Why Drew, why?Originally Posted by Drew Bedo
By the way, I had hoped to be the 1st vision impaired photog to show photos on the LFP site but you beat me to it. I visited your web site and must say it is excellent.
Look forward to seeing more of your work.
Happy trails,
SteveP
Well . . .the post was ment as a friendly mockery of both the Meter Vs Yards discussion combined Selfie phenomenon.
Thanks for your kind words. Hoping TO FIND A CHANGE OF STYLE WITH A tw . . .IF AND WHEN.
Drew Bedo
www.quietlightphoto.com
http://www.artsyhome.com/author/drew-bedo
There are only three types of mounting flanges; too big, too small and wrong thread!
I guess that a few rear extensions have been made (by Plywood?) by now. What about making a rear extension with just a bit of rear tilt built-in?
The lens would be a bit longer than 90mm of course, but that's the point of an extension anyway, right?
Drew Bedo
www.quietlightphoto.com
http://www.artsyhome.com/author/drew-bedo
There are only three types of mounting flanges; too big, too small and wrong thread!
Really off topic, but I can't resist here: You're comparing apples and oranges; let's compare like with like: feet with one decimal point is a whole lot more subtle than meters with one decimal point.
However, in my field, violin making, we switch fluidly back and forth between systems quite a bit, and it seems that some systems work better for measuring some things, some for others, depending on the nature of the observation being made. There's no clear win in the real world, as opposed to the cleanliness of the theoretical world that none of us actually live in. Nature recognizes neither system. :-)
Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear
That would be true, except that no one uses decimals with feet—it would be odd to see "5.3 feet"... It's almost always feet and inches, which ends being 5' 4", and that just takes up more space. It's true that both are arbitrary, but we had to choose one, and there was never even the beginning of a shadow of a doubt that we should use meters!
Folks, we're taking Ben's comment as the last word on the feet-vs-meters thing as it relates to the Travelwide. I've carted the rest of that discussion off to its own thread in the Lounge, where you're welcome to continue if you'd like.
Here's my TW65 with a level (one I had spare, admittedly a bit clunky, but it works), and a handle I made for an SLR probably 40 years ago. The handle is a perfect fit. It had a cable release on it, but I removed it because my fingers fall exactly on the shutter release button on the side of the lens and the cable is not needed. Note the 8-exp roll film back. The fit under the metal spring clips was sloppy on the left side, so I glued a couple of pieces of wood on the sides to fill the gaps, and it seems to work great now. I threaded a strap through the left side grip; the camera can 'hang' on my left hand from the strap.
And here is my TW90 with a similar level. I also put a strap on the left side, but expect this camera to be mainly on a tripod, so no accessory handle. The Canon S90 on top serves as a viewfinder and light meter. On the mode dial on the S90 you can preset the amount of lens zoom, the picture mode, metering mode etc., and store those to the "C" (custom) setting. I have it set for widest zoom, which is very close to the angle of view of the TW90. I also have it set for B&W (I'm shooting Tri-X), and for spot metering. All I have to do is turn the mode dial to C and the S90 configures itself perfectly.
Does the S90 give distance to subject?
FWIW I use a laser rangefinder attached to my wide viewfinder camera, with the focal plane matching. Exposure is the least of my worries.
Unfortunately I don't think there's a way to get the S90 to show distance to subject.
But I don't have trouble estimating by eye.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks