format Inkjet printer, any day!).

 

I had a state of the art Fujimoto cold light variable contrast b&w head enlarger, the whole nine yards. The chemistry was killing me though. But man, looking at my 16X20 and 20X24 silver gelatin prints, as nice as my digital prints are (Imacon scanner to a Canon ipF6400 on Epson Legacy Platine), they are pieces of art, imperfections and all. The analog smoothness and depth just isn't quite there with digital. 

[charlesphoto]

Actually, highlights are the biggest issue with digital - I find with my Leicas I can recover a lot from the shadows but if one blows the highlights there's really nothing there. Having to shoot 'chromes is probably the best way to learn your p's and q's of exposure. You only got one chance! (and boy did I blow it at times, esp when foregoing a snip test). So I try and shoot digital as much as possible like slide film.

 

I learned the zone system when I was bout fourteen. I think it's an important foundation - that should then be broken. Like all 'rules' in art, the best, most forward innovators take those and turn them around. 

[charlesphoto]

Think of film as a tube amp - a tube amp where one needs to roll the tubes every 36 songs at great time and expense.  Digital is like solid state - plug it in, maybe clean the connections (sensor) every now and then. The lens, along with the sensor, could also be thought of as the 'source.' The better the lens, the better the clarity, contrast, and dynamic range. 

 

Shoot a $7k Leica M10 with a $3K  Leica lens, and just like the difference between a  DCS Bridge and Sonos connect, it will be night and day compared to the consumer cameras mentioned above. Film will have a 'different' look, but imo there's no 'better' between the two. If you like the look, and enjoy the workflow and don't mind the expense (and the post work) then shoot film if that floats your boat. If shooting commercially, then better gear will always be better, but if creating for art, then gear is only an adjunct to creating a vision, and it really doesn't matter as much to the final outcome - unless poor gear holds one back from the realization of their vision.

 

 

[charlesphoto]

Also keep in mind silver gelatin paper has a pretty weak dynamic range which entailed lost of dodging and burning of high and low exposure areas to even the print out. With my Imacon scanner, negatives scan much more evenly in regards to DR than I could ever do with a base exposure in the darkroom. The negative itself may have a larger DR than an equivalent digital file, but getting it to paper in an analog means did take some talent few could muster (I have one image that took over 20 dodges and burns). Digital of course is much easier (just lasso's and curve layers in PS) but it also means that it's easier for EVERYONE, so in order to rise above the fray (something like half a million images uploaded to the internet every minute) means one must be very very good and/or unique. 

[charlesphoto]

12 hours ago, gmgraves said:

At one time, Leicaflex cameras were basically Minolta innards refined and installed in Leica-built bodies and some Leica lenses were Minolta glass in German Leica-made mechanicals.

in the 1970’s when Popular Photography was still around and testing lenses, it was easy to see that generally speaking, Nikkor,  Canon, and Asahi Takumar lenses performed better than did either Leica or Zeis-Ikon lenses. In tests between Hassleblad optics by Zeis, and Bronica lenses by Nikkor, that Bronica optics were superior

 

Not sure where you're getting this from. 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. 

 

I doubt Leica or Zeiss lenses were ever bested by Nikkor's and Canons. Maybe on a unique lens to lens basis (and Nikon/Canon made a lot more lenses at the extremes than Leica, (they also had huge aerospace etc contracts to do r&d)), but not as a whole. A 28 Elmarit M will blow a Nikkor 28/2.8 AIS out of the water (also a very good lens). Keep in mind also that Leica M lenses were designed to be their best wide open or near so. The Japanese did make some very fine glass though. In the darkroom I always used Fujinon enlarging lenses which at the time were cheap and considered even better than Rodenstock APO's by many. When I got out of the darkroom I sold mine to my local lab - the owner grabbed them up as quickly as he could. 

[charlesphoto]

Yeah, I guess I missed the R series vs Nikon and was thinking M. I liked the R8 as it was unlike anything else in ergonomics, but yeah, the R lenses were either too expensive for what one would get or (in a few cases) not as good. Of course, now there's a whole market of people adapting R lenses for Nikon's - their wide to medium primes esp (and the Zeiss) are much better than the Nikon equivalents (I know, I've shot them and not just read measurements) - at a price/size/weight trade off though. 

 

I shoot the M from 18 to 135 - the 135 APO is not easy to work with but makes stunning pics if you can nail it. Nice to have in the bag at times, but the stellar tele M imo is the little 90mm f4 macro-elmar (minus the close up goggles). It folds in on itself so is more compact to carry than a 50/f2 M, and is already stunning wide open at f4, which is not much more than one needs with a tele with modern digital sensors and higher iso's. 

[charlesphoto]

Focusing longer lenses (any lenses for that matter) is much easier with the M10 (they reworked the rf). The older 135mm’s are great vfm and hold up really well. Unfortunately my nice copy wouldn’t activate the rf cam in my M10 - it would the dealers M10 etc, just not mine. Not worth sending a $399 used lens back to Leica, so I picked up a used 135mm APO recently for half price at $2k!! Seems like a lot but a virtual bargain compared to hifi and will maintain almost 100% of its value. Like I said, not a daily driver, but nice for some jobs/situations where one needs a more compressed perspective. Best for non-moving or solitary subjects, though I have done concert photography successfully with it (though I’ll usually defer to my Nikon 80-200/2.8). 

[charlesphoto]

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/

[charlesphoto]

33 minutes ago, jabbr said:

 

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? 

 

Well, the new body is super compact and takes interchangeable lenses and legacy lenses via adapter. I shot a book of breakdancers years ago with medium format - Mamiya 6/7 and Hasselblad SWC with a strobe and I would have loved one of these! I shoot very fluid and rarely look through the viewfinder at moment of capture. Anyway, it appears to be the sensor from their fixed lens rangefinder adapted to a back that can be used with vintage bodies and lenses. If priced right ($6k is the rumor I read) they'll sell a ton of these. Get your vintage Hassy gear now!

[charlesphoto]

12 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What's the lever for?

 

Which lever? The film advance on the 500 C/M body? 

 

The grip on the new body looks super cool and super expensive. And man that was an annoying video. Didn't get the sound at all. 

[charlesphoto]

I think you mean 4X5 (an 8X10 'normal lens is 250mm and the cameras big, rare and expensive). Typically used where one needs tilts and shifts and macro capability. I have a good friend who shoots product and uses Phase One backs. I can't recall if it's Sinar or Alpa, but nowadays if one needs that capability for commercial these companies make view 'bodies' for digital backs, and he uses one of those as well as a Phase Body. 

[charlesphoto]

Eyes and ears are different in their sensitivities - but we all know that, don't we? That said, I've always wondered what a better cable or some conditioning might bring to a monitor such as my NEC PA27, which is the only place I see cleaner power possibly having an impact (as some report with their AV setups). Otherwise the engineering is pretty locked in with my scanner, printer etc. Of course EE's for cameras spend a lot off time dealing with power - but on a micro level compared to a stereo amplifier. Power creates heat, heat creates noise, and that is the noise that creeps in as digital hash at higher iso's. 

[charlesphoto]

Quite possibly one of the most beautiful cameras ever made. And the body and back for this limited edition is only $7500 (chump change in hifi) which means the base chrome model should be between $5-6. 

 

https://photorumors.com/2019/07/18/hasselblad-launches-the-limited-907x-special-edition-camera-to-celebrate-50-years-on-the-moon/#more-111760