Then the photographers need more training if they can’t take full advantage of their cameras and lenses!Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
Printable View
Then the photographers need more training if they can’t take full advantage of their cameras and lenses!Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
Hi Kent,Quote:
Originally Posted by Two23
that's a great point. How can you create a road map without knowing much about the format at the beginning?
Yes, Nikon and Fuji are both on my list, the W and CM-W series both look interesting, especially for wide and long lenses. It seems to me from the research I've done that for the "normal" lens (135-210 or so), the Rodenstock and/or Schneider seem to be everyone's favorite and one to beat. I.e. "pry them from my cold, dead hands" kind of favorite. Hard to ignore those kinds of endorsements!
Luis, I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you, because I'm not sure I understand you. Could you elaborate?
At the moment I plan on getting one lens for a newly acquired LF camera. Something normal-ish, and of high quality. I'm not interested in buying something "to learn on" and then selling it and upgrading to something new, and repeating over and over. Why waste all that film and time? That's what camera manufacturers want us to do. Buy and replace. I like to go for quality from the beginning, and if I decide in a year that I don't every want to do LF again, I'm sure I can still get whatever price I paid for a used lens here or on eBay, whether it be a $200 or $1000 lens... At the risk of sounding defensive, I've been shooting MF for over 20 years - learning to work in LF will be new to me, working with film to create interesting and (hopefully) compelling images is not.
But I'm not clear what your point was. Quality of the gear doesn't matter? I'll definitely agree that most (all?) of us are far to concerned with the gear (myself included) when it's the photographer's vision and knowledge that is 90% of the shot. That said, you wouldn't want substandard kit getting in the way of your vision, would you? And with quality gear, you can't blame the gear if your pictures suck! Lol. Quality gear also (IMHO) tends to make the process smoother by getting out of the way and facilitating the task at hand.
“That's what camera manufacturers want us to do. Buy and replace.”
In all of the decades that I was Product and Sales Manager for Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock that was never a goal.
Cameras and lenses were made for different market segments. Students on limited budgets - Rodenstock Geronar lenses. Field use - Linhof TK, Master Technika, Kardan Standard, Wista folding cameras. Studio Linhof monorails, other then the Standard and TK series.
Yes, companies like Linhof made it easy to own multiple types with lens adapter boards and universal viewing accessories but the goal was not to start someone with a lower cost camera and build them up to a more expensive one. Each Linhof, in this case, was a complete, functional camera on its own.
Sinar took a different approach. They, starting with the P series, made one single camera with many accessories. Using those accessories they could make different cameras. Use a P auxiliary standards, bellows and gg back made a F. Use an auxiliary standard, bellows and a P type rear standard made a C.
Hi Bob,
my comment wasn't meant as a dig at you or any of the (fine) companies you've represented, more a generalization as to the mentality our consumerist society encourages (which some less scrupulous resellers, if not manufacturers, encourage, planned obsolescence, etc - especially relevant as the world moves to digital, suddenly all your lenses aren't good enough for digital and need to be repurchased all over again, and more).
Linhof was on my short list for LF camera to get, Sinar as well. Both excellent products.
I was interested in hearing what Luis meant by his comment. And if Kent can elaborate on how he planned his focal length spread when new to a format, as I find myself in the same position.
I replace all of my cameras and lenses after 200 years of service. My oldest lens is coming up in another 30 years, but still works okay so far. Oldest camera has maybe 60 years to go and is holding up well...
Welcome to the real world, Bob. It is said that Edward Weston made his Mexico photographs with a lens that he paid $5 for and most of his friends felt he paid too much for it. I believe he did ok with that lens. The lens does not make the photographer. In the 8 1/4" focal length, I own at least a Sironar-N, G-Clarons (two of them), a Dagor, and several other Rodenstock and Calumet branded lenses. What do I always use? The Dagor which was made over 50 years ago. Good luck with your super-sharp expensive lens. Bernice, care to jump in? I stand by my comments. LQuote:
Originally Posted by Bob Salomon
With all due respect, if you had enough experience to agree or disagree, you wouldn't be asking the question. LQuote:
Originally Posted by 6x6TLL
At least for backs for large format there are good reasons for upgraded digital lenses:Quote:
Originally Posted by 6x6TLL
1 digital backs have a smaller image area then 45 film so at optimal aperture for 45 you are well into diffraction on the digital back.
2 film sags, digital sensors do not. So different requirements for optimal resolution were needed.
3 digital lenses from Rodenstock are designed for the pixel sizes of different types of backs. One series is designed for sensors with 5 micron or smaller pixels. Another series was developed for sensors with pixel sizes around 9 microns.
These two series have different image circles due to the sensor sizes of the respective types.
As these lenses are used with sensors that at the largest are about ¼ the size of 45 film they are optimized at f8 as the DOF at f8 on the sensors would be similar to 22 on 45.
But that means he used what was best for him and his type of work and the technologies that were available way back then. It does not mean that if he had the opportunity to use today’s cameras, lenses, films, papers, enlargers, etc that he would have made the same choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S
He also worked at a time that was economically very different then now!
That wasn't very respectful at all, Luis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Luis-F-S