Unthreadworthy Thread

It totally depends on what he's shooting.

OP (kinda), are you doing video or photo? What kind of stuff will you shoot?

I find myself using the 50 a LOT when I'm shooting portraits, but any landscape or skiing I rarely use it.
 
no it doesn't. 50 is practically a staple.

From the amount of information in his post i'd guess he hasn't been shooting all that long.

the 50 teaches moving your feet instead of the zoom tube, exposes you to faster glass, makes you focus more on composition and so much more. would highly recommend.
 
Would a 50 still get a great shot if you're limited to standing say…30 feet away from your subject? What did you mean by faster glass?

Also, any suggestions on a specific lens for an A55?
 
This is really true, I think I just don't value it as much because I think I understand composition and am refining it with other lenses rather than only using the 50. Regardless, I still use it much less than any other lens.
 
exactly what i'l talking about.

faster meaning the nifty 50 typically has a max aperture (f-stop) of 1.8 which is about 2 and 1/2 stops of light faster than your 18-55.

ask yourself, are you still going to get a great shot if you're standing 30ft away with the 55? my advice, get closer.

Don't get ahead of yourself. learn some basics before you spend hundreds of dollars on a telephoto.

would either get the sony branded 50mm 1.8 lens or a manual focus lens with an adaptor (see vintage lens thread)

@gavin that is certainly more fair. For me the 50 is the go to because it's about the same focal length a the eye and is relatively inexpensive compared to other focal length options.
 
Only on a full frame camera, for a 1.6 crop you would want a 30mm

50mm's are great lenses but for video i only find myself shooting interviews with a fast 50 and shooting other stuff with tamron 17-50 instead. 50 is a bit long for hand held skiing/random stuff so i definitely prefer 24 or 35 over it but they are more expensive.
 
I'd argue that a 35mm on FF is more comparable to eye sight, contrary to what all the wanker photo blogs say. 80mm on 6x6 (~50mm FF equivalent) just feels boring to me for 80% of shots because it's neither wide nor compressed. In terms of perspective it doesn't really do anything well, it just everything sort of okay.
 
While lots of people have their own opinion on what the "eyesight FOV" is, what does the term actually mean specifically? Obviously eyes have a huge FOV including the peripheral, does it refer to the image of both eyes? or is it simply related to compression?
 
not trying to derail debate by being a dick but where are your photos? I always see your posts and the majority of the time they're negative.
 
He posted some in the your best photos thread around Christmas time if you want to try and find them there. The fact that I can remember that is rather representative to their quality.
 
They're on this page: https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/168803/page/173/

Simply based on those I would listen to anything this man says, haha
 
haha I had the same impression when I first got feedback, but Landis fucking kills it photographically and videographically, great advice, too. He just lurks around here it seems.
 
Is that a bad thing? Generosity is useless; it's only through agitation that we find improvement. I have been doing video long enough to know that 90% of the information you find online is not necessarily true. It might be in some instances, but that's beside the point - you should never take anything at face value. Just because some guy whose work/website you respect promotes one idea doesn't automatically make it true, yet they aren't wrong because they arrived at that conclusion honestly by shedding blood out on the field instead of regurgitating something they read without due skepticism. I'm not saying to cover your ears and ignore everyone either; you just have to find everything with a pinch of salt. Think like they think, but don't do as they do.

And in case you're wondering, my photos suck.
 
from personal experience, yes. the middle ground of constructive criticism.

I won't dispute your comment about info online, there certainly is a massive amount of shit to the good stuff but i think we both know that reading about things on the internet =/= knowing how to do something in the field.

Just had to ask.

haha, no way man. if anything i wish you had a flickr or something in your sig.
 
thoughts on gorillapods or knock-off versions? specifically looking into the slr-zoom version.

not using it as a tripod replacement, but it seems like it could be useful for when i'm biking/skating/hiking around with my gh2 and just wanna keep a compact low profile setup
 
Only get the real deal and then get the Focus.

I've had the original slr-zoom and knock-offs and in all cases the plastic started cracking and they became limp.

The focus is made from aluminium and probably won't wear down so fast.
 
i like having a gorilla pod around. It's good for speedlights and does a dece job for backpacking when i don't want to bring a real tripod
 
I'm debating what kind of 6x7/6x6 camera I want. They're either huge (RB/RZ/P67), expensive (Hass V/Mamiya 6/7/PB67) or fragile (TLR).

Maybe I should go for a TLR. Pretty cheap (100-150€ for a nice Rolleicord/Yashica Mat), fun to shoot with and it wouldn't hurt if I would baby my stuff a little more.
 
I'm kind of in the same spot. If I was rich I would go Hassy, but since I am poor, I will probably go RZ67 or P67.

I am also looking into the Bronica SQ series. They are small-ish, shoot 6x6, and are very modular, so they seem kind of like cheap Hassys, which is good because I don't have as much money to spend. Anybody got some thoughts on those?
 
i typed something up earlier. guess i didn't hit reply

you could both go kiev or bronica if you wanted a more affordable 6x6 camera. pretty sturdy cameras the both of them.

you get what you pay for though.
 
Bronica SQs are excellent budget SLR 6x6 cams (it's what I use to shoot all my photos), and in some ways they're better than Hassleblads (less prone to jamming).

Don't bother with the Kievs; they're junk.
 
@Tijmen,

I have a Yashica-A that I don't really use..

2013-12-27%2023.40.59-3.jpg
 
Bronicas are fantastic. Optics are excellent, the whole system is pretty quality. Hassys are quite nice, but they're not perfect either. A lot of people run into the hasslejam issue, for example.

TLRs are so fun. I wouldn't call my yashica fragile, and it's nearly 60 years old. Sometimes it does dumb stuff but I bet it needs to be serviced. I have a plain yashicamat, with the apparently rare lumaxar 75mm lens instead of the yashinon 80mm or whatever the other yashicamats got.

Minolta autocord is also supposed to be decent, last I checked.

If you wanna kill somebody with a tlr, get a mamiya c330 or similar. They're tanks.
 
Looking for some camera buying advice.

Gonna buy a serious medium format camera pretty soon. My Yashica Mat is fun but the meter died and the lens isn't really sharp enough for big prints until f8.

Budget is around $2000. I want it to be 6x6 but would also consider 6x7. An SLR is pretty much out of the question. I do a lot of street shooting and the bulk and noise and mirror slap are dealbreakers. So basically I'm torn between one of the Rolleiflex 2.8 models, or a Mamiya 6 right now.

Rolleiflex is good b/c of the fast, excellent lens, and I love the form factor of TLR's. Makes takings stealthy candid shots and shooting handheld at slow speeds really easy. The only thing is the fixed lens. I'm not totally opposed to being stuck with 80mm, but it just seems like so much money to spend on a fixed lens camera.

Mamiya is good because of the interchangeable lenses. The big drawback is that waist level shooting is obviously impossible, which makes it not nearly as stealthy as a TLR. The lenses are also slow, but thats not too big of a deal.

What should I get? Any other cameras I should be looking at?
 
Mamiya rangefinders are the nicest MF cameras you can buy. Fixed 80mm of the Rollei is a dealbreaker in my opinion; 80mm on 6x6 doesn't really do anything particularly well (kind of like a 50mm on a 35mm camera).
 
I really want a small convenient camera like an XS100 that I can bring up to the mountain with me, carrying around a DSLR sucks.

inb4 get a Leica.
 
While I do love the R-D1 for everything that it is, it is to far past it's prime to use efficiently in this day and age. The X100s is the best option really if you don't mind a fixed 35, or just buy a used M8.

Who ever recommended a bronica needs to never recommend gear again, ever. There is a reason NO ONE shoots them seriously other then skaters who can't afford the hassy fisheye. Terrible bodies, terrible lenses, even for an first 6x6 camera they are junk. The kievs are interesting, though really rough functionally compared to a 500 series hass. Again, I wouldn't buy other then the metered prism which will mount on a real hasselblad and is a good chunk less expensive then the OEM one. You can get a 500c with 80mm 2.8 first gen for under $600 if you are patient and do some searching.

I really do think the RZ is the best choice for a sub $1000 MF camera. The lenses are cheap and way sharper then anything most of you have experienced, with a good scan zooming in even past 100% is mind blowing. The bellows makes every lens a macro lens, rotating back is super handy, and you can put a 6x6 or 645 back on. They are big (smaller then the RB), but with a decent backpack and tripod it's a very functional camera, and not that expensive for something many working pros actively shoot with.
 
It looks like a lens cap with some tumorous growth.

Quoting Balto/images/profile/bling_trans.png:

While I do love the R-D1 for everything that it is, it is to far past it's prime to use efficiently in this day and age.

It was a bit of a joke really. But I handled an R-D1 a hill ago, and dear god it was lovely.

From it's analog dials to it's extremely skeuomorphistic film advance lever on/off switch.

5086759448_75ee69dd9e.jpg


 
How set are you on mf for street? I myself shoot quite a lot when on the streets and 135 cuts it for me. It's never bothered me to shoot street with an SLR because the mirrors don't slap so incredibly loud as with mf SLR's.

I'm still pretty set on getting a TLR. The thing I love about the V-series are the interchangeable back, making it possible to shoot different films with one back if you've got several. So awesome.

I still haven't figured out if I care for medium format on the one hand, the detail and sharpness can be great, but on the other hand, I'm not a purist in that respect at all. Composition is the only thing I care about really.

 
Also, does anyone have scanning holders for their Epson? I fucking hate the stock holders as well as the results they give me (for medium format). The betterscanning.com holders are supposed to be great, but they're also 80$....
 
I'm pretty set on medium format. I just have grown to really love the look of medium format and square composition. And I've been really enjoying making bigger prints, which is much harder to achieve with 35mm. To be honest I would probably buy something like a fuji x pro before I spent more than 100 bucks on another 35mm camera. I mean, a Leica would be cool but a mamiya 6 is in the same price range anyway.

As far as interchangeable backs go, I really like traveling as light as possible. I usually just have my camera, a light meter, a pen and notebook, and a jacket pocket full of film. I'm not opposed to carrying a small shoulder bag for an extra lens or two, but I don't really want to be carrying a backpack full of extra backs, lenses, etc.

I guess all I really wanted was affirmation that spending $1000+ on a camera with a fixed standard lens (even if it is a legendary zeiss lens) is a stupid idea.
 
I'm totally feeling you. Looks like we shoot similarly.

But spending 1000$+ on a Rolleiflex? I'm pretty sure you can get a good condition 2.8F for like 600$, no?

Anyway, totally agree with you on the money vs returns as far as 35mm goes. I've got a ton of 35mm camera's, most of which I haven't paid more than 25€ for. I've also got a couple higher-end ones like the Hexar AF, which rocks, and a Canon 7 rangefinder, which I also really like. Rangefinder shooting is nice for sure, but the Canon 7 rangefinder patch doesn't cut it for me. A Leica would be nice, but it's too expensive for what you get imo. Maybe a Bessa would be nice. Great camera's.

I've just bought a Rolleicord Va, which will be a big step up from the beautyflex I've shot with before. I love TLR's shooting, so I'm really happy I finally got a little better one.

 
BGN condition 2.8F on KEH is $1500. "excellent" condition on Ebay with a working meter goes for around 1000. Probably due to collectors driving up prices. I do actually have a Rolleicord Vb that I got for decently cheap at a thrift store, but the slower shutter speeds don't work and the taking lens is a tad hazy. Also, the screen is a shitload dimmer than my Yashica.

And yeah, my Canonet does pretty much everything I want a 35mm camera to do.
 
Mamiya makes tlrs with interchangeable lenses, although they're quite large and tank like. It's the C series, like c330 and others or whatever.
 
But what makes them terrible? While they aren't some super-nice Hassy, they still seem to be well liked from what I have heard. If you don't like them just because poor skaters use them, then that is retarded and that is kind of what your post came off as.
 
It's the version before the 7600i which is the version before the 8200i (which I have).

The 8200i is almost identical to the 7600i except for the software but the 7500i has quite a few hardware differentiation's which affect performance in a way I do not know.

I would advise to spend 100$ more on a 8200i for the ease of mind since the software then is up to date and Plustek's do not work at all without installing Silverfast software first which on it's own can be more then 100$.
 
They are made of cheap plastic that that is prone to become brittle with time and age, very rough mechanically, replacement parts are damn hard to find, and when you do they are stupidly over priced. I have hands on time with all the main MF systems other then the fuji 68 and 69, and the bronicas are hands down the worst of all. If you go into my local camera shop and ask for bornica, they will laugh. Everyone I know who gets a broni ends up hating it in 3 months because they are awful. I don't care how expensive something is, that doesn't make it a good product, if you think that you are an idiot. but when it comes to cameras, you 100% get what you pay for, just don't be impatient and save up if you actually want something. I bought my first M working minimum wage, it's not hard.
 
The relative utility of an investment is proportional to one's investment in that activity.

In other words, while I agree with you in principal, this advice does not suit everybody. If I recall, POV is a video guy (could be wrong), and like me he probably doesn't want to invest that much into film photography when his intentions are to dabble (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

For instance, I often recommend people spend bare minimum $1000 on a tripod (because financially, you'd be stupid not to) but I only recommend that to people whose intention is to fully commit to video, not someone who wants to informally play around with video without any commitment. I'd buy a Mamiya 7ii in a heartbeat if photo was my main thing, but considering my low level of involvement, its a completely impractical choice as an investment: great camera, terrible tool.
 
I'm looking to get a nice old compact 35mm camera, a shop in my town has a few in the 20-70 dollar range (Argus, Kodak Retinette IA, some others). I really have no idea what makes one a better choice than another necessarily. Anything specific I should look for? I've done a little research on the Retinette and I am kinda liking that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top