Showing posts with label 35mm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 35mm. Show all posts
and a 
lens on a D80.
The only real question you should ask yourself...
...if you feel the photographic fire burning inside you : do I spend 3000$ upgrading my gear to full frame SLR and XMAS, or do I spend that money on the real stuff, medium format film gear?
Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.
Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?
That is pretty clear to me:
Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.
Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.
What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !
Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.
On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:
On the right corner, weighting 3000$:
So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.
Ok I should have said "the only real question in case you are about to buy a full frame camera and feel the photographic fire burning inside you", but that'd be less catchy.
If you don't have a DSLR at all, get one. It's so convenient, gives you room to practice etc. It's not sufficient to fully explore the scope of your photographic potential, but it's a must have.
Back to Ze Biblical Question of our times: full frame or medium format film?
That is pretty clear to me:
- If you shoot sports, wildlife, porn or anything that moves, get a full frame DSLR.
- If you shoot portraits, landscapes, and a lot of black and white get a medium format film camera.
Good luck getting those results with a digital camera, and it sucks you can't see the large prints, the tones, dynamic range, definition.
Courtesy of Pierre Herbert, Rest in Peace.
Now remember, I made the assumption you are a photography junky, you love the cause, you'd sell your PS3 to replace a lens. If you don't have that level of dedication, forget about film. You'll always be a 30% photographer then :p, covering 30% of the potential. Mwaaahahaha! I'm mean...and stupid because if you all shoot just digital, I'll be the only pulling amazing portraits. The fact is the real thing is medium and large format film.
What what? but my friends have a 5D MKII and I'm enviouuuus! With the biiig lenses they look soooo seriouuuus and proooo !
Ah...well, sorry you have to compensate for something, but this is about the images, not the how the gear looks on you. Anyway, you look way cooler with a vintage piece of gear than with a 5D.
On the left corner, weighting 3000 to 4000$:
- A great full frame DSLR, the Nikon D700
or soon to come out D800. A D700 now costs 2500$.
- Prime lenses that matches your expectations of greatness would be the 35mm f2 and the 85mm f1.4 . That costs from 400$ to 900$.
- Or a zoom lens for full frame, matching the D700 quality standards like the 24-70 F2.8, 1500$, for a result that is quite questionable regarding the money.
On the right corner, weighting 3000$:
- Let's go for the top, to mach the other corner, a Pentax 67II, used in mint condition from Adorama or B&H for 1200$
- 2 lenses, a portrait lens, a landscape lens, used from the same shops, 500$ each. Those will DESTROY the best SLR Nikon lenses. I mean destroy even the prime lenses. The zoom lenses, ah ah please, be serious for a sec, it beats even the best Leica M lenses. My Mamiya 200$ lenses already outperform all of that.
- A negative scanner. Yes you'll need that, the Epson Perfection V700
does a great job for 550$.
- Film. A roll developed costs about 8$ if the shop doesn't rip you off. You get 10 shots on it.
So here it is. The second choice is the one that is not guided by marketing or the safe feeling of buying the same as everyone else. It's the choice of passion. I won't even write a rational, just Google sample images.
Yes, you'll have to wait to see your picture, and learn how to expose properly, and the characteristics of each film, and focus manually, but it'll pay off. The shutter sound of a MF camera...oh yeah. You'll be thinking every shot, framing carefully, turn into a perfectionist machine to maximize your ratio of good shots. You'll find the pleasure of crafting, then be impatient to see the film developed. Instead of bombarding a village to hit one man, you'll be the sniper that needs one bullet to hit his target.
The truth is, if you go medium format film for portraits, you won't be able to go back to digital, this I can promise you.
Gabrielle & Sofia
Nikon FE, 35mm F2 FX lens. Fuji across 100.
Acros 100 is the sharpest film I know. The best daylight B&W film in my opinion. All of this was shot under cloudy skies. 2 things you can do in that case: use a hight contrast film like Neopan 400, or push contrast a bit in the dark room or after scanner. Notice that cloudy skies don't necessary lead to poor light.
Acros 100 is the sharpest film I know. The best daylight B&W film in my opinion. All of this was shot under cloudy skies. 2 things you can do in that case: use a hight contrast film like Neopan 400, or push contrast a bit in the dark room or after scanner. Notice that cloudy skies don't necessary lead to poor light.
Review: Fuji X100...VS a actual film rangefinder, VS forthcoming X10...
I'm back !
My job (the one that pays the bills and the expensive repairs on my car) has been quite time consuming lately, so were my vacations :)
Anyway I'm back with new photos to post, and more tutorials.
But for now, a personal review of a camera that is being very successful, and acclaimed by critics, but not necessarily by real photographers. That makes it rather interesting since Fuji is clearly branding it as the compact for pros, when pros are too lazy to cary around too much stuff.
Also, by its looks and functionalities, it intends to revive a photo journalism way of shooting, and be the modern equivalent of a long line up of full frame film rangefinder cameras. And I'm wondering...aren't those old guys still not better than the fancy X100 ?
Let's start with the camera review itself:
I encourage you to Google it (after bookmarking this blog !), there's not point redoing what has been done well.
Some reviews:
- Ken Rockwell (classic)
- Steve Huff
However I would tend to weight differently the pros and cons of the camera than many others did. Let's remind us of those first:
Pros: great lens and sensor, low light performance, dynamic range, design and built quality, optical viewfinder. That's A LOT of great pros ! Some might even say, whatever the cons, it can only be great, but...
Cons: slow, very slow operations, dodgy user interface, AF is slow and MF is absolutely unusable (7 ring turns to focus 1 meter further, WTF)
Why is that more of a pain that it might seem? Changing ISO while shooting was nearly unresponsive when I used it, a real pro used to rangefinders can manually focus and can do it quick. It is impossible here hence the all purpose of the camera is quite questionable. I would say a pro will be terribly frustrated and yet tempted: it's a beautiful object, it's nearly what we are dreaming of (full frame sensor + faster response of electronics + proper focusing would make it perfect), but it will be very frustrating when missing a shot because it takes 3 seconds to write on the card, or won't focus well.
Why not a proper rangefinder instead?
If you are a pro and can spend 1200 dollars on a portable rangefinder, you might be better off spending 80 bucks on a actual full frame film rangefinder, and shoot 1120 dollars worth of 35mm film...(150 rolls). Dynamic range on film is unbeatable, the classic journalist B&W shots will render way better on film (tone range of B&W film is unmatched), the full frame will allow greater definition, bigger files after scanning, deeper images. You travel in unsafe countries? It gets stolen? Ah whatever, order an other one, or 2. If you don't care about cost, you have a Leica M9 (Digital), or a Contax G2 / Leica M6...well you spend the extra bucks that will get you what you really want.
However you might want a X10; keep on reading.
The X10...
Here comes my main and I hopefully most insightful point of this post. If you are an amateur, is the X100 the holy grail? I would nearly say so. You will be able to shoot DSLR like shots with a pocket format, a lens that beats any DSLR kit lens, and a DSLR size sensor. The weaknesses of the camera won't bother you too much because you never shot a Nikon F5 or a Contax G2. So I would nearly say it's the perfect advanced amateur compact camera...if Fuji was not about to launch the X10.
Well let's face it, the X10 is likely to avoid the flaws of the X100, it has a zoom lens with high aperture (pretty uncommon and really cool to have on a compact), it's even smaller, looks as good, will cost half the price of the X100. The only thing is the CMOS sensor VS the DSLR like sensor of the X100, but once again, a DSLR sensor is not a full frame sensor, so it's not thaaaat mind blowing either, and mostly an amateur would hardly see the difference between the two (medium & large formats are the real thing). If the shoot is good, it's good no matter what sensor anyway.
Final recommendation:
First of all, if you bought or really, really want an X100, you're fine. You're miles away from making a mistake. I'm discussing details here and it is an excellent camera, with all essential features on top. Even the AF is not so bad, just not good enough VS a cheaper DSLR.
If you are to upgrade your G2, your S90, or some other premium compact as your main camera, wait a bit. The fix lens of the X100 is awesome, but it might be too much of a constraint never being able to zoom. The X10 should be more versatile, wait and try.
If you own a DSLR, get a fix 35mm 1.8 lens on it for 200$, don't buy a X100. Get a X10 as a portable backup, that will be way more complementary (providing that the X10 images come out good, we'll know quite soon).
If you're a pro looking for the small toy you can have in your pocket just in case, the X10 might be what you actually wanted, depending on how well its lens will perform. It's even smaller and since you shoot full frame or larger format, you find COMS and DX sensor similarly underperforming anyway.
My job (the one that pays the bills and the expensive repairs on my car) has been quite time consuming lately, so were my vacations :)
Anyway I'm back with new photos to post, and more tutorials.
But for now, a personal review of a camera that is being very successful, and acclaimed by critics, but not necessarily by real photographers. That makes it rather interesting since Fuji is clearly branding it as the compact for pros, when pros are too lazy to cary around too much stuff.
Also, by its looks and functionalities, it intends to revive a photo journalism way of shooting, and be the modern equivalent of a long line up of full frame film rangefinder cameras. And I'm wondering...aren't those old guys still not better than the fancy X100 ?
Let's start with the camera review itself:
I encourage you to Google it (after bookmarking this blog !), there's not point redoing what has been done well.
Some reviews:
- Ken Rockwell (classic)
- Steve Huff
However I would tend to weight differently the pros and cons of the camera than many others did. Let's remind us of those first:
Pros: great lens and sensor, low light performance, dynamic range, design and built quality, optical viewfinder. That's A LOT of great pros ! Some might even say, whatever the cons, it can only be great, but...
Cons: slow, very slow operations, dodgy user interface, AF is slow and MF is absolutely unusable (7 ring turns to focus 1 meter further, WTF)
X100 @ F2 ISO 400. The lens is definitely way on top in the compact world.
Why is that more of a pain that it might seem? Changing ISO while shooting was nearly unresponsive when I used it, a real pro used to rangefinders can manually focus and can do it quick. It is impossible here hence the all purpose of the camera is quite questionable. I would say a pro will be terribly frustrated and yet tempted: it's a beautiful object, it's nearly what we are dreaming of (full frame sensor + faster response of electronics + proper focusing would make it perfect), but it will be very frustrating when missing a shot because it takes 3 seconds to write on the card, or won't focus well.
Why not a proper rangefinder instead?
If you are a pro and can spend 1200 dollars on a portable rangefinder, you might be better off spending 80 bucks on a actual full frame film rangefinder, and shoot 1120 dollars worth of 35mm film...(150 rolls). Dynamic range on film is unbeatable, the classic journalist B&W shots will render way better on film (tone range of B&W film is unmatched), the full frame will allow greater definition, bigger files after scanning, deeper images. You travel in unsafe countries? It gets stolen? Ah whatever, order an other one, or 2. If you don't care about cost, you have a Leica M9 (Digital), or a Contax G2 / Leica M6...well you spend the extra bucks that will get you what you really want.
However you might want a X10; keep on reading.
The X10...
Here comes my main and I hopefully most insightful point of this post. If you are an amateur, is the X100 the holy grail? I would nearly say so. You will be able to shoot DSLR like shots with a pocket format, a lens that beats any DSLR kit lens, and a DSLR size sensor. The weaknesses of the camera won't bother you too much because you never shot a Nikon F5 or a Contax G2. So I would nearly say it's the perfect advanced amateur compact camera...if Fuji was not about to launch the X10.
Well let's face it, the X10 is likely to avoid the flaws of the X100, it has a zoom lens with high aperture (pretty uncommon and really cool to have on a compact), it's even smaller, looks as good, will cost half the price of the X100. The only thing is the CMOS sensor VS the DSLR like sensor of the X100, but once again, a DSLR sensor is not a full frame sensor, so it's not thaaaat mind blowing either, and mostly an amateur would hardly see the difference between the two (medium & large formats are the real thing). If the shoot is good, it's good no matter what sensor anyway.
Final recommendation:
First of all, if you bought or really, really want an X100, you're fine. You're miles away from making a mistake. I'm discussing details here and it is an excellent camera, with all essential features on top. Even the AF is not so bad, just not good enough VS a cheaper DSLR.
If you are to upgrade your G2, your S90, or some other premium compact as your main camera, wait a bit. The fix lens of the X100 is awesome, but it might be too much of a constraint never being able to zoom. The X10 should be more versatile, wait and try.
If you own a DSLR, get a fix 35mm 1.8 lens on it for 200$, don't buy a X100. Get a X10 as a portable backup, that will be way more complementary (providing that the X10 images come out good, we'll know quite soon).
If you're a pro looking for the small toy you can have in your pocket just in case, the X10 might be what you actually wanted, depending on how well its lens will perform. It's even smaller and since you shoot full frame or larger format, you find COMS and DX sensor similarly underperforming anyway.
Alex @ Home
Some simple work, one source of light, one white wall, a cheap digital SLR and a little editing. Thanks to Alex for the time.
and 
Ema @ Dublin
Processing digital B&W differently. MF shots pending development.
Equipment used: elinchrom
Dlite 4 thru white umbrella, Nikon D80, Nikkor 35mm F2
. Thanks to Ema.
Equipment used: elinchrom
Dlite 4 thru white umbrella, Nikon D80, Nikkor 35mm F2. Thanks to Ema.
Back from India
It was f***ing awful. All my MF films have been destroyed by Air India along with the entire bag and it's content (negligence). Air India, by the way, hired pilots that are not pilots (fake licences), 8 of them arrested. They also have rats in the plane (seriously...) eating people's luggage.
Long story short, the trip was a nightmare, we lost half our stuff including the film rolls. Never loved Ireland as much as I do now. Every tourist facing person is a thief and a liar, not ONE honest person in 14 days. Attitude towards women is unbearable.
I travelled a lot, I seek cultural differences, my tolerance to hard traveling condition is very high, but this was just a never ending scam. I recommend Chile and Patagonia, Thailand, etc. Not this.
However this is a photoblog, so here are some of the few digital shots I had. Taken with a Nikon D80, 35mm F2 lens. You will probably never see the film shots, I'll try a couple of rolls to see if some shots can be recovered but I have little hope (rolls destroyed, exposed to light partially, wet with a alcohol based solution).
Long story short, the trip was a nightmare, we lost half our stuff including the film rolls. Never loved Ireland as much as I do now. Every tourist facing person is a thief and a liar, not ONE honest person in 14 days. Attitude towards women is unbearable.
I travelled a lot, I seek cultural differences, my tolerance to hard traveling condition is very high, but this was just a never ending scam. I recommend Chile and Patagonia, Thailand, etc. Not this.
However this is a photoblog, so here are some of the few digital shots I had. Taken with a Nikon D80, 35mm F2
lens. You will probably never see the film shots, I'll try a couple of rolls to see if some shots can be recovered but I have little hope (rolls destroyed, exposed to light partially, wet with a alcohol based solution).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)