Your Ultimate Camera

IanH said:
I think it shows how new I am to this photography thing. I haven't heard of most of them. I only discovered what a Hass blad thing was about a week ago.
Can someone tell me why for instance the Leica, Mamiya and the Blad are sooo good. :amstupid:
Ian..
Click to expand...

i know nothing about film.. but

digital..
the large "medium format" digital sensors allow for more megapixels, and the pixels can be larger, this allong with other things, like the lenses etc.. mean they can produce lovely pictures, with great tones and detail.

also, quality is expected when you pay the price you pay for a modern blad or leica etc..shelling out 20odd grand for a camera, its expected to perform...for a long time!
 
My eyes are my ultimate Camera ...just a shame the memory card's a bit dodgy..... :D
.
.
My D300 is good enough for me ...at the mo
Paul
 
one with a see through clothes option, or is that just me?
 
IanH said:
I think it shows how new I am to this photography thing. I haven't heard of most of them. I only discovered what a Hass blad thing was about a week ago.
Can someone tell me why for instance the Leica, Mamiya and the Blad are sooo good. :amstupid:
Ian..
Click to expand...

The Leica and the Hasselblad are just engineered to a tolerance and with a care for detail which is legendary. You'd really have to handle one to appreciate the undoubted glam factor and feel which they have. A bit like the camera equivalent of a Rolex if you like. They both also take some of the sharpest most impressive lenses you can get - at a price!

The Mamiya RB67 doesn't have that same feel. While it's ruggedly engineered - it has much more of a butch feel about it, but it'll take all the abuse you can throw at it and keep going. The revolving back, large neg format, and options for different negative sizes made it a firm favourite of more studio photographers than probably any other medium format camera. It was hugely succcessful, and arguably a better all round camera than the Hasselblad in many respects.
 
The RB67 and similar cameras such as the Mamiya 645 and the Bronica ETRS and SQ models are quite versatile and can be 'modified' to suit the intended use by the addition of hand grips and different viewfinders.

Most come with a waist level finder as standard (which is my preference) but this can be replaced with a prism finder - some of which incorporate light meters.

The RB67 and the RZ 67 have rotating backs. This means that to get a vertical shot, rather than rotate the camera, the film is rotated to the vertical position. This is an advantage for waist level finder cameras as if you had to rotate the camera you would view the image on a sideways facing screen and it would be upside down.

Also, the film backs can be swapped mid roll so you can take colour and black and white shots of the same scene or have different film speeds available.

Hand holding an RB67 with a hand grip is also good for weight training!


Steve.
 
In all honesty, I would far, far rather have a Mamiya RB67 and a few lenses, with a wlf, processing equipment and a fully working darkroom than say, a 5Dmk2 with all the kit.

There is nowhere in my house for a darkroom or processing equipment, so it would be a case of dropping the negs off and getting them scanned. :(
 
foodpoison said:
There is nowhere in my house for a darkroom or processing equipment, so it would be a case of dropping the negs off and getting them scanned. :(
Click to expand...

As you probably know, you don't need a darkroom just to process film. Get hold of a changing bag and a developing tank, a one litre plastig jug, a thermometer and the chemistry and you can do it anywhere.

I process my films in the kitchen despite having a darkroom in the loft.


Steve.
 
I understand that Steve (y)

I'm talking about C-41, and I'm pretty sure you need a big old mechanical machine to do that that most likely has to be kept in total darkness?

I could do the b+w stuff but I can't do anything with the negatives. I don't have a scanner and I can't print them.

Woe is me!
 
foodpoison said:
In all honesty, I would far, far rather have a Mamiya RB67 and a few lenses, with a wlf, processing equipment and a fully working darkroom than say, a 5Dmk2 with all the kit.

There is nowhere in my house for a darkroom or processing equipment, so it would be a case of dropping the negs off and getting them scanned. :(
Click to expand...

If you're seriously thinking about an RB67, the ProS has double exposure interlocks so its pretty well impossible to accidentally double expose a shot - all too easy with with the non S version. They also added storage for the dark slide on the side of the camera. Not a deal breaker - just a bit more convenient.

There's nothing to stop you developing C41 or E6 film in the kitchen or bathroom as Steve said. Colour film has a much narrower tolerance for temperature variation, so the biggest problem is keeping a reasonably stable temp throughout the process. It's quite easy to do though standing your chemicals in a larger bath of water at a slightly higher temp. You just need to keep checking the temp and adding more warm water to the large bath as needed. I did it that way for yonks. You don't need a mechanical machine - you can just use standard hand agitation methods- inversion or whatever.

You do need an enlarger unfortunately, or a scanner (which is my preference) You could always use your DSLR to photograph the negs/trannies until the day the golden eagle lays. ;)
 
1dsmk3 with a switch to go to 1.6x crop (why not 2x) for wildlife with 10fps :)
 
I'm still surprised at how heavy and 'solid-feeling' my Leica M6 is compared to 'newer' cameras - it was milled from a solid billet of aluminium rather than stamped out. The lens focussing-ring has a feel to it that I can only describe as 'oil-damped' - the smoothness and precision has to be experienced to be fully appreciated...
There is a 'quality-feel' to 'Blads and Leicas that modern mass-produced cameras lack, but the longevity the people speak of is only relevant to film cameras, since changes in film technology didn't affect the camera itself.

With digital, no matter how well-made, there's a finite lifespan to the kit because as with all electronic goods, they tend to be obsolete as soon as you buy it...

The Nikon D1 was great (and hugely expensive) when it was new but who'd even use one now? That was only 10 years ago, whereas my Pentax 6x7, Leica M6 and Nikon F5 are as good now as they were when new. My old Nikon F2AS bought in 1978 would take as good an image as any other film camera today with a comparable lens...(if I hadn't given it to my Brother who sold it)...

But no matter how good the optics, a digital camera will be superceded much faster than a film camera.

There's little point in spending huge, huge amounts of money on a Leica digital camera when a Nikon D3/D3x for less than half the price will do the job just as well and will be obsolete at about the same time.

It's not all about the pixel-count, remember - it's the processing software that really makes the difference...if I couldn't upgrade the firmware, I wouldn't bother.

With modular systems, the chip is contained in a removable back so that at least can be upgraded...
 
foodpoison said:
I understand that Steve
Click to expand...

I thought you did!

foodpoison said:
I'm talking about C-41, and I'm pretty sure you need a big old mechanical machine to do that that most likely has to be kept in total darkness?
Click to expand...

Whilst it's easier with a mechanical processor, you can do it in a normal developing tank just like black and white. The temperature is a bit higher and more critical but you can use a bowl of warm water as a bath to put the tank in to keep it up to temperature.

I have only developed colour once and that is the way I did it.

It doesn't have to be done in the dark as the film loading can be done in a bag just the same as black and white. Once loaded, you can do the rest in daylight.

Failing that, Transpacolor and Peak Imaging do a good job!


Steve.
 
Arkady said:
whereas my Pentax 6x7, Leica M6 and Nikon F5 are as good now as they were when new. My old Nikon F2AS bought in 1978 would take as good an image as any other film camera today with a comparable lens...
Click to expand...

Actually, film cameras get better with age as the film technology improves. So the cameras you listed are now better than when they were new!

Steve.
 
CT said:
Yep- just more chemical baths.
Click to expand...

Back in 1984, I had a colour processing kit called 2CR. I can't remember the make but it could have been Paterson or Tetenal.

This was just two bottles. One was developer and the other was a combined bleach and fix (also known as blix to those who like destroying the English language!).

This kit was supposed to be suitable for both film and paper. I had more luck with it on film than paper but it did work.

Now though, I would suggest getting separate bleach and fix solutions and a stabiliser.

However, for a cheap way to try it out, here is a current two bath + stabiliser kit: http://www.firstcall-photographic.c...nal-colortec-c-41-rapid-negative-kit-1-litre/


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Actually, film cameras get better with age as the film technology improves. So the cameras you listed are now better than when they were new!
Click to expand...
This is true.

I was pondering selling my old GR1s and getting some digital equivalent - the new GR digital III looked interesting but is going to be more than £500! and will be obsolete in a couple of years - I'd have to shoot a lot of film to make that worthwhile.....
 
I suppose I could get by with one of these... :shrug:


M8_Safari.jpg




But as it is I will be making do with one of these... :love: ...


DLux4_Safari.jpg





Decisions, decisions... :naughty:






:p
 
Venomator said:
I suppose I could get by with one of these... :shrug:


M8_Safari.jpg


But as it is I will be making do with one of these... :love: ...

DLux4_Safari.jpg


Decisions, decisions... :naughty:

:p
Click to expand...

Are you the head of some Vietnam war recreation society then? ;) Far too old skool for my liking - take it the latter is the digi version?...
 
specialman said:
Are you the head of some Vietnam war recreation society then? ;) Far too old skool for my liking - take it the latter is the digi version?...
Click to expand...

:LOL: ... like your sense of humour... ;)


Nah... top is Leica's Special Safari Edition M8 digital and the lower one is called, by some, the Son of M8... :D ... the (Limited Safari Edition) D-Lux 4 - a digital compact that is a dream to own and use in Black soon to be Green... :love:



HTH... :cautious:






:p
 
I'd love a D3x with a crop sensor for my aviation stuff.
 
Venomator said:


:LOL: ... like your sense of humour... ;)


Nah... top is Leica's Special Safari Edition M8 digital and the lower one is called, by some, the Son of M8... :D ... the (Limited Safari Edition) D-Lux 4 - a digital compact that is a dream to own and use in Black soon to be Green... :love:



HTH... :cautious:






:p
Click to expand...

To what do you attribute this obsession with all things green Rog? Was your dad seeing a Martian bit on the side? :LOL:
 
CT said:
To what do you attribute this obsession with all things green Rog? Was your dad seeing a Martian bit on the side? :LOL:
Click to expand...

:LOL: ... :LOL: ... :LOL:


NAH... :cautious: ... how dare you inseminate such a thing Cedric... :rules:























Mum was though... :naughty:





:p
 
PMSL. Rog - you rarely disappoint! :LOL:
 
Simple, a Leica M8.2 with a 35mm Summilux-M f/1.4 - pure indulgence.
 
Dan Leach said:
One of these:
hubble-space-telescope-001.jpg
Click to expand...

I like it, but the maintenance costs are a little prohibitive :LOL: ...

My experience is a little limited to know what my ideal camera would be. I'm loving my 450d at the moment. It would be nice if the IR filter over the sensor were interchangeable though...
 
Voyager said:
They tend to have excellent lenses and are simple and work well - for a long period of time.

For instance - a lightly modified Hasselblad 500EL was the camera used by the Apollo astronauts.
Click to expand...

chris321 said:
They're not, they're just for people who don't want to embrace the 21st century (tin hat on, running for cover faster than a speeding bullet :D )

Seriously though, there's just a level of quality that is lacking in most modern cameras! That's why people are still using them now. I've got a 450D, I think it's great, but I can guarantee that no-one will still be using it a few decades down the line, because I can pretty much guarantee it will have fallen apart by then! Back in the (good old ;) ) days (can't be accused of being a grumpy oldie because I'm only 20!) things weren't build to be disposable!

Edit: This is specifically referring to the old film ones, when I wrote that I had forgotten about the 50+ mp digital back thingies made by Hasselblad which are probably a little more '21st century' than i was first thinking :D
Click to expand...

s-leeson said:
i know nothing about film.. but

digital..
the large "medium format" digital sensors allow for more megapixels, and the pixels can be larger, this allong with other things, like the lenses etc.. mean they can produce lovely pictures, with great tones and detail.

also, quality is expected when you pay the price you pay for a modern blad or leica etc..shelling out 20odd grand for a camera, its expected to perform...for a long time!
Click to expand...

CT said:
The Leica and the Hasselblad are just engineered to a tolerance and with a care for detail which is legendary. You'd really have to handle one to appreciate the undoubted glam factor and feel which they have. A bit like the camera equivalent of a Rolex if you like. They both also take some of the sharpest most impressive lenses you can get - at a price!

The Mamiya RB67 doesn't have that same feel. While it's ruggedly engineered - it has much more of a butch feel about it, but it'll take all the abuse you can throw at it and keep going. The revolving back, large neg format, and options for different negative sizes made it a firm favourite of more studio photographers than probably any other medium format camera. It was hugely succcessful, and arguably a better all round camera than the Hasselblad in many respects.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies and education guys. You have now made me very curious into these "masterpieces of engineering".
This will now lead into yet another learning curve ( isn't there enough already in photography:help::help:) for me.:bang::bang:
Ian..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top