Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,871   Posts: 1,583,434   Online: 1237
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 76
  1. #21
    DWThomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    SE Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,273
    Images
    67
    Roger - right click on the page of interest, not the address -- should do it.

    DaveT

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    Roger - right click on the page of interest, not the address -- should do it.

    DaveT
    Dear Dave,

    Aha!

    http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photo...ps%20save.html

    Thanks also to Steve who sent a PM.

    Let's see if this works...

    (Seconds later)

    IT DID!

    Thanks everyone...

    Cheers,

    Roger

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
    Dear Jason,


    When it comes to lenses, yes, the Konica and the best Retina lenses will stand comparison with whatever you've been using, but most FSU lenses won't. And again, I've owned 'em.
    Just curious, which FSU lenses do you consider mediocre/underwhelming? After reading a lot and looking at other people's pictures, I have a couple - Jupiter-9, Industar 61 L/D, and the collapsible Industar-10 that came with my recently acquired FED-2.

    I know this is subjective, but I quite like the 61 L/D for sharpness and resolution, and the Jupiter-9 helps to take great portraits (from the limited tests I've done the "good bokeh" argument is valid). And, well, the price/performance is fantastic

    Now, I don't have any Leica or real Zeiss glass to compare them to directly, but presumably you have, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.

  4. #24
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post

    When it comes to lenses, yes, the Konica and the best Retina lenses will stand comparison with whatever you've been using, but most FSU lenses won't. And again, I've owned 'em.
    As a starving student, I bought a full set of L39 lenses to go on my "cheap old" Leica IIIa. I had an Orion (?) 28 mm f6, Jupiter 12 35 mm f2.8, Jupiter 8 50 mm f2 and Jupiter 11 135 mm f4. I used to use them for press work where definition was not ultra-critical and I never enlarged beyond 8x10". I was not very impressed with any of them except the Jupiter 11 135 mm, which seemed to be up there with Leitz glass. I sold my original lens a long time ago and bought another example 4 to 5 years ago, which seemed just as good.

    Regards,

    David

  5. #25

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by mabman View Post
    Just curious, which FSU lenses do you consider mediocre/underwhelming? After reading a lot and looking at other people's pictures, I have a couple - Jupiter-9, Industar 61 L/D, and the collapsible Industar-10 that came with my recently acquired FED-2.

    I know this is subjective, but I quite like the 61 L/D for sharpness and resolution, and the Jupiter-9 helps to take great portraits (from the limited tests I've done the "good bokeh" argument is valid). And, well, the price/performance is fantastic

    Now, I don't have any Leica or real Zeiss glass to compare them to directly, but presumably you have, so I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject.
    Generally, the wider, the worse. The two 20/5.6 Russars I've ever tried (one owned, one borrowed) were awful in every way (sharpness, resolution, vignetting, contrast). The 28/6 is not very sharp (I've had about five or six, in Zorkii and Kiev fit) and every 35/2.8 I've had is again pretty uniformly awful -- and I even found a 'new, old-stock' one of those once. Again I've had several.

    The 50/2 is kinda romantic but quality control is all over the place, and the best I've had (out of maybe 10) haven't been outstandingly sharp. The slower 50s are among the best, again subject to quality control, but again I've even found new ones to be lacking in contrast. The 85/2 is a wonderful portrait lens but (again) lacking in resolution -- I half wish I'd not got rid of my last one, but a friend fell in love with it for portraits -- and while the 135/4 is impressively ugly and rather slow it's probably the best of the lot, but I've only had two or three.

    Next to current (or indeed most post WW2) Leica lenses all the FSU lenses lack 'sparkle' on trannies though as I say there can be a vintage charm on mono: I still use my 1936 50/3.5 Elmar sometimes for its vintage look, though the 50/1.5 Sonnar-C that I currently have for review is both 'vintage' and 'sparkly' -- possibly my favourite 50 ever, and I've tried most except Leica 50/1.2 and 50/1.4.

    Hope this helps.

    Cheers,

    Roger

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    584
    Images
    18
    If you are looking for something with a nice big viewfinder (that leaves the FED's and screw mount Leica'f out) and a really sharp lens, look at a Minolta HiMatic 7s or 9. You can pick one of these up for $30. The lens is fantastic, with auto and manual exposure and a great big viewfinder. For something a little smaller, look at the HiMatic 7sII or Canonet. I've also heard good things about the Olympus's.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    California
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    395
    Images
    9
    Yikes, just over night and there's so much to read!

    It seems like there are a lot of cameras to choose from, but since Roger highlighted the ones that have good image quality and a nice viewfinder, I am leaning towards the Konica SIII. My budget may seem low and I can expand that, but at the moment, I am trying to have both of best worlds (meaning digital and analog). Call it blasephemy, but since I have been unofficially dubbed our church and family photographer, it seems like digital is indispensible. However, for the past month or so, I've been purely shooting in analog and I must say, I enjoy it a LOT.

    Again, I appreciate all of your responses. Thanks so much for helping me out!

  8. #28
    narsuitus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    571
    My personal favorites are the:
    Canon QL17 Giii 35mm film rangefinder with 40mm lens
    Minolta Hi-Matic 9 35mm film rangefinder with 45mm lens

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    505
    Images
    35
    Actually, by sheer chance, I picked up a Zorki 4 at our local market today for £10. Its viewfinder is considerably larger and brighter than any other FSU rangefinder I've tried.

    re: FSU lenses. I've enlarged shots from an Industar 61 L/D to 8x10 and the prints were great. Easily a match for, for example, the SMC-A Takumar 50 f1.7 I have. I haven't enlarged to a greater size, though, so I don't know how well the lens would stand up to more enlargement. The Jupiter-8 I have is quite nice, but definitely not as sharp as the Industar. A little soft (although I like the look). The 85mm Jupiter 9 is, as Roger says, quite nice but definitely a 'portrait' lens.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    830
    Interesting thread, thanks everyone

    I've just bought an Olympus 35RC from eBay based on some good things I've read, and am awaiting delivery - I like the XA, but found it too fragile and it broke down in my pocket (however, I seem to be alone in this) as did the modern Stylus Epic - but I also hear good things about the 35RC (although metal, somewhat bigger and heavier), which I'm hoping will be just as good image-quality wise and just about as portable, while being more robust

    I'm also looking at a Konica Auto S2, which doesn't have quite as many features as the S3, but is not as popular and therefore cheaper. It seems somewhat heavier, but that's OK for me. So, please don't outbid me

    So, yeah, I've got a bit of GAS at the moment, but at the prices for FSU rangefinders and 1970's/early 1980's-era fixed-lens rangefinders, who can resist

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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