Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: wj cody
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 208 next>>
Jan 24, 2018 01:18:20   #
ShooterRod wrote:
I was alway envious of the Hasselblad folks....saw their ultra sharp photos and enlargements..envious!
I bought a Kowa 66...way less expensive, but reviews said the optics were excellent.
Thought it would be a burden to carry around, but surprisingly, that size camera is so close to the SLR 35s that
I never felt burdened. Took some nice photos...because it seemed like a special camera to me, I seemed to be
a better photographer with it. The logical progression would be a Hasselblad instead of the large Canon DSLR I
have now....but I've been unable to pull the $$ trigger. I think the same thing has happened to the folks on this
site...I never see words about medium format challenges/problems/triumphs. Is it because of cost..hard to
believe because many of you have released a list of your lenses in present ownership...and you have lots of $$$ involved..
Is it because of the idea that that format is just too large to handle? Is it because of the lack of innumerable
control features that the DSLRs have? Is it because this site devoted to 35mm? Someone needs to post some
nice medium format photos....maybe even comparisons of the same scenes...I for one would love to see
if there is still a difference...and how much the difference is...Thanks...
I was alway envious of the Hasselblad folks....saw... (show quote)


i own both a hasselblad which is 6x6 square and a mamiya rz which is 6x7 centimeters. now here is the interesting problem. i assume you are going digital. okay.
the only digital hasselblads, hold on now, in current production are 6x 4.5 centimeters. the mamiya rz model III will take a digital back. the hasselblad 203, 205 series cameras will also take digital backs. however, for cost benefit i would take the mamiya.

the other way to go is the wonderful contax 645 with its auto focus 6x4.5 format and zeiss lenses and film or digital backs. they are a joy to use but good used ones are expensive. the 120mm manual focus lens for that camera is just brilliant.

and then there is the mamiya 645 another 645 with a non interchangeable prinsm and af lenses and film and digital backs.

any one of these will provide results far exceeding that of a full frame dslr.

so pay your money and take your choice.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:10:21   #
Chris T wrote:
And, then, later - came the bulk film magazine ... that gave you - what - 250, or was it 500?


250 exposures - never used one. the motor gave me the advantage, being left eyed, of not having to take my eye away from the viewfinder while advancing film.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:08:11   #
timkramer wrote:
I have a 35mm 1.8G and an 85mm 1.8G and where I have always struggled is which is the better lens to use as the "main" one when traveling or your general walk around lens. It never fails that when I have my 35, I am thinking it would have been great to also have the 85, and vice-versa. I primarily like taking pictures of landscapes, buildings, people walking by, etc. I also like taking close ups, but neither seem very good at close distances. Great lenses but just wondering what people use as their primary set up. I use either my D300 or D7100 with either/both lenses.
I have a 35mm 1.8G and an 85mm 1.8G and where I ha... (show quote)


my choice is always the 35mm lens on my leica
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:07:03   #
mcclizam wrote:
Hi Hogs-I'm a rookie (seriously studying/practicing about 2 years) and my first lens reco'd by a pro relative is a Canon EF 24-105 USM. It's virtually brand new because I almost never use it. I've acquired some zooms, a nice prime and wide based on my needs. Should I sell it or am I missing something I should be using it for? I mostly shoot nature and travel; occasionally family/dogs. Thanks!


yup. if you don't use it it is worthless to you.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:06:30   #
Streets wrote:
Mine is my Minolta AF 50mm f3.5 Macro. I love this lens for copying slides and general photography. It is wicked sharp, no matter the f stop. A close contender is my 50mm Pentax Takumar f1.4 SMC which I use in low light and portrait work.


that would be my 58mm noct-nikkor.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:05:44   #
Rongnongno wrote:
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargon 24x36 is FX. 'Cropped sensors' are DX cameras*.

FF confusion started long ago when folks compared not the sensor but the field of view and came with 'Oh! It is a cropped view of a regular 24x36 camera'.

Blame this on folks who did the explanation for not clearing up the conceptual mistake.

Every camera, regardless of what the heck it is, from an old cell phone to the most advanced medium format, is a FF camera. Meaning the full sensor array is used.

Unlike ACA and Obama care being the same (but perceived as different) FF and 24x36 are not the same at all (but perceived as identical).

Yet FF is used left and right, referring to the wrong thing 99% of the time.

----
Call me a fool for bringing this up time and time again but I just do not understand why folks are not getting it.


-----
* Among other smaller formats.
FF = Full frame. FF is NOT 24x36. In Nikon jargo... (show quote)


i don't understand, you eat beef with ff? is ff a sauce or something? how did i get here?
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 01:01:14   #
OriginalCyn wrote:
My husband and I will be in Sedona in the next couple of days. I was there a lot before I became serious about photography. I’ve seen all the sights, but what I am really looking for is a magnificent place to photograph sunrise or sunset. If you could be specific about directions I would appreciate it!! Post a pic for extra points! Thank you in advance!!


i hope you didn't fall for the crystals!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:59:47   #
nauticalmike wrote:
I am just wondering why lenses with larger apertures costs more than another lens with a slightly smaller aperture? for example a 50 f1.4 vs a 50 f1.8.


oh, not necessarily. depends on focal length, purpose of the optic and quality of the glass.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:57:40   #
Chris T wrote:
Didn't even realize the original F even offered a motor ... how 'bout that!


yes, it offered 2 models of the f36. the first was tethered to a separate battery pack.

the second had the battery pack attached to the motor for complete freedom of use. the only modification was the bottom "plate" on the F body. the standard one was removed and a modified one put on.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:54:59   #
Rongnongno wrote:
You are killing me. If I die tonight and will not see the future I will blame you and my estate will sue you for prevent me from using my clairvoyant talent.


oh rats, another dissatisfied customer - huh? was i saying something?
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:52:47   #
Quinn 4 wrote:
Film cameras: R.I.P. Every day I am looking on UHH for information about film cameras. I not finding any information on film cameras. Oh yes , people will reply saying their have film cameras and then go back writing about their digital cameras. I hope I not the only one who like using film camera and could give a dam about digital cameras. I find nuts is reading about someone who pay $2,000 for XYZ digital camera and pay $1,000 for a lens to fit on the camera. Knowing that the camera is none more than a electricity item that will be obsolete by year's end. Yes, there is film cameras that will cost $3,000 with lens. But you known that you can get your $3,000 back. Can one said the same for digital camera? How about set a part of UHH just for film cameras.
Film cameras: R.I.P. Every day I am looking on UHH... (show quote)


aw, c'mon, lighten up. i use film exclusively and that includes commercial and other contracts. everything from 35mm to 5x7. just a happy old man.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:49:30   #
Chris T wrote:
Okay, WJ ... you got a deal, there .... one grey wolf to come ....


i will see if i can find it, but give me a week or two. i've a lot to go through.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:47:19   #
Chris T wrote:
Interesting choice, WJ ... just your basic F, huh?


yes. i still have my 1959 f body with the f36 motor which i've continued to use this side of forever. love the damn thing.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:45:49   #
Rongnongno wrote:
Ouch!


don't even remember that!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:45:06   #
Chris T wrote:
The F3 was a fine camera, Therwol ....

I had an F2 ... and a few Fs .... never did get an F3 ....

amazing run ... the various F models had, huh?


the F3 with the md 14 motor was the finast ergonomic match of any outboard motor on a camera body. just brilliant. you can see Sean Penn using a titanium F3 in the movie "Walter Mitty". sort of funky, for sure
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 208 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.