Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 22, 2013 9:59:03 GMT -5
For me, it was the opposite. I shot just digital for a few years, but then I noticed, that I took more pictures than I can ever review in my life. I still use digital cameras, if I want to upload something instantly on Facebook or in situations, where a digital camera offers capabilities, a film camera doesn't ... but in general, film let's me take less and better pictures. I think twice, if I should take a picture or not, which reduces the amount of pictures and lets the quality increase ... just from my experience. I also like the surprise when picking the film up from the lab. About some pictures, I already forgot, that I took them, some came out excellent even never expected and some might have been failures, but I learned, not to cry about it. Film is less perfect than digital, but it also knows to surprise ... in the one or other direction.
And another ( just personal issue ) is, that I could never feel comfortable with using digital cameras and the newer they are, the "over styled" they are too. So many modes, options, settings and features for everything ... a mechanical simple film camera is so much more relaxing to use ( for me ). If I just look at my Casio, a simple P&S: It has an AUTO mode ( to keep things simple ) but it also has a Premium Auto Pro Mode ( couldn't find out yet, which is better ) or should I better use one of the many Best Shot Modes ? The exposure metering should multi, or centered ... or maybe center weighted ? Face detection on or of ? And how about the focus ? Several options for that too and the nasty thing is, that some settings are automatically set or not available in certain modes. How easy and enjoyable to use is a classic camera instead.
Money can be an issue, but the fact, that film costs money can also cause something good, I think. If I do not consider a picture being worthy of paying a few cents for it, it is probably not worthy being taken at all. Maybe a strange opinion, but it personally helped me to increase the quality of my photography.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 21, 2013 1:23:36 GMT -5
Nice thread and always an ultra hard decision ... which gear I should put into my bag for a vacation The gear might also vary a little bit, depending on the destination/purpose of the vacation ( like snorkeling, etc. ), but let's say, it would be a travel with just sightseeing, maybe meeting friends, having fun and getting some nice pictures for a memory. If I would have to leave today, this would be in my bag: my holiday camera bag by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr Always heavy and bulky, but I noticed, that I always regretted, if I left my TLR at home. So it needs to be in the bag ( not necessarily this model but a TLR ), loaded with fantastic Kodak E100VS transparency film ( which I might need to replace by some other transparency film soon though as it has become discontinued ). Very light and easy to use, my Bencini Koroll 24s is mostly with me too. I can't say why, but I love this camera and the results ( 3x4.5 pics on 120 film as well ). For this one, I will take some rolls of B/W film with me. Its huge latitude let this camera work well at nearly all daytime conditions. And last but not least, a digital P&S ( my Casio Exilim EX-ZR 200 ) will accompany me too - simply for HD video, HDR and all situations, where the other equipment wouldn't work. Oh, and I also added my iPad mini. I don't use it as a camera, but its light meter app for my TLR. Looking forward to have a look into other member's holiday bags
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 19, 2013 20:06:12 GMT -5
Mickey, Roy ... I am sorry for your health situation. Hope, you will get better soon !!! Too heavy painkillers for a too long time are killing your stomach and you will get an additional problem. I know, what I am talking about
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 19, 2013 8:38:16 GMT -5
You are right. I remember having a M42 adapter, where the infinity point seems to be slightly "behind". However, what is still confusing me most is the fact, that I own at least three FEDs, which are definitely not adjusted to the Leica standard, you mentioned BUT lens and body are adjusted to each other in a way, that they are still working very good ... just with the mounted lens though. As I would assume it as being most unlikely, that lens and body can both de-adjust over the years exactly in a way, that they are still adjusted to each other, I would say, that some repairmen are doing something, when those cameras become refurbished for sale. But then, if such an effort is invested, why don't they directly adjust everything to standard ? And, if it is easier to adjust just one part to the other, which one is easier to adjust, the lens or the body ? Just curious.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 18, 2013 23:03:02 GMT -5
But Agfa is at least one of the less companies left, who is still producing ( 35 mm ) color slide film. The Agfa CT Precisa, I just used recently, is surprisingly excellent even cheapest.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 18, 2013 18:32:42 GMT -5
BTW Stephen, you mentioned an M4/3 Leica adapter above. Is there actually any reason, why I shouldn't simply use my M4/3 camera for testing the lens then ? I would assume, that people, who made this adapter, manufactured it as a pretty precise instrument ( why else would I have needed to pay 50 bucks for a simple metal ring then ? ) and also the focussing on a digital camera ( I use an "old" Lumix GH1 ) is pretty precise, especially if using the inbuilt digital enlarger. So I would assume, that both, camera and adapter are manufactured at a much higher industrial standard than I could ever do, by making my own home built tester ... or am I wrong in this ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 18, 2013 7:30:08 GMT -5
Stephen, why don't you live in my neighborhood ? Then I could rent such valuable tool for an afternoon. I actually wanted to do the ground glass tests today, but trying the fourth and last of my FEDs, there was hope. My new Jupiter seems to match the rangefinder of this camera perfectly at infinity and also on closer distances ( just by guess ). So I decided to put a film in and try it the simple way by taking pictures. The film is not full yet ... but I have a small hope, that this lens might work on this camera just like that. If not, I might need to start from scratch and read all these posts from the beginning ... hahaha ... wish me luck
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 17, 2013 18:17:00 GMT -5
Mmmmh ... a rangefinder has no aperture ? Same focal length ? Same depth of field ? Mickey, what do you mean ? I apologize for my stupidity For me, a rangefinder is a device for measuring a distance/setting the focus or a camera, equipped with such. Yes !!! Always a lot of new things to learn too. So many words, my dictionary is giving me just nonsense or unsatisfying results. But google is a blessing nowadays. I often provides an understandable image of a specific word, where an ordinary dictionary fails.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 17, 2013 7:39:53 GMT -5
Thanks for all the valuable inputs. First of all, I need to do some checks with ground glass tomorrow. What I can say so far is, that my new lens focusses to infinity in general. I checked that on my digital GH1. It's a good lens, I think, just the DOF is really shallow wide open. I checked that with my GH1. On the closest distance, a movement of a few centimeter back or forward already puts things out of focus. Can a rangefinder be that precise ?
The depth of field depends upon the focal length of the lens and its aperture.
A rangefinder may give you the same image but it has no aperture. It might also not be the same focal length of the lens. I do not think it can give the same depth of field.
Mickey
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 17, 2013 4:11:02 GMT -5
That was an interesting read, Genazzano. Thanks a lot !!! I would say then, that the most practically way is to use the lens on the camera, where the inbuilt rangefinder is adjusted best to the real distances and then marking a new scale on the lens. Re-calibrated lens plus accessory RF ... I think, I better use this lens just on a digital camera then. The question is just, how to find out, which camera that would be. It would basically need a perfect adjusted lens for finding that out, right ?
Speaking in mathematical terms, it's an equation with two unknown variables, which can not be solved ... unless we know one of the variables ... or we can define an additional condition, describing the relation between both variables in a different way.
The fascinating thing is, that I do have at least three FED2s, which are perfectly calibrated to their standard lens ( the one, which has been mounted when I got them ). I confirmed that many times by taking pictures with them. BUT ... and that's the interesting thing: IF you would mix the lenses between those three cameras, it wouldn't work. They are obviously only calibrated to the one lens mounted. That actually brings another question up. All those cameras have obviously been refurbished before being sold. A very typical thing and most international sellers from the Ukraine are doing that meanwhile. That's wonderful ... but ... what do those camera engineers actually do for calibrating lens and rangefinder in the way it happens ? What they obviously don't do is, using a standard lens or camera for calibrating the counter part ... otherwise, those calibrations would be the same and lenses could be exchanged. Do you know, what I mean ?
Very difficult to write about that ... getting even more confused ... hahaha ...
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 16, 2013 21:45:19 GMT -5
Although explained here many times, I still do not completely understand, how those Leica type rangefinders ( Leica, FED2, etc. ) work. Yesterday, I bought a Jupiter 11 ( 135mm/4 ) at a camera shop and thought, that it should fit at least on one of my four FEDs. I tried the one first, from which I know, that it works precise ... at least with the originally mounted 50 mm Industar lens. Focussing to infinity, the Jupiter 11 is way out. The optical rangefinder matches where the scale on the lens shows something like 15 meters. But now the interesting thing: Checking the closest distance ( which is 2.5 m on the Jupiter 11 ), both lenses, the original Industar and the Jupiter 11 are showing the same and exact distance on that camera. Am I going mad ?
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 16, 2013 6:19:39 GMT -5
And here comes a picture from the first test film. Not really good conditions on this festival for taking pictures with a TLR ( because it was simply too crowded ), but I forgot my glasses anyway. So ... guess-focus, elbows, point and shoot Oiran Dochu Parade in Asakusa by bokuwanihongasuki, on Flickr
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 15, 2013 18:41:31 GMT -5
I don't know, if it is good or bad, but I use simply alcohol and a soft tissue.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 14, 2013 9:25:57 GMT -5
I think the most important thing is the capability of acceptance ... not even understanding. I will never understand, why my wife needs a new bag or new shoes although she already has a hundred and she can probably also not understand, why I do need another camera even already owning quite few ... BUT ... and that's the only important thing, we are capable of accepting what we do not understand. That is just a matter of personal character. Some people can do that and some can't. Besides that, this forum here is definitely the best, I have seen so far. Other photography forums are mostly full of smart asses, endlessly lecturing about this and that, knowing everything better and never taking pictures at all.
|
|
Berndt
Lifetime Member
Posts: 751
|
Post by Berndt on Apr 12, 2013 21:51:43 GMT -5
I love this lens. I often used it as a "standard frame lens" on my GH1. Here a picture of a cup of Cappuccino, taken with it
|
|