Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
...or my Nikon FE is once again on the chopping block to fund one.
I wanted this camera specifically because I intend to eventually find the monster lens, the 50mm f/.95, and use it. However, I want another screwmount rangefinder and, while I know I'll miss my SLR, I was thinking of going Pentax screwmount because of the availability of lenses and a shorter budget.
I have roughly $120 to spend on top of the $150 I was going to ask for the Nikon FE, 50mm f/1.4 AI, and lens cap. That could easily get me a body and a nice J-8 to use on it.
So...let the telling me that I don't need it begin! Let's see if I listen.
I wanted this camera specifically because I intend to eventually find the monster lens, the 50mm f/.95, and use it. However, I want another screwmount rangefinder and, while I know I'll miss my SLR, I was thinking of going Pentax screwmount because of the availability of lenses and a shorter budget.
I have roughly $120 to spend on top of the $150 I was going to ask for the Nikon FE, 50mm f/1.4 AI, and lens cap. That could easily get me a body and a nice J-8 to use on it.
So...let the telling me that I don't need it begin! Let's see if I listen.
ferider
Veteran
How is the Opton ? Did you get/try it yet ?
Roland.
Roland.
Letien
Established
I had 3 canon 7 in the pass. I don't like the floating ghost image in the viewfinder. In the other hand, I never had a 0.95 but I guess you need an extremely clear and precise rangefinder to focus at .95. That's hard to find condition for a canon7. Its rangefinder is difficult to calibrate even with experienced technician.Stephanie Brim said:...or my Nikon FE is once again on the chopping block to fund one.
I wanted this camera specifically because I intend to eventually find the monster lens, the 50mm f/.95, and use it. However, I want another screwmount rangefinder and, while I know I'll miss my SLR, I was thinking of going Pentax screwmount because of the availability of lenses and a shorter budget.
I have roughly $120 to spend on top of the $150 I was going to ask for the Nikon FE, 50mm f/1.4 AI, and lens cap. That could easily get me a body and a nice J-8 to use on it.
So...let the telling me that I don't need it begin! Let's see if I listen.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
You don't need a Canon 7.Stephanie Brim said:
That's $300 for a body, in good shape if you're lucky. Plus at least $400 or so for the lens. As a result you will have spent $700 and have a lens that you will use rarely because of its dimensions and weight, and because ultimately we don't really need f/1 all that often in the real world. And you will have to get used to a new camera, time spent during which your photography will suffer because you concentrate on the new camera too much. And when you have it, you will want to move on to the next thing, the Canon will sit in a cupboard, get used once every three months, and eventually you will sell it at a loss to finance the next big thing on the horizon - then it will probably be ultrawides or large format or whatever.Stephanie Brim said:
You are chasing a magic bullet. Don't do it. Photos with a Nikon FE with a 50/1.4 by someone who knows their stuff and has taken a couple of thousand pictures with it will be infinitely better than those by a magic bullet chaser who has a lens that is one stop faster.
Philipp
venchka
Veteran
1. $400 for the 50/0.95 is possible to not very likely. I was watching one last night & it sold for $511 range with marks on the rear element and no return. The other one I was watching sold for $1,025 & a hood sold for $241.
2. The Nikkor 50/1.4 just might be one of the great lenses of all time. Certainly better than mere mortals like me would ever need. Keep it. Learn it. Enjoy it.
3. Someday when you have $300 (+ or -) burning a whole in your pocket and you don't need it for frivolous things like groceries or rent, buy the Canon 50/1.2 and use it on an M body.
4. Don't sell perfectly good to great stuff to buy something else that may/may not be as good as what you sold.
I'm rambling like a broken record. Good luck!
2. The Nikkor 50/1.4 just might be one of the great lenses of all time. Certainly better than mere mortals like me would ever need. Keep it. Learn it. Enjoy it.
3. Someday when you have $300 (+ or -) burning a whole in your pocket and you don't need it for frivolous things like groceries or rent, buy the Canon 50/1.2 and use it on an M body.
4. Don't sell perfectly good to great stuff to buy something else that may/may not be as good as what you sold.
I'm rambling like a broken record. Good luck!
Last edited:
ferider
Veteran
Brian Sweeney said:
Yes ! And part of the business (she'll help) will be fixing Assembler
bugs in M8+ firmware ...
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I don't have the Sonnar yet. I'm hoping it comes today while I'm off for lunch (as in now).
As for the rest. I can get a body for $215. Having two bodies that take different lenses will give me the chance to use different lenses. Two bodies will also give me the freedom to carry one with a 50mm and one with a 35mm.
Even if I don't go for the Canon I'm going to get a second rangefinder body of some kind. As much as I love shooting one camera with one lens, my upcoming project would be much easier if I didn't have to change lenses on one body every time I wanted to use a different lens.
As for the rest. I can get a body for $215. Having two bodies that take different lenses will give me the chance to use different lenses. Two bodies will also give me the freedom to carry one with a 50mm and one with a 35mm.
Even if I don't go for the Canon I'm going to get a second rangefinder body of some kind. As much as I love shooting one camera with one lens, my upcoming project would be much easier if I didn't have to change lenses on one body every time I wanted to use a different lens.
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
Don't get hooked on equipment like I am, or you may wind up the photography version of an 'audiophite'.
An 'audiophite' is a guy who claims to be an 'audiophile'- listens to his stereo, but not the music; rarely makes it all the way through a song without having to a/b some new gold cryogenic cable or something..
I'm that way with cameras now, and now that I'm aware of it, hopefully I'll change..every roll I shoot now is some kind of damn 'test'. I seem more concerned about the lens I used than the result I got.
I liked my own pictures better when all I had was an OM-2 and one 50mm lens.
An 'audiophite' is a guy who claims to be an 'audiophile'- listens to his stereo, but not the music; rarely makes it all the way through a song without having to a/b some new gold cryogenic cable or something..
I'm that way with cameras now, and now that I'm aware of it, hopefully I'll change..every roll I shoot now is some kind of damn 'test'. I seem more concerned about the lens I used than the result I got.
I liked my own pictures better when all I had was an OM-2 and one 50mm lens.
ferider
Veteran
Here is why I asked, Stephanie:
IMO, very fast RF lenses are only good for one thing: signature.
If you need an additional half or full stop, you can always get it
with faster film, or the classic way, with a table-top tripod.
Very fast lenses are big, heavy and very difficult to focus on
any RF, and in particular in the dark. 50/1.4 is already hard,
even on a long-base camera like the M3.
For the CV 35/1.2, you can almost get the same effect with the
much smaller and cheaper 40/1.4.
For the Canon 90/.95, the Canon 50/1.2 is much more flexible.
If you really want to go fast, try a 28/1.9, you gain more hand-holding
capability due to wide angle. 1.5 stops compared to a 50mm.
WRT signature, try the Sonnar first. I never used the .95, but always
thought pictures from the 50/1.2 had a very similar signature.
Even my 1.2 stays mostly at home because it's big and scary.
Best,
Roland.
IMO, very fast RF lenses are only good for one thing: signature.
If you need an additional half or full stop, you can always get it
with faster film, or the classic way, with a table-top tripod.
Very fast lenses are big, heavy and very difficult to focus on
any RF, and in particular in the dark. 50/1.4 is already hard,
even on a long-base camera like the M3.
For the CV 35/1.2, you can almost get the same effect with the
much smaller and cheaper 40/1.4.
For the Canon 90/.95, the Canon 50/1.2 is much more flexible.
If you really want to go fast, try a 28/1.9, you gain more hand-holding
capability due to wide angle. 1.5 stops compared to a 50mm.
WRT signature, try the Sonnar first. I never used the .95, but always
thought pictures from the 50/1.2 had a very similar signature.
Even my 1.2 stays mostly at home because it's big and scary.
Best,
Roland.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
I have a feeling that the Sonnar is going to be with me in some form always. I like the look of photos taken with it and I have a feeling that I'll really love using it.
I like the look of photos taken with it and I have a feeling that I'll really love using it.rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Stephanie,
I think that you are really lusting for gear and trying to justify that for yourself by hoping that it will make your photography better. Your 7-point photographic wishlist was as good an indicator of that as anything. IMHO lusting for gear is OK as long as one is interested in the gear itself for its own sake, be it collector's or financial interest. Otherwise, ask yourself where you want to be photographically a year down the road, and go for an 80/20 solution. To be honest with you, it's actually not the first time I'm writing that in a thread of yours, and it is a strange feeling to notice that I (along with many others) am essentially telling somebody the same thing over and over again. It's obvious that you're looking for an identity (photographically speaking), and an expensive lens won't help you find it.
Get a Zorki-4 or so for that second body if you need it, plunk down $50 on that darkroom and spend ten hours a week in there and ten hours out of there taking pictures, and you will be more rewarded and produce better pictures after a month than that lens would ever have given you.
That's a lot of money if you just want a screwmount rangefinder body that does the job. You could even get a mint Bessa R for that and enjoy a much better finder, as well as considerably more comfort.Stephanie Brim said:
That's Kiev/Contax plus screwmount?Stephanie Brim said:
Good screwmount rangefinder bodies can be had for $30. Rodchenko could have done all the remarkable stuff he did with a $5 Zorki-1. Non-7 Canons can be had for $100 to $150. No need to sell a perfectly good SLR just to have the option of using one highly specialised lens that will again cost at least two or three times as much as the body you're trying to finance. Missing the point IMHO.Stephanie Brim said:
I think that you are really lusting for gear and trying to justify that for yourself by hoping that it will make your photography better. Your 7-point photographic wishlist was as good an indicator of that as anything. IMHO lusting for gear is OK as long as one is interested in the gear itself for its own sake, be it collector's or financial interest. Otherwise, ask yourself where you want to be photographically a year down the road, and go for an 80/20 solution. To be honest with you, it's actually not the first time I'm writing that in a thread of yours, and it is a strange feeling to notice that I (along with many others) am essentially telling somebody the same thing over and over again. It's obvious that you're looking for an identity (photographically speaking), and an expensive lens won't help you find it.
Get a Zorki-4 or so for that second body if you need it, plunk down $50 on that darkroom and spend ten hours a week in there and ten hours out of there taking pictures, and you will be more rewarded and produce better pictures after a month than that lens would ever have given you.
Stephanie Brim
Mental Experimental.
The other reasons I want a Canon:
The viewfinder works well with my glasses. I could see the 35mm fairly well even with the Canon P.
Framelines matter for me. While I can shoot the Kiev with a 50mm relatively well, it's harder to frame a 35.
The meter would be nice to have in situations where Sunny 16 won't quite work.
Loading is quick and easy with the 7 series Canons.
Etc.
I wanted the camera so that I could eventually use the 50/.95 if I wanted, but the other reasons are more worthy.
The viewfinder works well with my glasses. I could see the 35mm fairly well even with the Canon P.
Framelines matter for me. While I can shoot the Kiev with a 50mm relatively well, it's harder to frame a 35.
The meter would be nice to have in situations where Sunny 16 won't quite work.
Loading is quick and easy with the 7 series Canons.
Etc.
I wanted the camera so that I could eventually use the 50/.95 if I wanted, but the other reasons are more worthy.
robin a
Well-known
Save the money for the baby.You have a nice camera and a great lens comming.If you have to spend your money buy a Savings Bond..........Robin
PetarDima
Well-known
What to say? I know how you feel, believe me ... like you, I am camera dreamer, and I'm afraid - camera dreamer with bad badphotos ... I allready heard that story : You allready have a camera, it is time to think more about photography ... now I have my dream camera(BESSA) and I don't want to go out with that expesive optical instrument because it's raining!
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
I haven't been following your camera purchases, but if you have a Canon P, you seem to have two good bodies already; and if you've sold that Canon P, getting another Canon body now after selling the first one seems a bit indecisive, unless you were forced to do it. But if that's what you need to make your photography better, spend $100 to $150 on a non-7 Canon or, better, a user Bessa R - easy loading, brighter finder, non-selenium TTL meter (are you getting a 7s with a good finder for those $215?), 35mm framelines that are actually very usable.
If you want that second body mainly for the 35 and have a good body already for that 50mm signature Sonnar, I don't see a point in the extra $100 for the option of using another $500 magic bullet 50mm signature lens at some indefinite point in the future. You don't have the disposable income to just try these things out (and even if you did, trying everything doesn't make our photography better). I'm repeating myself, but what are all these metal and glass pieces really for?
If you want that second body mainly for the 35 and have a good body already for that 50mm signature Sonnar, I don't see a point in the extra $100 for the option of using another $500 magic bullet 50mm signature lens at some indefinite point in the future. You don't have the disposable income to just try these things out (and even if you did, trying everything doesn't make our photography better). I'm repeating myself, but what are all these metal and glass pieces really for?
Sonnar2
Well-known
Even without the 0.95/50mm lens the Canon 7 is excellent value for money in terms of a metered camera for screw-mount lenses. You don't get a precision, high quality photographing machine for smaller money. Voigtlander Bessa's, Russian rangefinders, perhaps even Nikon S2 or Leica M4-2 don't play in the same league in this respect...
ferider
Veteran
PetarDima said:
I do not agree, Vlad. You are an outstanding photographer. I like
your photos very much. Amazing what you get out of that 40/2.
Best,
Roland.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi Frank,
On a personal note, I've been photographing on a limited budget long enough to say that the added mechanical sophistication of a 300 EUR Canon 7 vis-a-vis my 120 EUR Bessa R with its better meter and IMO finder wouldn't have been worth the extra investment in terms of photographic output. When faced with limited funds for these things, I prefer to think in terms of added value and marginal cost. If the Bessa does the job, do my results really get two times better if I spend twice as much, at considerable personal investment, on a device that is slightly better in some respect and worse in others? If they do, it's money well spent, if they don't, it's not. When I upgraded from a Zorki-6 to a Bessa-R, it was worth it. In this case I think it's not. And I certainly wouldn't have sold my Canon AE-1 plus 50/1.4 to get it, because the loss would have been greater than the gain.
Philipp
Personally I don't subscribe to the viewpoint that the tactile experience of mechanical precision ranks very high in the criteria list for good pictures - but even if it does, I've seen user Pentax Spotmatics go for 50 EUR, user Nikon F2s for 120 EUR, and user Canon F-1s for 140 EUR, so yes, you can get them for smaller moneySonnar2 said:
On a personal note, I've been photographing on a limited budget long enough to say that the added mechanical sophistication of a 300 EUR Canon 7 vis-a-vis my 120 EUR Bessa R with its better meter and IMO finder wouldn't have been worth the extra investment in terms of photographic output. When faced with limited funds for these things, I prefer to think in terms of added value and marginal cost. If the Bessa does the job, do my results really get two times better if I spend twice as much, at considerable personal investment, on a device that is slightly better in some respect and worse in others? If they do, it's money well spent, if they don't, it's not. When I upgraded from a Zorki-6 to a Bessa-R, it was worth it. In this case I think it's not. And I certainly wouldn't have sold my Canon AE-1 plus 50/1.4 to get it, because the loss would have been greater than the gain.
Philipp
nasmformyzombie
Registered
As others have said, the Canon 50mm f.95 is more than $400, and it's unwieldy. If you want speed, how about the Canon 50mm f1.2? It's not nearly as large and heavy as the .95, and it's much cheaper. It will also work on any number of screwmount and M mount bodies (on an M body with an adapter of course).
Sonnar2
Well-known
rxmd said:Personally I don't subscribe to the viewpoint that the tactile experience of mechanical precision ranks very high in the criteria list for good pictures - but even if it does, I've seen user Pentax Spotmatics go for 50 EUR, user Nikon F2s for 120 EUR, and user Canon F-1s for 140 EUR, so yes, you can get them for smaller money
After all, we talking about RF here: small, inobstrusive cameras, small lenses. Not tools you can use as a weapon like a Nikon F (great cameras...). As a friend of the Pentax SLRs too, it hurts me to admit that the Spotmatic isn't nearly worked as a precision tool like the Canon 7.
Probably the feel of a precision tool don't make any person a better photographer, true. But it's more joy to use for people who get enjoyed by a quality feel, anyway if cars, motorcycles, cooking, machinery, tools or similar stuff are concerned. In most cases with cheaper stuff the results are the same - at least for a while - but the joy to use is smaller.
regards Frank