Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Paul, I hope you saw my reply to Godfrey as to where they are located now. I was a little sad to not have as many cases to peer into and study... César Panama City, Florida Paul Stenquist wrote: I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew and loved photography. Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old cracker. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the new, modern way ... Well, I don't chimp, because the MZ-50 does not allow it. But I would think that chimping could be a good chatting point with the subject. I know my 3.5 yo daughter prefers being photographed with my phone because she (the subject) can get instant gratification. I would also believe that bringing back the model because the flash was not sat right on the hotshoe and burnt every shot or because the exposure was not quite right will raise a few eyebrows these days. The new, modern way indeed. Kostas
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew and loved photography. Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old cracker. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Oh well, another fine theory ... Especially since I started with a rangefinder before going to an SLR, and although I still prefer a rangefinder on occasion, I don't actually consider it more natural. Just, as you say, different. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I started with an SLR before trying the Leica. I hated the Leica at first. Put it in the drawer and didn't use it for six or eight months. Finally, something someone said about allowing some time with the camera caught my attention, and I started using the camera again. After understanding it, and being a little more comfortable with it, I was sold. For certain types of photography it beats an SLR by a long mile. After using the Leica exclusively for a few months, going back to an SLR was like shooting in a tunnel. I was always worrying what might unknowingly appear in the negative. They are different, require somewhat different techniques, and are not best for all types of shooting. But for some types of photography, they excel. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 2, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? You can see the blink or the funny face because the viewfinder didn't black out. -Aaron
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Wimp. Dave On 3/2/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They are great for certain purposes like close in with people, they are easy to use and generally quiet and unobtrusive, but I wouldn't go out shooting close- ups of polar bears in nature with one. :-) Rob Studdert
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many frames of the same scene. Apart from saying that he looks for subtle variations in each picture, he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. I'm sure he'd have shot a lot of frames anyway, but perhaps the need to deal with unknown results due to mirror blackout caused an increase in the number shot. The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Aaron Reynolds On Mar 2, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? You can see the blink or the funny face because the viewfinder didn't black out.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 3/2/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Shel I'm too tired to think of it but, there is a line in there somewhere. Dave :-)
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Transparency is, admittedly, a vague term. To me it means that there's an unconstrained way of seeing. The Leica lends itself better to shooting with both eyes open than an SLR (right eye in the finder, left eye observing the surrounding scene), and being able to see outside the frame is also very freeing and lends to the transparent feeling. I never insisted that a rangefinder is better for it's ultimate usage, but I will state, categorically, that for me, and for many other photographers, there is a strong preference for using a rangefinder for certain types of photography. Just because the 35mm SLR format is most popular doesn't mean it's the best choice in all circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. Yeah I guess you're right VBG The first cameras I ever used were range finders - try on a Zeiss Ikon Contina a Voightlander something or other back in the mid 60's. How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR Please define transparancy? I can appreciate using old technology, just please don't insist it's better for its ultimate usage. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR. Until you've used one for a while, you'll never understand what we're talking about.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many frames of the same scene. Apart from saying that he looks for subtle variations in each picture, he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. I'm sure he'd have shot a lot of frames anyway, but perhaps the need to deal with unknown results due to mirror blackout caused an increase in the number shot. The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on sheet film. By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed when they are talking to someone who doesn't have a camera growing out of his face. William Robb
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many frames of the same scene. Apart from saying that he looks for subtle variations in each picture, he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. I'm sure he'd have shot a lot of frames anyway, but perhaps the need to deal with unknown results due to mirror blackout caused an increase in the number shot. The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) I think he could've chosen either a better tool (rangefinder, as you say) or a better technique -- looking directly at the subject once he'd already checked his setup in the viewfinder. At least, that's how I was taught, so perhaps my teacher is better at this stuff than that guy is!
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 3/2/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on sheet film. By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed when they are talking to someone who doesn't have a camera growing out of his face. William Robb I've noticed this too. I get much better people pictures when I shoot from the hip. That is of course when they are in focus in the frame ;-) Dave
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
This is true. I tried that technique with the LX and the ME-Super, using a long cord to activate the camera. I think the cord I have is six or nine feet long, and using it allowed me to walk around a bit, talk with the lady I was photographing, and get her to be a little more animated and natural. It's a good technique. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on sheet film. By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed when they are talking to someone who doesn't have a camera growing out of his face. William Robb
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
A bigger negative was needed. Hi might have been able to use a medium-format rangefinder, like the Mamiya 7II, but the 'blad had a greater number of lens options available for it. Plus he had some kind of lighting setup that worked off of the camera somehow - maybe radio controlled - I don't know ... Better technique may have helped - see Bill Robb's comment and my reply. At the time I saw this fellow, I'd not become aware of the technique you and Bill described. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed I think he could've chosen either a better tool (rangefinder, as you say) or a better technique -- looking directly at the subject once he'd already checked his setup in the viewfinder. At least, that's how I was taught, so perhaps my teacher is better at this stuff than that guy is!
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I bought my first SLR there in January of 2002. Still exists, though it's actually at 32nd and Broadway. As of 2002, they distributed flyers with at least some of their used inventory listed on it, which is how I found them. -Mat On 3/2/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew and loved photography. Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old cracker. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I guess we'll agree to disagree. For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back. YMMV Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. Transparency is, admittedly, a vague term. To me it means that there's an unconstrained way of seeing. The Leica lends itself better to shooting with both eyes open than an SLR (right eye in the finder, left eye observing the surrounding scene), and being able to see outside the frame is also very freeing and lends to the transparent feeling. I never insisted that a rangefinder is better for it's ultimate usage, but I will state, categorically, that for me, and for many other photographers, there is a strong preference for using a rangefinder for certain types of photography. Just because the 35mm SLR format is most popular doesn't mean it's the best choice in all circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. Yeah I guess you're right VBG The first cameras I ever used were range finders - try on a Zeiss Ikon Contina a Voightlander something or other back in the mid 60's. How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR Please define transparancy? I can appreciate using old technology, just please don't insist it's better for its ultimate usage. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR. Until you've used one for a while, you'll never understand what we're talking about.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
The Epson RD-1 is your friend then. -Adam Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess we'll agree to disagree. For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back. YMMV Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. Transparency is, admittedly, a vague term. To me it means that there's an unconstrained way of seeing. The Leica lends itself better to shooting with both eyes open than an SLR (right eye in the finder, left eye observing the surrounding scene), and being able to see outside the frame is also very freeing and lends to the transparent feeling. I never insisted that a rangefinder is better for it's ultimate usage, but I will state, categorically, that for me, and for many other photographers, there is a strong preference for using a rangefinder for certain types of photography. Just because the 35mm SLR format is most popular doesn't mean it's the best choice in all circumstances. Shel [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. Yeah I guess you're right VBG The first cameras I ever used were range finders - try on a Zeiss Ikon Contina a Voightlander something or other back in the mid 60's. How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR Please define transparancy? I can appreciate using old technology, just please don't insist it's better for its ultimate usage. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR. Until you've used one for a while, you'll never understand what we're talking about.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back. How is that different from an SLR, where you don't see the what you get through the viewfinder AND you don't see it until you get the processed film back? Or are you comparing film rangefinders to digital SLRs? -Aaron
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Adam Maas wrote: Kenneth Waller wrote: I guess we'll agree to disagree. For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back. The Epson RD-1 is your friend then. Cropping wide with room for error may be a more cost-effective option :-) Kostas
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
How is that different from an SLR, where you don't see the what you get through the viewfinder AND you don't see it until you get the processed film back? I'm thinking of composition. I can generally get the exposure focus. And of course with digital you get a pretty good idea of the exposure. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:06 AM Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back. How is that different from an SLR, where you don't see the what you get through the viewfinder AND you don't see it until you get the processed film back? Or are you comparing film rangefinders to digital SLRs? -Aaron
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 3/1/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank, Is that all you have to say? A bit disappointed :-) Oh, I have much more to say (like congrats on your purchase, for one! g) later. I've been so busy at work that I haven't been able to pay much attention to the list lately, plus, my eyes glaze over with all the PMA and DSLR stuff, so I've been skipping over a lot of stuff. Plus, I've been going to physio two to three night a week, so I haven't been on-line at home much, either. Don't worry, I'll see your Lovely Leica at GFM, and drool over it there. LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 06:23:41AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many frames of the same scene. Apart from saying that he looks for subtle variations in each picture, he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. I'm sure he'd have shot a lot of frames anyway, but perhaps the need to deal with unknown results due to mirror blackout caused an increase in the number shot. The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Digital, of course, let's you see exactly what you caught, immediately. Otherwise it's hard to be sure if that blink you spotted results in a sultry expression, with eyes half closed, or a blank, eyeless shot.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
That's the place. Godfrey On Mar 2, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew and loved photography. Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old cracker. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: ...He was using a 'blad... he also mentioned that with the mirror blackout he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for insurance. ... This is very much the case with Hasselblad 500 series SLRs because they do not have an instant return mirror. One you release the shutter, a healthy pause happens while the front shutter closes, the aperture stops down, the mirror swings up, the rear shutter opens, the exposure is made, and the next moment you can wind the film crank dawdles along so you can see through the viewfinder again. You have to get good at seeing the moment about a third of a second before it is going to happen... Godfrey
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
For me, that's the biggest disadvantage of all film cameras excepting polaroids. Godfrey On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
A definate advantage of a tripod and remote release. It can make a difference. William Robb wrote: I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on sheet film. By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed when they are talking to someone who doesn't have a camera growing out of his face.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 2 Mar 2006 at 6:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I never insisted that a rangefinder is better for it's ultimate usage, but I will state, categorically, that for me, and for many other photographers, there is a strong preference for using a rangefinder for certain types of photography. Just because the 35mm SLR format is most popular doesn't mean it's the best choice in all circumstances. My Mamiya 7 is just like a giant Leica M, it's great to have cameras covering two formats the essentially behave the same way, like shooting with an LX and 67 Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the new, modern way ... Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Digital, of course, let's you see exactly what you caught, immediately. Otherwise it's hard to be sure if that blink you spotted results in a sultry expression, with eyes half closed, or a blank, eyeless shot.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Personally I'd just download the images to a computer or the like during a break in the session - it's a lot easier to review what you have on a decent-sized screen. But that's still much better than having to re-shoot the next day because of an unfortunate blink (or fly, or ...). And that's assuming a reshoot is possible. On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:09:53PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the new, modern way ... Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Digital, of course, let's you see exactly what you caught, immediately. Otherwise it's hard to be sure if that blink you spotted results in a sultry expression, with eyes half closed, or a blank, eyeless shot.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
If I'm shooting an extended session with a model, we usually stop after six to ten shots and chimp together. I find this very helpful in working out the best poses and shot angles. And a break every now and then keeps both of us fresh and gives me a chance to redirect. Paul On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:47 PM, John Francis wrote: Personally I'd just download the images to a computer or the like during a break in the session - it's a lot easier to review what you have on a decent-sized screen. But that's still much better than having to re-shoot the next day because of an unfortunate blink (or fly, or ...). And that's assuming a reshoot is possible. On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:09:53PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the new, modern way ... Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Digital, of course, let's you see exactly what you caught, immediately. Otherwise it's hard to be sure if that blink you spotted results in a sultry expression, with eyes half closed, or a blank, eyeless shot.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Likewise, working with a pregnant mother who wanted some nudes to remember her pregnancy, it was very useful to review exposures as we went along after a few shots at a time were made. It made her feel more comfortable with the session, and also helped me identify to her which postures, expressions and gestures proved to be most pleasing. Godfrey On Mar 2, 2006, at 5:46 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: If I'm shooting an extended session with a model, we usually stop after six to ten shots and chimp together. I find this very helpful in working out the best poses and shot angles. And a break every now and then keeps both of us fresh and gives me a chance to redirect. Paul On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:47 PM, John Francis wrote: Personally I'd just download the images to a computer or the like during a break in the session - it's a lot easier to review what you have on a decent-sized screen. But that's still much better than having to re-shoot the next day because of an unfortunate blink (or fly, or ...). And that's assuming a reshoot is possible. On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:09:53PM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the new, modern way ... Shel [Original Message] From: John Francis The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-)) Digital, of course, let's you see exactly what you caught, immediately. Otherwise it's hard to be sure if that blink you spotted results in a sultry expression, with eyes half closed, or a blank, eyeless shot.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Congratulations!! It's about a year that I've been persuaded to get into rangefinders myself... Leice is above budget anyhow, so I started off with a Canonet QL17 GIII and very recently added a Zorki 4 to the collection. Now I'm waiting for an Industar 22 (3.5/50 collapsible) and a Jupiter-3 (1.5/50) to arrive, because the Jupiter 8 (2/50) that came with the Zorki is not in optimal condition. And indeed, you don't see many people carrying these camera's around, so I'm not surprised they addressed you for this. Actually, one of the 'hidden' advantages of most rangefinders is that the viewfinder is located to the left of the camera, so you can use the right eye for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for SLR's, the viewfinder is right in the middle of the camera, which forces me to hide completely behind the camera. I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Groeten, Vic Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vic Mortelmans wrote: for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for SLR's, the viewfinder is right in the middle of the camera, which forces me to hide completely behind the camera. I shoot SLRs with two eyes open; right eye on the VF. I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Except if you need long lenses for, err, nature photography :-) Kostas (WYSIWYG)
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
By the way, I guess you already know the rangefinderforum, to avoid the 'OT'? http://www.rangefinderforum.com/ Groeten, Vic Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
OK, so maybe it's my nose that's causing trouble. On the rangefinder, I can put it *next* to the camera, so the subject can still admire it:) Groeten, Vic Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vic Mortelmans wrote: for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for SLR's, the viewfinder is right in the middle of the camera, which forces me to hide completely behind the camera. I shoot SLRs with two eyes open; right eye on the VF. I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Except if you need long lenses for, err, nature photography :-) Kostas (WYSIWYG)
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Excellent choice! Quite a few Leica fans consider the IIIf to be the most beautiful camera ever made. I am counted among them. On Feb 28, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 2/28/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I eagerly await the pictures of a snakeskinned Leica IIIf. :-) -Mat
RE: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Tom C.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Tom C wrote: You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. It's not easy being Frank spending every day the colour of the... uh... -Aaron
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. Godfrey
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
hmmm. So where =is= Frank? Anyone seen him? Cesar, they must have seen you coming. I bet the write speed of that relic is laughable. FPS is probably for shit too. You don't seriously belive you can take pictures with thing, do you? what a noob. Tom C wrote: From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Tom C.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Tom C wrote: From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. That line is Mark-bait if I ever saw it.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Vic, unleashed this and more... I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Interesting comment. In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment. Kenneth Waller --- Original Message - From: Vic Mortelmans [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. Congratulations!! It's about a year that I've been persuaded to get into rangefinders myself... Leice is above budget anyhow, so I started off with a Canonet QL17 GIII and very recently added a Zorki 4 to the collection. Now I'm waiting for an Industar 22 (3.5/50 collapsible) and a Jupiter-3 (1.5/50) to arrive, because the Jupiter 8 (2/50) that came with the Zorki is not in optimal condition. And indeed, you don't see many people carrying these camera's around, so I'm not surprised they addressed you for this. Actually, one of the 'hidden' advantages of most rangefinders is that the viewfinder is located to the left of the camera, so you can use the right eye for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for SLR's, the viewfinder is right in the middle of the camera, which forces me to hide completely behind the camera. I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Groeten, Vic Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. My Dad got some attention on a visit my children's school, 'cause of the Rollei hanging from his neck.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Hard to pin down. It's more like a feeling. Rangefinders are more elementary. In principle, a camera is a body with a shutter holding film and a lens mounted on it. Of course that's not sufficient for practical photography (this is basically the definition of a Bessa L). You need some auxiliaries, like a viewfinder that will show you the field of view, a rangefinder that will help you estimating subject distance and a meter that will help you estimating light intensity. In a rangefinder, the 'auxiliaries' are kept more separate from the principle camera. When photographing with a SLR (even be it as simple as a Spotmatic F), I have the feeling that the camera is taking a picture, when photographing with a rangefinder, I have more the feeling that I'm taking the picture myself. Don't think too much about it, it's probably all instigated by emotional perceptions Groeten, VIc Kenneth Waller wrote: Vic, unleashed this and more... I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Interesting comment. In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment. Kenneth Waller
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:28, Kenneth Waller wrote: Interesting comment. In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment. They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, given that: often you can see outside the taking frame, there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made and the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 3/1/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Huh? Wha? -frank, going back to sleep... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Not to be argumentative - They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, Agreed you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in I can see a rangefinders being more natural photographic equipment in that they are closer to the original/first camera YMMV Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:28, Kenneth Waller wrote: Interesting comment. In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment. They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, given that: often you can see outside the taking frame, there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made and the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 1 Mar 2006 at 20:57, Kenneth Waller wrote: Not to be argumentative - They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, Agreed you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in For street shooters or anyone working close in knowing what's happening just outside the finder can be advantageous. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want At least you know what happened just after you released the shutter, expressions can change in an instant. the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in Range-finders are generally used over a fairly limited range of taking FLs, so it's very easy to preview the scene in your mind, the finder allows you to focus and trim framing. I can see a rangefinders being more natural photographic equipment in that they are closer to the original/first camera They are great for certain purposes like close in with people, they are easy to use and generally quiet and unobtrusive, but I wouldn't go out shooting close- ups of polar bears in nature with one. :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Rob Studdert wrote: there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want At least you know what happened just after you released the shutter, expressions can change in an instant. Reminds me of something I heard in school, over and over again, in regards to sports photography: If you saw the shot in the viewfinder, that means you missed it. -Aaron
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Kenneth Waller wrote: Not to be argumentative - They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, Agreed you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in I can see a rangefinders being more natural photographic equipment in that they are closer to the original/first camera YMMV I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:07 PM, E.R.N. Reed wrote: I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs? Interesting thought. I started with a Rolleiflex TLR ... perhaps that's why the Sony DSC-R1's top-mounted LCD feels so natural to me. G
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Paul, I must admit that I stayed away from the M-mount Leicas because of cost. But then again I truly enjoy shooting my screwmount cameras. This is not to say that I may not end up with an M-mount Leica in the future... To back the comment about beautiful cameras, I have had a couple of sales clerks in photo stores in NYC comment on my IIIf. One asked me if they could please handle it :-) I am anxiously awaiting the three rolls I dropped off. I just found out I will be working about 13-hour days so it may be the weekend ere I see any of my results. Hoping to fit in shooting with the IIIf along with my Pentaxes, César Panama City, Florida Paul Stenquist wrote: Excellent choice! Quite a few Leica fans consider the IIIf to be the most beautiful camera ever made. I am counted among them. On Feb 28, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
[Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR. Until you've used one for a while, you'll never understand what we're talking about.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Vic, I was not aware of that forum, thanks. How can I fit time in for that forum when I don't have enough time for this list? César Panama City, Florida Vic Mortelmans wrote: By the way, I guess you already know the rangefinderforum, to avoid the 'OT'? http://www.rangefinderforum.com/ Groeten, Vic Cesar wrote: There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I started with an SLR before trying the Leica. I hated the Leica at first. Put it in the drawer and didn't use it for six or eight months. Finally, something someone said about allowing some time with the camera caught my attention, and I started using the camera again. After understanding it, and being a little more comfortable with it, I was sold. For certain types of photography it beats an SLR by a long mile. After using the Leica exclusively for a few months, going back to an SLR was like shooting in a tunnel. I was always worrying what might unknowingly appear in the negative. They are different, require somewhat different techniques, and are not best for all types of shooting. But for some types of photography, they excel. Shel [Original Message] From: E.R.N. Reed I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Mat Maessen wrote: On 2/28/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I eagerly await the pictures of a snakeskinned Leica IIIf. :-) -Mat Mat, Funny you should mention that, I thought the same thing after about three hours of having the camera. Maybe I need to get a second body to do this? I am at times conservative, I need to have at least one stock body. This is why I am contemplating reskinning another couple of LXen :-) I will let the list know when I do the reskinning, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Tom C wrote: From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Tom C. Tom, He has to learn to handle pressure :-) After realizing that I was focusing to feet when the lens was measuring meters, I may actually have the 'Frank' effect. Still anxious to see my rolls from the IIIf, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. Godfrey Godfrey, Last year I could not find Olden while doing a quick sweep of where they used to be. This time I found them - interestingly enough, their address is a women's store that I almost walked right by if I did not have the address. The entrance to Olden is an elevator on the right-hand-side of the store that has a sign on the elevator door that says that Olden is on the fourth floor. Their space is a lot smaller than their previous location. Pity. There was nothing that interested me, but it was still nice to stop in. I will keep stopping in when I have the chance. Nostalgia, a nice feeling, and you can enjoy it with Pentax, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Doug, Wait a minute - I did not think to ask about the write speed. FPS? Not even a consideration - but I should have asked anyway.. I will not know about picture taking possibility until I get the prints - how archaic! What's it to ya? Tu madre. The line above is a GFMtn exclusive, César Panama City, Florida Doug Brewer wrote: hmmm. So where =is= Frank? Anyone seen him? Cesar, they must have seen you coming. I bet the write speed of that relic is laughable. FPS is probably for shit too. You don't seriously belive you can take pictures with thing, do you? what a noob. Tom C wrote: From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Tom C.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
frank theriault wrote: On 3/1/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition and pressure will not help him at all. Huh? Wha? -frank, going back to sleep... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson Frank, Is that all you have to say? A bit disappointed :-) César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Vic, I am going to keep this post. I will try to address this again after shooting the IIIf for a while. I still have a b/w roll in an LX I have to finish, César Panama City, Florida Vic Mortelmans wrote: Hard to pin down. It's more like a feeling. Rangefinders are more elementary. In principle, a camera is a body with a shutter holding film and a lens mounted on it. Of course that's not sufficient for practical photography (this is basically the definition of a Bessa L). You need some auxiliaries, like a viewfinder that will show you the field of view, a rangefinder that will help you estimating subject distance and a meter that will help you estimating light intensity. In a rangefinder, the 'auxiliaries' are kept more separate from the principle camera. When photographing with a SLR (even be it as simple as a Spotmatic F), I have the feeling that the camera is taking a picture, when photographing with a rangefinder, I have more the feeling that I'm taking the picture myself. Don't think too much about it, it's probably all instigated by emotional perceptions Groeten, VIc Kenneth Waller wrote: Vic, unleashed this and more... I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment. Interesting comment. In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment. Kenneth Waller
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Cesar wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. Godfrey Godfrey, Last year I could not find Olden while doing a quick sweep of where they used to be. This time I found them - interestingly enough, their address is a women's store that I almost walked right by if I did not have the address. The entrance to Olden is an elevator on the right-hand-side of the store that has a sign on the elevator door that says that Olden is on the fourth floor. Their space is a lot smaller than their previous location. Pity. There was nothing that interested me, but it was still nice to stop in. I will keep stopping in when I have the chance. Nostalgia, a nice feeling, and you can enjoy it with Pentax, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew and loved photography. Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old cracker. ;-) Godfrey On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store.
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
The interesting thing for me was the lack of Pentax lenses at most of the places I stopped in while in NYC. Olden had a couple of M42 lenses and I think one k-mount. I am interested in seeing if what they have in their cases is all they have... I will check out Olden in better detail the next time I am in NYC, César Panama City, Florida Paul Stenquist wrote: I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic. Great store. Paul On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Cesar wrote: Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Cesar wrote: http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw? action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. 1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it! I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar 3.5cm and 5.0cm f/3.5 lenses, from Olden Camera in 1969 for $99, used them until about 1985 or so when the last one was lost over the Pacific. They were delightful old cameras. I inherited my father's IIIf kit too, but ultimately sold it to a collector as I didn't want to see it become worn with use (he treated it as a sacred object: it was as immaculate in 1982 as it was in 1953). He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Sometimes. I've had people go away smiling when I carried an old Nikon F or Canon FTb too. Godfrey Godfrey, Last year I could not find Olden while doing a quick sweep of where they used to be. This time I found them - interestingly enough, their address is a women's store that I almost walked right by if I did not have the address. The entrance to Olden is an elevator on the right-hand-side of the store that has a sign on the elevator door that says that Olden is on the fourth floor. Their space is a lot smaller than their previous location. Pity. There was nothing that interested me, but it was still nice to stop in. I will keep stopping in when I have the chance. Nostalgia, a nice feeling, and you can enjoy it with Pentax, César Panama City, Florida
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs? I started on rangefinders during the Ice Age, but definitely consider the SLR to be more natural. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. Kenneth Waller wrote: Not to be argumentative - They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, Agreed you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in I can see a rangefinders being more natural photographic equipment in that they are closer to the original/first camera YMMV I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. Yeah I guess you're right VBG The first cameras I ever used were range finders - try on a Zeiss Ikon Contina a Voightlander something or other back in the mid 60's. How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). And how does a rangefinder change the outcome? There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR Please define transparancy? I can appreciate using old technology, just please don't insist it's better for its ultimate usage. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax. [Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller you can see outside the taking frame, but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter. there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is made I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release, you've decided that's what you want How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out they've blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has unexpectedly found its way into the frame (see above). the finder view has an air of familiarity as it always remains the same magnification regardless of the FL of the lens. but again, its what's in the frame that I'm interested in There's a certain transparency when using a rangefinder like the Leica that you don't find in an SLR. Until you've used one for a while, you'll never understand what we're talking about.
OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically. I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had heard so much about them. I ended up going to Adorama and spending quite a bit of time looking at cameras - thanks go to my sister for being patient and letting me have as much time as I needed to decide. The M cameras were too expensive to consider, not knowing how I would react to a rangefinder. So I looked at a screwmount Leica. You can see http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 for a look at what I ended up with. This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm 1:2. I dropped off three rolls this afternoon and am anxiously looking to getting them back after Thursday. Funny thing - I ended up flying from NYC to Panama City through Orlando. I was coming out of the restroom when I had an asian man approach me. I had my Leica IIIf hanging around my neck. I don't recall if I had my *istD over my shoulder. He asked if I was a photographer and then asked if the camera around my neck was a Leica. He also asked if I was there for PMA. He smiled wished me a good day and then went away smiling. Would this have happened with only a Pentax around my neck? How about a Nikon or Canon? Looking forward to a street festival this Friday when I will have the IIIf and an LX around my neck. I guess I will also have an *ist D with me too. Hoping to keep up with the list, César Panama City, Florida
