Gear dilemma - What to swap my EOS set-up for

[situgrrl]

Help!

I've just been away for a couple of days and have come to some sort of epiphany:  I don't like SLRs.

Since moving to London in February I've done very little with my cameras, making a range of excuses for not taking them out.  After a couple of days in Cornwall, I've come to realise the the problem really is my equipment - I don't like the bulk of it.

Currently I have 3 cameras, a Ricoh GR1 (I use it a lot - and break it a lot - and get really frustrated that it takes 2 mths to get repaired) a Canonet QL17 and an EOS 30D with lenses from 10-135mm.

In Cornwall I took out both the EOS and the Canonet and I shot >95% of the pics on the Canonet.  I came to realise that my problem was that I don't like the SLR experience - whether it is TTL viewing, the weight, the VF, all of the buttons or something else, I'm yet to work out.  What I confirmed is that I LOVE shooting with rangefinders.

Now digital:  I love digital, I really do.  I plug a flash card in, do the work and output to an Epson 2200 prints that I could never have made in the darkroom.  I am also used to routinely printing 12x16 and I could never manage this with 35mm whilst maintaining the quality that my 8mp files have.

The ideal solution would be the Leica M8.  The problem is that if I sold all of my cameras - and my car - I still could not afford an M8 and a Tri Elmar.  Therefore, it is a non-starter.

I'm unaware of anything that might suit my main system better that is digital and I'm therefore considering moving back to film.  Here I have a dilemma; do I go 35mm or 120 - or both?  I've never used MF gear before but feel that it might be the best option if I want to continue making large prints.  If I were to go 35mm, I would be looking at anything vaguely affordable with an "M" mount - Bessas, an M2, maybe a Hexar RF or Minolta CLE.  I also hear people raving about Contax G cameras and would have a look - though it sounds too automated for me.  

With 120, the Mamiya 7 has huge appeal but is expensive.  I am considering Bronica and Fuji 645 RFs but worry about the portait format being suitable.  Were I to buy a 35mm system, I would likely sell the QL17 and buy either a TLR or a folding camera to supliment it when I needed quality.

Finally, I have the issue of input to deal with. If I have to plump for a Nikon Coolscan then so be it.  However, is anyone aware of any places in London where I can rent an Imacon by the day and how much this costs?  My living arrangements do not allow for a permenant office to be kept a scrupulously clean as I have found necessary for scanning.

I look forward to your input.  Many thanks

Charly

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I understand your pain (I think). It sounds to me as if you should sell the Canon kit and buy six more GR1's (so you have backups while some are in the shop).

When I was still doing film, I had a Mamiya 6, and I ***loved*** working with it --- great images, light, simple and honest controls --- even though on a few occasions I came home with the first few images on a roll blank.  

What happened was I forgot to take the lens cap off (this is one advantage of an SLR    ). So if you go the film route, I would suggest saving your pennies for a Mamiya 7.

I can't comment on film scanning, since I do very little of it since going digital.

I hope you'll get some good suggestions from others. Good luck!

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi there,

Some possible answers:

- Try a DSLR from another brand with a reputation for ergonomic excellence. I would personnally suggest trying out a D300 when it will become available in about 2 months from now,
- If you really want to go through the huge cost of film and scanning, then you might want to consider second hand Fuji 645 rangefinder type fixed lens bodies.

This being said, the image detail you will get from a 2000 US$ Coolscan 9000 is IMHO not really superior to that to that of my D2x (or Canon 5D/Nikon D300). Imacon is a clear step up, but the lack of dust cleaning function is a huge minus... plan ahead and get ready to spend up to one hour per image that you want to be critically dust free.

Cheers,
Bernard

[terence_patrick]

Epson makes the RD-1, which is a 6mp rangefinder.  Not sure of the quality, but it might satisfy your needs.

Epson RD-1

From my personal experience, I too, don't really like shooting with my Canon 5D all that much and prefer using an RZ67, also an SLR, albeit a different beast all together.  The Mamiya 7 or Fuji 690 are good if you like the rangefinder experience and want to print big.  The Mamiya costs a lot more, but the Fuji has a larger frame image at 6x9.  

Scanned images from the Nikon 9000 scanner are quite good compared to a 5D image.  This isn't to start a debate about minute differences, but for what I'm after (I shoot editorial portraits), I'm very happy with the results.  It takes more patience working with film, but I have been trying to avoid the digital gluttony/machine gun approach which the 5D seems to tempt with me and stay focused and careful while shooting.

[situgrrl]

Thanks for your opinions so far.

I did consider the RD-1 but it is (for me) ruined by the framelines it has (28-35-50) which become so much longer with the 1.5 crop on the sensor - it's soooo close though!

I had a look at some of the options at the weekend.  

An M2 is too old fashioned for me - I can't put my finger on what is wrong with it, it's just not right!  The M4-P and M6 I looked at were very very nice cameras though - things I could see myself using for many years.  I also looked at a Bessa T - I don't understand it though - RF but no VF - and seeing as I can hardly see the RF - it's a non starter.  I will be looking at Rs at some point though, I hope the film door is more substantial on them than on the T though - it seemed to flex and I don't like that idea.

I also looked at the Fuji that Bernard recommended, it's 6x9 twin, a Mamiya 7 and a Bronica 645.  Of the two Fuji's I looked at, the AF one was too like a giant granny camera for me - I envisage as many problems as my DSLR, too many buttons, not enough logic.  The MF version would have been a contender if the RF patch was visable, a real shame!  the 6x9 was very cool - but way too big for my uses and would never leave the house.  A shame, as I love the neg size/shape!

The Bronica 645 and Mamiya 7 were real surprises.  the Mamiya didn't feel right, I'm not sure quite why, the Bronica is gorgeous though!  My worry is the portrait format.  I'm going to borrow it though at some stage for a couple of hours and see what the film says.

I've found a place with an Imacon I can rent for £35/hr - I cannot afford a 9000.  If I were to go with the Bronica, I would opt for an Epson V700 I think - but if I go with a 35mm.......

I hope I like the Bronica's pictures and can deal with the add on VFs for alternative lenses!

[tived]

why not just get an old Blad, and get over with it. Plenty of cheap good lenses available. And you could always get a digital back later :-)
buy an Epson V7xx series scanner to start with, sell some photos and buy a better scanner if needed.

Good luck - sometimes those heavy SLR's can be a pain in the neck and back!

Henrik

[Paul Kay]

From your first post I'd say you were really interested in reducing bulk and the hassle of carrying lots of gear and I had the same dilemma myself (pro EOS1DS user and wanted an alternative for travel/mountains/etc.). I finally decided to go backwards and have bought a Leica M6 plus a 35/2 - prices are now very low compared with what they were and there are some real bargains to be had. OK they are film but any lenses that I buy will no doubt finally transfer to a used M8 or M9 or whatever Leica produce. (I personally find that using an M series Leica is a simple and actually quite pleasant experience and I find that it does tend to make me think more about what I am trying to achieve, though no doubt others will have other opinions - please don't post I'm not starting an argument, just stating my experience!). I too considered the MF rangefinders but decided that their bulk might quickly marr their other attributes.

[situgrrl]

A 'blad?  I cannot honestly think of a less practical camera for my primary uses!  A shame, as I agree, the prices are about right now!  Most of my work is shot hand held in available light.  A TLR is something I might add later but as Paul noted, I'm trying to reduce my bulk rather than add to it!

Paul, are you scanning your films or printing with chemicals?  What are you using and are you happy with it?

I found the Bronica 645 to be slightly less bulky than a 350D and the lenses are smaller than the std zoom.  Whilst it is bigger than a Leica, it's not much so.  I'm concerned about lens speed though - they are all f4 I think and I have always liked the option to open to 2.8 and further.

[Paul Kay]

Paul, are you scanning your films or printing with chemicals?  What are you using and are you happy with it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140291\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I use either slow slide film, or whatever I deem is needed for what I want to achieve, get it commercially processed and currently scan on a Coolpix 8000, which is adequate for my purposes. I then tend to get prints made commercially after photoshopping as needed. Not everyone's workflow, but time dictates!

I agree on the lenses - in pro work I shoot a lot of low light material and use Canon's fast 'L' fixed focals but I find that these are way too heavy to travel or wander around with in general. I bought a 35/2 non-aspheric because it was 1/3 of the cost of the new aspheric equivalent and it is ludicrously compact, and looking around, even at dealer prices, there are some real bargains especially if you are prepared to buy 'working' lenses as opposed to mint, "collectable" versions. Some of the older, faster lenses also have a mixed reputation for optical quality, but personally I've never had a Leitz 'M' lens which didn't produce excellent images, and its possible to use new cheaper alternatives like the lenses from Voigtlander and Zeiss too, plus very light screw lenses with adapters!