Also, I am toying with the idea of getting an older Canon 1Ds Mk3 body for my Canon lenses (50 f/1.4 and 135 f/2), but not too sure right now.
What do you guys think?
The sd quattro has the same sensor as the dpQ cameras, with the benefit of being an ILC. It's still not usable past ISO 800 for my purposes, and is still crop sensor.
If you want a Canon, go for the original 5D. It's still incredible, and can be had for under $400, which is absurd for a FF camera that's built like a tank. ISO 1600 was still usable too for me. Those fat pixels are going to be magical with your 135L
The sd quattro has the same sensor as the dpQ cameras, with the benefit of being an ILC. It's still not usable past ISO 800 for my purposes, and is still crop sensor.
If you want a Canon, go for the original 5D. It's still incredible, and can be had for under $400, which is absurd for a FF camera that's built like a tank. ISO 1600 was still usable too for me. Those fat pixels are going to be magical with your 135L
It's actually the manual focus Zeiss APO 135 f/2. The lens really is as good as everyone says, but it's hard to use.
The reason I mentioned the 1Ds MkIII is because my friend once had one, and he cannot stop raving about it. Even after upgrading to the 1DX, he felt the 1Ds MkIII still rendered colours better.
It's actually the manual focus Zeiss APO 135 f/2. The lens really is as good as everyone says, but it's hard to use.
The reason I mentioned the 1Ds MkIII is because my friend once had one, and he cannot stop raving about it. Even after upgrading to the 1DX, he felt the 1Ds MkIII still rendered colours better.
I have the new SD Quattro on preorder, mainly because the price including the 30mm f/1.4 Art lens seems attractive.
Still, not sure I really want to carry something as bulky as this, because the size and weight increase vs. the Merrill DPs is significant: http://camerasize.com/compare/#293,668
My priorities are certainly different from @eke2k6's or yours, since I'm frequently out and about on hikes in steep terrain, so bulk and weight are of concern.
Anyway, I just happen to love the "Foveon look" and to me it's something special. Not necessarily better, but I think it has a character of its own.
Even though I like @eke2k6's more recent work a lot, this older series with the DP2M is still one of my favorites: https://www.flickr.com/photos/117279548@N08/sets/72157642407407985
Anyway, I just happen to love the "Foveon look" and to me it's something special. Not necessarily better, but I think it has a character of its own.
Even though I like @eke2k6's more recent work a lot, this older series with the DP2M is still one of my favorites: https://www.flickr.com/photos/117279548@N08/sets/72157642407407985
I miss those days too. I had virtually no idea what I was doing with a camera, so I just set it to auto and focused on interacting with the subject. Now I'm busy fussing with gear.
The sd quattro has the same sensor as the dpQ cameras, with the benefit of being an ILC. It's still not usable past ISO 800 for my purposes, and is still crop sensor.
If you want a Canon, go for the original 5D. It's still incredible, and can be had for under $400, which is absurd for a FF camera that's built like a tank. ISO 1600 was still usable too for me. Those fat pixels are going to be magical with your 135L
I couldn't agree more with this advice. I still use the original 5D as my main camera. The value is unbeatable and the performance truly special. As much as I love the "Foveon" sensors, they still have major faults and I am not referring strictly to the functionality and feature set, but also the sensor itself. My dream set up would be to get the DP1M, DP2M, DP3M and be done with it...
I couldn't agree more with this advice. I still use the original 5D as my main camera. The value is unbeatable and the performance truly special. As much as I love the "Foveon" sensors, they still have major faults and I am not referring strictly to the functionality and feature set, but also the sensor itself. My dream set up would be to get the DP1M, DP2M, DP3M and be done with it...
Love seeing film. My early days in photography were film. I was actually thinking how many traits there are between film and analog recordings, in contrast to digital sound and digital film. Are you photographs quality affected by outdated film? In a good way, maybe?
I found a roll of old film shot with my brother in 1990 and it came out dreamy? I know Kodachrome lasts longer, but no development as far as I know?
Love seeing film. My early days in photography were film. I was actually thinking how many traits there are between film and analog recordings, in contrast to digital sound and digital film. Are you photographs quality affected by outdated film? In a good way, maybe?
I found a roll of old film shot with my brother in 1990 and it came out dreamy? I know Kodachrome lasts longer, but no development as far as I know?
That is a great comparison, I am sure you would find some users here who would prefer the sound of a high quality analog setup and vice versa for the digital one. I have heard some high-end speaker systems playing via a fancy turntable and I was blown away by the sound, so in the end it comes down to preference. I guess the same principle would apply to film vs digital photography. Majority of people nowadays use digital because it is way more convenient, easier to edit, superior performance and the whole market now is geared towards catering to those kind of clients. In the end, digital simply makes more sense. Yet still, If I had to choose over the years which format I had the most "fun" and rewarding experience with, which photographs were really special, the atmosphere, even the mechanical feeling of the shutter firing, all those sensations, the countless hours in the darkroom, I would undoubtedly pick film. Film has taught me the fundamental basics of photography, the primary reason why in photography school at the beginning they just tell you to get a cheap fully manual film camera. It forces you to learn from your mistakes because the consequences are painful and expensive. Digital doesn't really have that consequence anymore, you can simply shot on fully auto, take tons of pictures or post-process to somewhat correct these faults. And funnily, some of the best pictures I have taken were from cameras no more than 50 dollars.
I would say yes they are affected by outdated film. Though with expired film it is a bit of a lottery. Sometimes the results can surprise you (not sure this is because of the expiration or the type of film used) and sometimes the colors are bland and the film really looks ugly. For example, one day my friend brought me a bunch of film called Signature Kirkland 100 from his work since they were just hiding somewhere in storage and they no longer needed them and they were going to the garbage bin
. To this day I never had film that good, incredibly detailed at 100 ISO yet soft and dreamy with rich colors. Amazing film. Kodachrome is color slide film and it is no longer produced as far as I know. Cheers!
The c41 process lasted from 1935 till 2010. I had to look it up. I guess no use for any after market companies to start-up as no Kodachrome around. I loved that film, they made a low ISO, I think 25 ISO and Kodachrome 64, and finally Kodachrome 200. I would shoot mainly 35mm but tried some 25 ISO with my Bronica 4X4. Normally you would need Cibachrome prints made, but some including myself never liked the look of Cibachrome. I still have my 4x4 "slides" of Kodachrome and they are super detailed to look at. I started photography self taught in the mid-1970s using my parents Nikon and Tri-X 400 film. Later I attended Photography School where we learned to use and develop most film. I have developed my own color slide film and done a couple years of B/W printing.
For me and my conservative money spending digital has allowed me to just take more photos. There is a joy and a freedom to that. Still every time I see clear contrasts like in your above photographs I sense something. The quality is there well beyond even the most expensive $7000 Nikon digital body. I was always guessing digital would get to film levels, but sadly, I don't think it will ever happen.
Another old 4x4 camera I used to own was the above "Rolle". These were the news photographers camera of choice for years. Being able to look down at the view finder was a quick and good way to see what you were photographing. The 4x4 image had enough information in it to crop away in the printing to get the frame right. Personally I didn't like using the camera that much as the viewfinder image is backwards. You also have slight style of parallax error due to the viewfinder lens being a different lens to the actual film lens. After using 35mm SLRs the experience was not that great. They have become an iconic part of photography history and I'm sure a stack of famous photographs have been shot on them.
Interestingly news photographers would hold them upside down at arms reach above their heads in crowds, and look up.
The c41 process lasted from 1935 till 2010. I had to look it up. I guess no use for any after market companies to start-up as no Kodachrome around. I loved that film, they made a low ISO, I think 25 ISO and Kodachrome 64, and finally Kodachrome 200. I would shoot mainly 35mm but tried some 25 ISO with my Bronica 4X4. Normally you would need Cibachrome prints made, but some including myself never liked the look of Cibachrome. I still have my 4x4 "slides" of Kodachrome and they are super detailed to look at. I started photography self taught in the mid-1970s using my parents Nikon and Tri-X 400 film. Later I attended Photography School where we learned to use and develop most film. I have developed my own color slide film and done a couple years of B/W printing.
For me and my conservative money spending digital has allowed me to just take more photos. There is a joy and a freedom to that. Still every time I see clear contrasts like in your above photographs I sense something. The quality is there well beyond even the most expensive $7000 Nikon digital body. I was always guessing digital would get to film levels, but sadly, I don't think it will ever happen.
Another old 4x4 camera I used to own was the above "Rolle". These were the news photographers camera of choice for years. Being able to look down at the view finder was a quick and good way to see what you were photographing. The 4x4 image had enough information in it to crop away in the printing to get the frame right. Personally I didn't like using the camera that much as the viewfinder image is backwards. You also have slight style of parallax error due to the viewfinder lens being a different lens to the actual film lens. After using 35mm SLRs the experience was not that great. They have become an iconic part of photography history and I'm sure a stack of famous photographs have been shot on them.
Interestingly news photographers would hold them upside down at arms reach above their heads in crowds, and look up.
The Kodachrome is widely known to be the best film, a classic for sure. I just regret I don't have that much experience and exposure to it. I have mainly worked in developing C41 color negative film and using a Beseler dichro 67s on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper for the prints. But I would have loved to work more with slide film such as Fujichrome provia 100F, Velvia 50 and ektachrome and of course the legendary Kodachrome you mentioned. The other older 4x4 camera you mention Bronica and Rolleiflex would certainty have amazing detail and is incredible to look at from above. A way different experience to shooting than for example an SLR or modern DSLR. Here is an example of a Russian camera I have, it is a bit different than the ones you have shown but it is the only one in my collection that has a similar style.
I also shoot medium format and have the amazing Mamiya RZ67. Here are some pictures of her I found online. I just have to fix the seals since she has a bit of a light leak issue! But the camera is built like a tank and is truly amazing.
Do you have some film cameras around? Would you be interested in trying film photography once again? It is a totally different experience as you know to digital photography. Worth the time and effort in my opinion. I still think film is the best. It captures the essence of photography, the spirit of what it is all about. The features of modern cameras are nice and the post-processing software is also very nice. But if you look at many modern photographs, you can evidently see post-manipulation of the original photograph that is starts to lack a sense of realism and is very digital looking with accentuated colors and exaggerated features. Film has a very natural feel. I don't think that will ever change. But I have friends that laugh at me and don't take me seriously when I mention film, so I tend to keep to myself and let everyone enjoy the wonderful world of photography in whichever way they find best.
The Kodachrome is widely known to be the best film, a classic for sure. I just regret I don't have that much experience and exposure to it. I have mainly worked in developing C41 color negative film and using a Beseler dichro 67s on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper for the prints. But I would have loved to work more with slide film such as Fujichrome provia 100F, Velvia 50 and ektachrome and of course the legendary Kodachrome you mentioned. The other older 4x4 camera you mention Bronica and Rolleiflex would certainty have amazing detail and is incredible to look at from above. A way different experience to shooting than for example an SLR or modern DSLR. Here is an example of a Russian camera I have, it is a bit different than the ones you have shown but it is the only one in my collection that has a similar style.
I also shoot medium format and have the amazing Mamiya RZ67. Here are some pictures of her I found online. I just have to fix the seals since she has a bit of a light leak issue! But the camera is built like a tank and is truly amazing.
Do you have some film cameras around? Would you be interested in trying film photography once again? It is a totally different experience as you know to digital photography. Worth the time and effort in my opinion. I still think film is the best. It captures the essence of photography, the spirit of what it is all about. The features of modern cameras are nice and the post-processing software is also very nice. But if you look at many modern photographs, you can evidently see post-manipulation of the original photograph that is starts to lack a sense of realism and is very digital looking with accentuated colors and exaggerated features. Film has a very natural feel. I don't think that will ever change. But I have friends that laugh at me and don't take me seriously when I mention film, so I tend to keep to myself and let everyone enjoy the wonderful world of photography in whichever way they find best.
Probably more interested in selling my film stuff.
Yes, I actually have five Nikon cameras, and I'm probably going to sell all of them. They are in great condition as when purchasing I was totally into finding the bodies to be "as new or as close to new" as I could find. One black FE and a black FM body I purchased from a friend who only put three or four rolls into them. I tested them before I moved and they are pretty close to perfect, as far as I know. I do wonder though how easy it still is to get the batteries. Though I have seen both two stacked watch batteries that work and of course the single recommended battery from Nikon. The FM would only need batteries if someone wanted to use the light meter as it works 100% in manual mode. Most of us old guys also always remember the manual setting on the electronic cameras. Most Nikon are at M90 which or 125/sec, so if you were right in the middle of an important shoot you could switch to that shutter speed and still take a photo. That was always the reason for two cameras.
But yea, I would probably sell all the five bodies for $500. I'd throw in some free a Nikon lens too with each one. My lens would not be near the level of the cameras as they are free and just some Nikon lens units I'm not planning on using. I have about thirty Nikon lens units. My silver Nikon FE2 has a slight dent on the pentaprism but the rest of the camera was so good, that I purchased it. Let me know I can throw some pictures up if anyone is interested?
I just live where no film or developing is possible.
The Kodachrome is widely known to be the best film, a classic for sure. I just regret I don't have that much experience and exposure to it. I have mainly worked in developing C41 color negative film and using a Beseler dichro 67s on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper for the prints. But I would have loved to work more with slide film such as Fujichrome provia 100F, Velvia 50 and ektachrome and of course the legendary Kodachrome you mentioned. The other older 4x4 camera you mention Bronica and Rolleiflex would certainty have amazing detail and is incredible to look at from above. A way different experience to shooting than for example an SLR or modern DSLR. Here is an example of a Russian camera I have, it is a bit different than the ones you have shown but it is the only one in my collection that has a similar style.
I also shoot medium format and have the amazing Mamiya RZ67. Here are some pictures of her I found online. I just have to fix the seals since she has a bit of a light leak issue! But the camera is built like a tank and is truly amazing.
Do you have some film cameras around? Would you be interested in trying film photography once again? It is a totally different experience as you know to digital photography. Worth the time and effort in my opinion. I still think film is the best. It captures the essence of photography, the spirit of what it is all about. The features of modern cameras are nice and the post-processing software is also very nice. But if you look at many modern photographs, you can evidently see post-manipulation of the original photograph that is starts to lack a sense of realism and is very digital looking with accentuated colors and exaggerated features. Film has a very natural feel. I don't think that will ever change. But I have friends that laugh at me and don't take me seriously when I mention film, so I tend to keep to myself and let everyone enjoy the wonderful world of photography in whichever way they find best.
That RZ67 was the camera my friend owned who I purchased my Bronica from. I don't remember it being exactly 4x4, but slightly more landscape with the backs he had. It was way more easy to shoot with in comparison to the giant Bronica, as well as that handle made it easy to use.
I have never owned a Hasselblad but used them at work a lot. We had two lens as we only needed to do PR work like people and product shots. I think in the end I would say the CZ lens units on the Hasselblad cameras out resolved my humble Nikon lens on the Bronica. The other issue with the Bronica was the giant 4X4 focal plane shutter. The shutter was so big that it tilted the camera upon firing the shot. The Hasselblad had the shutter in the lens which did nothing to shake things.
With the Bronica I actually had to work around the shutter shake which ment longer exposures than 1/30th or shorter exposures than 1/30th if I remember right. :rolleyes:
The Bronica shutter was so loud, people would jump when they heard it for the first time. ........Your all still for a portrait and being careful then whack!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
