When a working PJ there were times I used Diafine, 70s vintage Trix was rated at 2400, if I had to shoot at midday with a Nikon F I used a 2X ND, even with the F2 and top shutter speed of 1/2000th I generally used a ND filter. I never any noticeable loss of resolution, just a dim viewfinder.
I can not shoot film rated at 1600 on the beach. I do not want to carry 2 cameras.I've never, in 45+ years of film photography use an ND filter. Never felt the need using Tri-X or HP5+ at 400 or FP4+ at 125.
I don't understand why they've become so popular now. Is it the photograph-absolutely-everything-wide-open fetish? I just don't get it.
I can not shoot film rated at 1600 on the beach. I do not want to carry 2 cameras.
and what do I do in the afternoon and evening? Get another camera. Roll the film and put another? It’s all about flexibility.....but, the obvious thing is to use a more appropriate film...like Ilford FP4+ or Kentmere 100 ???
With a rangefinder, a good quality ND +2, I don't think you will have any issues with loss of resolution or distortion, so why not?
Curious what the problems you have with the Hexar are. Never had any issues with mine except I've worn a lot of the paint off it at this point. It's been a champ (knock on wood).
I use NDs for long exposures for medium and large format mostly, but I do keep a 3 stop around for a 7Artisans 50mm f/1.1 on my Hexar RF. Even with the 1/4000 on the Hexar I still need an ND for that lens occasionally.
The most important thing for any filter is the coating. B+W, Heliopan, Hoya, Kenko all make good filters.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?