wfrank wrote:
Just because the 500EL was the one in space I find that one very attractive, found some 9V adaptation to the winder which would make it possible. It\'s the same as Kai is using in the Hong Kong streets. But it\'s bulky, and the space one dont have exchangable screens. The CM/ELM version does. How important is that?
The EL variants are much bulkier and heavier. At that point I think a Rolleiflex is just infinitely better, with all the same lenses and more. The reliability of the earliest ones is in question too. If you really want to get the \"moon\" camera, get it as a collector, and get a 500C/M for every day. Anyway, the EL/M is not what was used:
There is one really nice thing about the 500/2000 cameras: when you close the waist-level finder, they hang nose down and can tuck under your one arm. The 200 series started moving the lugs around to fit more electronics, and they don\'t hang nose down any more. The various prism finders make them into really ungainly blocks of metal, leather and horse hair (remember those old Hasselblad ads?), and the EL cameras were monsters without the elegance of the hand winders. Furthermore, I would postulate that the act of winding the film is a large part of the experience, which you would completely miss with such a camera.
To answer your question about screens, it is *crucial* to be able to replace it. The early screens are incredibly dim. The Acute Matte screens are awesome. Night and day difference. Of course, if you are a fanatic about it, you could get someone to unscrew the 500EL/M screen, fit a new screen and shim it until it is just right, but you would be sinking a lot more money into the camera than you would ever get back out.
I think I would go for a basic version, a chrome 500CM with a chrome 80mm (or lower) FL.
Chrome = C. Recall that these lenses flare a lot more, unless you find one of the early chrome T* copies.
This leads to a magazine/back-question. The A12 seem to be the standard one, yielding 56x56mm negatives. What\'s the point of anything else?
On the newer E series, the ISO and exposure compensation will be carried over to a 200-series camera. There are also different versions of the A12. The early ones had no place to store the dark slide (another area where the Rolleiflex is infinitely better), but they are more beautiful. The later ones have a slot on the back, but look a little Frankencamera.
One huge reason for getting one of these cameras is just the (side-to-side) view through a giant, bright viewfinder (Acute Matte). The look is incredibly 3D, leading you to waste a ton of shots on mediocre subjects, just because you think the 3D in the viewfinder will land on the photo. The reality is different: it is just as hard as with Canons and Nikons. But that viewfinder! Sigh.
wfrank wrote:
Just because the 500EL was the one in space I find that one very attractive, found some 9V adaptation to the winder which would make it possible. It\'s the same as Kai is using in the Hong Kong streets. But it\'s bulky, and the space one dont have exchangable screens. The CM/ELM version does. How important is that?
The EL variants are much bulkier and heavier. At that point I think a Rolleiflex is just infinitely better, with all the same lenses and more. The reliability of the earliest ones is in question too. If you really want to get the \"moon\" camera, get it as a collector, and get a 500C/M for every day. Anyway, the EL/M is not what was used:
There is one really nice thing about the 500/2000 cameras: when you close the waist-level finder, they hang nose down and can tuck under your one arm. The 200 series started moving the lugs around to fit more electronics, and they don\'t hang nose down any more. The various prism finders make them into really ungainly blocks of metal, leather and horse hair (remember those old Hasselblad ads?), and the EL cameras were monsters without the elegance of the hand winders. Furthermore, I would postulate that the act of winding the film is a large part of the experience, which you would completely miss with such a camera.
To answer your question about screens, it is *crucial* to be able to replace it. The early screens are incredibly dim. The Acute Matte screens are awesome. Night and day difference. Of course, if you are a fanatic about it, you could get someone to unscrew the 500EL/M screen, fit a new screen and shim it until it is just right, but you would be sinking a lot more money into the camera than you would ever get back out.
I think I would go for a basic version, a chrome 500CM with a chrome 80mm (or lower) FL.
Chrome = C. Recall that these lenses flare a lot more, unless you find one of the early chrome T* copies.
This leads to a magazine/back-question. The A12 seem to be the standard one, yielding 56x56mm negatives. What\'s the point of anything else?
On the newer E series, the ISO and exposure compensation will be carried over to a 200-series camera. There are also different versions of the A12. The early ones had no place to store the dark slide (another area where the Rolleiflex is infinitely better), but they are more beautiful. The later ones have a slot on the back, but look a little Frankencamera.
One huge reason for getting one of these cameras is just the (side-to-side) view through a giant, bright viewfinder (Acute Matte). The look is incredibly 3D, leading you to waste a ton of shots on mediocre subjects, just because you think the 3D in the viewfinder will land on the photo. The reality is different: it is just as hard as with Canons and Nikons. But that viewfinder! Sigh.
