Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,980   Posts: 1,523,800   Online: 1170
      
Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 118
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    117
    Oh, and built in Flash - yes, Flash. It does improve many shots when used for fill.

  2. #12
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,681
    If you intend to shoot 6X4.5 slides 120 projectors are expensive.
    Ben

  3. #13
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Prices what they are, and having been there done that with Mamiya, Bronica's from the 1980's... I'd buy a Hasselblad. For walking around as you say, the Hasselblad can take the knocks etc and not care. The Bronica was a fragile thing, it didn't like walking around plastic bits chipping off, Mamiya, is fine especially if they are half the price of the already cheap Swed-square. Mamiya rangefinders fit the bill to... but still hold a decent price.

  4. #14
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by RattyMouse View Post
    Absolutely agree here. For "throw it in the bag" simplicity, nothing beats a Fuji GA645.
    500 cm needs no bag... hangs nicely off the shoulder because of the anchor points and pivots of OEM type strap and rounded corners,
    spill mustard on it, wipe it off.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,327
    645? I dunno, it isn't that much larger than 24 x 36. 41 x 56. 645 is half frame 6x9, which is actually 56 x 82.

    In his book Field Photography A. A. Blaker makes the point that going up in format without at least doubling both of the frame's dimensions isn't worth the expense. As can be seen in this thread, not everyone agrees.

    Twice 24 x 36 is 48 x 72, approximately nominal 6x7, which is really 56 x , depending on the manufacturer, 68 - 72 or so. Following Blaker's rule, the next step up from 35 mm still is 6x7. When, however, I went up in format from 35 mm still I went to 2 1/4 x 3 1/4, also called 2x3. 2x3 is identical to 6x9.

    One my good friends went from 35 mm still to 645, was absolutely delighted with the results he got with his spiffy Pentax 645. Until, that is, I showed him some 2x3 Ektachromes. Next to 2x3, 645 looks pretty punk. This is not to say that 2x3 is as wonderful as possible, next to 4x5 Ektachromes my 2x3s look pretty punk. Same goes for 4x5s next to 5x7s and 5x7s next to 8x10s.

  6. #16
    Two23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    South Dakota
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    294
    OK, I found a good one for you. It's a

    Voigtlander-Bessa-66-German-folding-6x6-cm-camera-CLA-works-Heliar-Compur-Rapid (ebay)

    The Heliar is a VERY special lens. This folding camera is very small yet quite durable. Downside, no internal meter. The ebay seller is cupog, in Slovenia. I've bought some very expensive things from him in the past and everything was always great! He is a camera repairman so everything he sells has been gone over completely. Very small, should fit in a shirt pocket even, takes 120 film.


    Kent in SD

  7. #17
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    The Bronica was a fragile thing, it didn't like walking around plastic bits chipping off
    I suppose that's possible with the later ETRS and the ETRSi. Though I don't baby my cameras, and have not had problems except with the levers for MLU and double exposure. Those are plastic, and not made beefy enough. They're cheap to replace at 5 bucks each, but eventually replacements will run out. I will replace mine with the metal ones off junk ETR/ETRS cameras as they break. Any metal one will work on both the MLU and DE.
    The earlier model ETRS cameras (lens release on front, not side) and the ETR were all metal and quite tough.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,234
    Images
    21
    Personally I much prefer 6x6 to 645, but not everyone loves the square, and SLRs grow like mad in proportion to the format. (I have a Rittreck 6x9 SLR, though unfortunately I can't find a 6x9 back for it; wonderful camera in its way, but it's like carrying a Volkswagen around.) I'm a TLR guy, but if you don't like the WLF that doesn't help you.

    Folders are fun, but realistically, they're not going to match a modern system camera for image quality, and you need to decide if that's an acceptable tradeoff. I've put in some time shooting slide film in 6x6 and 6x9 folders, and it's great when the stars align and you really get the shot you hoped for, but the hit rate is lower than with a modern camera (mainly because of scale focus, so a rangefinder folder would help---they get pricey though). And the *best* lens you're likely to find on a folder is a Tessar type.

    I find a 645 SLR to be a good functional replacement for 35mm. (I ended up with a Mamiya, but the various options seem like they're broadly similar in performance.) I resisted the format for a long time thinking that it wouldn't be a significant gain over 35mm, but I think I was just plain wrong; it's not a patch on 6x9, to be sure, but I don't think there's any 6x9 camera that handles remotely like a 35mm. (The big Fuji RFs might be the closest, but *man*, those are some big cameras. Plus, 8 shots per roll.)

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  9. #19
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,018
    Why limit yourself? Shoot 6x6 and when necessary you can crop to the most pleasing format for the composition.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  10. #20
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Fromm View Post

    In his book Field Photography A. A. Blaker makes the point that going up in format without at least doubling both of the frame's dimensions isn't worth the expense.
    In regards to resolution, maybe. But the 645 frame is 2.7 times larger in area. The difference is visible. Photographers have long moved from 135 to 6X6 just for the increase in quality, often cropping to about 645 format dimensions.
    I consider the 4X greater area of 6X7 to be worth more than the (approximate) doubling of dimensions and resolution over 135. The difference can be seen even in small enlargements where resolution differences are not so evident.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin