Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: kevs on February 07, 2019, 01:53:49 pm
-
Anyone tested these side by side A/B and have a verdict on lens quality / large print results?
Also; How would large prints (40" long) from either of these compare to current digital 35mm DLRS for detail/ sharpness?
I'm not sure anybody can readily answer those questions but I'm sure some might know..?
Would be great if there was a website that actually tested camera systems and their lenses.. and charted/ rated how these older systems fared for image/ print sharpness vs today's digital 35mm offerings.
-
The years I shot with a Pentax 67, I was only pleased with image sharpness with the camera mounted on a tripod. That was no problems since I usually shot landscapes with that camera. Far too many of my hand-held shots were unacceptable due to camera shake. I routinely used my Leica M3 at 1/30 sec. without a problem, but the Pentax was a different story. The wooden grip was very useful though for hand-holding (and carrying). Make sure you get a Pentax 67 with mirror lockup!
The Mamiya may offer advantages shooting hand held due to the lack of mirror slap. A former neighbor used the Mamiya 6 and it was superb. The Mamiya 7 should be a great deal lighter than the Pentax.
From recalling his photos and mine from the Pentax, I'd say that both systems had excellent lenses. Pentax had a nice 165mm lens with leaf shutter which is great for flash use.
-
Thanks Mike:
So lenses of Pentax are as good as the Mamiya?
I shoot usually handheld, but is I shoot strobe then that should take care of the shake? (I think the whole point of Pentax is to be handheld like a 35mm..?
I heard the Mamiya 6 for some reason does not take their super wide 43? pity
Leaf shutter vs ?
Mamiya is good deal more expensive right? Body and lenses
Can you speak to my others questions about print quality? and compared to 35 mm Digitals today?
-
How would large prints (40" long) from either of these compare to current digital 35mm DLRS for detail/ sharpness?
They would be similar.
-
Print quality of 6x7 film vs. 35mm digital images is no simple topic to discuss. Actually it's a mine field with countless variables. This topic has been discussed in this forum a number of times and 20 people will have 30 different opinions, depending upon the variables. This is a hot potato I wouldn't want to write about. I know what's sufficient for my needs, but others will surely have differing opinion. For me, scans with a flat bead Epson V850 are good enough for me to print to A2. I also print my Canon 5D Mk III and Fujifilm APS size images that large. Since I don't print on glossy papers, nobody has ever mentioned a quality difference. Obviously I know how each image was taken and processed, so I'm not really an objective critic.
I never noticed a quality difference between my Pentax images and those from my neighbor with his Mamiya 6. So I imagine that the lenses are of equally high quality. There's more to a technically "good" image that just hardware - a sturdy stance or tripod is necessary, a proper shutter speed, proper focus, aperture, exposure, etc. If I were to chose a system, I wouldn't worry about lens quality. I'd care more about handling (weight), build-in lens shades, available lenses (wide angle, macro, ...) etc., but that's my personal view.
Leaf shutter vs. focal plane. You can google the types for a better explanation than I can give. Bottom line when shooting with flash: cameras (or lenses) with a leaf shutter can be used at any shutter speed, where cameras or that era had a flash sync speed of 1/30 or 1/60 as quickest shutter speed.
I don't know which focal length was the wides for the Mamiya 6 and 7. I recall there being a "very wide" lens which used a viewfinder placed onto the hot shoe, but I don't remember details. Lens requirements will dictate which system is right for you. My wides lens was the excellent 45mm for the Pentax.
The Pentax looks and operates like an oversized Spotmatic or K1000, but I was never proficient hand holding it. Yes, I guess some people were happy shooting hand held, I preferred mounting it on a tripod. Today I regularly shoot my Fujifilm X100T hand held a 1/4 second with decent results - other people wouldn't consider a camera without image stabilizing. Different strokes for different folks. Sometimes it seems a miracle that people were able to take decent photos without today's bells & whistles!
Medium format film systems are still a considerable investment today. Make sure you really want to travel that route before taking the step. Finally, in my view, your decision should also be based on your usage and final output. If you print "large", then medium format may make sense, but what are you missing with your current digital gear? I'm nostalgic, I admit, but I've learned to embrace digital cameras and no longer use my analog gear, which is simply too tedious (and costly).
-
Great post Mike, and thanks Elliot.
Here is my personal situation:
I also come from film (90's), now I'm digital 15 years or so...
I'm on the Canon mark 2, but will upgrade probably this year.
A couple of years ago, I bought a full 4x5 kit, 2 Sinars, lenses, etc, learned it all, and shot two fine art series with it (with digital 35mm as back up)
I finally decided it was a pita, and sold all the 4x5 and now will shoot, DIGITAL 35mm as the primary.
Why am I thinking of film? Maybe just because it would be "cool", do have a little bit of film shot for each new fine art series shoots. One roll is fine.
So I just bought a used Nikon F, also a Pentax Spotmatic (sentimental reasons..), and an old Canon 5, all used.. who know what I'll use and how often... Just sort of nostalgic and cool.shooting a bit of film now too again...
The 4x5 idea was actually for nostalgia, fine art prestige, partly..but also considerably for the resolving power you might get if you decide to later print big.. 6' 7' on the side. But in reality no one really care what you shoot on, and 35mm as both you and Elliot state can get A2 quite nicely now -- as good as film medium format right?.
Still looking at these old Mamiya 6, 7 (never owned or even shot with those), and Pentax 67 (cheaper and almost equal quality and have used in 90's once).
But still undecided. As you state, medium format film systems still cost a bit.. so may still just stick with the 35mm cameras for that tad of film . Now if you, Elliot or others, said, hold on.. I'm getting prints results that are double/ triple quality than my current Canon/ Nikon. Fuji 35mmcameras for big prints.. I'd probably be buying a used Mamiya 67 or Pentax 67, but... it seems as you guys are saying it would just result in a bigger chrome or negative , but not really a better resolved/ sharper print than current 35mm Dlsrs.
-
I used a Pentax 67 for a few years before I went digital. Although it looked like an oversized SLR, it was a bear to hand hold, and I only got satisfactory shots with it on a tripod.
I next got a Mamiya 6, which was a delight to use handheld or on tripod. It was about the most fun film camera I ever used, and got really good results. The only problem I had with the 6 was the loss of the first three images on one roll because I forgot to remove the lens cap (ouch!!!,) since I had been using SLRs for so many years.
If I were going to use film now, I would go for a Mamiya 7 or 6.
-
Thanks Eric, good info. Well the 7 way better to me as you get 6x7, not 6x6 and it takes the 43 lens. I was never a square format guy.
That said, even with the Mamiya 7 film. Do you know how an image shot on it would compare in quality/ sharpness/ resolving power to print.. compare to the best modern digital 35mm cameras?
-
Pentax 67 is a beautiful camera with great (and relatively cheap) lenses, but the mirror slap is too extreme to be practical handheld - use it on a tripod and (as a previous poster has said), get one with mirror lockup. I haven't used one myself, but I know a number of folks who used them for years.
Mamiya 6 and 7 are MUCH lighter, don't have the mirror slap issue. I've never shot with one, but they should be handholdable, at least in limited circumstances.
By the time you're at something as restricted as a Pentax 67, what about a Horseman or other 6x9 cm field camera? It's tripod only like the 67, but has extra film area and movements... I used a Horseman for a while years ago.
Epson V700 scans of 6x9 cm Velvia from a Horseman are about equivalent in resolution to 36mp digital, to my eye. Of course you get a good deal of extra dynamic range out of the digital. With a better scanner, the 6x9 might get to the level of the very best FF digital sensors (although the Epson is scanning grain at its highest resolution). There might be a few films that get higher resolution than that - the obvious one is Tech Pan (B+W), especially in a high resolution developer.
-
Dan, nice post again, thanks.
My main question now; How are images shot on the Mayima 7 film medium format, compare in quality/ sharpness/ resolving power to print.. to the best modern digital 35mm cameras?
-
Epson V700 scans of 6x9 cm Velvia from a Horseman are about equivalent in resolution to 36mp digital, to my eye. Of course you get a good deal of extra dynamic range out of the digital. With a better scanner, the 6x9 might get to the level of the very best FF digital sensors (although the Epson is scanning grain at its highest resolution). There might be a few films that get higher resolution than that - the obvious one is Tech Pan (B+W), especially in a high resolution developer.
-
If you want more sharpness than the best 35mm digital cameras you need to shoot 4x5 film (or ideally 8x10).
-
It's not a direct comparison as the lenses will be different, but you can scan a 6x7 area from one of your 4x5 images and see how it does again whatever 35mm digital system you either have or are considering upgrading to. You can download raw files from pretty much any camera on DPR
-
I would agree with Dan Wells' assessment. I have made A1 sized prints from drum-scanned 6x9 chromes (shot with a Horseman and Apo view camera lenses) and I would say they are quite similar to A1 sized images that I have made with a 42MP Sony A7R III and Zeiss Loxia lenses. The Mamiya 7 should be capable of similar results. I say quite similar because there are differences. The scanned film images may have slightly more fine detail, but it is less contrasty and more grainy, so the overall impression, even from close viewing distances, is similar. Scanned 4x5 images still hold a slight edge to the 42MP digital images in most cases, but not all.
-
Since you mentioned the Mamiya 43mm, note that it uses an auxiliary viewfinder. So, compose through one viewfinder, focus through another. This was my breaking point - too often I would forget to focus! ::) :-[
I switched to the Pentax w/ 45 & 105mm lenses. The SLR experience was better for me, especially with wide lenses and no parallax issues. I also got pretty used to pre-firing the mirror, then fire the shutter after a second or so. If shooting people, you'll want to warn them about the double click beforehand. Handheld photos were plenty sharp for me for 30" prints, but YMMV. I didn't find the P67 too heavy, just somewhat bulky. I sometimes swapped the prism for the WLF for a smaller package, but makes for awkward portrait shooting.
-
ALAN, interesting as most don't like the Pentax, (say not sharp) but I used once in 90's rented, handheld and was fine, not heavy for me; but I did not do any print test on quality. Still most heer are saying that either the Pentax or Mamiya 7 wont make huge prints that much nicer than todays good DLSRS, so I don't think either are worth the money really, think about scans you have to make...
The 43 lens comment interesting. Ken Rockwell who writes and love Mamiya, mentioned also that the camera is poorly built, but it was all about great results. So between the poor build quality, and what you mentioned on eye piece, and the advancement of DLSRS, maybe even he is not using the Mamiya 7 anymore?
-
I got my Super Ikonta (6x4.5cm version) mainly for the pleasure of using it. That it operates so differently to most film cameras, not to mention electronic ones, is a big part of that pleasure.
Image quality with film is just different than with sensors. I note the discussion here is resolution oriented, whereas for me the inherent tonal scale of a b&w or even color negative is the thing. Grain texture is an important part too. These things give each film its character. If my aim was to maximize spatial res and dynamic range while minimizing grain/noise, I'd just stick with sensor-based cameras.
-Dave-
-
It'll depend to some extent on the scanner, but with a good flatbed scanner, a Mamiya 7 should be able to come pretty close to a 36MP digital, especially if you crop the 36MP image to the Mamiya's aspect ratio, rather than crop the Mamiya to match the digital. I remember Horseman 6x9cm Velvia images on a good Epson scanner as being very comparable to 36MP D800e images. A drum scanner or an Imacon may pull some extra detail out of the film, and a flatbed below the best Epsons will get somewhat less. An old Super Coolscan 9000 may get some more detail, but at the cost of some color - I never got the Coolscans to give me the color I wanted... Tech Pan will give more resolution, and it may be grainless.
I don't think anything on 120 film will match the very best modern 35mm sensors - especially the Nikon variants that can drop the ISO down to 64. I have a Z7, which has become my primary landscape camera - and what's stunning about it is that it simply doesn't have any noise at low ISO. That's not true of any rollfilm I have ever used - it is true of 4x5! The big Nikon sensor at minimum ISO has the feel of sheet film (or MF digital) for that reason. Of course, you might want the grain of film for some types of images, and "fake grain" added to a digital image won't look as good.
There may be a few specialized medium format films like Tech Pan that have that grainless large format look (but, if that's what you're after, why not use a Z7, a D850 or MF digital)? KEH wants nearly $2000 for a Mamiya 7 II body (and it's in "bargain" condition). That becomes a brand-new Z7 or D850 after only 600 or so images (a roll of Velvia has gone up to nearly $10, and processing is $11). You could have a GFX 50R for the price of the Mamiya and 1200 images if you want a larger, squarer sensor. This is assuming you already own a good scanner that handles 120.
Shoot medium format film if you want something special and different about the film look, not to go chasing the image quality of the pixel monsters. They've left 120 behind at this point, and have their sights set on 4x5".
-
Nice post Dan. Yeah, I've read Rockwells old article about the Mamiya 7ii, "best camera system in the world", but you wonder if he even cares/ shoots with it anymore. I saw it on KEH a few weeks ago at EX + at $2300.00; and almost drooled a bit at that, mint condition but yeah, I've come to your conclusion. BTW Velvia is actually at BH new $17 roll.
How does the Fujifilm GFX compare to the best 35 mm digital the Nikon 850? (the Nikon has the Sony sensor?)
Also how does the Nikon 850 compare to the Canon 5d4?
You know there are thousands of pros on the 5D4 and they seem very happy. Look reviews:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1274705-REG/canon_eos_5d_mark_iv.html#customerReview
You don't see a lot of the pros complaining about the sensor, yet so many people say the Nikon is infinitely better, fill me in..
Do you really think their prints, large prints, don't look as good as large prints from the Nikon 850?
Good points: How can 35mm get even better? (closer to 4x5?), is there is room to grow imprive at that small size? quality/ DR etc?
Oh.. on subject of film, yeah, so I'll shoot digital, and maybe shoot one roll of film tops per new fine art series subject just for posterity . Nothing else. Probably wont even scan anything soon.. Just to have.
Honestly, I also dont buy the film fanatics who say their old lenses and cameras give a great / unique look that cannot be achieved with digital filters. I used to shoot Polapan and do cross processing, and while Nik and Alien Skin have never matched what I got doing that really, their hundred of others takes on old films look pretty darn good to me... I couldn't tell on many an image with their filters in Photoshop the original was not film.. once they put their spin on it...
-
just to throw a spanner in the works, those fuji 6x9 fixed lens rangefinders are great, leaf shutters & excellent glass, if my memory serves there was a 45mm and a 90mm version, i had the 90 and loved it.
-
I never shot with a Mamiya 7 but I loved my RZProII, I’ve thought about putting together a small kit to shoot film. I owned the Pentax 67II with LS lenses and liked it also but the previous versions had issues with film winders. I started in MF with a Mamiya 645 Pro and the three LS lenses, loved it but moved up to 6x7 for those beautiful transparencies. Why not buy a used H3 or H4 and use a film back? If you’re going to make the jump make the jump.
-
Honestly, I also dont buy the film fanatics who say their old lenses and cameras give a great / unique look that cannot be achieved with digital filters. I used to shoot Polapan and do cross processing, and while Nik and Alien Skin have never matched what I got doing that really, their hundred of others takes on old films look pretty darn good to me... I couldn't tell on many an image with their filters in Photoshop the original was not film.. once they put their spin on it...
Well I'm not a fanatic, I'm just a duck hunter in South Dakota. About eight years ago I got back into shooting some film. In the 1990s I shot a Hassleblad for weddings and then added a 4x5 for stock photos. I bought a Nikon DSLR in 2005 and am currently shooting a D800E with state of art Sigma Art and Nikon's best lenses. So why do I still shoot a lot of film? I'm now mostly shooting 4x5 and 5x7, and am semi-seriously looking at 11x14. (They are huge!) I have three sets of lenses for the large format cameras. I have eight lenses made from 1845 to 1860, three made from 1870 to 1900, six made from 1910 to 1930, and five made in the 1990s (mostly plasmats in Copal shutter.) I shoot very little color (Portra 160), lots of b&w film, and increasingly now shooting glass plates (dry plates.) My goal is to get into wet plate collodion this year when it warms up.
With the above background said, I have some thoughts on your questions. I will almost guarantee that I can tell if a photo was made with a lens from the 1850s and shot on glass vs a digital concoction made with modern lenses. Older lenses used different glass (crown & flint), were uncoated, and have drastically different signatures from modern lenses. That alone gives many clues. Add to this the properties of the emulsion on glass plates. They are orthochromatic--sensitive only to blue light & UV. They don't record the full spectrum. And finally they react to light entirely differently from a digital sensor. With sensors the light comes in, hits it, and most is absorbed. With glass plates, light comes in, passes through the emulsion, passes through the surface of the glass, hits the rear surface of the glass, and at that point 90% passes on through but 10% bounces back and goes through the emulsion a second time from the rear. This creates faint halos. This is why modern film has an anti-halonation coating. I've not yet seen any faked digital shot that can replicate all the above. If you know what a REAL "old time" photo looks like the difference is obvious, and you don't have to be a "fanatic."
Now on to more of your questions. My D800E rivals what I get with 4x5 film as far as technical quality, even drum scanned. As a former Hassleblad shooter I'll say that my D800E produces much cleaner images than any 120 film based camera possibly can. If you are looking at a film camera thinking you're going to get technically better images you are poorly informed and completely on the wrong path. So, why do I shoot film when I just said my D800E + Sigma Art lenses produce cleaner images? It's because I'm bored with the "digital look." I love shooting film (and especially glass plates) because of the aesthetics. I just love the classic look I'm getting! It's much more challenging and I feel more involved in photography--the creative/subjective part. I.E., the "art." An 1847 Voigtlander Petzval shot on glass plate or a 1912 Heliar shot on Ilford FP4+ film gives me such a dramatically different look & --feel-- that I just fell in love! I process my own now and that's giving me even MORE creative control.
So what about the difference between Pentax 67 and Mamiya 7? Optically you'll never see a difference. You are asking the wrong question here. The difference is the Pentax is best as a studio camera and the Mamiya 7 is best as a field camera. The Pentax has more lens choices and takes different backs & accessories. It also weighs a ton. The Mamiya is relatively light and quick. And that's always my advice--match the gear to how you use it! Only looking at the tiny technical differences suggests you are on the wrong path.
I take both my Nikon DSLR and a film camera with me on trips. My film camera choices are one of these three: 1937 Voigtlander Bessa (6x9,) 1954 Rolleiflex (6x6), or 1942 Leica IIIc with 28/35/50/90mm. I'd love to have a Mamiya 7 but really can't justify the cost. And, that camera is really too modern for my taste, especially the look the lenses give. My suggestion is to buy a used Chamonix or Wista 4x5, some FP4+, and lenses 240mm Heliar, 165mm Tessar, and 90mm Dagor--all made before 1940 (uncoated glass,) and see what you get. If you just want something fairly cheap but excellent to try, buy the Fuji 6x9 rangefinder mentioned above and some FP4+.
Kent in SD
1. c.1909 Dagor 100mm, FP4+
2. c.1998 Nikkor 300mm, FP4+
3. c.1858 Derogy Petzval, glass plate
-
Thanks Mike:
1. So lenses of Pentax are as good as the Mamiya?
2. I shoot usually handheld, but is I shoot strobe then that should take care of the shake? (I think the whole point of Pentax is to be handheld like a 35mm..?
3. I heard the Mamiya 6 for some reason does not take their super wide 43? pity
4. Leaf shutter vs ?
5. Mamiya is good deal more expensive right? Body and lenses
6. Can you speak to my others questions about print quality? and compared to 35 mm Digitals today?
1. Yes. You'll never see a difference. Not a good reason to select one system over the other.
2. There is no way I'd shoot a Pentax 67 handheld. They are heavy and clumsy. The Mamiya was made for that.
3. The Mamiya 6 is a bit more limited in lens selection. That's one reason it is cheaper.
4. Leaf shutters allow sync at any speed, including 1/500s. Otherwise you rely on the camera's focal plane shutter, typically 1/30s because shutter is so large
5. Much more flexible, much more compact, much more in demand, much more expensive.
6. Totally wrong reason to be shooting film instead of digital unless by "quality" you are talking about aesthetics.
Kent in SD
-
Two, I enjoy your posts, and being a history major in college, I think a lot of your passion comes from the vintage vibe history on the lenses and cameras, many which I collect for display. But on your images, maybe I can't see well, but I don't see the effects these old lenses get are that much different than what I can try to do (though I don't currently) with Nik filters or Alien Skin or others.... So I appreciate the passion and the vibe, but to lug around a 4x5 and come out with grainy shots or blurry stuff look great/ cool, and the 4x5 you have is gorgeous, but that look can be achieved with less weight. Maybe I'm wrong... I bought to Sinars a few years ago to only achieve super hi res, which I did, but could not bear, the weight... but then again, there was no love there, they were pretty but not historical, it was a tranactional experiment.
Maybe someone else here can pipe in who has done A/B test with old lenses cameras, and spent a lot of time in PS with 3rd party filters.
Interesting you Nikon is as good as 4x5, as many have argued that dlrs has not quite matched 4x5 film yet for resolution.
BTW, I love Peking Duck.. but I think you need 24hrs to make it. I used to go to Peking Duck house in NYC when I lived there...
-
But on your images, maybe I can't see well, but I don't see the effects these old lenses get are that much different than what I can try to do (though I don't currently) with Nik filters or Alien Skin or others.... So I appreciate the passion and the vibe, but to lug around a 4x5 and come out with grainy shots or blurry stuff look great/ cool, and the 4x5 you have is gorgeous, but that look can be achieved with less weight.
These are low res jpegs and quite small. In real life the differences are there. I've not seen a digital imitation of halonation. What usually gives it away for me with older lenses (19th Century) and modern designs is the graduation of sharpness from the center outwards. The original lenses used for photography (1840-1866) were the achromatic doublet and the Petzval. These were sharp only in the center third. Sharpness from an AC lens rapidly fell off, and Petzvals suffered from astigmatism and coma pretty quickly away from the center. The signature of these lenses is fairly pronounced. In 1866 a new type of lens was invented--the rectilinear/rapid rectilinear. Those corrected some of the astigmatism but were still soft away from the center. In the 1890s a new kind of glass was invented by Zeiss and that enabled a new class of lenses--the anastigmats. The most popular was the Tessar, but my favorite is the Heliar. These lenses typically have a very soft yet sharp look to them. Not much changed from 1890 to ~1946 when lenses began getting coatings. That was a real game changer! I can generally tell the difference between an image taken with a coated lens vs uncoated. Color saturation is much lower as is contrast. Skip ahead to the 1980s and 1990s when we began getting CAD designed lenses, aspherical elements, more exotic glass formulas, multi-coatings. I really can't tell much difference between shots made with lenses from that period vs current lenses. I can sometimes but not always tell the difference between shots made with a current digital camera processed to look like film and a modern film camera (e.g. Hassleblad 503). As for the shots I've posted, it might be that as a regular user of these lenses and current lenses I'm more sensitive to the differences.
Back to the two cameras you mentioned, I see no difference at all in the image quality you would get. They are designed for different uses though. It's like comparing a two seater car to a minivan. IMO people not familiar with the Pentax 67 are fooled by the handle. It's not there so much to make it easier to handhold as it seems to be easier to shift it around on a tripod head in a studio. If I wanted a camera for field use I'd rather have a lightweight 4x5 than the Pentax. My Chamonix is actually lighter than my Nikon D800E, as are the lenses. My choice between the Mamiya 7 and Pentax 67 would be the Mamiya because it's so much faster to use, I don't need the lens selection of the Pentax, and I don't need the multiple backs the Pentax offers. The reasons I haven't bought one are (1) Mamiya is expensive--I'd rather just buy an 8x10 camera (2) the look an image taken with the Mamiya lenses won't be all that much different from the look I get from the lenses on my Nikon D800E. Both sets of lenses are modern designs. The one camera I've been thinking about adding for trips is a Fuji GW690. It's a rangefinder with fixed lens (equivalent to 38mm). All manual, no meter (use incident light meter.) The attraction for me is the big 6x9 negative and the simple operation. I've been using a 1937 Voigtlander Bessa RF which is the GW690's great grandfather. The Bessa RF folds up small enough to fit into a large coat pocket. It's a bit awkward to trigger a shot is my only complaint. There is a version made by Fuji until 2014 and that's the Fuji GF670. It too is a folder and travels well. Alas, too modern for me. ;) If I were to pick a modern (i.e. with meter) film camera it would be one of these: Hassleblad 501cm, Mamiya 7, Paubel Makina. All of these are bigger and heavier than my D800E though and fairly big money. Which brings me back to if I was going to carry that much bulk I'd rather just shoot a nice 4x5. Much more flexible, has lens movements, can use about any lens made in any time period, makes a big negative that can be contact printed or printed with alternative process (e.g. carbon print, cyanotype, palladium, albumin, tin type.........)
Kent in SD
Sunset, Deception Pass
1937 Bessa RF, 105mm Heliar, FP4+
-
Interesting you Nikon is as good as 4x5, as many have argued that dlrs has not quite matched 4x5 film yet for resolution.
My gut feeling from using both 4x5 and D800E is the D800E with BEST lenses (e.g. Sigma ART 50mm) outresolves 4x5. The images are cleaner (OTOH more sterile) too. If I think of it I could go out and take a shot using both and post here for comparision. I don't shoot film for image "quality,"; I shoot it for the qualities of the image. In the end I think the things we can measure (such as resolution) are way over hyped. Photography is about art, emotion. Those are inherently subjective.
Kent in SD
-
Hey, I do have a shot made with the 6x9 Bessa RF on Ilford FP4+, and same shot made with Nikon D800E and Sigma ART lens. One is color and one is b&w is the main difference. Again, 72 res jpeg.
Kent in SD
-
KIrk nice, never heard of Fuji GW690, looks very cool, Looks like Mamiya 7, but with larger neg, at 1/4 the price. How is lens quality vs Mamiya. Again, I think now that only reason I might pick one up is just to have Chromes in the filing cabinet instead of 35mm chromes... Nostalgia/ Posterity, so I don't know I'd buy one but good to know about.
Lake shot is very nice, moody, flat, but I would never know it could not be a digital shot with grain filter added. I would have to be in the room with you with large print to see what you are talking about. And I bet someone very savvy with digital darkroom filters could get 80-90% there the look. And if not, something different equally filmy like. So to me it's more about the fun you are having.
-
KIrk nice, never heard of Fuji GW690, looks very cool, Looks like Mamiya 7, but with larger neg, at 1/4 the price. How is lens quality vs Mamiya. Again, I think now that only reason I might pick one up is just to have Chromes in the filing cabinet instead of 35mm chromes... Nostalgia/ Posterity, so I don't know I'd buy one but good to know about.
Lake shot is very nice, moody, flat, but I would never know it could not be a digital shot with grain filter added. I would have to be in the room with you with large print to see what you are talking about. And I bet someone very savvy with digital darkroom filters could get 80-90% there the look. And if not, something different equally filmy like. So to me it's more about the fun you are having.
The GW690 would be a good choice for you, I think. It's a modern lens with multicoatings. Fujinon lenses were made for the professional market. I have a 180mm f5.6 in Copal shutter that I use on my 4x5 and 5x7. It's as good as the Nikkors I have (75mm f5.6, 90mm f4.5, 300mm M f9) and my Rodenstock 135mm N. The GW690 is well made, shutter speeds are accurate, and the viewfinder is easy to see through (unlike the cameras from the 1920s I like!) The 6x9 negs are big, about half the size of 4x5. It's a great travel camera for landscapes. The multicoated lens means it plays nice with color film. The downsides to the camera are fixed lens, no meter, and it is pretty big. For its quality its one of the few bargains out there. It gets eight shots per 120 roll. I see that as a positive since it's not the sort of camera you'll shoot a 100 frames with in a day, and you can fill a roll pretty quickly and get it processed. The Fuji GS has two versions, one has a 38mm lens equivalent and the other a 90mm equivalent. The 38mm is more attractive to me. A 38mm equivalent will seem wider on this camera since the 6x9 format is getting into pano territory. And you could even stitch several shots if something wider is needed.
And that brings me to the other part of film photography. I process my own b&w film (and glass plates,) but any C41 I send out. It takes about a week to circle back. There are DIY kits to process E6--it's not as hard as C41. Next comes scanning. I use an Epson v750 to scan negs. It does a pretty good job. The only thing better would be a drum scan and that can run into money. People have now figured out how to set up a DSLR on a copy stand with film on a light box, take several overlapping photos, and stitch in PS. From the samples I've seen this works very well. On the large format forum I've seen a guy posted results from a Tango drum scanner and his copystand method and hardly anyone could see any difference. You can also have the place that processes film make scans for you. That would probably be the most economical way to see if you like it. Scanners can also be found used on ebay. The copystand method basically requires only a fairly cheap stand, an LED light box, and a macro lens. The guys I know who shoot color film seem to like C41 rather than E6. It seems to scan better. I've found that to be true but it takes a little more work in software to get the color balance exactly right. The only two color films I keep on hand are Portra 160 and Ektar 100, both C41.
Kent in SD
-
A very complete review by a regular user:
http://photojottings.com/fuji-gsw690lll-65mm-f5-6-camera-review/
The 65mm lens is equivalent to 28mm, not 38mm. Note that as you increase image size, you lose DoF. The 65mm f2.8 lens is roughly equivalent to f2.8 wide open (for DoF.)
Kent in SD
-
just to throw a spanner in the works, those fuji 6x9 fixed lens rangefinders are great, leaf shutters & excellent glass, if my memory serves there was a 45mm and a 90mm version, i had the 90 and loved it.
I have and use both. But, for sharpness, a tripod is really necessary even with the leaf shutters. The maximum shutter speed is 1/500 sec and will still show some camera shake at large magnifications. When I'm shooting hand held, I'll use 35mm film or my 5Ds as it's so much less expensive than 6x9 film...
The 35mm film as that "35mm film look" and the 5Ds can shoot at very high shutter speeds for hand held.
-
Thanks Kirk and SM, well love the huger look.
How easy is it to shoot , and how is quality of chromes/ lenses, compared to the Mamiya 7, comparable? If I could get a mint condition for $600.00 I might just pick on up for fun. May never scan much, but cool just to have huge chromes, in addition to the base of my fine art shoots which will be newer 35mm DLSR.
How much would a typical repair cost on the camera?
Is there a charge that converts lens.. from 35mm to The Fuji lens ( I think in 35mm)
PS, you should be able to handhold it ok, like a Nikon or Canon srl, if you have strobes to freeze the models right?
-
1. How much would a typical repair cost on the camera?
2. Is there a charge that converts lens.. from 35mm to The Fuji lens ( I think in 35mm)
3. PS, you should be able to handhold it ok, like a Nikon or Canon srl, if you have strobes to freeze the models right?
1. Remembering there aren't parts available for many cameras now, repair usually involves cannibals. The good news is these cameras are built solid. About all they need is a good cleaing & lube every five years or so. I will add that I've had several cameras from the 1940s and earlier repaired. Cost was generally $100 to $200. The Fuji has no electronics which should make it much more "future proof" as far as repair.
2. Not sure what you mean, but the lenses on a fixed lens camera aren't really interchangeable.
3. I use a tripod for everything except "street" shooting. I generally use ISO 100 film, and the camera is best stopped down to f8 to f16. Sunny 16 says 1/100s shutter. I shoot with strobes a LOT, mostly at night. Depending on what lighting system I'm using the flash duration is either 1/600s or 1/1200s. I can generally get away with handholding that, but sometimes I can see it's sharper on a tripod. About the only cameras I don't use a tripod as "standard" are my Leicas and the Rolleiflex. The Rolleiflex is held at the waist to fire and that makes it very stable. Both of those cameras are my "go to" for street shooting. :)
Kent in SD
-
Thanks Kirk, have you used tried this Fuji?
It could be ok street shooting handheld? Leaf Shutter or Mirror like Pentax?
With strobes though everything is frozen by the strobes, so that should be sharp?
So you don't think you even need a mint condition one, if it excellent/ very good, should be nice. Does it compare to quality to the Mamyia 7?
Are there repair guys out there or not so much because they would need parts..?
Finally your opinion: You know it wont excel really quality compared to new 35mm digitals, and it's look is not unique, hence it would just be for having 6x9 chromes and negs for fine art project, just to have them.. but is that a waste/ crazy? in your opinion? (thinking one could get a clean copy with lens for $600 or so..)
-
You're shooting digitally, but you want to buy a medium format film camera just so you can have some 'chromes in the filing cabinet'? Hmm, that doesn't make much sense!
Re. the Fuji GSW690, I've used one extensively (the Fuji GSW690II). I only ever used it on a tripod, for photographs of buildings, but in decent light I'm sure you could use it handheld.
When I bought mine secondhand, about 15 years ago, I immediately had problems with the shutter release (can't remember the exact details). Back then, Fuji UK could still service the camera, so they replaced the leaf shutter, the shutter release mechanism, and the top plate. I imagine that such a repair would be much more difficult today, due to availability of parts.
-
Thanks Elliot, we'll idea, of just having it, physical images, for posterity, (and maybe scanning a few to blow up, but not many); instead of only having computer bytes, that exist on hard drive, get that? It's an idea...
For Fuji, would you not recommend it? Would you say it creates good images? Love that its even bigger than the Mamiya 7, and I read that the build quality of the Mamiya is not so good either. But yeah, if need a repair, you could be screwed?
If you recommend go with 1, 2 or 3?
-
The Fuji makes great images. It's not a lovable camera (like the Mamiya 6 and 7), but it's a good workhorse. If you're shooting it alongside a DSLR you might like its 2:3 aspect ratio. If I was buying one now, I would be looking for a low mileage copy of the third incarnation (there's a roll counter on the bottom, but I guess it could be clocked). I never shot transparencies with mine - only colour neg, which I then scanned on an Imacon. As I remember, the 65mm lens vignettes quite significantly.
-
Thanks Elliot, yes no rush, so I could wait on ebay or KEH for a near mint copy of the iii version.
What is the lens that has no vignetting? They come with one fixed lens, I guess at the time the buyer would choose which one? Do you see 100% what you are getting through viewfinder? Why is it less lovable than Mamiyas?
-
I bought myself a brand new Pentax 67 ll and discovered that the shutter was as bad for bounce as the mirror; well, I would have, but the mirror was always up and the entire thing tripod only. It was supposed to be going to be used for shooting stock, so the silly electronic synch. speed didn't matter. (I didn't buy the two shuttered optics.)
I traded it away very quickly.
The Mamiya 67 rangefinder was blessed with good glass, but when I picked one up at the dealership, the tiny viewfinder made me put it back down almost immediately. I think that I have accepted that film is of the past unless you just enjoy the hassle, as many do. As ever, you have to consider repairs to obsolete equipment from non-existent companies.
Pentax was hopeless for me, but then again, it worked for Mario Testino and Sante D'Orazio, shake notwithstanding.
-
Thanks Elliot, yes no rush, so I could wait on ebay or KEH for a near mint copy of the iii version.
What is the lens that has no vignetting? They come with one fixed lens, I guess at the time the buyer would choose which one? Do you see 100% what you are getting through viewfinder? Why is it less lovable than Mamiyas?
The Fuji GSW690 comes with a 65mm lens. It's a rangefinder, so you can see more than 100% through the viewfinder. If I remember correctly, the viewfinder frame-lines are coupled to the focusing mechanism, moving as you focus closer (to compensate for parallax). Also, as far as I remember, when looking through the viewfinder the large lens intrudes somewhat into the bottom right corner of the frame-lines. - It's less lovable than the Mamiyas because it's ugly, and you can't swap lenses.
-
Thanks Elliot, you are saying they all come with only the 65mm lens, which is ok, but in all your images you are going to see the lens in the image or vignetting in your chromes, or just in the viewfinder?
-
The GSW690 comes with a fixed 65mm lens. (The GW690 comes with a fixed 90mm lens.)
The lens is visible in the rangefinder viewfinder - not in the final image.
Vignetting is an issue.
-
Thanks Elliot, wow confusing, they both have 90 in name but one is not a 90.
90= ? for 35 mm?
65 - for 35mm?
Ah.. ok I'd go with 65, more wide angle
-
The 65mm is equivalent to a 28mm lens (in 35mm terms).
The 90mm is equivalent to a 39mm lens (in 35mm terms).
-
Thanks Elliot, wow confusing, they both have 90 in name but one is not a 90.
90= ? for 35 mm?
65 - for 35mm?
the "690" in the name is for 6x9cm sized negatives. It doesn't have to do with the lens.
GW690 has a 90mm lens which is about like 40mm on a 35mm camera.
GSW690 has a 65mm lens which is about like 28mm on a 35mm camera.
You can see the lens in the bottom left corner of the viewfinder, but of course the actual photograph doesn't show the lens in the corner :)
I don't understand a previous comment about vignetting as I haven't seen anything unusual in that regard.
These cameras are big and simple, but much less expensive than a Mamiya 7II. They make great photographs, but require a high quality scan to take advantage of them.
-
thanks Elliot and Bruce, just took a peek:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Fuji-GSW690III-film-camera-65-mm-1-5-6-near-mint-condition-fast-shipping/303051993442?hash=item468f4e7162:g:BD8AAOSwnk5cWbkC:rk:1:pf:0
says near mint, 225 shots, yet below that is says x10!... and the bottom of camera looks worn and scratched.. If I see near mint, to me that mean it like came out of box.
(some guy recently month ago, selling a thousand dollar lens 12-24, and said only used once, decided not to go into real estate, had a little story why..yet the lens hood had a ding.. wrote him, he replied, oh, that what the hood is for to help take impact..and then I found his website his name was partly in the username, and is a .. real estate photographer)
Would you guys be worried about it breaking? It could be repaired for a couple of hundred bucks.. or not?
-
It's not mint, but it seems to be in ok condition. It looks like the foam seals on the rear door have not dried out and crumbled (something to look out for).
-
Thanks, well why not put good condition, why put near mint? I would never do that.
So, in short, I'll keep an eye out for a near mint, with box/ manual.. then maybe get it..no rush... under 1/3 price of Mamiya, and bigger.
Would be cool... it's 1/2 size of a 4x5, so it could resolve to better than best digital 35s out there I would suppose? Maybe near the 100mp Phase one?
Would you be worried about it breaking? It could be repaired for a couple of hundred bucks.. or not?
-
it's 1/2 size of a 4x5, so it could resolve to better than best digital 35s out there I would suppose? Maybe near the 100mp Phase one?
No. It will not out-resolve the best 35mm DSLRs. The results will be very similar (as I said at the beginning of this thread). The only way to out-resolve a digital SLR is to shoot large format film (ideally 8x10). 4x5 film out-resolves my Nikon D800 - but only just (the advantage is only visible in prints 4x5 ft and larger).
-
Thanks Eliot, interesting; And even crazy big prints it would be tough to tell? 9foot wide... I wish I new that before I spent all that time on those 4x5 kits I sold.. But it was fun to learn. such a beast.
"The only way to out-resolve a digital SLR is to shoot large format film (ideally 8x10)." You forgot to include medum format digital no? Fuji GFX 50 R should out resolve all 35mm dlsr right?
Finally again on the GW690 iii, if I'm still considering one for fun: Would you be worried about it breaking? It could be repaired for a couple of hundred bucks.. or not?
-
1. Thanks Eliot, interesting; And even crazy big prints it would be tough to tell? 9foot wide... I wish I new that before I spent all that time on those 4x5 kits I sold.. But it was fun to learn. such a beast.
2. Finally again on the GW690 iii, if I'm still considering one for fun: Would you be worried about it breaking? It could be repaired for a couple of hundred bucks.. or not?
1. The biggest print size I find really good from 4x5 is about 50 inches on longest side. That's a x10 enlargement. Has to be drummed scanned to max resolution (big bucks,) has to be printed by a place that knows what they're doing (more big bucks.) Yes, I've had them done. And remember when it comes to prints the actual print is only part of the equation. The other is viewing distance. Regularly shooting both 4x5 with pro lenses and Nikon D800E with Sigma ART lenses (always on a tripod of course) my experience is the D800E slightly edges out the 4x5 in technical matters. But that's not why I mostly shoot 4x5 now. Photography is an art and there are more important things than numbers & measurements to me. I'm looking at 8x10, maybe even 11x14. I'm not looking for the resolution/technical stuff from those formats, but rather the big negatives. They can be contract printed using alternative processes (carbon, cyanotype, albumin, etc.) Now those cameras are beasts! My Chamonix 4x5 weighs less than my Nikon D800E.
2. I collect cameras and have a number of them made from the 1880s (Watson half plate field camera) to 1983 (Nikon F3T.) They are all professional cameras and are very, very solid. No electronics* is a huge plus for repairability and endurance. Even my cameras from the 1920s will almost certainly be working long after I'm gone. The Fuji cameras are very solid, built for the professional market. I buy a lot of historical camera gear and typically go for those a notch or two below "near mint." I use them, not display them. If I were to scratch or put a mark on a "near mint" camera I would be losing money when I resell it. BTW, I buy a lot of stuff from Japan. They practically worship camera gear there and it's almost always in better shape than what I buy from U.S. or Europe.
Kent in SD
*The F3T is the only
camera I have with
some electronics.
-
Thanks Eliot, interesting; And even crazy big prints it would be tough to tell? 9foot wide... I wish I new that before I spent all that time on those 4x5 kits I sold.. But it was fun to learn. such a beast.
The largest I've printed is 6ft x 7ft — digital c-types (Lightjet) from Imacon scans of 4x5 colour negative film. I felt that 4x5 film wasn't delivering quite enough resolution for that print size. But the prints were popular and the edition sold out. I wouldn't enlarge my Nikon D800 files to that size.
"The only way to out-resolve a digital SLR is to shoot large format film (ideally 8x10)." You forgot to include medum format digital no? Fuji GFX 50 R should out resolve all 35mm dlsr right?
I guess, a little bit.
Finally again on the GW690 iii, if I'm still considering one for fun: Would you be worried about it breaking? It could be repaired for a couple of hundred bucks.. or not?
I'm not sure you would find anyone who could repair them (no parts).
-
"Chamonix " but .. my Sinars, were not about the weight Kirk, Your Chamonix, is on tripod, with cloth over your head, and looking at upside down image... and load one holder in... Nikon, just boom shoot a portrait of a person in front of you -- talking back and forth casually, handheld...
But on the Fuji Kirk, who is repairing them and has parts? Old 4x5 in a way are easier to find repair, or new part.. My Sinars, I just throw away and buy a new one.. ($250.00 - this Fuji could cost $800) And Eliot writes, " I'm not sure you would find anyone who could repair them (no parts). " That we be a lot to eat... $700, $800 camera gone..
Tell me more about Japan, I've been actually resorting my Ebay results to exclude Japan. They have extra import fees no? That could be quite a lot? And then you are going to return something to Japan? if you have to?
-
I used the Pentax 67 for years, mainly FP4 and Fujichrome and almost always hand held because I was young and didn't know any better. Looking at my scans from those days, I'm appalled at the image quality. Mainly shake-induced blur.
However, if you could crank the shutter speed high enough, it was a superb aerials camera, which is how I justified its expensive running costs. The 55mm F4 lens was excellent for aerials, but suffered significant CA. Something I was blind to, until Lightroom showed it to me.
The DSLR was for me a revolution in all respects. No comparison. My D800 is light years better than the 67 was. I have the $5K Nikon scanner files to prove it.
-
I'm not sure you would find anyone who could repair them (no parts).
There shouldn't be any problem finding a repair man for these mechanical cameras. Precision Camera Works could very likely do it. I had four different ones worked on in the past year. In two cases they fabricated a new part.
Kent in SD
-
1. "Chamonix " but .. my Sinars, were not about the weight Kirk, Your Chamonix, is on tripod, with cloth over your head, and looking at upside down image... and load one holder in... Nikon, just boom shoot a portrait of a person in front of you -- talking back and forth casually, handheld...
2. Tell me more about Japan, I've been actually resorting my Ebay results to exclude Japan. They have extra import fees no? That could be quite a lot? And then you are going to return something to Japan? if you have to?
1. I take a fair number of paid portraits with the Chamonix, mostly people wanting portraits made in a period style with a historic lens. I charge double than what I charge when using my Nikon DSLR. I explain the camera to them, when the lens was made and a little about who made it, explain the different steps to them, and so on. They forget to be nervous and I think the photos show them more naturally. It's not "hurry hurry." My customers get much more involved with the process than they do with the Nikon, and many of my customers come from word of mouth. Everybody has a digital camera and the look of the prints is all very similar. I have something unique, both the end product and the experience. :) It's more of a "hand crafted" product, mostly appealing to my higher end customers.
2. I buy historic lenses (and cameras) from all over the world. I've routinely bought & sold rare lenses from many foreign countries over the past 20 years. The only problems (3) that I had were from American sellers. Some of the very best sellers in the entire world are in either Belgium and Japan. (UK uniformly good as well.) I've likely bought over 8 items over the past 6 years from Japanese sellers with zero problems. In fact, I greatly prefer buying from Japan as the items are usually better than what they describe. A couple of years ago I bought a Nikon F3T the Japanese seller listed as "good condition." I couldn't find any sign it had ever been used! The older cameras are almost always the property of older guys who are downsizing and have no one to sell them to domestically. All of the items I've purchased were under priced to some extent. Japanese seem to really treasure their cameras, I would even call it love. :-* Me, with my modern Nikons, am pretty hard on them and put them through hell here on the Northern Plains. I really have no personal "relationship" with the new stuff, it's just a metal & plastic machine. The Japanese are the opposite. :) I almost hate posting this here as it's to my benefit that people won't bid against me for Japanese listings. :)
Kent in SD
-
I had four different ones worked on in the past year. In two cases they fabricated a new part.
There you go - I stand corrected.
-
A comparison you may find helpful. When I got a 645D, I compared it to a 645N and a Pentax 67II (Astia scanned on a Nikon 9000).
Some results are in this post:
https://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2775.html
My own conclusion was that scanned 67 had a slight edge in resolution of the 40 MP digital.
The Pentax certainly does suffer from vibrations, but it is possible to get sharp shots even handheld, but it is necessary to do everything to dampen vibration and still there can be problems. An example handheld and crop:
https://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2010/
https://tsjanik.blogspot.com/2010/
Hope these are helpful, I almost forgot about these posts from years ago. The Pentax is a great camera, but so is the Mamiya.
Tom
NB The last two links take you to too many images, scroll down to US 90 to see the full image and crop.
-
Kirk, thanks, you missed my question!
Yes I see tons of Japanese listing on ebay.. Excellent condition !!! Japan..
Again: I've been actually resorting my Ebay results to exclude Japan. They have extra import fees no? That could be quite a lot? And then you are going to return something to Japan? if you have to?
What I'm saying is I would imagine the import/ export/ visa etc fee could equal the camera lens no? What are we talking.. And imagine, if you want to then send it back.
-
Again: I've been actually resorting my Ebay results to exclude Japan. They have extra import fees no? That could be quite a lot? And then you are going to return something to Japan? if you have to?
What I'm saying is I would imagine the import/ export/ visa etc fee could equal the camera lens no? What are we talking.. And imagine, if you want to then send it back.
You are cutting yourself off from the best source of Japanese camera gear needlessly. The Japanese sellers on ebay sell worldwide, not just to the U.S. Some countries have import duties, VAT tax, national sales tax, etc. If you live in one of those countries you will pay that standard fee just as you do on everything else you buy. If you are fortunate to live in a country that does not charge any taxes or fees, such as the U.S., then you will pay NOTHING extra. Price of the item and maybe shipping (if not free.) What if you want to return it? How would you return something if you bought it from a guy in Wyoming? I assume you'd simply pay the postage and mail it back. Japan is the same way except you might need to fill out a simple form at the post office (no charge.) Japan and England have what might be the best postal services in the world too. :)
Kent in SD
-
Thanks, I assume, especially with their warnings at bottom that the is tons of visa, and taxes, and etc...
Now to ship back.. may cost a bit.
Also I do notice their rating can be spotty, but you say you have had good luck, so I'll register that too
And you buy from what other countries? good...
-
1. Thanks, I assume, especially with their warnings at bottom that the is tons of visa, and taxes, and etc...
2. Now to ship back.. may cost a bit.
3. Also I do notice their rating can be spotty, but you say you have had good luck, so I'll register that too
4.And you buy from what other countries? good...
1. They do that to cover their bases. People from countries all over the world buy through ebay. I'm sure they often get asked to falsify the price to get around paying their country's VAT tax or duty.
2. Shipping looks like $35-45.
3. I typically only buy from sellers with >97% good feedback. Sellers who use ebay a lot generally bend over backwards to make buyers happy. They know they will make more money with great feedback than they will if they rip a few people off. Ebay will close their account if there's enough complaints.
4. In just the past year I've bought camera gear from: Slovokia, Japan, UK, Spain, Ukraine, Vietnam, Canada, Korea. Mostly I've been buying 19th/early 20th century lenses. I buy newer stuff from Japan & Korea, usually Nikon or Sigma. Japan has a hoard of really great vintage Nikon stuff. It's where I got my F3T and AiS lenses 28/50/105mm.
Kent in SD
-
ok Kent, good info! I'll stop avoiding foreign countries. Apart from Japan, what others countries and no hidden fees beyond the shipping charge: no extra customs, or extraneous fees?
The $35 is an average fee to come to you? Have you returned anything abroad?
PS, Why did you buy Nikon FT3, what is your need for 35mm film?
-
1. Apart from Japan, what others countries and no hidden fees beyond the shipping charge: no extra customs, or extraneous fees?
2. The $35 is an average fee to come to you? Have you returned anything abroad?
3. PS, Why did you buy Nikon FT3, what is your need for 35mm film?
1. None. The customs/VAT/etc. are charged by the country you live in. These are mostly European countries.
2. The $35 is simply the average shipping/postage from Japan. I think it's usually $25 from Europe, more from Australia. The only thing I've returned was a leg for my Gitzo 1325 tripod. It was the wrong size and didn't fit. Sent it back to UK with no problem.
3. I collect and use camera gear from just about every decade since 1840. Didn't have anything from the 1980s. The F3T is very pretty! Probably the best 35mm film camera ever made and a joy to shoot. :)
Kent in SD
-
Ah the F3! This was THE camera that pros were using when I was assisting in '88-90. Was the hot camera at time, and expensive.
Then I remember the 4 coming out.
How much was the 3? Look like nice condition, near mint? From Japan?They sadly are still pricey compared to the F1 for example. What is T mean? Why do you shoot with 35 film though? I don't see point if you have the medium and large formats...
-
1.How much was the 3?
2.Look like nice condition, near mint? From Japan?They sadly are still pricey compared to the F1 for example.
3.What is T mean?
4.Why do you shoot with 35 film though? I don't see point if you have the medium and large formats...
1. I think I paid $450 for it two years ago.
2. I couldn't find a mark on it, not even the tripod socket. No marks even on the side where the camera strap swivels are. Definitely from Japan! No one else has Japnese cameras this clean.
3. T is for titanium. It's a very tough metal and also lighter. This is why the F3T sold for big bucks and still at a premium. I love everything about this camera!
4. I shoot everything. I shoot a 1925 5x7 camera. I shoot a 1905 Century Camera & 2010 Chamonix 4x5. I shoot a 1904 Brownie, and a 1909 Brownie Panoram No.1. I shoot an 1880s Watson & Son half plate. I shoot a 1930 Baby Rolleiflex 4x4 and 1954 Rolleiflex 6x6. I shoot a 1943 Leica IIIc and 1929 Ansco Meme 35mm half frame. I just had a 35mm Voigtlander Vitessa (1950) restored. And much, much more. I shoot everything! It's all fun. :) I'm not at all hung up on "image quality" or I'd be shooting 11x14 or a Hassleblad with 100mp back. I'm after the experience of using great cameras from every age, and the challenge.
Kent in SD
Attached, a few cameras.
-
Interesting Kirk, but the F3 I don't get because it's just normal clean 35mm film.. Do you get any looks out of it, you don't from other cameras?
Do you sell these cameras later, or you think you have that F3 for the duration? I love Nikon film cameras, best design look: Do you have F1, 2, or 4?
What about Honeywell spotmatic? It was one of the hottest cameras in the 60's. Had the best metering, and looked cool as hell.
-
1. Interesting Kirk, but the F3 I don't get because it's just normal clean 35mm film.. Do you get any looks out of it, you don't from other cameras?
2.Do you sell these cameras later, or you think you have that F3 for the duration? I love Nikon film cameras, best design look: Do you have F1, 2, or 4?
3. What about Honeywell spotmatic? It was one of the hottest cameras in the 60's. Had the best metering, and looked cool as hell.
1. Love the F3T--it's beautiful. It's about the camera, not the film. It's the only film camera I have that has a meter (or battery for that matter,) so I use it at night. It's very smooth to operate, easy to carry, and it's a beautiful camera. It's nice for street shooting.
2. I sell them when I get tired of them and buy something else. There are a few that are so nice I likely won't sell. The Leica IIIc and the F3T are two of those. Don't have any of the other film Nikons but have considered buying a Nikon SP.
3. Not familiar with it. Mostly I fall in love with the folding cameras from the 1920s. Right now the two cameras I'm most likely to buy are something like a 1920s Kodak 2D 8x10 (or 11x14) and a Nikon D850. Will also eventually buy a smaller 1860s tailboard camera to shoot wet plate.
Kent in SD
Attached: from the F3T
-
Thanks Kirk so for Nikon 3, a lot of is just the joy of having a work of art camera in front of you... being part of that..
What do you like about Leica IIIc, and why would Nikon SP be your next Nikon pick? I learn a bit here thanks!
Nikon 850 interesting you would drop 3k on that.. you see happy with the previous model....no?
-
1. What do you like about Leica IIIc,
2.and why would Nikon SP be your next Nikon pick? I learn a bit here thanks!
3.Nikon 850 interesting you would drop 3k on that.. you see happy with the previous model....no?
1. It's a historically significant camera. The one I have was made in 1942 and I know the story behind it. It was purchased by a German lieutenant. He left it home when he was sent to the Russian front. He never returned. In 1947 his wife, badly needing money, sold the camera to an American sargeant in the quartermasters corps. He returned to the U.S., went to college, and became an optometrist. He was also into photography and had several cameras over the years. He died about 2014, and his son sold the camera and 50mm lens on ebay. To me. The son said it was the last camera he still owned when he died. He loved the camera and had his name engraved on the bottom. I am the third owner. I often wonder what photos this camera has taken.
2. Don't really want any of the other F series, especially something like the heavy F4. Probably won't buy an SP--it's too modern, but if I did buy another Nikon film camera that would be the one. It's small, easy to use, and looks cool. It's a highly desirable camera. I also like the Zeiss Ikon rangefinders. More expensive than the SP though. :o
3. I will never spend $3,000 on a digital camera. The value of them drops so quickly! I wait a year and then buy a used one. They are now hitting $2,500 and I'm waiting for them to hit $2,200. That's a thousand less than what they were selling for last summer. Someone else can take that hit. :) The D850 has the same AF as my D500. I can sell my D500 for ~$1,000. The D850 can also scan 35mm with an attachment. I could then buy that and sell my Nikon Coolscan V 35mm scanner. And sell my D800E for maybe $700. I would come close to breaking even. :)
Kent in SD
-
Thanks Kirk, interesting. I'm on the Canon 5D 2 for six years, and and itching to get the next best thing that comes up... next pro mirrorless better than the new R or the 5D5 if they make it... I agree, but then I gotta another year for that 1k price drop! darn.. good idea.. think that over....
Yeah SP is very cool looking, would be nice to have. Looks at cool as most Leicas..There is an early Canon also that has that look.
Just took a peek at SP on ebay, darn, they cost more than the 850! Seriously, no bargains there...