I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again. Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel nostalgic.
Going through the cycle yet again right now. I've been scanning this roll of XP2 Super from the Olympus Trip 35. Two hours and some just to get the scanning done with a mostly automated process. It's a delightful camera, I like shooting with it. The photos it made are lovely. But I'm done once more with film. I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. Hopefully the Fuji X100 will live up to my expectations, it would be nice to have a camera like the Trip 35 for when I want something smaller and lighter to knock about with. On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Jens <p...@planfoto.dk> wrote: > Good point Godfrey. > > To me is more an economical issue. > I own a large collection of Pentacon Six /Carl Zeiss Jena/Schneider > Kreutznach lenses. > I got this 10-15 years ago (ebay) after selling my Rolleiflex (man, was that > great), since I needed interchangeable lenses. > > The Pentacon Six really does deliver great results, but: > 1. The Pentacon doesn't have a built in lightmeter in the prisma. So it's > really only for studio work. But more important: > 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images - so, I wanted a > rectangular format - like 6x7. > > So finally, as the price tags seemed to drop a lot, I got a nice deal on a > Pentax 67 + 2.8 90mm lens, a few weeks ago. > Aftewards I have bought a Pentax 300mm and a Pentax 4.0 165mm LS lens for > flash photography. Now I only miss a 45mm or 55mm :-) > > So, I'm selliong my Pentacon Six equipment shortly > > The first reason I got a Pentax 67 is, that I can't afford a Pentax 645D :-)) > In Europe this will cost 20,000 USD with one lens. > I would have to be a full time pro in order to convince my wife, I need this > :-) > > The 645D would cost me money (interest), since I don't have 20 grand to many > lying arrond, even if it's not in use, for a while. > The 67 will only cost me money, when ever I have a paying customer to take > care of the bills (film, development etc.) > > So, until I win the lottery, I will use medium format as long as I can > convince myself, that it will deliver results superior to my K20D or K-7 (and > (hopefully soon) the K-5). > > I bought the Petnax 67 from a pro rental studio, that didn't really want it > anymore. At this studio, I could see film wrappings lying on the floor here > and there - which means: Pros still use film - at least to some extend. > > Reagrds > Jens > > > > > > > -- > Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. > > On Dec 31, 2010 18:30 "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <gdigio...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with >> Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different >> coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to >> small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called "full frame) digital >> cameras. >> -- >> Godfrey >> godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- Godfrey godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
