I went to Juan Buhler's opening tonight and debated about which cameras
to take along. The first thought was to take a Leica, but I figured I
may need some faster glass and a wider lens than what I have for the old
Wetzlar Wonder. So, I took the LX and a 50/1.2.
Well, the lens was great. The LX
>
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: The LX Let Me Down, A Mamiya Love Affair in the Offing?
> I went to Juan Buhler's opening tonight and debated about which cameras
> to take along. The first thought was to take a Leica, but I figured I
> may need some faster glass
On 8 Feb 2002 at 22:58, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> This brings me to medium format. Michael recently purchased a black
> Mamiya 7II. What a beauty! It's virtually silent, has a big, bright
> viewfinder, and the image jumps sharply into focus. But here's the
> thing ... with its normal lens it
Shel,
I also looked at the Mamiya 7 II and loved it. I decided against the
Mamiya because it didn't have lenses in some of the focal lengths I wanted,
it's slow lens speed, and it's slow top shutter speed.
But if you're going to use the camera primarily tripod mounted the
Mamiya is
Hi Shel,
sorry about your LX. My (new, one day only ) LX is loud too
compared to probably M series, but much quieter and more pleasant
than my other Pentaxes I have(had) K2DMD (SFXn). It's a nice sound,
not high-pitched, quite pleasant. But I admit, it's not really
quiet :(
F
Shel wrote: ". . . . Michael recently purchased a black Mamiya 7II. What a
beauty! It's virtually silent, has a big, bright viewfinder, and the image
jumps sharply into focus. But here's the thing ... with its normal lens it
doesn't seem to weigh any more than the LX with its normal lens. And i
At least one camera magazine declared the Mamiya 7II as the quietest camera
of any type they had ever tested.
Among the cameras I've used, the Minox 35s (scale focus) were quietest,
followed closely (in no particular order) by the Olympus XA (rangefinder),
Olympus EC2 (scale focus), and my pre
Regarding prices of the Mamiya 7 kit:
Robert White has a special on Mamiya gear running through the end of this
month. The body is less than $1100, while the standard 80mm lens is around
$730. The Bronica RF645--including the standard lens--is less than $1,100.
Add about 8-10% for shipping and
On 9 Feb 2002 at 17:05, Brian Walsh wrote:
> Regarding prices of the Mamiya 7 kit:
>
> Robert White has a special on Mamiya gear running through the end of
> this month. The body is less than $1100, while the standard 80mm lens
> is around $730. The Bronica RF645--including the standard lens--is
Tom wrote, "You're evil, and so is Mamiya USA."
Come to the dark side, tom.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Good Morning Len ...
I should be sleeping in but my stoopid cats didn't know it was Sunday
and they wanted breakfast
Your point is well made and well taken - faster glass for the Leica is
somewhere down the road. However, for quite some time I've been
desirous of a larger format, and have been
That's the one thing that immediately put me off the camera - that and
the cluttered viewfinder. Too many lights, too much information, too
distracting ...
Paul Jones wrote:
> http://www.tamron.co.jp/english/rf645/images/rf_display_e.gif
>
> I've always liked the RF645 and they
> seem to be a
Shel,
When I handhold a TLR for people pictures, I use the sports finder
about 90% of the timefocus with the glass and shoot with the sports
finder or use the hyperfocal distance. The sportsfinder is quick, has
the brightest viewfinder ;-) and I can watch everything that is going
on aroun
Hi Ken ...
I've played around with such finders on a couple of cameras, and don't
really care for them. Looking directly through a viewfinder seems to
work a little better for my style, in which a little faster handling is
important. Thanks for the suggestion though.
Ken Archer wrote:
>
> She
Fuji GA645.
Feels just like a ZX body in your hand.
CRB
>From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>If someone can show me another Med Format camera that handles close to a
>35mm, and which is very quiet, I'd be happy to look at it. But over the
>past year or so I think I've exhausted all the
I just came from Penn Camera's Rockville, MD store
(http://www.penncamera.com). They have a used Mamiya 7 (not 7-II) for $800.
It was dark gray. Next to it they had a used Mamiya 180/4.5 lens for $500.
I assume the lens goes with the camera. I don't know if these are good prices.
I like to buy
SB> If someone can show me another Med Format camera that handles close to a
SB> 35mm, and which is very quiet, I'd be happy to look at it. But over the
SB> past year or so I think I've exhausted all the possibilities.
Hi Shel,
1) Mamiya 6 (square M7)
2) Mamiya press 23, super 23,... (roll
OTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: The LX Let Me Down, A Mamiya Love Affair in the Offing?
> SB> If someone can show me another Med Format camera that handles close to
a
> SB> 35mm, and which is very quiet, I'd be happy to look at it. But over
the
> The TLRs, while small and quiet, require looking
> down into the finder, which precludes faster shooting.
>
The Mamiya TLRs take a prism so it handles much like a 35mm SLR.
With those you dont have to look "down".
JCO
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to h
My thoughts on MF r/finders: Me personally, I love the Mamiya 6. However that
is no more although they do come up ocassionally.
Mamiya 7 is the current reigning monarch - it has the best range of lenses,
too.
The Bronica 645 is excellent, especially as it is now at a more realistic
price (prev
Shel,
Have you considered the Pentax 645n or the Contax 645? I was quite
surprised by how light the Pentax was and how much like using a 35mm
it was. Of course, the noise factor is not going to be on par with a
rangefinder, but you should at least look at them.
Bruce Dayton
Sunday, Februar
Shel wrote:
>Are you sure? If the frame isn't vertical, how is it that you can get
>16 frames from 120 film and 33 frames from 220 film?
It's because it's the film that's oriented vertical in the film chamber.
The frame is horizontal of course since nobody in their right mind would
buy a ca
Maybe ... maybe not
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/rf645.htm
Pål Audun Jensen wrote:
> It's because it's the film that's oriented
> vertical in the film chamber. The frame is
> horizontal of course since nobody in their
> right mind would buy a camera with a vertical
> frame.
--
Shel
Shel wrote:
>Maybe ... maybe not http://www.luminous-landscape.com/rf645.htm
What a horrible camera...Talk about annoying viewfinder! The day Pentax
makes abominations like this, I'll switch brand.
Pål
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pd
24 matches
Mail list logo
