Leica R8
Leitz manufactured some of the most beautiful cameras in existance (i.e. Leicaflex SL), so they naturally had a debt with the world -- to create the ugliest high-quality camera. They succeded with the R8.
As to the RTS III - I'm currently using one. That big, bright full viewfinder makes it an absolute joy to shoot with. If I were looking for another 35mm set, I'd look at an RTS III with the 2.8 versions of the lenses (28 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 1.7, and either an 85 f2.8 or 100 f3.5). You could pull in all that set for under your $2250 price.I wanted to rejoin the conversation and ask about these two cameras in particular. Do any of you guys have any opinions about the following cameras?:
-Contax RTS III (100% viewfinder coverage | vacuum back device holding the film flat)
-Leica R8 (what's the difference between the R8 and the R9?)
I've heard that the Contax RTS III was the camera that advanced photographers wanted the most, particularly in the early-mid '90s, due to its unique solution for film flatness and outstanding Zeiss lenses. The Leica R8/R9 originally seemed more like a rich person's show off camera, but when I saw how amazing the developed slides and negatives are, I was blown away. (Thank you, Huss, for including those wonderful works you took!)
So far, I'm seeing some consensus for the Nikon F6/F4/F3/F2/F100, FM2, FM3A, Canon F1, Eos 1N/1V, Pentax MZ-S, Spotmatic, Olympus OM-1/OM4, Minolta Maxxum/Dynax/α-7/9, Leica R4/R7/R8/SL2
Perhaps I should have asked this (as this is, in a nutshell, the precise issue I'm facing): If you didn't already have a 35mm film camera with lenses and had $2250 to spend on a 35mm film camera body (SLR or even a Rangefinder) and lenses (say roughly 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 80mm - or even a good 28-80mm zoom), what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?
(By the way, I want to say that pretty much everyone's comments on this thread are thoughtful and very useful. So a very big thank you to you all!)
Perhaps I should have asked this (as this is, in a nutshell, the precise issue I'm facing): If you didn't already have a 35mm film camera with lenses and had $2250 to spend on a 35mm film camera body (SLR or even a Rangefinder) and lenses (say roughly 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 80mm - or even a good 28-80mm zoom), what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?
Greg Y brought up an good point that I've kept in my mind. Do you guys think that 35mm is just too small a negative, even for street photography? Ken Rockwell calls 35mm film the amateur medium because of its small size and limited scanning capability.
Not to negate/piss off the whole thread, but I do already have a Pentax 645NII with the SMC 75mm f/2.8 AF, SMC 45-85mm f/4.5 AF, and the SMC 80-160mm f/4.5 AF. Given that the 645 negative is about 2.8 times larger than 35mm, is the difference between a 35mm negative and a 645 negative drastically different or is it negligible, particularly if I scan both the 35mm negative and 645 negative with my Sony a7r IV with the 240mp pixel shift mode? If the difference is substantial, perhaps I'd be better off investing more money into my Pentax 645NII system and get a SMC 35mm f/3.5 AF lens to round out the system and use the savings to but more medium format film.
Again, however, the major reason for my wanting a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go. I've seen some large-ish prints by William Eggleston and was astonished with the quality pulled out of a 35mm negative at such a large size - quite a bit larger than 16" x 24".
The reason i mentioned MF is because of this phrase
"what camera and lenses would you go with for landscape photography?"
When you later say "a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go." I'm a bit puzzled, because i don't think of landscape photography in those terrms.
In Aug/Sept I'll be in the Western Alps, & the Dolomites. I'll be using 6x7 for those photographs. I'll be travelling home through Paris (where i'll be getting my film processed mostly due to the new airport scanner concerns) In Paris I'll be using a Leica (even though I have spent time there with only a Rolleiflex in the past.)
Paul H, I have some very fine landscape negatives taken with 35mm and TMax100 & Agfapan 25 & the prints are beautiful in 8x10 and some in 11x14," but once i print 16x20 or 20x24" i prefer medium format (or LF the odd time it's practical) every time. I have no aversion to large prints from 35mm for street images (or Jim Marshall rock & roll), but i far prefer landscape prints smooth tonality. In LF I use lots of FP4+ and Tmax100 as well, less TriX and TMY2....although i keep all those emulsions in sheet film.
Greg Y brought up an good point that I've kept in my mind. Do you guys think that 35mm is just too small a negative, even for street photography? Ken Rockwell calls 35mm film the amateur medium because of its small size and limited scanning capability.
Not to negate/piss off the whole thread, but I do already have a Pentax 645NII with the SMC 75mm f/2.8 AF, SMC 45-85mm f/4.5 AF, and the SMC 80-160mm f/4.5 AF. Given that the 645 negative is about 2.8 times larger than 35mm, is the difference between a 35mm negative and a 645 negative drastically different or is it negligible, particularly if I scan both the 35mm negative and 645 negative with my Sony a7r IV with the 240mp pixel shift mode? If the difference is substantial, perhaps I'd be better off investing more money into my Pentax 645NII system and get a SMC 35mm f/3.5 AF lens to round out the system and use the savings to but more medium format film.
Again, however, the major reason for my wanting a 35mm film camera is for shooting quickly on the go. I've seen some large-ish prints by William Eggleston and was astonished with the quality pulled out of a 35mm negative at such a large size - quite a bit larger than 16" x 24".
90sphotog.... I'd be willing to bet that's the first time I've seen the names HC Bresson and Ken Rockwell in the same sentence.....
I wonder how many of us felt, or realized, the same as you.?90sphotog.... I'd be willing to bet that's the first time I've seen the names HC Bresson and Ken Rockwell in the same sentence.....
And Garry Winogrand, and Robert Frank, and Lee Friedlander, just to mention a few other amateurs...Henri Cartier-Bresson would tell Ken Rockwell to piss off.
I would say Nikon FM2. It’s a sturdy and a workhorse in the long run.Since I'm shopping around for a new-ish 35mm film SLR, I figured that I'd ask some of you more experienced professionals about this. (I've been shooting large format and medium format film for about 8 years and am working my way down to 35mm film!)
What 35mm film SLR camera systems do you think are the best to get into right now?
Which system do you think has the 'best' lenses?
I did a little research myself and settled on three cameras that I think might qualify:
-Minolta Maxxum 7 (also known as the 'Dynax 7' or 'Alpha-7')
-Nikon F6
-Contax N1
Given that the 645 negative is about 2.8 times larger than 35mm, is the difference between a 35mm negative and a 645 negative drastically different or is it negligible, particularly if I scan both the 35mm negative and 645 negative with my Sony a7r IV with the 240mp pixel shift mode? If the difference is substantial,
Just out of curiosity, which camera is Bruce Davidson using here (to photograph his ‘Subway’ series)?
Looks like a Canon New F-1.
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?