Some necks around here say that...

Hmm. I have a Minox LX in my pocket right now. Two more shots, and the film will be finished. It is a really- but really, really- quirky camera. Results are dismal if you compare them with 35mm.

But you know what? I have a lot of fun (and get some nice pics) using it. I enjoy it, even if it is so quirky. Come to think of it, maybe I enjoy it so much because it is so quirky. And the strangest thing yet: against all odds, you can get a (slighty different) new one! There is a manufacturer that caters to that tiny market, and seems to survive off its better selling products.

So, as I said in the "new product" thread, I really think Cosina could make a profit by filling the "very small, very high quality film camera" niche. The sucesor to the Rollei 35 and the Minox 35. Yes, a small "boutique" market indeed. Far bigger than Minox', IMHO. Even bigger than the one for a 6x7 folder, perhaps?
 
Could someone please give me a fast lesson (2 lines) on how to place a few images here right now in one only post?

I think they can't be more than 200k each... Is that all? How do I attach them?

Thanks!
 
Juan I like your question and do respect it although I have never felt the need of a half frame. A smaller camera for sure. Have you tried getting a good Ol' Leica II or III and admire that superb shape while drinking a cold beer ? That camera will be cheaper than anything that may hit the market in the future and you can get a 6 pack in addition :)
Secondly if you get bored of it you can basically resell it the same price you bought it.
All the Best
 
goodtimes said:
Juan I like your question and do respect it although I have never felt the need of a half frame. A smaller camera for sure. Have you tried getting a good Ol' Leica II or III and admire that superb shape while drinking a cold beer ? That camera will be cheaper than anything that may hit the market in the future and you can get a 6 pack in addition :)
Secondly if you get bored of it you can basically resell it the same price you bought it.
All the Best
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I must admit I like beer that much...

All my life I've thought Leica III is the most beautiful camera. That and a Bugatti 101 coupe are next in my plans.
 
My twins six months ago

My%20twins%20six%20months%20ago...jpg
 
These computer things! Should be as easy as telling RFF's page, "take the images inside the folder named..." All of them are ready (19) below 200Kb, colour& b&w...
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Get it simple, Roger:

I carry two Bessas and an SLR, and I don't carry three Hassels with "good 6x6".

Soooooo simple.

And believing that 18x24 is noticeably different from 24x36, surely IS a misconception. That format allows normal shooting and enlarging.

This is nonsense... Is it that any of you has enlarged beautifully half a good frame?
Click to expand...

Get it simple, Juan.

Did I refer to 'good 6x6'?

If you don't see a difference between two formats, one of which is twice the size of the other, I leave it open to others to decide which of us is promulgating nonsense.

And yes, I have enlarged beautiful half frames. And even more beautiful full-frames; and even more beautiful 6x9 cm. I've also enlarged 14x22mm Tessina, 10x14 mm 16mm, and 8x11mm Minox. And with each drop in format, there has been a correspondng drop in technical quality.TECHNICAL. Do you understand the words TECHNICAL QUALITY?

Get real, Juan.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
Get it simple, Juan.

Did I refer to 'good 6x6'?

If you don't see a difference between two formats, one of which is twice the size of the other, I leave it open to others to decide which of us is promulgating nonsense.

And yes, I have enlarged beautiful half frames. And even more beautiful full-frames; and even more beautiful 6x9 cm. I've also enlarged 14x22mm Tessina, 10x14 mm 16mm, and 8x11mm Minox. And with each drop in format, there has been a correspondng drop in technical quality.TECHNICAL. Do you understand the words TECHNICAL QUALITY?

Get real, Juan.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Roger, I don't know your age, but after 5000+ posts, you should see clearly that a larger format doesn't mean a better image. A sharper print doesn't mean a better image. "Don't ever confuse sharp with good..."

If a Salgado beautiful shot was -instead of taken with a Leica- taken with a larger negative, it wouldn't make that image any better, not even 1% better, and that's getting real. Sorry for you... Then let me ask you your way: Are my photographs on your screen sharp enough for you?
 
Roger has a little more than just 5,000 internet posts under his belt.

[edited for sanity]

It's odd to hear a guy who denigrates digital to the extent you do suddenly talk about how technical quality isn't at all relevant when film of any size is involved.

But to sum up, since this ridiculous debate truly was not the point of your thread at the start, I'd be very interested in a Bessa camera along the lines of a Leica CL. I'd probably buy one immediately. A 35mm full-frame compact rangefinder might sell to enough of us to make it worthwhile. I'd not buy a half-frame, however. I'd rather use my old Olympus XA.

By the way, your pics look pretty nice...but since there are boobs involved, I had to immediately close the window, as I'm using a work computer while on my lunch break.
 
Last edited:
AgentX, I agree with everyone here: a smaller negative allows less enlargement.

But it is as little important as if Picasso painted Guernica with finer brushes.

Specially because we were not comparing here 110 and 8x10, but really closer formats, wich have minimal differences in real life for most printing sizes..

Thanks for your kind words, and I appologize for any inconvenience after a slight and well treated nudity... Being the States, I could have thought about warning forum members using public working environments.

Cheers,

Juan
 
Thanks Antti, I shoot more b&w than color of course, but I don't have many b&w shots scanned.

Regards,

Juan

P.S.: All shots are film (4x5, 6x6 and 35mm) except those on the young model, shot with a FujiS3Pro and Nikkors (Unless you are famous, agencies here prefer fast digital), and as I was born poor, I can't say no... They don't want to pay a lot more for a 50 rolls slide film session, which I definitely like the best.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
Roger, I don't know your age, but after 5000+ posts, you should see clearly that a larger format doesn't mean a better image. A sharper print doesn't mean a better image. "Don't ever confuse sharp with good..."

If a Salgado beautiful shot was -instead of taken with a Leica- taken with a larger negative, it wouldn't make that image any better, not even 1% better, and that's getting real. Sorry for you... Then let me ask you your way: Are my photographs on your screen sharp enough for you?
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand my point about technical quality. In fact, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the words 'technical quality'. Go back and re-read my post. I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT AESTHETICS. I apologize for using capitals but you appear to have a highly selective way of reading others' posts.

If you feel like attacking my credibility, here's some ammunition, I'm 59, and I've earned a living from photography (and writing about it) for about 30 years. I've written three or four dozen books, many on photography, many of them illustrated with my own photographs. I've worked officially for the Tibetan Government in Exile, both reportage and portraits of resistance heroes (and one heroine). I started out in advertising in the mid-1970s and I've used most formats from Minox to 12x15 inch. You can also visit my website (address below).

Are your on-screen pictures sharp enough? Yes, for on-screen pictures. But there's a big difference between a 600x900 pixel image and even a half-page image in a book, and the same difference again between the picture in the book and (say) an 11x14 inch print.

I see from your latest post that you refer to 'minimal differences in real life for most printing sizes'. Well, yes, if your make prints small enough, it's hard to see the differences. And often, as you say, aesthetically it doesn't matter. But even at 6x9 inch/15x22.5cm there's a big difference between rollfilm and 35mm, and a clearly detectable difference between 24x36mm and 18x24mm. TECHNICALLY!

My point is simply this: dropping to from 24x36mm to half-frame (or any other small format) won't allow you to shrink a 35mm standard-cassette film camera much while retaining such features as interchangeable lenses, a meter, a decent rangefinder base, etc. My own belief, apparently shared by the manufacturers, is that the market for a slightly smaller camera with detectably worse TECHNICAL image quality is negligible.

If you don't think the image quality is detectably worse, fine, that's your privilege. I fully take your point about Salgado, though my favourite of all his pictures -- the mine workers, shrunk to ant-size by the scale of the mine -- might actually be even more fascinating with more detail, i.e. a larger format.

To reinforce my argument one last time, I am separating AESTHETIC quality and TECHNICAL quality. Aesthetic quality is often independent of format, though not always. Go to Arles, or indeed anywhere you can visit a wide range of exhibitions, and you'll see some pictures where the detail captured by a large format is essential to the aesthetics of the image: Richard Petit and Pierre Gonnord spring to mind. But for a given standard of manufacturing and optical design, technical quality is very closely related to format size.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom