Deardorff38
Mentor
Chuck here are a couple from previous visits to the Dolomites. One with a Rolleiflex and the other with the Fuji GW680iii. They're iphone photos of prints. The (darkroom) exhibition prints are 20x20" and 20x24" respectively
Last edited:
Deardorff38
Mentor
Perkeo ll & the Canon 28mm 2.8 on the CL
tcmx3
Established
I understand now, I have made a critical error by making an offhand comment about what I'd like to get out of a camera and I've been full on make up a guy'd.
I apologize, I should have been more sensitive.
I apologize, I should have been more sensitive.
agentlossing
Well-known
I've been starting to shoot B&W film at less than box speed, and am starting to see the increase in fine detail, decrease in grain, and overall boost to resolution that comes with it. Prior to this I had usually gone the other way, pushing film for faster shutter speeds or shooting and developing at box speed.
35mm is indeed capable of excellent quality images. But the different formats still "feel" different.
35mm is indeed capable of excellent quality images. But the different formats still "feel" different.
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
I feel for you. I've gone through this many times in my life.
After making years of chopping, changing, testing and trying, I've come to the conclusion that (for me) the key to success is to take as little equipment as I can get away with.
I've written the following before, but here goes again.
Either (1) a Nikon D800, a 28/2.8, an 85/1.8. this is my basic kit and it achieves 90% of what I want. If I had to add more to it, I would go with the 20/2.8 (which I know I would hardly use, but heck, this is all mind-reading anyway) and a 180/2.8.
Or (2) my beloved carry-everywhere Fujinon XE2, the 18-55, and either a 14/2.8 or a 23/1.4.
If I had to take a film camera, it would be a Contax G1 with a 28/2.8 Biogon, or a Nikkormat with a 35/2.0. That's it.
Some will cite the possibility of missing a good image from not having the right lens with me. I have considered this, and me being me, I will just go back and photograph it all again. Which I can easily do at this time in my life. So for me, win-win.
As a small aside, I find I did my best ever travel photography in 1993 when I went to Indonesia with a Nikkormat and a 50/2.0. Which forced me to stop endlessly photographing pretty landscapes and concentrate on people and small detail. This was my best ever year for stock photo sales, I sold more than I have since. Of course those sale markets are now long vanished, but back then they were good.
At my age, the less I take with me in my backpack the better I travel.
And yes, we will enjoy seeing your images. And your comments along with them.
Last edited:
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
You said what you did. And set off an interesting discussion - even if based on some disagreement.
Not a bad achievement. We are all well, most of us) here for new ideas and to exchange same anyway. Healthy discussion is not based on us all agreeing with everything everyone says in posts.
So well done.
Richard G
Mentor
Agree.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Leica rangefinder cameras and lenses forced a bit of discipline upon me at a time when I needed it: In the beginning, I could only afford a battered M camera body and 50/2 lens, so I got to know that combo really well, and came to appreciate that it wasn't nearly as limiting as I once supposed.
Today, I use non-Leica cameras for most of my work, but I've stuck with pared-back outfits, and if I own f/1.4 and faster optics now, it's because it's sometimes the only flavor G Master or Zuiko Pro lenses come in. But thank goodness Voigtländer broke with that tradition with their Apo-Lanthar lenses.
Today, I use non-Leica cameras for most of my work, but I've stuck with pared-back outfits, and if I own f/1.4 and faster optics now, it's because it's sometimes the only flavor G Master or Zuiko Pro lenses come in. But thank goodness Voigtländer broke with that tradition with their Apo-Lanthar lenses.