On-Topic Photographs - How?? (...please)

[Haselsh1]

Just to add...

I've had three Hasselblads in the past along with Bronica SQ's and ETRS' and also a Pentax 67 or two and to be honest, they're very overrated. 35mm is far more flexible and much more spontaneous.

To edit what I said here I must add though that 35mm format photography is very definitely a compromise. Medium format shooting will always win over 35mm especially if it uses Carl Zeiss lenses. The main problem I have with 120 roll cameras is that they are very inflexible and the systems of lenses and accessories is very limited when compared to 35mm systems.

If you shoot negatives or transparencies and scan them then digital is supremely compromised.

[The Vinyl Adventure]

Bloody Hell man you don't want much...!

My most favourite camera is a Nikon F5 and it is the one I use the most. My most favourite lens is a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX as it is f2.8 throughout the whole zoom range and I use the very same lens with my F5. Problems... yes, it weighs in at around 2.5kgs and that's bloody silly.

My favourite film is Fuji Velvia 50 ISO.

My favourite digicam is a Nikon D70.

I don't do Canon anything.

My favourite Hi-Fi would be vinyl and valves with speakers by Audio Note. Ahh... exquisite.

the f5 is one im missing out my colection i have the f4 but i actually favor the f3 for its simplicity i only shoot film recreationaly, prefering the security of digital for work and when i shoot recreationaly i prefer simplicity

the only digital i seriously use recreationaly is my favorite camera over all, the epson r-d1.. its a geeks choice i guess but its sucha pleasure to use. body designed by voigtlander with electronics by epson with a nikon d70 sensor at its heart.completely manual in its function, you wouldnt even know it was a digital until you turn the srceen round on the back, it even has a manualy cocked shutter! takes m mount lenses and ltm with the adapter. i can use a my 1936 3.5cm f3.5 leica elmar all the way through to my brand new voigtlander 35mm 1.4. i have even adapted a lomo lens from the 70's to work on it (with shockingly poor quality results ...that is the point of lomo though...) http://hamishgill.blogspot.com/2008/...n-epson-r.html. you may ask why i would want to take such low quality photos with a lens from the seventies... well why not, im not harming anyone!
its only downfall is it is not getting a little long in the tooth so image quality is going down hill and the only alternative would be the leica m8.2 (to get the shutter that cocks when i tell it to) which is .. overpriced somewhat at £5k

for work i use a d3 and i went for the nikon 24-70 2.8 as i got a silly good price on it else i would have my self gone for the sigma

...nikon d3 with 24-70 + sb 600 flash.. over 3 kilos, to quote... "bloody silly"
takes jolly good photos though!


i looked into getting a pentax 645 as my entry into medium format. but after useing one on loan for a few weeks i decided against it... great pictures, a joy to look through such a huge viewfinder. but in 2-3 weeks i put 2 films through, and at 12 (?) per roll thats not many photos... it was just too much to carry for recreational use!
i ending up settleing on an old zeiss folder and i have only used that once

[The Vinyl Adventure]

No good - it would'nt fit the banner, though to attempt that could be a baptism of fire for Nick in his new role.

Although not addressed to me, I'll respond anyway:

Leica M3 with 50mm f/2, loaded with Kodachrome 64,
Leica M4 with 35mm f/2.8, also loaded with KR 64, with a 90mm f/2.8 in pocket.

Completely manual, superbly reliable - been with me all over the world under conditions of blistering heat, freezing cold, rain or dust, they have never let me down, unlike some other analogue or digital cameras owned by fellow travellers I have come across.

Barry

i prefer the m6 ... it has a pair of lights that tell me when its exposed corectly as im to lazy to carry and use a meter properly
voigtlander r2a even has apeture priority and is about 1/8th the cost of an m7 .....

.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments...

in seriousness though i think oskar barnark would have aproved of the voigtlander r2a.. i think it brings rangefinder photography to the masses... if only the masses knew how good rangefinders are eh...

[Barry]

i prefer the m6 ... it has a pair of lights that tell me when its exposed corectly as im to lazy to carry and use a meter properly
voigtlander r2a even has apeture priority and is about 1/8th the cost of an m7 .....

.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments...

in seriousness though i think oskar barnark would have aproved of the voigtlander r2a.. i think it brings rangefinder photography to the masses... if only the masses knew how good rangefinders are eh...

Agree with you completely. My cameras are at least 25 years old, bought second hand. I do use a light meter, but I am also good at estimating exposure (outdoors), so an M6 would be nice to have for indoor use. I prefer not to have to rely on batteries, even for exposure, let alone to operate the shutter (M7).

Good to see that the Voigtlander name is still going; rescued by Cosina. The R2A is a nice camera, and I have been considering using some of the new Voigtlander lenses on my Leica bodies.

I like rangefinder cameras, though I also have and use five SLRs. They are Exactas, ancient, but very well made and work well with Zeiss, Schacht and Steinheil lenses.

Barry

PS Love your avatar - makes me smile each time I see it.

[Clive]

I'm nowhere near the same league but I do have a Nikon FE that is pure delight to handle, older metal cameras with good manual focus prime lenses are such a delight, not that I've put a film through one for ages. My Nikon 801s was very effective but not tactile enough and too plastic. What do I do with an 801s now? They seem to be worth about £30....

Currently I use an Olympus E410 and enjoy using my manual Nikon lenses with it.

[shane]

OK, this is how polarisers were explained to me.

Light consists of transverse waves. If you imagine holding the end of a piece of rope whilst someone holds the other end, and waggling it from side to side, that's a transverse wave you see travelling down the rope. As with light, the wave going down the rope can be either vertical, horizontal, or anything in between depending on whether you waggle the rope up and down or from side to side. The light that reaches your eye, or your camera lens, is a random mixture of vertically polarised (vibrating up and down), horizontally polarised (vibrating from side to side), and every other angle you can think of. Now if light reflects off a horizontal flat surface at a lowish angle,, the reflected light tends to be predominantly horizontally polarised.

Going back to the rope analogy, imagine the rope passing through two sticks stuck upright in the ground. Vertical vibrations can pass through, whist horizontal vibrations cannot. A polarising filter is in effect a microscopically fine grid of "poles", so it will allow through only light vibrating in the plane of the "poles", thereby cutting out the reflected light. Rotating the filter rotates the plane of light that the filter will pass.

Clear as mud? Thought so...

[Haselsh1]

These days whilst I'm out and about in the Yorkshire Dales or the North Yorkshire Moors I use a 1970's Olympus OM2n MD with a Tokina 17mm, Olympus 28mm, Olympus 50mm and Olympus 135mm. My film of choice is Fuji Velvia 50 with which I often use various levels of Tobacco grads. I shoot standing stones and cloudscapes but my heart lies with the place I grew up... Lincolnshire. The skies in Lincolnshire are vast as the horizon is just so low. The storms that sweep across there are amazing and produce some wonderful photographs by the sea. The black and white image of the boat on my website was taken on a beach in Lincolnshire at a place called Howden's Pullover; a truly lost, desolate place that makes one wonder when alone.

I like to use massive wide angles like the 17mm as these enhance the skies no end and produce beautiful cloudscapes. The Olympus performs faultlessly and produces accurately exposed slides but I do have a Gossen lightmeter as well for when things get difficult. When using a tobacco grad and a load of sky you simply cannot use a TTL metering system. If you do, you need to be prepared for a lot of failures.

I have no problems taking photographs around midday if the image looks good. So much is made of this time of day but it's mostly nonsense. If the photograph looks good, take the bloody shot. Stop worrying about your watch. A photograph is much better than no photograph.

[Haselsh1]

.... can invisage leica users shielding their cameras ears from my comments...

I was exactly the same when I used Hasselblads. I used to think there was nothing to compare. Of course, as is usually the case, I was wrong. The best thing about a Blad is it's lenses. In terms of the camera I'd rather have a Pentax 67 II.

[Barry]

Clear as mud? Thought so...

Not at all. Far clearer than my my post.

The ability of a rough surface to randomise the plane of polarisation by scattering was demonstrated to me by using a laser. Laser light has a specific and unique plane of polarisation. The exact plane depends on the design of the laser, however if a polariser is placed in the laser light beam and adjusted, there will be a position where the polariser completely extinguishes the light beam. If the laser light is then turned towards a rough scattering surface, such as a wall or a door and the laser spot viewed through a polariser, the polariser is found to have no effect on the brightness of the spot.

Barry

[The Vinyl Adventure]

leicas are bloody good, my m6 is stunningly well made and it does feel more solid than the voigtlander. but because of its provenance i dont use it as much. i get exactly the same results out of the voigtlander that cost me half as much new as the m6 did second hand...... barmy!and its got apeture priority (as i said before im a little lazy) i know that people say leicas last forever but some of that is probably down to the fact that thet are so valuable they get looked after more.

it does make me laugh that some people cant see beond leica. its nice to own and apriciate some of the kit. but paying such a vast premium for image quality that can be imho be equalled if not bettered (with a slightly different feel to the image) by that of zeiss and nikon and others (not canon though heh)

its the bast way to wind up a canon user... "did you know nikon used to make canons lenses?"

thats another thing that makes me laugh, picking up on something you said earlier shaun, the nikon vs canon thing.... it really gets people in a fuss sometimes!

i use nikon because the make better quality kit, nikon kit feels more robust and in my view the lenses are better. not to mention the fact that from working in a camera shop for 3 years i can tell you which brand is more reliable
any cannon user should be able to see this just from handleing nikon stuff, but they continue to disolution them selves

canon users


you want a great old camera, fantastic build, rock solid, great lens...
voigtlander vito b. i tought my self how to use a camera properly on one of these things cost me £11. get a accesory rangefinder and a western master 5/euromaster and a range of films and go out experiment
i seriously recomend this to anyone, get your self right back to basics and learn about apropriate shutter speeds and depth of field ... old lenses actually used to have little numbers on them to give you an idea of what might be in focus at a set distance at a set apeture!
what a bizzare thing to leave of modern kit eh????

anyway rant over!

that polarizer analogy it superb, i shall steal that for use in the shop ta