Sorry Frances I did read and enjoy your article on
the Tri-Elmar, I have had trial of this lens myself
with the new viewfinder and yes it is good but I
will be sticking with my M15mm f8 Hologon.
Sorry Frances I did read and enjoy your article on
the Tri-Elmar, I have had trial of this lens myself
with the new viewfinder and yes it is good but I
will be sticking with my M15mm f8 Hologon.
JON.
Dear Jon,
Frances is on the 'phone to her sister, but I'm intrigued to ask why you prefer the Hologon (which neither of us has ever tried). She LOVED that Tri-Elmar, and hated giving it back (mailed back on Monday after 2 months trial), but we couldn't afford it even with a press discount. I'm not questioning your judgement, just intrigued as to what you see as the main advantages.
Cheers,
Roger (oh -- and Frances, now off the 'phone, says 'thanks and watch out for the Hasselblad-fit ZV lenses in the next issue -- ALL ON FILM!')
Roger,
One reason is that I have already got it and after 20 years use I have
be very attached to it. The quality is without question legionary,
I like and prefer fixed focal length lenses and it is a classic.
JON
Yes, I have to agree that there was a very worrying amount of d******. And not only that, but a number of examples of typical incredulous digital evangelist type rubbish, which is always a very bad sign. Lets hope the new editor stops the rot.
One example that made me laugh: "the imaging performance of even modest (current) DSLRs is spectacularly good measured ... against the current DSLR state of the art". Or to interpret, the standard of the inferior examples of a group are greater than the average of the group. I don't know if something was lost in the translation from American, but its still b******s.
And this was from a columinst who recently suggested that the quality of digital prints should not be compared to silver prints because they are completely different things and hence the comparison is meaningless.
Steve
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
Although I have not seen an issue of B and W in well over a year, if the only pool of 35mm camera are the F6 and variants fo the Cosina Rangfinders, and you need advertisers to stay in business what else can they do?
There are Cosina/Voigtlander 35mm SLR cameras also, and I think Leica still makes the R9 SLR, just not the digital back. Plus, of course, there are current film rangefinder cameras offered by Leica, Zeiss and Cosina/Voigtlander, plus there still are a few medium-format cameras offered, and the big market seems to be these days, the LF and ULF cameras made in small shops around the world.
If you stop reading the rags because there is too much digital talk there is not going to be anything in print besides maybe Emulsion for ya, which you should all have a subscription to by now. Personally I like Black and White and like to keep up with photography in general regardless of acquisition. I don't think you can expect a photography magazine to remain profitable if 70 to 90% of the audience is digital but 50-90% of the article's are analog? Ain't gonna happen; Time marches on. If you want to get any coverage at all maybe you should write in and ask for more film based coverage and just maybe submit some pictures taken with film. Speak up with some letters to the editor. You can't talk about it only here and expect the world to take notice.
__________________
W.A. Crider
"A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth"...Einstein
I subscribe to "B&W Photography" and this news disturbs me. My October issue is yet to arrive, so I haven't seen it. The reason I stopped subscribing to Practical Photography after quite a few years was their embracing of digital photography and their negative attitude to film photography. If "B&W" is heading in that same direction they will lose many readers.
Ahh bummer. I'll have to keep my fingers crossed since this, to me, is/was the last, the only, the one real photomagazine. If it turns bad then what?
Id really hate to see it go mainstream d******
Frances and Roger
I must say that even though Im not a rangefinder shooter and can't afford the Zeiss ZF lenses It has been a pleasure to read your reviews just for the spark and exitement, or should that be entusiasm, you put into your articles. Your other articles about "The glow"; "Spotting the difference" etc where great too and the first I read when comming home with the mag (What is this called? )
Kind regards
Søren
__________________
Søren Nielsen
"....wonder is the fuel that sustains vision"
Stephen J. Meyers
Printer's art - Leon traditional (bless 'im!), Tony Worobiec digital
Technique - How to go from traditional to digital
Printer review (looking like a new regular slot) - Jerry Lebens reviewing an inkjet
DSLR listing towards the back
I wasn't impressed at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeg
Another thing which really worries me is the announcement of the new editor, David Corfield. Now, I know nothing about him at all, but what concerned me was the mention that he's been a deputy editor on Practical Photography and Photography Monthy. Two magazines which are very strong digital evangelists.
That's worrying. I cancelled my subscription to PP after a monochrome special which made no reference to traditional methods other than the phrase, "lost hours in smelly darkrooms"!
Obviously the bloke hasn't started yet and I'll need to see which direction the mag goes, but if this issue is anything to go by then I can't see me continuing to spend money supporting it.
Very sad. I firmly believe that the mag's success to date is because it has offered something different. It would be a great shame if it became just another digirag.
__________________ The destination is important, but so is the journey
)
Linear Mode
