Without Prejudice 3

[Rob C]

Thanks John, I have forgotten about the multiply feature, will try it again. The sofa, by the way, is not a sofa

Riaan, John had a difficult childhood. (Joke!!!)

Rob

[armand]

Hah! I forgot Huron went all the way up the mitten. Haven’t been on Mackinac Bridge in over 30 years.

Attached pic: Mackinac Bridge c. summer 1958. Taken by my mom.

-Dave-

Well, it looks the same to this day. Clouds and all.

[armand]

Thanks John, I have forgotten about the multiply feature, will try it again. The sofa, by the way, is not a sofa

Thank you for clarifying, I thought I have a perverted mind.

[Rob C]

Thank you for clarifying, I thought I have a perverted mind.

For the sake of the continuity of the species we are usually well-programmed to understand these serious matters. Let's face it, even zebras know what's what, and that could be difficult.

Rob

[churly]

Windows on a small piece of the world.

Definitely lacks on the technical side (my crappy phone camera) but couldn't pass this by.
Chuck

[farbschlurf]

Not my best day. After I managed to get a few hours off from work (a deadline is near) I realised theres a great sky. Hurrying to pack my camera bag. So save time didn't pick up the large one, but jammed everything in a smaller bag. Stepped out of the door, and bang, the overloaded bag slipped from my shoulder. And dammit, an old film-camera, a XD-7, did hit the ground too hard, major bump, ISO-Dial damaged, also there seem to be something broken with the film-advance. Yes I know. Never a good idea to hurry, never pays ... cannot change it afterwards ...
When I reached the place I wanted to go, there was nice light and little rain, but it was very, very windy. No use for a tripod. Than the sun broke through, wonderful scene, but it came so unpredicted fast I was not in place. For a good shot I basically would have needed to jump right in the lake ... I already stood ankle deep in the mud. so here's the best I got. Not my best day ...

Late Fall Day by Stefan Berndt, auf Flickr

Few others from the short walk an flickr, but it's rather playing around.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Nice picture, Stefan. I'm sorry about the camera accident.

One of my last film cameras was a Pentax 67 II, which I had with me on a photo outing. I was using an unfamiliar quick-release on the tripod, and when I thought I had attached it, it just toppled off the tripod onto a paved parking lot, landing on the pentaprism, which was badly damaged.

The service outfit determined that it was unfixable, but at least it was a separate, replaceable item. Now I'm slower and more careful when using a tripod.

-Eric

[Rob C]

Nice picture, Stefan. I'm sorry about the camera accident.

One of my last film cameras was a Pentax 67 II, which I had with me on a photo outing. I was using an unfamiliar quick-release on the tripod, and when I thought I had attached it, it just toppled off the tripod onto a paved parking lot, landing on the pentaprism, which was badly damaged.

The service outfit determined that it was unfixable, but at least it was a separate, replaceable item. Now I'm slower and more careful when using a tripod.

-Eric

That was also my last 120 format camera. It was beautifully made, but bounced like a lunatic flea, both at the shutter as at the mirror. It was never used hand-held, and always MU but to no avail: that massive focal plane shutter was a staunch seeker after suicide. As with all crazies, it had to go.

I can't even claim innocence: Sante D'Orazio used one too, and some pics of Helena Christensen were so blurred... what a waste! Suspension of belief, I suppose, coupled with the certainty that used with the two shuttered lenses, in a strobe studio, it wouldn't have been a problem. But, I'd long abandoned studios. Pentax, I'm sure, rests its case right there.

Rob

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Yes, Rob The seismic activity of its shutter was not its best feature. It was while I still owned the Pentax that I got my first digital camera, the Canon 10D. I did tripod tests comparing the amount of detail from the Pentax versus the Canon, and the Canon with its much smaller than 35mm "full-frame" sensor beat the 6x7cm quite substantially, even with mirror locked up on the Pentax.

My favorite hand-held MF film camera was the Mamiya 6 (6x6 cm) rangefinder. Lightweight, easy to hand-hold, really quite a fun camera.

-Eric

[Telecaster]

My favorite hand-held MF film camera was the Mamiya 6 (6x6 cm) rangefinder. Lightweight, easy to hand-hold, really quite a fun camera.

Yup, the 6 was a good ‘un. I could’ve bought my friend Bruce’s whole outfit when he put it up for sale (after getting a 10D!) but I’d just sold my Pentax 645 (after getting a 10D!) and had no interest in another medium format camera. Now neither of us has a 10D while both of us kinda regret not having a Mamiya. 

-Dave-

[Telecaster]

Daylight Mind makes a pretty (and pretty darn good) cuppa flat white.

-Dave-

[John R]

Dave on this cool November morning I really could have used that drink, especially after hearing,"there is nothing to photograph." Kind of abstract.

JMR

[farbschlurf]

Daylight Mind makes a pretty (and pretty darn good) cuppa flat white.

Nice you included the ocean view.
*envy*
;-)

[Rob C]

Yes, Rob The seismic activity of its shutter was not its best feature. It was while I still owned the Pentax that I got my first digital camera, the Canon 10D. I did tripod tests comparing the amount of detail from the Pentax versus the Canon, and the Canon with its much smaller than 35mm "full-frame" sensor beat the 6x7cm quite substantially, even with mirror locked up on the Pentax.

My favorite hand-held MF film camera was the Mamiya 6 (6x6 cm) rangefinder. Lightweight, easy to hand-hold, really quite a fun camera.

-Eric

I did once hold a Mamiya 67 rangefinder in a dealership. I think I still have the brochure somewhere! No, of the camera: there was never a brochure made of me holding it.

The killer, I found, was the viewfinder: tiny, without the slightest sense of what the picture could look like.

A good choice for those with the disposable moolah could have been the three Rollei TLRs: the 55mm, 80mm and 135mm versions. No bounce problems and perhaps just a tad of frustration at the shortness of the longer lens for heads. (I think I have the focal length of the wide one right!)

I briefly owned a Mamiya TLR with the 180mm optic, a camera I had bought whilst I had my cheapo Rollei T with 75mm Tessar. When the 500C came to me I sold the Rollei but held on to the Mamiya until I could afford the 150mm for the 'blad. I soon discovered that the Mamiya lens was better for my uses than the 150mm Sonnar. Unfortunately, there was no 180mm 'blad option available in those days, but the mechanics of using a 180mm close up on that Mamiya were dreadful... It always felt to me like a very crude, primitive camera system - which it was, which is why I could afford that bit of it!

Rob

[Tony Ovens]

I too had a Pentax 67 and found all the same issues. Partly resolved for some uses with the 90mm leaf shutter lens. 

[Telecaster]

Dave on this cool November morning I really could have used that drink, especially after hearing,"there is nothing to photograph." Kind of abstract.

JMR

Clearly there was something! I love photos with pleasing geometry and minimal detail.

-Dave-

[Rob C]

I too had a Pentax 67 and found all the same issues. Partly resolved for some uses with the 90mm leaf shutter lens.

Both Mario Testino and Peter Lindbergh used Pentax 67 for some time. I think the 90mm and 160mm (?) shuttered lenses were the way to go for fashion, and yes, flash too.

Rob

[Telecaster]

Diane Arbus briefly used a borrowed Pentax 67 (and evidently really liked it). As did Michael just before the Canon D30 came out!

-Dave-

[BobDavid]

In the mid 1970s, when I was in high school, my grandfather gave me his Rollei TLR with the Zeiss 80mm Planar f3.5. Compared to my Minolta SRT-100 (a fine 35mm camera), the Rollei was in an entirely different class. I loved looking into the ground glass and seeing the a mirror image of the world. The lens was amazing. I learned a lot about taking pictures with that camera.

I sold it about five years ago to a young adult for around $400. The camers was in great condition both mechanically and cosmetically. It was a thrill to pass it along to a young enthusiast.

I could've gotten more for it. Being that I hadn't run a roll of film through it since Y2K, I figured it was time to let it go to someone who'd enjoy using it.
 

[Rob C]

What it may come down to, for those of us who enjoyed the 120 formats, is that there was something rather good about seeing a big image in the viewfinder.

The perfect solution, of course, would have been the ability simply to exchange a film back for a digi one of the same size.

Yes, I get the cost and difficulty factors, but that doesn't alter the concept itself.

Maybe future small cameras will incorporate enlarged LV within the viewfinder instead of on a rear screen; then, we would perhaps have the benefit of a larger, magnified screen on which to compose... Sure, a different shape for cameras, but they have been changing shape since the first one. I think of something built like a 500 'blad, similar size of screen, but the actual sensor any size (probably smaller) you desire it to be. As long as the viewfinder shows you a large image you should be okay, regardless of sensor shape. It should also let you rotate the image (as in PS) if not actually the sensor itself. Christmas if just around the corner...

;-)

Rob