Some necks around here say that...

Thanks Robin, drewbarb, Al (as always) and climbing vine. Now we're on photography... I honestly belive that a great smaller camera or camera line can be made and well sold, and I hope it doesn't take long... Maybe a post by someone knowing more technical details on design&build would be really helpful.
 
I don't get it.
Why a digital if a well used Leica with a central cropping of a half of it has A LOT more quality than the pro digital I use with primes or the pro digital cameras used around the world for real jobs?
 
A camera smaller than a CL (interchangeable lens type) and a Rollei 35 (fixed lens type) is going to be difficult to hold and use. These are small enough for me, and they offer full frame 35 quality.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I don't get it.
Why a digital if a well used Leica with a central cropping of a half of it has A LOT more quality than the pro digital I use with primes or the pro digital cameras used around the world for real jobs?
Click to expand...
"A LOT more quality"??......what are these pro digitals with primes?? :rolleyes:
Dave.
 
Dave, please tell us about those digital cameras you know of, being better than a half frame crop from a good Leica frame.


I've used digital pro for ten years more or less. Nikons, Canons, later Fujis, a 4x5 Sinar with digital back for product, and Hassel's H1 for fashion (not mine, owned by the latest studio I worked for a few years ago), and none of them deliver for wides the quality of a Leica wide. No sensor, even a future one a lot larger will be as sensitive and detailed as silver, because silver halures are MANY TIMES smaller than single sensors. Also, movies have moved millions and millons and millions of dollars for generations, so technological development for digital capture is by now a grain of sand on a desert, compared to the real top technology, named... film.


That on photography.


About some people converting this thread and this forum into what of course it doesn't deserve to be, I tell you: there's still hope for you: your low level sarcasm without creativity, and easy laughs wrongly considered humour can vastly improve here as your photographs, because RFF is full of wonderful people with real humour and constructive irony, and usually those are the best photographers around here.


We are not really interested in any more digital fake. If you don't like small quality cameras, waste your time in other thread. This one is not for you, respectfully.
 
Last edited:
Juan Valdenebro said:
Dave, which digital cameras are better than half a good Leica frame?

(This is far from the original post, but people use threads for different things...)

I've used digital since the beginning, Nikons, Canons and later Fujis, and Hasselblad's H1 for one year (owned by the last studio I worked for, a few years ago). Not even the H1 could give a really good result with a wide angle. Rangefinders are best for that. Even old mechanical nikons, say $300 used, deliver, IF WELL USED, better results than the latest 24 Megapixels Nikon D3x, $6000 or whatever, of course I don't know the price and I am not interested on that monstruosity.

And about converting this honorable space in what it doesn't deserve to be, let me say that even some people's easy, small time sarcasm can be truly upgraded, as their photographs! This forum has wonderful people with real fine humour and technique to learn from.

Tell me, which are those cameras?
Click to expand...
As you say "far from the original post", but as much as I love film and film cameras, the prospect of half a 35mm frame - be it from Leica, Nikon, Canon or whatever! greatly exeeding the quality of todays top DSLR's, is optimism in the extreme! and yes - I have used the best of both mediums, over the past fortyfive years, and no I won't qualify this nonsense further, with a list of those cameras. And as for sarcasm, or humor....we usually get what we invite - on these threads!
Dave.
 
Dave Wilkinson said:
As you say "far from the original post", but as much as I love film and film cameras, the prospect of half a 35mm frame - be it from Leica, Nikon, Canon or whatever! greatly exeeding the quality of todays top DSLR's, is optimism in the extreme! and yes - I have used the best of both mediums, over the past fortyfive years, and no I won't qualify this nonsense further, with a list of those cameras. And as for sarcasm, or humor....we usually get what we invite - on these threads!
Dave.
Click to expand...

What counts on this thread is the ability of a 18x24mm negative to make a print. GREAT GORGEOUS PRINTS CAN BE MADE!

And I disagree: I never invited to sarcasm. I am so really surprised!
 
Does neck mean another thing in english?

"Some necks around here say that..." meant "our tired necks vote here for more or less weight, so Cosina can hear us"

Lord there are crazy people!

And truly the center of a rangefinder landscape holds more detail and better, much better tonal transition than any digital capture I've worked with.

What is clear for me now is that for the vast majority of people around here, PRECISELY below 35mm things are crap. That's so funny...

So good I'm not in charge of Cosina's line, because few of us would buy a half frame M2. Well, it could be then a special edition of 10 mini M2s with fixed collapsible 50mm 3.5 Heliar. Three of them for me, for my necklace, one with film for sunny scenes, other for slides and other for shadows...
 
Last edited:
Okay, I agree that an 18x24 neg can produce a good print, but you have to agree that a print made from a full frame 35mm would be technically better in terms of fine detail rendered and tonality. Yes?

Now, I can't see an advantage in size and weight of existing 1/2 frame cameras and existing small full frame 35mm cameras.

So, what is the point of 1/2 frame? It's not quality. It's not size and weight. Is it more shots per roll? If it is, then a digi P+S would be superior in that regard, since quality is not the issue, and they are even smaller than 1/2 frame cameras.

I'll let it go now, having said what I can.
 
FrankS, the advantage is carrying less weight and being prepared for making better shots. If you haven't enjoyed the advantages of having two or three lenses ALWAYS ready on separate bodies, I understand your position.

Unnecessary inside the studio, little cameras offer, appart from unbeatable system readyness, the possibility of having three of them with you in your jacket pockets, taking out one very small toy at a time, never changing lenses, AND never looking like a photographer, and that's a must for a real photographer: a must because that's the only way to shoot most of the real good shots. First we got to be there, and not precisely invited as photographers...
 
Last edited:
There's two things to consider.

The first is that while the quality of film has improved dramatically over the last 40 years, so have the demands of the user. 8x10 used to be printing large for most people, now it's really the smallest common print size for a serious photographer. Printing up to 13x19 in the home is simple with today's inkjet printers and a scanner. And that means that you need that extra area to get good prints. A 12x18 print on 13x19 paper can push 35mm film quite hard.

The second is that there never was an appreciable size advantage to half-frame. The super-compact full-frame options are essentially identical in size. If you need a smaller/lighter option there's plenty already, starting with the Olympus XA, Rollei 35S, Contax T3 and Ricoh GR1.
 
mawz said:
There's two things to consider.

The first is that while the quality of film has improved dramatically over the last 40 years, so have the demands of the user. 8x10 used to be printing large for most people, now it's really the smallest common print size for a serious photographer. Printing up to 13x19 in the home is simple with today's inkjet printers and a scanner. And that means that you need that extra area to get good prints. A 12x18 print on 13x19 paper can push 35mm film quite hard.
Click to expand...

I think you only hang out with serious enthusiast photographers. Everyone I know likes to take pictures, most of them have photo printers and scanners. I've worked for years in the intersection of normal people and technology, often directly with imaging and printing.

I don't know anyone who ever prints anything larger than 8x10, and 4xt6/5x7 is at least five orders of magnitude more common. In fact, the only prints larger than 8x10 I've ever seen in anyone's house (that weren't bought in a frame at Target) were blown up decades ago from their own 35mm SLR shots from the 60s and 70s.

The market data bears this out. Prints larger than 8.5x11 are less than 2% of all prints made at home. Retail and online-order print volume has overtaken home printing, and again virtually non of that is larger than 8x10.

Phrases like "for serious photographers" tend to confuse the issue, because it enables you to come back later and adjust your argument to mean everything or nothing. Obviously, the larger the negative the bigger the print you can make, which matters to the fraction of a percent of people who want to make posters (and will do it more than once... this is less than one in 10k photographers). But that doesn't speak to the overwhelming majority of cases. Only in certain kinds of local galleries, or on the walls of coffee shops, is it de rigueur for all photos to be printed poster size in order to convey an unearned sense of monumentality.
 
(Self quote from "What new Voigtlander product..." thread)

To make it REAL NEW!

A tough all metal, mechanical miniBessa, just with very basic commands to make it really compact, in format 24x24mm with a reduced, fixed 40mm 1.4. Great to explore the very enjoyable square vision without the bulky Hasselblad...

As the lens must cover a square and not a rectangle, it would be even tinier than actual 40!

You make a good, even expensive but really tiny camera, and the stock gets sold for sure. The format quality is really just like the whole 24x36mm. After a week of wonderful shots posted, you would wish you made a few thousands more of them... Even meterless it would have a strong character of its own. That could give a hand with size and price too...
 
Last edited:
Nobody cares about Eugene Smith using that camera, but I seriously doubt he acceped the ad if he considered that camera crap. Maybe he used it, of course. I think he never considered it superior or as good as Ms... I guess half frame cameras and me are nice as you... The three of us deserve an opportunity... Sorry for being a bit sensitive before, and thanks for being constant here on this thread... Of course I can see after your experience and posting you are a serious photographer and question -as it should be done- a maybe small format. Let's wait. I believe there'll be a company doing it, and it could be well done for a global market...

Thanks!
 
CK Dexter Haven said:
I already feel too much of HCB's catalog is BELOW standard as far as technical quality goes, and those 'shortcomings' are a significant part of why i don't hold him in such high esteem. Too many of his pictures are 'soft,' poorly focused, or exposed badly and compensated for in printing.
Click to expand...


CK Dexter Haven,

Your honest and brave words have made me think a lot... I wanted to tell you that I'm no fan of Cartier-Bresson either, and I don't have any book with his photographs. Photographers I like long ago and have books of, are Nadar, Atget, Newton and Salgado. Although he "only" painted his shots, I adore Vermeer too!

Last year or the one before, there was a HUGE exposition here in Barcelona dedicated to HCB's work. When I went in, I couldn't believe it: lots of fans there, so happy, and there were several tables exposing his personal things, not only his shots! Who cares about his belongings? That mass thing offended me and made me mad, and after viewing a small part of the exposition, without his most famous shots hanging, and with a general quality I seriously questioned technically, I went out. And didn't come back any other day.

Then today I found a 70 minutes documentary on HCB's shooting, and I must say that I had no idea on what a wonderful, cool man he was! Specially surprising when considering the economically relaxed life he was born into and always retained, to say it in an awful way... What a spirit! The documentary has himself when old as main character, with some other interesting people talking about his shots, and is VERY VERY worth seeing... I just had no idea on the real person, I had made a false HCB inside me, and I feel guilty for that, and now with a glass of wine, remembering how nice he was and how stupid I was on him, I guess it's starting to rain on my eyes...

The perfect moment thing has obviously been easily overemphasized... His lyrical image, his metaphoras are for him above the perfect instant, above the decisive moment, just as his most important seal: geometry and composition.

Here's a link, then you can follow the other parts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzgLQw3oBOI
 
Convenience vs. Quality

Convenience vs. Quality

In the Middle Ages they used to argue about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Here, everyone is argueing about the minimum size for a quality negative. It seems to me that it all depends - it all depends on how much you're going to enlarge the neg. As I enlarge my 35mm negs routinely to 9x13.5 inches, and have to work hard to get the quality that I want from 35mm, going smaller seems silly to me. Which is why whenever possible I use my Mamiya 6 as the quality difference is, for me, dramatic. But, if you are going to keep your prints to 8x10 or less, then you probably would find no difference in a 1/2 frame camera.
As for HCB, I think that the reproduction quality of the books that his photos were in don't do them justice. When you see the originals on the wall of a museum or gallery, they are superb.
 
In japan there was a long tradition of 1/2 frame cameras (Canon/Olympos/Fuji etc). One reason was economy and the fact that most negs were never printed beyond 4"x6" prints.
I like 1/2 frame myself - it allows you to shoot verticals without having to "flip" the camera. It also allows you to shoot a lot - and wait for that film to get to the end!!!!
With modern films, particularly bl/w and color films like Ektar 100 - you can get very good prints from that 18x24 negative. At the moment I am using an old Konica Autoreflex which gives you a choice between 1/2 and full frame as well a access to good lenses. There is also a Fuji 1/2 on a shelf and a Mercury Univex II (always used at f16 as the focus helicoil is frozen at infinity).
I would love to see a modern rangefinder with interchangeble lenses and a built in meter in 1/2 frame. I am not too worried about the physical size as I find that too small cameras are difficult to hold - a M/Bessa/Zeiss sized body would be fine. The Nokton 50mm f1.1 would become a nice 75f1.1 for low light stuff!
The square format (24x24) is quite useless in 35 - not because of image quality - but scanners and enlargers are difficult to find that can use them (I know - my 1940's Zeiss Tenax is 24x24 and my scanner goes nuts with those negs). Withe 1/2 frame it just scans two negs at the same time.
 
Enlightening as always, Tom... Lots of real information, thanks.

I agree : even a normal RF sized half frame camera would be attractive if produced these days. It doesn't seem close at all, though. It's also true that two bessas with unmounted small lenses live in pockets without problems. I'll stop dreaming soon, and maybe look for a real one from the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom