bmattock
Veteran
beethamd said:
Going along with my project then, the hard-to-find Olympus OM-2000 (yet another Cosina). Sigh.
You are making me old.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
to all who worry about film being deadish
- Thread starter Michael I.
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 126
- Views 5K
Going along with my project then, the hard-to-find Olympus OM-2000 (yet another Cosina). Sigh.
You are making me old.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Taipei-metro
Veteran
Bill,
I have the Pentax 50 1.4, 2, Fujinon, FD, Minolta MD, Nikkor, either f2, 1.9, 1.8, 1.7, 2 or 1.4 and Haiou 50/2.8, I've never 'test' them nor care about their resolution power, each 50 has it's own character, I'll bet even MM Zeiss, ZF, MZ, SZ or CY Zeiss 50mm are all different.
I saw many years ago Mr.Keepler compare the Takumar w a 50 Summilux and can't find a difference at 11x14 or something... I've used the SMC 50 1.4 on my Pentax Super Program, Nikon 50 1.4 w F3, NewFD50 1.4 w Canon A-1 and X-700 w MD 50 1.4 and didn't see any difference. The only big difference is when I use the 35ti, Hexar Silver and that Canonet G-III that I said 'Wow!', of course non of them are 50, but close.
So Zeiss 50 beats Takumar 50, so what? It's a 50.
I have the Pentax 50 1.4, 2, Fujinon, FD, Minolta MD, Nikkor, either f2, 1.9, 1.8, 1.7, 2 or 1.4 and Haiou 50/2.8, I've never 'test' them nor care about their resolution power, each 50 has it's own character, I'll bet even MM Zeiss, ZF, MZ, SZ or CY Zeiss 50mm are all different.
I saw many years ago Mr.Keepler compare the Takumar w a 50 Summilux and can't find a difference at 11x14 or something... I've used the SMC 50 1.4 on my Pentax Super Program, Nikon 50 1.4 w F3, NewFD50 1.4 w Canon A-1 and X-700 w MD 50 1.4 and didn't see any difference. The only big difference is when I use the 35ti, Hexar Silver and that Canonet G-III that I said 'Wow!', of course non of them are 50, but close.
So Zeiss 50 beats Takumar 50, so what? It's a 50.
Sparrow
Veteran
beethamd said:
oly 50mm f2 50mm macro, is a belter
bmattock
Veteran
Taipei-metro said:
First, I love the 50. My favorite focal length.
Second, I like sharp lenses. If there is one out there sharper than my Pentax, I want it if I can afford it.
Nothing wrong with that. Just a little diversion to keep me happy when I can't drink beer and hassle people.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
bmattock
Veteran
Sparrow said:
I'm trying to compare like with like. 50mm fast prime - 1.4 or 1.7/1.8/1.9 or as close as I can come to that. However, I will keep it in mind, thanks!
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
photogdave
Shops local
bmattock said:
Toronto is another UNIVERSE! 😀
Taipei-metro
Veteran
Bill,bmattock said:
The sharpest 50 is going to be that Planar f2 M mount.
Zuiko 50 1.8 is the runner up. The newer 50 all black body is prettier.
New Zeiss 50 w M42 is also for sale, match your Bessamatic.
bmattock
Veteran
Taipei-metro said:
Bessaflex, not Bessamatic! I know what you meant, though.
I haven't an M-body and can't afford one just yet, so have to pass on that.
Ditto for the loverly new M42 Zeiss.
You think the Zuiko will be sharper than the Y/C mount Zeiss Planar? I'm intrigued...
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
Sparrow
Veteran
Just my observation the Zuko f1:8 with the silver rim is sharper than the f1;4 the later all black one throughout the range, the f2 is very similar, perhaps better, than the best I have at the moment a CV f1.5
T
tedwhite
Guest
Odd the Bessaflex came up. I just sold mine after I discovered I couldn't see the LED indicators in the viewfinder. Well, I could see them OK indoors or in open shade, but not in sunlight (I have slight macular degeneration), and there's way too much sunlight in Arizona. As I can still see the needle in the Spotmatic viewfinders quite well (I have four spotties) I decided to stick with them. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, I really liked the Bessaflex.
Ted
Ted
bmattock
Veteran
tedwhite said:
I can understand that would be a problem. I like my Bessaflex, though. I prefer match needle, yes, but I can see the LED indicators fine. And fortunately, they don't change color. I hate the battery chargers I used - I can't tell when the batteries are charged, because they change color from red to green and I can't tell the difference.
Best Regards,
Bill Mattocks
R
ruben
Guest
Toby said:
Can you bet on digital as "part of the photographic mainstream" in 10 years time ?
Are rangefinder cameras "part of the photographic mainstream" TODAY ?
What the hell is that mainstream ?, And how it relates to "a serious photograpic medium"?
Who decides what is "mainstream" and what is "serious" ?
For myself I am my own master with my own independent judgement. For yourself it seems you face hard choices about the stream.
Cheers,
Ruben
PS: do you know that pinholes bring images full field focused and distortionless ? For 10 years time I bet on them more than on digital.
And if you want the children of the children of your children will be able to see your image, make sure to prepare one from a filmproof pinhole rather than from the non-proof digital media of today. On behalf of my case there is a century proof. On behalf of digital not even a decade, and a bad experiences one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sparrow
Veteran
I imagine supply and demand will apply so as the demand reduces the cost and choice is where the changes will take place, even today you can buy a cravat in Boston, or a Schlitz in London at a price, having said that I’ve not seen GAF500 for a while
drmatthes
Zeiss Addict
What I enjoy is using my 1936 Contax II and my 1937 Leica III and the recent new "acquaintance" of a 1937 Weltini - and still use 35 mm film.
I think, the way it goes, it will be some way like it used to be with 120/220 film and polaroids. The professionals used polaroids as pre-photography tools - what would it look like if you took the picture that way or another - these days they do the same with digicams and digibacks, but for the really demanding challenges they still use 120/220 film in their Hasselblads, or whatsoever. We will see ourselves practicing with digicams and still use 35 mm film for the final product for quite a while (20 years?).
So let us simpliy enjoy the fact that we can still use seventy to one hundred years old cameras, before we switch over to the five-year turnover of digicams and digibacks - like we have long done since with computers.
I would like to practice dark-room technology, and until last year there were three different courses one could attend in Berlin in one week-end, but nowadays even the adult education centers have switched over to digital - until they notice that the technological turnover turns them over every two to five years.
Remember Charly Chaplin in "Modern Times"? We still see the movie and understand...
We have two advantages over the many-o drawbacks: We will still know how to guesstimate distance and exposure (and this will be the basis students will be demanded to learn in the forthcoming centuries, as the physical laws of optics will not change) - and our equipment will gain high museum value - like the medical instruments that tell us our ancestors were giants and we stand on their shoulders.
They will have to come back to that, one way or another, the better being the enemy of the good, as ever.
This is partly sad and partly just normal.
It is upon us to maintain film as a tool, and knowledge of optics as the basis.
Somehow it reminds me of democracy in old Athens the way it used to be in the times of Solon, Themistocles and Pericles. Nobody uses clay tablets for voting nowadays, but we still admire how they did accomplish this some 2500 years ago. And we still complain about George Bush or Silvio Berlusconi, with just 4000 votes or something gaining or loosing power.
That is the sad and normal way conventional analog photography will be remembered for centuries.
They will have to come back to Daguerre, Niepce, Fox Talbot, Hill & Adamson, Fenton and so many of the masters like we do.
Like we come back to Leonardo who states that there are three types of perspective, one of size, one of clarity and one of color - which holds true for ages to come.
There will be a place for this. For us.
Let's enjoy 35 mm (or 120/120) film while while we can.
Jesko
____________
2006 AD
800 yrs Dresden
80 yrs Zeiss Ikon
I think, the way it goes, it will be some way like it used to be with 120/220 film and polaroids. The professionals used polaroids as pre-photography tools - what would it look like if you took the picture that way or another - these days they do the same with digicams and digibacks, but for the really demanding challenges they still use 120/220 film in their Hasselblads, or whatsoever. We will see ourselves practicing with digicams and still use 35 mm film for the final product for quite a while (20 years?).
So let us simpliy enjoy the fact that we can still use seventy to one hundred years old cameras, before we switch over to the five-year turnover of digicams and digibacks - like we have long done since with computers.
I would like to practice dark-room technology, and until last year there were three different courses one could attend in Berlin in one week-end, but nowadays even the adult education centers have switched over to digital - until they notice that the technological turnover turns them over every two to five years.
Remember Charly Chaplin in "Modern Times"? We still see the movie and understand...
We have two advantages over the many-o drawbacks: We will still know how to guesstimate distance and exposure (and this will be the basis students will be demanded to learn in the forthcoming centuries, as the physical laws of optics will not change) - and our equipment will gain high museum value - like the medical instruments that tell us our ancestors were giants and we stand on their shoulders.
They will have to come back to that, one way or another, the better being the enemy of the good, as ever.
This is partly sad and partly just normal.
It is upon us to maintain film as a tool, and knowledge of optics as the basis.
Somehow it reminds me of democracy in old Athens the way it used to be in the times of Solon, Themistocles and Pericles. Nobody uses clay tablets for voting nowadays, but we still admire how they did accomplish this some 2500 years ago. And we still complain about George Bush or Silvio Berlusconi, with just 4000 votes or something gaining or loosing power.
That is the sad and normal way conventional analog photography will be remembered for centuries.
They will have to come back to Daguerre, Niepce, Fox Talbot, Hill & Adamson, Fenton and so many of the masters like we do.
Like we come back to Leonardo who states that there are three types of perspective, one of size, one of clarity and one of color - which holds true for ages to come.
There will be a place for this. For us.
Let's enjoy 35 mm (or 120/120) film while while we can.
Jesko
____________
2006 AD
800 yrs Dresden
80 yrs Zeiss Ikon
R
ruben
Guest
drmatthes said:
Provided neither of the two guys terminate us once and for all.
Greetings from a bastard-Contax II user,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
Toby
On the alert
ruben said:
I just think film is in danger of being viewed as 'quaint'. There are still photographers who work exclusively on film but when you read horror stories about E6 processing dropping by 30% so far this year it makes you wonder. I like film but have a friend who works in editorial for Random House, when I talked to her about starting up as a professional again last year the first thing she said was "get a digital camera". By mainstream I meant your bog standard solid but perhaps unexceptional professional photographer who has to do what the market demands of him. I've taken some portraits recently that would have been better on film but I wasn't really prepared to argue that corner. I'd rather the customer was happy and the job went smoothly. Not everyone is interested in RF's and the relative merits of various films so I keep this to myself in polite company 😀
Toby
On the alert
Also by mainstream I mean going to my local camera store and being able to buy 120 film which I can't do now -and they sold me the camera!
R
ruben
Guest
Toby said:
that's in the broad sense the right point where you have to choose who are You, what is Photography for you, and whether and how you continue being Pro. Hard choices as I said, and ugly streams.
In my day, I sent "the market" to hell, preserving my ardent love for Photography till today, and my self respect. However, each of us is surrounded by different circumstances, and different specific choices.
Cheers,
Ruben
Last edited by a moderator:
John Camp
Well-known
I'm suspicious of all 'doom' theories. You don't need a color lab in every town; you just need one you can get to. http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/ You don't need to buy film at every gas station, either. A few places in town will do; alternatively, you can place an order on the 'Net, and the PO will deliver it to your door a few days later, unless you're the kind who likes to examine the box first. By the way, did you see that Target is now selling chromagenic B&W?
People will still buy SUVs -- the Wall Street Journal says that gas at $70 a barrel is still $20 a barrel (inflation adjusted) lower than in the 1980 gas crunch. If the OPECers think they can increase prices faster than Congress can inflate the dollar, they don't appreciate good old American how-to. Also, the governor of Montana sez there's enough coal under eastern Montana to make as much oil as we want for $40 a barrel, but nobody will do it because they're afraid OPEC wiil drop the price to $35 a barrel just long enough to run the coal-to-oil company out of business. Anyway, he says if we want to do it at $40 a barrel, there's enough coal at our present rate of oil consumption to last 400 years. In other words, it's not about dwindling resources; it's about money and who gets it.
There's a rumor on the Leica forum that a European dealer is taking orders for the digital M at 3900 euros. At that price, we may all have to get two; it'll be fun to see Canon all sweaty, with it's back to the wall, screaming about unfair competition from Germany.
In our hearts, we all know that digital is better than film.
JC
People will still buy SUVs -- the Wall Street Journal says that gas at $70 a barrel is still $20 a barrel (inflation adjusted) lower than in the 1980 gas crunch. If the OPECers think they can increase prices faster than Congress can inflate the dollar, they don't appreciate good old American how-to. Also, the governor of Montana sez there's enough coal under eastern Montana to make as much oil as we want for $40 a barrel, but nobody will do it because they're afraid OPEC wiil drop the price to $35 a barrel just long enough to run the coal-to-oil company out of business. Anyway, he says if we want to do it at $40 a barrel, there's enough coal at our present rate of oil consumption to last 400 years. In other words, it's not about dwindling resources; it's about money and who gets it.
There's a rumor on the Leica forum that a European dealer is taking orders for the digital M at 3900 euros. At that price, we may all have to get two; it'll be fun to see Canon all sweaty, with it's back to the wall, screaming about unfair competition from Germany.
In our hearts, we all know that digital is better than film.
JC
John Camp
Well-known
An added comment in this visit to retro-land. I never cared too much about older stuff, even though I'm fairly old myself. But there is one old thing that I'd kill to have. Does anybody else remember the Rolls Royce convertible that the main photographer character drove in Blow Up? I can see myself in that, golf clubs thrown casually in the back seat, Iowa Hawkeyes hat (worn backward) on me head.....couldn't get much better than that...
JC
JC
Similar threads
- Article
- Article
