M&A stoke

Four if you count my high five with him in the Bay Area a while back. (no pictures, so it didn't happen, obvs)

no touching of Leicas for my EK experience, obviously - I sacrilegiously had a digital with me at the time.
 
Oh wow.


Frauh knausw phauto is such a bitter, angry obsessed douchebag.

We all know half of Ken's site is purposeful, undeniable farce. He doesn't even try to hide it and the other half is just a sort of version of mir.com only more up to date. Also at least Kenny doesn't flame people or makes derogatory remarks about anyone.
 
If you use rockwell's site stricly as a refference for specs and models of stuff he's fine, just disregard everything else
 
Anti-stoke. Airplane X-ray machines expose film. (duh). Even better it's a roll of personal memories from a trip I shot almost solely on film. Next time I will be more prepared.
 
12984293:cydwhit said:
Anti-stoke. Airplane X-ray machines expose film. (duh). Even better it's a roll of personal memories from a trip I shot almost solely on film. Next time I will be more prepared.
Click to expand...

yeah apparently (according to a security guard in Keflavik) it's only old ones in some American airports that do.

For future reference: 'If requested by passengers, their photographic equipment and film packages shall be inspected without exposure to an X-ray system.' FAA regulation 108. This only applies in America, and all major airports (in and outside US) will have x-ray scanners that don't damage film.
 
12984293:cydwhit said:
Anti-stoke. Airplane X-ray machines expose film. (duh). Even better it's a roll of personal memories from a trip I shot almost solely on film. Next time I will be more prepared.
Click to expand...

The scanner at security or did you send your camera/film in your checked luggage? I know people who put film through the security scanners countless times with no issues, theoretically they will only damage high ISO (800+) film.
 
Carry- on through the scanner in a backpack in Denver, T-max 100, came out totally exposed. Bummer, next time I will be ready.
 
There is no way tmax 100 was ruined by a carry on xray scanner in the US, like that is not possible I guarantee you. When I get home ill post the very detailed kodak article on airport scanners.
 
Dang, well, all I know is I put it in the camera, took it through the airport, shot the roll, took it back through the scanner, took it walgreens, they go, "it's all blank" that's all I've got, haha, I saw the roll and it was indeed blank. I would blame it on user error but I have put 15 or so roles through this camera with no mishap.
 
12984164:Balto said:
If you use rockwell's site stricly as a refference for specs and models of stuff he's fine, just disregard everything else
Click to expand...

It's what I mostly use him for, and to know how clicky the aperture dials are.

Also Fro is obnoxious enough to wear a t-shirt to boost about the file format he is using.

12984588:Balto said:
There is no way tmax 100 was ruined by a carry on xray scanner in the US, like that is not possible I guarantee you. When I get home ill post the very detailed kodak article on airport scanners.
Click to expand...

This, I've had numerous of films go through multiple carry-on scans without a hitch. Checked bag scanners are a different story do, those are much stronger and will fog your film.

And the kodak article:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/tib/tib5201.shtml
 
12984422:cydwhit said:
Carry- on through the scanner in a backpack in Denver, T-max 100, came out totally exposed. Bummer, next time I will be ready.
Click to expand...

I've been through Denver multiple times with even faster film and they have always been fine.

It really sucks when there is that moment that you realize that an entire roll is fucked up and gone forever.
 
12984823:cydwhit said:
Looks like it was some kind of user error then, or Wallgreen's fault. Oh well. next time...
Click to expand...

It's entirely down to the scanner. Some old scanners are still in operation in the US and will damage film. I'd check with security before putting it through the scanner.
 
12984810:cydwhit said:
Dang, well, all I know is I put it in the camera, took it through the airport, shot the roll, took it back through the scanner, took it walgreens, they go, "it's all blank" that's all I've got, haha, I saw the roll and it was indeed blank. I would blame it on user error but I have put 15 or so roles through this camera with no mishap.
Click to expand...

Walgreens can not process true b&w, when you run b&w through c41 chems they wash the silver emulsion clean off the film base.
 
12984908:Balto said:
Walgreens can not process true b&w, when you run b&w through c41 chems they wash the silver emulsion clean off the film base.
Click to expand...

I guess I am just retarded then. I was positive my last roll of B&W was Tmax, and that it said it was C41. It turned out fine. Must have been something else. User error FTW...
 
12985172:cydwhit said:
I guess I am just retarded then. I was positive my last roll of B&W was Tmax, and that it said it was C41. It turned out fine. Must have been something else. User error FTW...
Click to expand...

Kodak bw400cn(which walgreens sells) and ilford xp2 are both c41 films
 
12985058:Lou. said:
So stoked on getting the Canon 50mm f1.2. Finally upgrading from the plastic fantastic
Click to expand...

Waste of money. Shoulda gotten the Sigma 50mm. Blows the Canon out of the water in every way. You're spending like 1300$ (or however much it costs) on nothing the 1.8 can't do.

12985610:DingoSean said:
The AF system constantly breaks on the f1.4.

Canon's 50's all need a serious build-quality upgrade...
Click to expand...

Agreed...
 
12985874:TijmenDal said:
Shoulda gotten the Sigma 50mm. Blows the Canon out of the water in every way.
Click to expand...

The only thing I don't like about it is that the Manual Focus ring is rough and sticky. Other than that, it's fantastic. Better bokeh, build quality, and sharper edge to edge.
 
we were having a garage sale at my house today after a remodel so we were going through tons of boxes we hadnt in years, and i came across this

IMG_9257_zps883870ea.jpg


tokina 80-200 f/4.5 for canon fd mount in pretty much perfect condition

it was my moms a long time ago and she was never really into photography, and then when she upgraded to the eos system, she couldnt use it anymore.

i know fd lenses are shit when converted to ef mounts, but still, it was free so it will only cost the price of the adapter to use it and it could be fun to mess around with
 
12985293:vandersteeze said:
I kind of want to make a T shirt that says "I shoot JPEG"
Click to expand...

I'll definitely buy one.

Bonus points if the design mimics that self-indulgent Japan Camera Hunter "I shoot film" crap.
 
12987804:lIllI said:
I'll definitely buy one.

Bonus points if the design mimics that self-indulgent Japan Camera Hunter "I shoot film" crap.
Click to expand...

that is grade select goods not Bellamy, and GSG makes a shirt with rangefinder framelines on it which I own so i love them
 
lol at everyone saying a 50mm 1.2 on a t2i is useless. also, waste of money? Lenses hold value insanely well, so unless you're buying the 1.2 to play catch with, it's a pretty fucking great investment
 
12988497:SourSteezle said:
lol at everyone saying a 50mm 1.2 on a t2i is useless. also, waste of money? Lenses hold value insanely well, so unless you're buying the 1.2 to play catch with, it's a pretty fucking great investment
Click to expand...

He will drop his T2i and break the fragile plastic because his setup was too front-heavy.
 
12988497:SourSteezle said:
lol at everyone saying a 50mm 1.2 on a t2i is useless. also, waste of money? Lenses hold value insanely well, so unless you're buying the 1.2 to play catch with, it's a pretty fucking great investment
Click to expand...

but not really
 
FUCK YEAH. Got an email this afternoon saying that I have been awarded a $2,000 scholarship for a young artists program in filmmaking at the Maine Media Workshops, literally could not be more happy about it.
 
12989746:JuliusJ said:
Yeah he'd probably be better off with a Leica huh?
Click to expand...

That's not the case. Modern glass doesn't hold value nearly as well as vintage glass does. Besides, the 50mm 1.2 simply isn't that good a lens. And with the new Sigma 50mm coming out people will be switching over. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is negligible and the Sigma is a GREAT lens, while the 1.2 isn't that good. Maybe there's a few bokeh-whores out there but any person whose got their heads on screwed right will be ditching the Canon for the Sigma.
 
12989819:TijmenDal said:
That's not the case. Modern glass doesn't hold value nearly as well as vintage glass does. Besides, the 50mm 1.2 simply isn't that good a lens. And with the new Sigma 50mm coming out people will be switching over. The difference between 1.2 and 1.4 is negligible and the Sigma is a GREAT lens, while the 1.2 isn't that good. Maybe there's a few bokeh-whores out there but any person whose got their heads on screwed right will be ditching the Canon for the Sigma.
Click to expand...

"the 50mm 1.2 simply isn't that good a lens"

stopped reading here
 
12989875:SourSteezle said:
"the 50mm 1.2 simply isn't that good a lens"

stopped reading here
Click to expand...

See if you knew anything about camera gear (which you clearly don't) you would realize there is so much more that goes into making a good lens then a fast maximum aperture. It has way too much distortion, fall off, isn't particularly sharp, lacks mico contrast, is built like a toy and has a focus ring thats about as smooth as gravel. It's slow to focus on anything other than a 1 series body (or 5d3 with '1dx focusing' which I laugh at because it's BS) and even then it's still slow. Now all these things would be forgivable if the lens had some character, but canon hasn't been able to do that since they stopped making rangefinder glass (example canon 50mm f1.2 LTM or 0.95 dream lens)
 
12989875:SourSteezle said:
"the 50mm 1.2 simply isn't that good a lens"

stopped reading here
Click to expand...

It's not worth the 1600$ it sells for new. That's a ridiculous price.

And I completely agree with Balto. It's the 1.2 you pay for, which, let's face it, is fucking useless when you can get the Sigma for less than a thousand bucks.
 
12989892:Balto said:
Now all these things would be forgivable if the lens had some character, but canon hasn't been able to do that since they stopped making rangefinder glass
Click to expand...

Boom! Precision ≠ substance.
 
12990384:lIllI said:
Boom! Precision ≠ substance.
Click to expand...

To a point. It doesn't have to be flawless across the entire frame through out the entire range like a 50 cron asph or otus is but there shouldn't be noticeable distortion. There is a happy medium between

character-performance-price.
 
12990492:Balto said:
To a point.
Click to expand...

Right, assuming that optical flaws are inherently flaws to begin with. Not saying they are one way or the other - just food for thought.

Every time people talk about gear specs and lens IQ I think of impressionists like Monet or DeBussy. Sure we can sit here and compare the accuracy of the tools at hand (strictly in terms of their imaging capabilities), but when we go down that road we must at least admit that we are doing so under the premise that such qualities are intrinsically desirable, which may or may not be the case. It might be the case of 95% of commenters on the subject, but that doesn't make it THE case. Dig?
 
If you're going to whore out on Bokeh with an EOS lens, skip the 1.2 and buy the f1.0

At least in that case, the build quality is at least as good as the 85 f1.2 (same body) and it delivers very interesting bokeh results.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top