Once again I've fallen at the last hurdle - no MF for me!

[jonoslack]

Would be a good combo - S system, Pentax K5 and a future M10 with all my M lenses.

Maybe it would work out this time

Ahhhh Peter - the final solution :ROTFL: We all know it's a dream (and not necessarily a good one)
However, a K5 and an M10 sounds pretty good to me (where is that M10!)

 

[jonoslack]

I'd love to have an S2 or any other modern digital MF outfit, but back in my film days, it was really only the smaller ones which ever worked for me as everyday outfits, the Fuji 6x4.5 and Mamiya 6 rangefinder systems in particular. I liked the 6x9 format a lot (Fuji GSW690 III), but in the darkroom it was just too obvious when I used the camera handheld! I like to think I can handhold a camera really steady, but it wasnt steady enough for the 6x9: It got to where I was nitpicking the really small stuff. The smaller formats simply seemed more forgiving of my more relaxed Monday-Friday shooting.

Then there's the matter of weight: I used to mostly ignore it until I started carrying this stuff around most days of the week!

Yes indeed - and the M9 clearly isn't MF quality . . . . . but it's pretty good and so good to use!

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

MF for me! but not all the time

This was borderline trollery, but an interesting thread, Jono --

I've been exploring an XPan and two Hasselblads, all at EBay prices, and used for short self-assigned projects. Found them very rewarding, even the hassles of film. Visited Bear Images in Palo Alto a few months ago and walked away with a P45+ for the Hasselblads in a spur of the moment, one-spouse decision. (In fact, the spouse hasn't noticed or asked what the impact was. The kids have noticed.) It fits in certain niches, and the results have been very rewarding.

The M9s aren't getting any less work to do, so this has expanded my repertoire a bit. I felt that only a 2X increase in resolution without sacrificing any pixel size was the only step worth taking after the M9, hence no sleep lost over an S2. Besides, the S2 is clearly a slippery slope since a whole system awaits.

I am thinking about some really large prints, and the P45+ also blows away the M9 for very large screen viewing, which is starting to become a much more frequently shared experience. But drop the M9s? Not for several more years.

regards,

scott

 

[MGrayson]

Jono, and everyone in this thread, thank you!:thumbs:

It didn't hit until reading this discussion that I have always bought equipment for its own qualities, and not based on how I shoot. Every camera I've used successfully, from little Sigma to Pentax 67, I've used the same way. Cameras not amenable to that style: large format, really, I've totally failed with.

The point is, it's time to acknowledge that I HAVE a shooting style, and I should pick the right tools to match it. Development and new styles may come through work and education.

Best,

Matt

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Re: MF for me! but not all the time

This was borderline trollery, but an interesting thread, Jono --

I've been exploring an XPan and two Hasselblads, all at EBay prices, and used for short self-assigned projects. Found them very rewarding, even the hassles of film. Visited Bear Images in Palo Alto a few months ago and walked away with a P45+ for the Hasselblads in a spur of the moment, one-spouse decision. (In fact, the spouse hasn't noticed or asked what the impact was. The kids have noticed.) It fits in certain niches, and the results have been very rewarding.

The M9s aren't getting any less work to do, so this has expanded my repertoire a bit. I felt that only a 2X increase in resolution without sacrificing any pixel size was the only step worth taking after the M9, hence no sleep lost over an S2. Besides, the S2 is clearly a slippery slope since a whole system awaits.

I am thinking about some really large prints, and the P45+ also blows away the M9 for very large screen viewing, which is starting to become a much more frequently shared experience. But drop the M9s? Not for several more years.

regards,

scott

I didn't know there were M9's and a P45+ here in Jerusalem, can I be your friend? :grin:

 

[jonoslack]

Re: MF for me! but not all the time

This was borderline trollery, but an interesting thread, Jono --

Ah Scott - that's me . . . a borderline Troll :angel:

I've been exploring an XPan and two Hasselblads, all at EBay prices, and used for short self-assigned projects. Found them very rewarding, even the hassles of film. Visited Bear Images in Palo Alto a few months ago and walked away with a P45+ for the Hasselblads in a spur of the moment, one-spouse decision. (In fact, the spouse hasn't noticed or asked what the impact was. The kids have noticed.) It fits in certain niches, and the results have been very rewarding.

The M9s aren't getting any less work to do, so this has expanded my repertoire a bit. I felt that only a 2X increase in resolution without sacrificing any pixel size was the only step worth taking after the M9, hence no sleep lost over an S2. Besides, the S2 is clearly a slippery slope since a whole system awaits.

I am thinking about some really large prints, and the P45+ also blows away the M9 for very large screen viewing, which is starting to become a much more frequently shared experience. But drop the M9s? Not for several more years.

regards,

scott

Hi There Scott
I hope you're well. I think that I've failed some sort of a test here - but truth to tell, I'm not really planning really large prints, my best (least bad) pictures seem to be a kind of visual confection, which, whilst sometimes they're good at A2 size, really don't need to be bigger than that . . . and the M9 does a very nice A2, as does the Sony.

I can see the attraction of an old Contax 645+digital back . . . but to be honest the S2 was more attractive for similar reasons.

I have moments of 'perhaps I'm wrong', but rational moments all tell me that I've made the right decision.

all the best

 

[jonoslack]

Jono, and everyone in this thread, thank you!:thumbs:

It didn't hit until reading this discussion that I have always bought equipment for its own qualities, and not based on how I shoot. Every camera I've used successfully, from little Sigma to Pentax 67, I've used the same way. Cameras not amenable to that style: large format, really, I've totally failed with.

The point is, it's time to acknowledge that I HAVE a shooting style, and I should pick the right tools to match it. Development and new styles may come through work and education.

Best,

Matt

HI There Matt - it's an interesting concept isn't it (buying equipment based on the way one shoots) - certainly not one I adhered to when I bought my first rangefinder 4 years ago!

Marc would have us believe that buying something outside one's comfort zone helps to make us grow and develop, and of course, he has a very good point (one I find hard to counteract), so I think it is a valid way to Development.

It's just not for me :ROTFL: (or, at least, not now).

I shall remain a 'small print person' for the foreseeable future!

all the best

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: MF for me! but not all the time

I didn't know there were M9's and a P45+ here in Jerusalem, can I be your friend? :grin:

Sure. I should be easy to find with Google. email and phones are on my home page at HUJI.

scott

 

[fotografz]

HI There Matt - it's an interesting concept isn't it (buying equipment based on the way one shoots) - certainly not one I adhered to when I bought my first rangefinder 4 years ago!

Marc would have us believe that buying something outside one's comfort zone helps to make us grow and develop, and of course, he has a very good point (one I find hard to counteract), so I think it is a valid way to Development.

It's just not for me :ROTFL: (or, at least, not now).

I shall remain a 'small print person' for the foreseeable future!

all the best

Actually, that's not exactly what I meant Jono. Oh, were it only that simple.

Yes, perhaps outside our comfort zone, but not outside one's vision or style. More a matter of questioning whether that vision or style can be expanded upon ... which isn't necessarily gear related ... but can be.

This particular philosophy was derived more from my involvement with fine art painting than it was from photography. Picasso moved from flat, 2 dimensional explorations into three dimensional work with found objects and crafts ... and brought his vision of the world with him. He didn't necessarily change, he changed the art form.

I'm writing my fresh impressions of the S2 and how it relates to my own creative objectives and practical needs .... coming soon to a thread near you Hopefully it'll clarify that notion to some degree.

Again, your decision is yours and I'd be the first to applaud it ... to each his or her own.

-Marc

 

[peterv]

I have moments of 'perhaps I'm wrong', but rational moments all tell me that I've made the right decision.

Jono,
just wanted to let you know that I found this thread very interesting because I too am thinking about the S2 and this discussion really helps a lot. Good to hear that you feel you made the right decision.

I'm writing my fresh impressions of the S2 and how it relates to my own creative objectives and practical needs .... coming soon to a thread near you

Marc,
very much looking forward to that thread! And I suppose many others on this forum will be eagerly awaiting your findings.

 

[fotografz]

Jono,
just wanted to let you know that I found this thread very interesting because I too am thinking about the S2 and this discussion really helps a lot. Good to hear that you feel you made the right decision.



Marc,
very much looking forward to that thread! And I suppose many others on this forum will be eagerly awaiting your findings.

Not easy right now due to the Holiday obligations ... but I'll get it started, and add to it as I can.

-Marc

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: from another borderline troll

Ah Scott - that's me . . . a borderline Troll :angel:

Hi There Scott
I hope you're well. I think that I've failed some sort of a test here - but truth to tell, I'm not really planning really large prints, my best (least bad) pictures seem to be a kind of visual confection, which, whilst sometimes they're good at A2 size, really don't need to be bigger than that . . . and the M9 does a very nice A2, as does the Sony.

I can see the attraction of an old Contax 645+digital back . . . but to be honest the S2 was more attractive for similar reasons.

I have moments of 'perhaps I'm wrong', but rational moments all tell me that I've made the right decision.

all the best

Actually, Kirkpatricks come from Dumfries, in the lower tier of Scotland, where the only reliable means of livelihood is the frequent theft of English livestock, so I guess I have always been a borderline troll.

40 x 60 cm (that's pretty much A2) is as large as I think I can go with the M9, and it is also as large as I'm willing to spend my own money on having prints made. I don't own a decent printer. But I'm attracted to the look of some meter square prints that I see at the local photolab, usually shot from a rooftop looking down at 50 or more people in a group, all fully resolved. That's tripod and MF country. Some of the construction site shots that I have been doing with a Hasselblad SWC might respond to this treatment, but my enjoyment with seeing the texture of intricately wrapped rebar and concrete crusts on rusty buckets in various corners of the image may not be widely shared. Maybe I can get our 40 Chinese concrete smoothers and 20 Romanian drywall hangers to pose in the middle of the action...

I think the S2 only makes sense if I were to jump in whole-heartedly and replace the M9s with two S2 bodies and all the lenses. And like you, I don't see the need and would certainly miss the handling. Also the combination of awesome Peter Karbe lenses (100% contrast across the field of view) and the slight increase in sensor size probably adds up to about the same impact as my roughly 60 x 45 mm 40MPx sensor coupled with less capable Zeiss lenses from the 1960s. The next big step up, an Alpa frame with a Rodenstock or Schneider 28 or 35, and the digital back that I already own, could be handled almost as easily as my SWC (two shutter presses per shot instead of one), isn't that great a cost step -- about as much as a single S2 lens.

The Hasselblads know their place. They are emeritus cameras, semi-retired but still capable of doing everything that they once led the world at and grateful to be consulted from time to time.

Enuf on cameras that I don't plan to own, or would like to but don't yet... I have pictures to edit, pictures to take, and a day job.

cheers,

scott

 

[wjlapier]

I haven't bought a noctilux, I was just amused by the fact that it no longer seemed expensive!

Lately, this is something I too have been intrigued by myself. Not sure if I'm amused though

 

[jonoslack]

Lately, this is something I too have been intrigued by myself. Not sure if I'm amused though

perhaps amusement is the wrong idea . . . . I do think I'm going to try and get one though.

You too?

 

[Bob]

perhaps amusement is the wrong idea . . . . I do think I'm going to try and get one though.

You too?

It is amusing or at least it amused me for awhile, but wide open it seemed a bit of a novelty with relatively limited use. When it was appropriate, however, nailing focus remained a nearly insurmountable issue for me.
-bob

 

[jonoslack]

It is amusing or at least it amused me for awhile, but wide open it seemed a bit of a novelty with relatively limited use. When it was appropriate, however, nailing focus remained a nearly insurmountable issue for me.
-bob

Hi Bob
I did have an f1 nocti for a while - I actually shot a whole wedding with it (the official photographer was a little under the weather, and it was the only lens I had with me). I didn't have too much trouble focusing, and the results were pretty okay.

But I really don't find RF focusing an issue - sometimes I'm not quick enough, but generally speaking I can nail it. I don't know if it's practice, luck, or perhaps I'm just not fussy enough!

I understand that it won't get a huge amount of use, but I do fancy one, and history suggests that it shouldn't be too much of a financial mistake as long as I buy carefully!.

 

[wjlapier]

perhaps amusement is the wrong idea . . . . I do think I'm going to try and get one though.

You too?

I've been thinking about it lately. I have a Canon 50/.95 I use and can nail focus easily with a M3. $10K used to be alot of money not too long ago

 

[GrahamWelland]

I think that these price barriers are psychological - a bit like the four minute mile, 200mph limits for cars, $3k for a home computer etc. I remember when $2000 was a BIG deal for film camera bodies, and then it was $5k for DSLR, then $2k - $5k for big glass and now it's $15k+ for a digital back, $7k for a rangefinder, $4k+ for MF lenses and so $10k for a Noctilux doesn't seem so outrageous any more (even though it is really ).

There's a reality distortion field going on around here. :ROTFL:

 

[David K]

There's a reality distortion field going on around here. :ROTFL:

Ya think While this is a pretty small sampling to draw any conclusions from it does seem as if consumer confidence is on the rise. This would be a good thing IMHO...

 

[GrahamWelland]

While this is a pretty small sampling to draw any conclusions from it does seem as if consumer confidence is on the rise. This would be a good thing IMHO...

:thumbs: to that! The various "enablers" and "super-enablers" here are doing a stellar job getting the rest of us to help kick start the economy further, even if it is in Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Switzerland, Israel or Japan (and obviously our excellent local dealers too)