|
I just bought 10 rolls of shanghai gp3 since it was ~£2 a roll, is it actually as terrible as it seems? Most of the example shots I remember from this thread were 4x5, and didn't look too terrible for the investment.
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Mightaswell posted:Well, popped my 120 cherry, and waiting for my Portra 800 negs from my RB67 to come back. How long have you had the RB67 now? The Clit Avoider posted:I just bought 10 rolls of shanghai gp3 since it £2 a roll, is it actually as terrible as it seems? Most of the example shots I remember from this thread were 4x5, and didn't look too terrible for the investment. Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Ah well. I'm not expecting anything brilliant, you get what you pay for with photography. I'll just use it for locational test shots. [edit] Speaking of impulse buys, I bought a Fujinon SW 90mm f8 for $130. The Clit Avoider fucked around with this message at 20:19 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:[edit] Speaking of impulse buys, I bought a Fujinon SW 90mm f8 for $130. I already have a 90mm f/8, but that's a hell of a buy. Jealous. edit: what LF camera are you putting it on, out of curiosity? I'm not sure I've seen you post about it/pictures taken with it.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:26
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:How long have you had the RB67 now? It came in the mail like a day before my kid was born, so....6 months? To be fair I shot a test roll of b&w which I never got around to developing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Just an old Calumet CC-400, I don't post any LF because my scanner isn't up to the job (and I'm terrible at putting aside days to scan 120 as it is). Alongside that, after putting it down a bit in this thread, I actually ended paying for a travelwide 90 as well, since what the hell, so when that arrives it'll be another possibility.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
 Am I doing this right?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 06:46
|
|
|
copen posted:
No, don't shoot 6x4.5 when you own a 6x7 camera. 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 07:46
|
|
|
Nonsense. How are you going to learn to see The Matrix except by shooting 645 without a viewfinder mask?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
Somebody please do a repeating series of viewfinder photos starting with their smallest camera and ending with their largest.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
nonanone posted:Somebody please do a repeating series of viewfinder photos starting with their smallest camera and ending with their largest. But what will they take the photo with? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 05:12
|
|
|
Cell phone, duh. Then post it on Instagram.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:No, don't shoot an RB67, it's a boat anchor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
Does anyone here have any (negative) experience using a Toyo field camera? The more I read about 4x5 outfits, the more this seems like an ideal set up for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Does anyone here have any (negative) experience using a Toyo field camera? The more I read about 4x5 outfits, the more this seems like an ideal set up for me. It's kinda heavy and doesn't have very many movements, but it's simple, cheap, built really well, and it's very sturdy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Does anyone here have any (negative) experience using a Toyo field camera? The more I read about 4x5 outfits, the more this seems like an ideal set up for me. I'm sure I won't be the only one here to say that Chamonix is by far the best bang for the buck in field cameras.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Boat Anchor. This is the truth, It is a neat camera and I got a good deal on it. But sadly it just sits around because it is too huge to take anywhere (Although I think I drug this beast to jamaica and let it sit in my hotel without taking any pictures). And 6x7 backs are expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
copen posted:This is the truth, It is a neat camera and I got a good deal on it. But sadly it just sits around because it is too huge to take anywhere (Although I think I drug this beast to jamaica and let it sit in my hotel without taking any pictures). And 6x7 backs are expensive. The dorkroom must be filled with tiny people. The RB isn't that big, and it's a good size and shape for carrying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The dorkroom must be filled with tiny people. The RB isn't that big, and it's a good size and shape for carrying. uh huh. i sold back my RZ after a year. it was pretty drat impractical even though it was manageable. i'm pretty certain it was designed to be a studio camera, too? anyway so i wont be posting much here this summer. dont have my desktop around so no scanning or editing. i accidentally got a cd when i had a roll dev'd from my fuji gw690, though:     the quality seems better than my v500 at home. too bad its still not worth it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
a foolish pianist posted:The dorkroom must be filled with tiny people. The RB isn't that big, and it's a good size and shape for carrying. I'm 6'10 and 220 pounds. I can take it anywhere I chose not to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
copen posted:I'm 6'10 and 220 pounds. I can take it anywhere I chose not to. If you used it to shoot 645 I can see why you would have made the choice not to. The value proposition changes a little when you have that much less negative. 6x7 is glorious by comparison, and if $60 for a 6x7 back is too much money to spend for you, you probably shouldn't be shooting medium format film to begin with. Here is a picture from one of the many times I went hiking with my RZ67.  Garden of the Gods by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Well, these days, I'm hiking with my 4x5, so I guess my opinion probably doesn't mean much in this discussion anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:If you used it to shoot 645 I can see why you would have made the choice not to. The value proposition changes a little when you have that much less negative. 6x7 is glorious by comparison, and if $60 for a 6x7 back is too much money to spend for you, you probably shouldn't be shooting medium format film to begin with. Actually this is exactly right I don't carry it because its a 9 pound 645 camera right now. I need to get more lenses and a 6x7 back. I'm lusting for a hassie though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
copen posted:I'm 6'10 and 220 pounds. I can take it anywhere I chose not to. The 6x7 is probably the only thing weighing you down to the Earth, you skinny person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
copen posted:Actually this is exactly right I don't carry it because its a 9 pound 645 camera right now. I need to get more lenses and a 6x7 back. I'm lusting for a hassie though. Yeah, big negatives own, but conversely small cameras also own. I usually settle this by carrying an Olympus XA as a backup/meter with an awesome 35mm lens for some big, heavy, possibly meterless camera.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 02:26
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Yeah, big negatives own, but conversely small cameras also own. Solution: Meet somewhere in the middle with a Mamiya 7! Unfortunately they hold their value well enough that I can't ever justify buying one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
psh my 69 is 3.2 lb  Paul MaudDib posted:... for some big, heavy, possibly meterless camera. I haven't used a meter in years and it hasn't mattered - even with slide. Then again theyre personal snapshots and not work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 04:19
|
|
|
guidoanselmi posted:psh my 69 is 3.2 lb I don't know how heavy my 69 is, I'll have to get us on the scale next time your mom comes over.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:I'm sure I won't be the only one here to say that Chamonix is by far the best bang for the buck in field cameras. These look hot. I wan't one. I don't deserve one. edit:  Unghh. Only 3 pounds, of course you need a 6 pound tripod probably (which I have). copen fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Jun 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 04:40
|
|
|
copen posted:These look hot. I wan't one. I don't deserve one. My bag with a Chamonix, 10 holders, 3 lenses and a meter is about half the weight of my old medium format bag.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
Gowland 4x5 Pocket View for life  Why yes, I'm going to be listing mine for sale soon, why do you ask?
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 13:57
|
|
|
How's the yashica-c? I'm negotiating with some old hippie about hers
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Gowland 4x5 Pocket View for life  Tell me more... (Seriously, I'd be quite interested)
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Molten Llama posted:Solution: Meet somewhere in the middle with a Mamiya 7 This is what I did recently. I got a great price on a 7ii with the very well spoken of 43mm lens, and jumped on it. That little leaf shutter is so easy to fire at slow speeds (much easier than the Hasselblad).
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:10
|
|
|
copen posted:These look hot. I wan't one. I don't deserve one. The tripod/head combo I usually put mine on weighs 3 pounds And yeah, my LF bag is way lighter than my MF bag, even if it's larger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure my Manfrotto tripod with ballhead is rated for up to 6 pounds and weighs about 4. Would you mind showing your large format bags? (I want to see how they stack up against Reichstag's instax fanny pack) edit: maybe it's kilos burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Jun 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Stop tempting me. I'm not good enough to be spending that much per click of the shutter. Post pictures of your Chamonix's please
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
The Chamonix does look sexy as hell and I want one. But my 4x5 monorail with full movements was like quarter of the price and total pack weight including tripod, lenses, slides etc. is barely more than 30lb. If you aren't prepared to haul a couple of stone of photo gear around on hikes in the mountains then do you really deserve to call yourself a landscape photographer? e: normally I take a Pentax ME too for snapshots where I can't be bothered to set up the monorail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
copen posted:Stop tempting me. I'm not good enough to be spending that much per click of the shutter. On the first page   And here's a shot from dukeku of my Chamonix in action:  Untitled by lucas.deshazer, on Flickr aliencowboy posted:I'm pretty sure my Manfrotto tripod with ballhead is rated for up to 6 pounds and weighs about 4. Would you mind showing your large format bags? That's a weird load to weight ratio... my 3 pound setup is rated for a 17.6 pound load. big scary monsters posted:e: normally I take a Pentax ME too for snapshots where I can't be bothered to set up the monorail. Yeah, I'm always also carrying my XA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Frobbe posted:How's the yashica-c? I'm negotiating with some old hippie about hers If it's anything like the -D, it's rudimentary but it gets the job done. Viewing and adjusting your composition is tricky since everything is reversed. Winding the film and cocking the shutter are two separate actions so it's possible to make (intentional and accidental) double exposures. It can be handy for street portraiture since it's kind of eye catching if you wear it on a strap around your neck. I didn't pay much for mine do my dollar to satisfaction ratio is pretty drat decent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
That actually looks quite a bit more slick and compact than I imagined. I can vouch for the XA. I haven't left home without mine since I got it. I have a few project ideas kicking around my head that I want to get started on once my Kowa gets back from being repaired. I'm still wrestling with whether or not I want to switch to a 500 CM or move to LF once it inevitably breaks again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2013 21:07
|
|