TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Oct 12, 2007 9:32:55 GMT -5
Sounds like an A-1 to me.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Jan 10, 2008 17:19:25 GMT -5
Reading this rang a small bell in the back of my mind, so I checked, and I did indeed download Jim Blazik's site while it was sitting on Geocities, and I still have it. It's 7.6 MB altogether, so it'd be a hellish e-mail, but I guess I could burn it to a cd if anyone was interested, and if we figured he wouldn't mind. If he changed his mind about having it out there, I've got enough space to host it. Would it be worth asking him ?
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 31, 2007 10:24:25 GMT -5
That's definitely the spirit around here. Live and let live, and use the best tool for the job. In fact, if it's appropriate, do an oil-painting.
The only exception is the friend of mine who changed to digital, according to him, because he kept taking rubbish pictures with film. So he changed to taking rubbish pictures with digital instead. But at least it cost him less.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Jun 5, 2007 16:55:30 GMT -5
I can live with my pictures being "borrowed", but hotlinking to your site is naughty. Bandwidth costs money. Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Oct 12, 2007 8:28:23 GMT -5
Hello again, all. Haven't posted in a good while due to the intrusion of all sorts of other tiresome aspects of life as it is lived. On of which has been my efforts to whittle down the mound of photografica which has been trying to squeeze me into the garden. It'll all be heading for the Bay as soon as I have the patience to write 87 listings, but I'm happy to hold anything back if anyone here is interested.
None of this was bought as an investment, and I'm thrilled at the prospect of getting back into my own garage again, so no sensible offers turned down. Shipping at cost, whatsoever that may be.
Everything here has been owned by somebody other than me. I know I was careful with it, I can only assume they were. Not much of it looks brand-new and mint is a much-abused word. Where there's an issue I know about, I've mentioned it.
Cameras.
Canon EOS D30. Up until very recently was earning its keep shooting weddings. Canon EOS 5. Go gently on the command-dial, and it works fine. Canon A1. Starting to squeak, but otherwise fine. C/W 50mm 1.8. Canon A1. For spares. Praktica BX20. Bit plasticky but works fine. CZJ 50mm 1.8 + it's own TTL flashgun Olympus X-A. No issues that I know of. Fed-3. Covering seems to be related to bright red carpet-tile material, but works. Canonet Glll QL 17. Very nice. New seals. + Canolite D Canonet Glll QL 17. Konica Autoreflex T-3. Body only. Jammed. Konica Autoreflex T-3. No issues, comes with pancake 40mm 1.8. Minolta ER. Funny looking curio. Small dings on top. Erratic shutter and the clunkiest advance of any camera in history. Mamiya sekor 500TL. Jammed. Spares or repair. Minolta SRT 201. No issues, seems to work fine. Voigtlander Bessamatic. Suffering from premature firing, but lovely condition. Praktica Super TL. No issues. + Tessar 50mm 2.8 Zenit C (or S). Works. Good condition for age. Exa 500. Works beautifully. + Series E 105mm 2.5 . Konica Auto S1.6. Jammed. Petri SLR. Self-timer lever disappeared, otherwise gorgeous. Olympus 35-S. Jammed but rare. Braun Paxina. Horribly tinny medium format. 2 X Lubitel 166-B.Working, but then there isn't much that could go wrong. Photosnaiper. Most of the kit. (No filters) Not so much a camera, more a good way to get shot walking through an airport.
Lenses.
Canon EF. Sigma 75-300 APO Canon 35-80 kit lens. Canon 80-200 4.5-5.6 Canon 28-70 3.5-4.5 Mark 2
Canon FD. Miranda 75-300 Sigma 70-210 Kestrel (who?) 200mm 3.5 Tokina RMC 135mm 2.8 Sigma (Pantel) 135mm 2.8 Canon 200mm f4.
Nikon F. Nikkor-H 50 f2. Panagor 135mm 2.8.
M42. Alpex (?) 200mm 3.5.(Silver) Meyer-optik Primotar 135mm 3.5. Jupiter-11A 135mm f4. Super-Takumar 135mm 3.5 . Helios Auto 135mm 2.8 . Helios 135mm 2.8 . Helios 44-2 58mm f2 . Cimko 28-80mm 3.5-4.5 . Formula 5 (Who?) 85-210mm f4.5 .
PK. Cosinon-W 28mm f2.8 . Sigma mirror 600mm f8. Looks unused. Unsurprisingly.
Also Petri mount 300mm f5.(about a foot long) Pro-tessar 115 f4 . (Contaflex ?) Retina-Tele-Xenar 135mm f4.
And a Canon FN Power-winder. For the F1N and not, unfortunately, the F1n. Norwood-Director Light-meter. Reacts to light, but how accurately I don't know. Definitely looks cool, though. Various filters, flash-guns and other odds and ends.
Keep an eye out for me as you browse, under the imaginative moniker of hinchliffe
Now to start writing those listings.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 31, 2007 9:30:27 GMT -5
Absolutely right. When I'm working the crowd at a wedding, I use 200mm or even the long end of a 100-300 zoom. I can take the candid stuff from across the street if need be.
I find, though, that in a studio set-up or such-like, I need to be not too close, not too far away.
The weird thing is, I then quite often crop the pictures so the head completely fills the frame. Hey ho.
Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 31, 2007 5:54:06 GMT -5
Assuming that I'm doing this right, this should be a picture I recently took of a friend's daughter. It was taken with a Tokina AT-X 90mm 1:2.5 probably stuck on the front of a Canon A1. The point about the focal length around the 90/100 mark is that it allows you to be close enough to keep a rapport with your sitter, speaking at a comfortably conversational volume, but keeping enough control over the framing. A much longer lens, and you end up with nothing but head in the frame; move too far further away and you break the contact with the sitter. Oh, and on this occasion, I would have had to drill a hole through from the next room. Regards Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Jun 18, 2007 13:16:32 GMT -5
The other Moral of the story, of course, is not to take too much notice of what "experts" tell you. Be your own expert.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Jun 1, 2007 10:09:49 GMT -5
Weird thing is, I'm making the return trip. I use AF for work, but unless you spend a fortune, Canon AF is just useless in lowish light, so I end up switching them off and focussing manually. But AF viewfinders aren't designed to help manual focussing, since they don't expect you to want to. Solution : the EF-M, early EOS-style, nasty plasticky body, weighs nothing, but takes EF lenses, and even better, has a split-prism in the finder. Perfect. I'm evolving backwards.
Regards Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 25, 2007 13:32:56 GMT -5
I think actually I'm standing firmly astride the fence. I work with one of each, sometimes simultaneously, so I can hardly take sides.
One other thing, though, and this is relevant in a working environment, and that's the relative fragility of modern plastic marvels. I could drop most of my film cameras and the only thing that would suffer would be my foot, (thinking of the F1, T90 and any number of Zenits). I'd hate to find out how many times a dslr would bounce.
The crack about sloppiness was purely a personal thing of mine, so don't anybody go taking it personally, please. When I get soap-boxy about that other debate about what makes a good photographer, I often say that it's knowing when to take a picture and knowing when not to bother. If I find I've been firing off at anything that moves and throwing most of it away, my professional pride takes a knock.
There's definitely something to be said for the "cool" factor of a classic. Having a Zorki in a pocket somewhere is a great ice-breaker, particularly with the bride's father, and working this side of the Big Water, I've broken some ice with an Argus "brick". Mind you, you could break practically anything with one of those.
Yours Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 25, 2007 11:30:53 GMT -5
Well, that was a bit rude of me. Join the board, get as far as saying hello, then end up so busy I don't have time to post another word. Anyway, deep breath, and I'm back again.
I've now ploughed my way through this whole thread (alright, I skimmed a couple of bits) and there's a lot to agree with from all concerned. Couple of points:
From the purely collecting viewpoint, I really can't see anyone ever getting misty-eyed and nostalgic over recent DSLR's. Like modern car-design, (don't get me started !) the appearance isn't anyone's main priority. Where some, but by no means all, classic cameras were designed to look good, as well as function well, new cameras just have to work; what they look like doesn't matter. The idea of a 5D or D70 ending up as a shelf-queen just doesn't compute.
I have one overriding reason for shooting my weddings with film, only using digital as back-up or where it's appropriate. The sheer amount of work that I'm required to put in after the show is over. With my lovely EOS3 and matching pair of EOS5's (A2's), when the roll runs out, I remove it, put it in my pocket, go home, handing it in at my local lab on the way, and Hey Presto, the following day, they hand me back a big bunch of prints which I hand over to the happy couple, large cheque, handshakes, good luck for the future, don't lose my number, I also do baby-pictures, Goodnight Vienna.
Most Digital operators wouldn't dream of releasing a picture before it's been through the whole panoply of unsharp mask, adjusting levels and curves, analysing histograms, converting RAW files, cropping, and heaven knows what else. And that's 250 shots I just took. And if you think the manuals for dslr's are weighty, welcome to the Photoshop 7 Bible. In all seriousness, I do it myself, often, but I don't enjoy it much, and it's nothing to do with photography. I spend hours on the computer just getting the pictures looking as good as the film prints do already.
I actually use a Canon D30, (that's D30, not 30D) all 3 1/2 megapixels of it, so I'm obviously not too bothered about the obsolescence problem. I've done sixty or so weddings, and never yet had anybody complain about the quality, or indeed anyone who could tell the difference.
The other thing I felt when I started, and this is only a personal viewpoint, and it has been mentioned here, it made me sloppy. Out of a roll of 36, by now, I can be confident that I'll only have to throw away 3 or 4. Firing off my dslr grape-shot style, I noticed pretty quickly that I wasn't paying the same attention to framing the shot properly, and rushing things. I just felt that I could always tidy it up later. Not terribly professional, I know, but there you go.
Anyway, just my little bit of input. Congrats on a fascinating thread.
Regards, Tim.
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on Oct 16, 2007 15:21:24 GMT -5
Glll QL17 and Olympus XA. Well, because I had two of each, I just this minute finished sticking one of each on the bay. They're both lovely to use on the occasions when you want something to fit the pocket that a F3 with a motordrive just won't fit into. Great lenses, both. Tim.
|
|