Camera Porn Thread

BloodDiamond253454.jpg
If you dont like this photo, get your manhood checked.
 
Kodak Bantam.

I had the pleasure of playing with this for a while a couple days ago. Visited a guy that had about 350 vintage camera's. He seriously had anything you could imagine.

Takes 828 film (which I didn't even know existed until then).

bantam02dailyicon.jpg


1400908872_0a254f980f.jpg
 
Less terrible than what I thought but still not as nice looking as the standard M9 and can't hold a candle to the M9p
 
Way back in the Stone Age of digital imaging (circa 1996), when 2 to 3MP digicams that took so-so pictures cost over a thousand dollars and pro-quality DSLRs were still a stretch - both technically and financially for most shooters, Leica unveiled an amazing digital camera called the S1. Now keep in mind this was a time when film was still the media of choice, the Leica M6 was still the best film camera money could buy, and stock houses were still trying to figure out how to manage pictures that only existed electronically.

The S1 was in fact a digital scanning back designed to capture square (36x36mm) images using 35mm lenses. Though designed with Leica R-series lenses in mind, Leica also offered lens mounts for Nikon, Contax, Canon FD, and Minolta lenses as well as for medium-format optics from Hasselblad and Pentax (6x7). There was also a Novoflex adapter that allowed you to use large-format optics from Rodenstock & Schneider, and a tilt-shift adapter for use with Hasselblad lenses.

The S1 could also be coupled to the rear of a view camera to take advantage of tilt, swing, and shift movements. As for focusing the S1, you used the camera's angled, laterally correct, gridded focusing screen.

Because it was a triple linear CCD scan back the S1 recorded images line-by-line and exposures ran about 185-seconds each. As such, the S1 was optimized for use with continuous light sources including HMIs, fluorescents, and halogen lamps.

Though slow, the S1 yielded 76Mb @ 24-bit (151Mb @ 48-bit), 5140 x 5140, 12-bit RGB image files that contained little if any of the artifacting, blooming, and fringing that continue to plague us to this very day. The native ISO for the S1 was an honest ISO 50, the D-max about 3.3, and the image files contained a dynamic range that spanned 11-stops of latitude. At 300 dpi you could produce incredibly sharp 17 x 17" prints without having to interpolate the image, which in 1996 was a really big deal.

Included with the Leica S1 was a 55mm IRa filter, LaserSoft High Software, a PCI card (PC or Mac), and a 20' cable. As for system requirements, the S1 ran off of PowerMacs (7.55 or higher), or Pentium PCs (Windows 95 or higher) with a minimum of 256MB of RAM, a hard drive of at least 1GB, and Photoshop 3.05 or higher.

 
Its the Novoflex 400mm f5.6. You adjust the focus with your right hand on the pistol grip and take photos with your left hand on the pistol grip at front. Really great for fast moving objects like birds..
 
Why 5 years older?

I honestly see myself having an M in the next two years as well (wouldn't mind which, as long as it's not an M8).

Stupid 35mm Summicrons are so expensive though. Maybe if Voigtlander improves the quality of their lenses just a tiny bit (especially build quality) I'd be down for an M-system. The camera bodies aren't the problem, glass is.

Though an M3+50mm Summicron would make me very happy too and that could theoretically be had for 2k.

 
My Grandpa shot that m4-2 and 35mm back in the 80's and he sold it in around 07', if I'd been into photography and shooting film back then, he would have been more than happy to let me have it (as he did with his f1 and 50mm 1.4), but because no one was going to use it, he sold it to buy a canon DSLR and L lenses. I was only 13 back then and was using a Canon P&S.
 
Ouch... That is painful. A thought of consolidation might be that the 4-2 is the 'worst' of the M's. But then, still, it sucks.
 
^nothing is as bad as that m5, but either way, it's hard to call any leica bad, they are all amazing cameras. Oh well, nothing I can do about it now.

Back on track:

MG_2024reg.jpg
 
i know how you feel... almost. my dad sold (practically gave away) his f90x and a bunch of nikkor primes including an AF 24 2.8 which is what i really want to get right now like a year before i got into photography.
 
I've gotta say, the only reason I've never wanted a Leica is because they're 35mm. Aside from that, they are dreamy.
 
I'm just not a big fan of the 35mm format. I'd rather have a Walker large format kit or Mamiya 7 than any Leica.
 
i'd tend to agree with him in many cases. its sort of an awkward format compared to square and especially compared to 4 x 5. things just come together in the frame a lot more graceful imo.
 
That, but the main reason is that I only shoot film when I can take my time and compose shots (i.e. landscapes and not street photography), in which case there's no reason to not shoot medium or large format. 35mm can produce excellent results, but its more suited for run and gun type scenarios, which as of right now I have zero interest in.
 
As much as I love the textural qualities of 35mm i have to agree with this. You can put your subject dead centre and full the frame with 6x6, and 6x7 is amazing as well.
 
Rangefinder porn! Gorgeous fixed 80mm f2.8 nikkor lens, such an amazing camera for how small it is. Not an easy camera to come buy these days, why would anyone want to sell theirs?

3271608861_99e6720397.jpg


tumblr_m3372v3ULD1ruzapro1_400.jpg


tumblr_m65nl6mP9Z1qiljneo1_500.jpg


5092063461_a5d2863d77_b.jpg
 
Because it's made of plastic. Yuk!

It's an AMAZING camera, but shooting with a plastic thing like that would make me want to kill myself. Sacrifice size and IQ for something that feels nice in your hands? Any day for!
 
That first picture is so sexy. All that neatly stacked film. Hmmmm!

Show with a Leica M3 today. Such a great, bright viewfinder. One day I'll own one.
 
not to go too off-topic in this thread, but calling this the fs100 mk II is pretty fucking stupid imo (this is more a comment towards that site, not you).

if anything, the fs700 is the fs100 mk II, hence the name. the nex-ea50 is just a new generation of event cameras. apparently this camera caters toward people who were complaining about the ergonomics of the fs100, AKA event filmers. The fs100 is designed for more cinematic purposes, and the modular design of it should be pretty ideal for that (barring the awkward LCD screen and shitty handle/mic combo). and to make it worse, they STILL haven't included ND filters in it. What kind of event camera doesn't have built in ND? Just another reason why the FS700 is much more of an fs100 mk II than this camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top