Its taking me a little longer to get used to 35 focal length on FF. Guess I was so used to the 35Cron on the M8 and actually miss that combination. Work & weather lately didn't help either.
Thanks Makten, Joe & Charles That shot was taken during my rather productive first outing with the X1.
Makten: I agree - small FF cameras with high res EVFs are the future. Although there are many proponents of the rangefinder viewfinder I'm definitely of the opinion that through the lens, or rather through the sensor is really the most useful type of view.
Thanks for the explanation about the M8 & M6. I somehow thought that Leica M would be a very natural choice for you and I had wondered why you chose to use a big D700 rather than an M8 or M9.
Charles: Lovely beach shot! It doesn't say "Zeiss" to me but WA shots at infinity rarely do. Very nice colors.
Thanks for the feedback about the 35/2 & 35/2.8. What I'm primarily interested in is wide aperture photography. I like to be able to get a clear foreground/background separation and a sharpness-to-blur transition that enhances the volume of the shot. A lens that really excels at it is the Zeiss 35/1.4 (Rollei/Contax) but I'm always on the lookout for other lenses that can do it. Such a lens in a relatively compact package does have a great appeal to me.
It's in the search for that look that I got the Pentax 67 to see how a medium format camera could help. I've shot 20 frames with it so far and all except two have been wide open and most of them a variation on the same theme. My holy grail for the M9 would be a lens like the Zeiss 35/1.4 that can do stuff like this:
or this:
It's from that perspective I found the 35/2 ZM rendering interesting. I'm not really looking for a super sharp and contrasty lens such as the 21/2.8 ZE but something with an interesting DOF falloff.
Joe: Nice vignette there. Is your M9 away for calibration or how come you are just posting M8 shots?
Anyway, thanks a lot guys for your patience with my questions. I have a new toy right now - the medium format Pentax 67 which I want to explore for a while. I've never shot film before (if you don't count my parents' SLR when I was a kid) so that's something interesting as well. I'll try to give the X1 one more chance and try to shoot some street & cityscapes with it. In the mean time I'll read up on the M9 and lenses. Knowing myself I'll probably end up getting one but I'll save it as a treat for later once I start getting tired of the film medium format thing. Perhaps I'll get it as a christmas present for myself
denoir wrote:
Makten: I agree - small FF cameras with high res EVFs are the future. Although there are many proponents of the rangefinder viewfinder I'm definitely of the opinion that through the lens, or rather through the sensor is really the most useful type of view.
Indeed, but I fear that it'll be several years before we see such a camera that is actually aimed at "pros". I'm not seeing myself as a pro in any way, but I like to use pro gear. So, the build has to be good, as well as the VF being large and optically really good. Resolution isn't too important as long as one can zoom in on a certain part of the image, desirably like a "focus point" just showing a little square that is magnified in the middle, or wherever you want to put it.
Thanks for the explanation about the M8 & M6. I somehow thought that Leica M would be a very natural choice for you and I had wondered why you chose to use a big D700 rather than an M8 or M9.
The main issue is the price actually. If I had nothing today, I'd probably go for the M9 with ZM 21/4.5, 35/2.8 (or 35/2) and 85/4. I seldom shoot closer than 0.7 meters anyway. Those lenses will also maintain their usability on forthcoming EVF cameras.
It's in the search for that look that I got the Pentax 67 to see how a medium format camera could help. I've shot 20 frames with it so far and all except two have been wide open and most of them a variation on the same theme. My holy grail for the M9 would be a lens like the Zeiss 35/1.4 that can do stuff like this:
You'll get a look comparable to that, but not as "3D", I think. On the other hand, you'll probably get a quite different bokeh. Longer and slower MF lenses often have much better correction for aberrations that usually ruins the bokeh of short and fast 135 format lenses.
I think that the technology is perhaps 2 years away but it will be an additional year or two before we see it implemented. The best LCDs today are around 350 ppi. I think we'd have to get beyond 1000 ppi to get EVFs that are comparable to optical viewfinders in terms of resolution.
As for the medium format shots, it's really weird not to be able to see directly what you've shot. For all I know I have done something completely wrong and ruined all my shots
This is how I focus - I remove the prism and use a Zacuto Z-Finder (3x magnification) for focus. There is something really rewarding about the massive KLADUNK sound that the mirror makes. Even with mirror lockup the shutter sound is impressive. The view finder is huge but isn't all that brilliant for focusing.
One of the problems with the X1 for me is that I like to shoot at dusk and at night. That means using a tripod. Adding an Arca Swiss quick release plate to the X1 is just silly as it would be almost as heavy as the camera itself and way too big.. Right now my solution is just to place the camera on the tripod head, but it's not really an acceptable solution..
Then again, using the X1 (and probably M9 as well) from a tripod is sort of using the wrong tool. If you are lugging along a tripod you can as well bring a DSLR with you...
denoir wrote:
As for the medium format shots, it's really weird not to be able to see directly what you've shot. For all I know I have done something completely wrong and ruined all my shots
This is how I focus - I remove the prism and use a Zacuto Z-Finder (3x magnification) for focus. There is something really rewarding about the massive KLADUNK sound that the mirror makes. Even with mirror lockup the shutter sound is impressive. The view finder is huge but isn't all that brilliant for focusing.
I hesitate to say this, but there is something I need to get off my heart. If you go medium format, there are two camera systems which make a lot of sense for you, as a died-in-the-wool Zeiss lover: Contax 645 and Hasselblad, especially the 2000/200-series. I have both, and some of the lenses are utterly fantastic. The focusing screen on the Contax is a bit dim, but both Contax and Hasselblad, the latter especially with an Acute Matte screen, are easy to focus, especially with waist-level finders, using the loupe.
For anyone considering the Contax, two of the best medium format lenses ever are the 35mm f/3.5 Distagon, and the Makro-Planar 120mm f/4. Awesome.
The Hasselblad is slightly older tech, but there is something really special about those huge old chrome bodies and the square viewfinder. No need for an L-bracket here Two great lenses are the 50mm f/2.8 and the 110mm f/2.
You see, I am fanatic for a very wide lens, combined with a short tele 100MP and ZF21 are the next up for me. Btw, the 35/3.5 Distagon is the medium format version of the C/Y 21mm f/2.8 Distagon...
denoir wrote:
Joe: Nice vignette there. Is your M9 away for calibration or how come you are just posting M8 shots?
Thanks Luka . Between regular work, having a toddler and bad weather, I haven't had the chance to take the M9 out. Don't really know if my M9 needs calibration until I take more shots, but so far so good. Meanwhile, had been playing with my other toy, LX-5
I'll be travelling for the next 2-3 weeks and may be without internet for a long periods.. so have fun all of you and keep this thread alive!
Makten, It's one of the party tricks of the 24 Elmarit. If you tweak the circumstances a bit with lighting that fits you can get quite good 3D from it
So you're getting a Pentax 67 as well? Cool. You're not getting mine
Carsten: My long term plan is for a medium format Hasselblad. The problem with that today is that it's not good enough (too small sensor, no live view etc) and too expensive (€30,000 for a H4D-60 + kit lens). As for film MF, I don't consider it as a serious thing. I got the Pentax 67 very cheap - a pure impulse buy in a camera shop. It's not a serious investment/commitment. I've been curious about both film and medium format for a while so this was an opportunity to try it out. It came with a 90/2.8 lens and I have no plans getting more. Had I been more interested then of course Contax or Hasselblad would have been the contenders because of Zeiss glass.
denoir wrote:
I'm currently using ektar 100 and portra 160VC. Do you develop your color film yourself?
I haven't tried color film at all before. I'm developing and scanning B/W film at home though, which I enjoy very much. I'll send the color film to a lab for developing, but I'll scan it myself.
I plan on dropping off three rolls to a lab (crimson on Söder) on Monday, let them develop it and scan it in some medium resolution. Then I'll pick a few for full scanning. With a fine grained film such as the ektar 100, one can get about 130 Megapixel from a 6x7 frame And that's real pixels, not the Bayer filtered and interpolated we get from our DSLRs. That ought to be pretty cool
carstenw wrote:
Try some Adox CHS 25 on a tripod one day. Beautiful tonality. I don't think digital has caught up to B&W film yet.
I just picked up a couple of rolls of Adox CMS 20 today. Looking forward to shooting it...in a rangefinder without a tripod, 'cause that's how I roll. Plus its always sunny in LA.
Luka, I like the two night shots, but seriously, if you're going to use a tripod, you might as well go all the way and start shooting large format. 8x10. Time to man up to a real camera. :-)
Thanks Jeff. Hehe, don't you suppose I've thought about large format?
I've even gotten myself one of these (gigapan epic):
Not to shoot panoramas but to simulate a large format camera and get shots like these:
Boy was that a waste of money I've used it five or six times. The problem is that it's too big and heavy plus it's a PITA to stitch and handle loads of partial images. The shots above consist of over 50 images each.
Unfortunately there is no chance of seeing a proper digital large format (not counting the scanning kind) cameras any time soon.
In the long run I hope to have four separate systems:
-One high quality compact that is really pocketable. A Leica X5 perhaps - it will take them a couple of versions to get it right
-One low weight very high quality kit, a digital rangefinder perhaps and a couple of well chosen lenses. This should be a reliable travel kit for travel where photography isn't the primary purpose.
-One set of DSLRs (probably two of them) with both manual and AF lenses. This would be the swiss army knife - the general kit usable for anything.
-One medium/large sensor kit for tripod based landscape photography. This is when weight isn't much of an issue or when top image quality is needed.
I'm pretty happy with the DSLR kit I've got (7D + 5DII) and a solid set of Zeiss glass and a bunch of Canon AF glass. The X1 I'm not very happy with, but I suppose I can live with it until something better comes along. The IQ is quite alright and it is very compact. Digital medium format I can rule out for now. The technology isn't there yet and the sensors are too small. So in the near future the only possible step towards my goal is a digital rangefinder (i.e M9).
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. To go back on topic:
Yeah, nothing perfect out there right now. I like the M9 as the compact shooter. I have a 7D for macro; I sold the 5DII as it wasn't getting much use after I got the M9. I'd love a nice MF digital back, but they're still too expensive and relatively too small. If the S2 was 50+ megapixels, I would seriously consider it; I've played with one and the camera is fabulously compact and the glass is superb. Maybe in another five years....meanwhile I am debating shooting 6x9 film. Yeah, film. It's scary.
That shot was taken during my rather productive first outing with the X1.
And that's real pixels, not the Bayer filtered and interpolated we get from our DSLRs. That ought to be pretty cool 
