more expensive the gear the better the photographer?

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ I think he might have meant "virgin" linoleum... or... wait for it... "never laid" linoleum.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

^^^ I think he might have meant "virgin" linoleum... or... wait for it... "never laid" linoleum.

No, I got it right. It's much rarer and more expensive than than fetal naugahide.

 

[removed account4]

you guys are funny
ill see what $$
i will have liquid in a months time
i might have the funds for a bag of suet as well
and i will need an expensive hook

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

EvH that won't be expensive enough to stroke my ego !
i need something that will cost a fortune

There are plenty of internet sites better suited to stroke your ego than APUG. And many of them are free... just never give any of those places your CC info.

 

[mark]

Something tells me Michael Jordan would have been just as good a basketball player if he was wearing a pair of cheap shoes from Payless.

Fetal Naugahide So soft, so supple, but not too politically correct. On the other hand Wild Nauga just has a certain je ne sais quoi you don't get from domesticated Nauga. You can come close with free range artisan Nauga, but wild is best.

 

[cliveh]

Most of the best and most famous pictures taken throughout history have been made on quality equipment (not always the most expensive). This is usually because as a photographer develops their skill they want a good recording medium as their equipment. The form of equipment follows desired function.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I hear digital is best these days...

But for my money, in 35mm, I doubt I could make any significant improvement over a Nikkormat with a 28/2.8 or 35/2, a 50/2 Nikkor H, a 105/2.5 either version, and for really long maybe a 200/5 Nikkor.

200/4. And you'd probably be better of with the 200/4 tele than with the 200/4 AI/S MicroNikkor.

More seriously, I take it that you don't sacrifice to Leica the deity of 35 mm still.

 

[Bill Burk]

EvH that won't be expensive enough to stroke my ego !
i need something that will cost a fortune

You thought you were being facetious... You're immune to all the gear hype.

You don't need an expensive camera. The latest and greatest is all just so much hooey.

I found the camera to change all that! Because this camera has something you REALLY WANT... Single Shot Color!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Thomas-S-Cu...502?pt=US_Vintage_Cameras&hash=item51b46f9cd6

I think this will be a game changer.

Can you still say you are immune to desire? Probably not.

 

[removed account4]

that 3 shot is nice, but it isnt that expensive how do i know it is any good?
is that 3x4 film it takes too?

 

[Dan Fromm]

What was that carbon fiber LF camera called again? I don't know if it was any good, but it was probably expensive.

Carbon Infinity. Ole Tjugen has one, speaks highly of it.

 

[Dan Fromm]

that 3 shot is nice, but it isnt that expensive how do i know it is any good?
is that 3x4 film it takes too?

It is a one shot camera. IIRC, 2.25" x 3.25". Effectively fixed lens. But it has great advantages over three shot trichromy, in particular it can take color pictures of moving objects; this is impossible with three shot. If you want to screw around wih trichromy so that you can still shoot color after color film disappears, you probably want it. Otherwise it is very limited.

 

[NB23]

Got my billingham stolen, last month.
One camera, one lens. 20,000$ loss.

Yes, my photography reached a level where, after extremely serious, hard work and rewards of all kinds and nature, I was pushed to own and to "deserve" the best. And yes, my photography improved with it on many aspects.
I see my tools as invaluable. I will die with my tools. I'm not a camera operator with my extremely expensive film gear but an artist that follows hos own vision. My gear is second nature. My camera is my hand. Thereofore it's priceless. A dollar sign cannot replace the value of my personal gear that's been seasoned in my hands.

Looks like the best didn't deserve me, though. Sigh. Printing in the darkroom has helped me get over the loss. each one of my prints make me realize that each one of them is priceless. I am blessed, in a sense.

 

[Bill Burk]

It is a one shot camera. IIRC, 2.25" x 3.25". Effectively fixed lens. But it has great advantages over three shot trichromy, in particular it can take color pictures of moving objects; this is impossible with three shot. If you want to screw around wih trichromy so that you can still shoot color after color film disappears, you probably want it. Otherwise it is very limited.

For jnanian, it's about perfect. But to throw money at the problem, it's a bit limiting having to be reloaded after every shot.

So I'd recommend the Technicolor movie camera. I am sure that it can be set to single shot mode (time-lapse setting). Can it? Does anybody know? A movie camera would give the advantage of many shots before reloading. And after each shot, the filmstrips are advanced to the next frame ready for the next shot. Almost like having a motor drive.

Now if the camera itself doesn't set you back far enough... the way the Technicolor camera is setup, you have to have a special run of film: Red sensitive. So get out that AMEX.

 

[Bill Burk]

Got my billingham stolen.

Sorry to hear it NB23. I've got a hunch you could make do with a Pentax Spotmatic and a 24mm f/3.5 - jerry-rig a panorama mask into the film plane and mark lines or tape off the groundglass to match. Presto... Instantly useful panorama camera for cheap.

 

[NB23]

Sorry to hear it NB23. I've got a hunch you could make do with a Pentax Spotmatic and a 24mm f/3.5 - jerry-rig a panorama mask into the film plane and mark lines or tape off the groundglass to match. Presto... Instantly useful panorama camera for cheap.

Could work

 

[E. von Hoegh]

200/4. And you'd probably be better of with the 200/4 tele than with the 200/4 AI/S MicroNikkor.

More seriously, I take it that you don't sacrifice to Leica the deity of 35 mm still.

I've had Leicas. A CL, two M3s, a IIIG, and an R3. When I got a 50/2 Nikkor H, I was impressed with it's quality and dug out some slides I'd made with the Summicron R. The Nikkor seems to have a wee bit of barrel distortion, and I really had to look to find that. Otherwise there is no significant difference between the two. And, I can afford the Nikon stuff.

I'd like a prewar screwmount Leica, and I wish I'd held on to one of the M3s. Oh well.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I've had Leicas. A CL, two M3s, a IIIG, and an R3. When I got a 50/2 Nikkor H, I was impressed with it's quality and dug out some slides I'd made with the Summicron R. The Nikkor seems to have a wee bit of barrel distortion, and I really had to look to find that. Otherwise there is no significant difference between the two. And, I can afford the Nikon stuff.

I'd like a prewar screwmount Leica, and I wish I'd held on to one of the M3s. Oh well.

I've done the same comparison between Leica M with Summicron 50mm f/2 and Pentax K-mount 50mm f/1.4. They are so similar at the apertures I am using them that I literally have to look up which camera I used to see which is which.
But I do enjoy using the Leica more.

 

[Dan Fromm]

I've had Leicas. A CL, two M3s, a IIIG, and an R3. When I got a 50/2 Nikkor H, I was impressed with it's quality and dug out some slides I'd made with the Summicron R. The Nikkor seems to have a wee bit of barrel distortion, and I really had to look to find that. Otherwise there is no significant difference between the two. And, I can afford the Nikon stuff.

EvH's law: po' folks can't be good photographers.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I've done the same comparison between Leica M with Summicron 50mm f/2 and Pentax K-mount 50mm f/1.4. They are so similar at the apertures I am using them that I literally have to look up which camera I used to see which is which.
But I do enjoy using the Leica more.

The Leica RFs are very, very, very nice little machines. That's their appeal for me, I like watches for most of the same reasons.

 

[cliveh]

I'd like a prewar screwmount Leica, and I wish I'd held on to one of the M3s. Oh well.

If you want the ultimate pre-war Leica, try handling a Leica II (not in a half case), but just the camera. A true tactile experience and probably Oskar's finest design achievement.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

If you want the ultimate pre-war Leica, try handling a Leica II (not in a half case), but just the camera. A true tactile experience and probably Oskar's finest design achievement.

I already have a Canon IIb, which is a pretty good second. But, classic screwmount Leicas in user condition are bargains these days, so it's not impossible that I'll find a deal I like. I have a fair amount of experience with pre WWII cameras, so I'm not afraid of getting one with bad curtains and/or needing an overhaul. In fact I'd prefer getting one this way.
(Spellcheck is telling me that 'screwmount" and 'Leicas' are not words.)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I don't understand the lust for expensive 135 format camera systems. I'm not criticizing at all... just wonder why one wouldn't choose medium format system if absolute quality was really that important. Yes, portability is very different but to pay such extravagant prices for 135 format gear I just can't comprehend.

 

[pdeeh]

Stepping into another's shoes isn't really your strong point is it O-N-F?

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Stepping into another's shoes isn't really your strong point is it O-N-F?

Sometimes not. But I'm excellent at opening cans of worms. I guess I've never understood the whole Leica lust thing.

 

[pdeeh]

For all the fuss we make about Leicas, they were never on my radar at all when I was shooting 20 and 30 years ago - not once.

It was only when I started into the digital world that they started to become visible to me, and curiously I've never particularly wanted one, whether Barnack stylee or M-stylee (although I perfectly see that a nice Barnack is a very pretty camera, and an M - perhaps especially the MP - is a handsome beast in a Bauhausy-cum-Form-Follows-Function sort of way).

I always just wanted a really nice SLR (preferably an Olympus OM), and now I've got one.