F/.95
Display Avatars Sort By:
Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
F/.95 on 04/28/2011 08:24:08 MDT Print View

I'd love to have one of these in my bag:

http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/04/26/behind-the-scenes-constructing-a-f0-95-voigtlander-nokton-lens/

Khader Ahmad
(337guanacos) - F

Locale: Pirineos, Sierra de la Demanda
Using 2 cosina lenses on 04/28/2011 11:19:53 MDT Print View

I'm still using analog cameras, as I prefer the mindset that comes with the usage of film, and right now I'm into rangefinders after 2 years of Large Format fever, my favorite setup is a Voigtlander Bessa r2 with the 50/1.5 Nokton LTM or a 50/3.5 Heliar.

The 1.5 is great, but it's got some problems, a bit of coma, decentering and astigmatism, even so, those problems are smaller than those of other primes and it's cheap. The 3.5 is simply perfect, it is so good I bought 2 more just in case.

I don't use micro 4/3 so I won't buy it, but i believe cosina as the best quality/cost brand.

Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
Digital -vs- Analog on 04/29/2011 08:04:11 MDT Print View

I feel you on the analog film, especially full frame. Though the argument is starting flounder on the quality advantages of film over digital. Give it 10 more years of technology advancement, if anyone still argues that film "looks better" I will argue that they are zealots grasping on to nostalgia.

I've had this conversation about analog verses digital audio more times than I care to count. I have a friend who masters digital audio. When you get up in to the 96k 32bit sample range claiming that analog "sounds better" is ridiculous. Analog just adds distortion to the sound which seems pleasant to some listeners. To prove this my audio engineer friend can add analog effects during the mastering process that could fool the most discerning listener.

Bands that still record in analog are doing so out of nostalgia. The newest Foo Fighters album was recorded on analog, and don't get me wrong it sounds fantastic. I just think they went through the extra expense and trouble for no reason. They recorded it on analog and what was the second step? They digitized the tracks. That makes no sense. Maybe the vinyl release will have a pure analog chain, I dunno.

Pure and accurate digital information has a cold feel to some people. The warm and fuzzy distortion can be added post production. The same applies to photography.

My father-in-law owns a food advertisement business. There are several full frame digital cameras in his shop. I would still agree that digital sensors are not as sensitive as film, yet. They will get there. I would also argue that the average digital print does not have the same fidelity as a proper photo print. It'll all come along soon enough.

In the mean time, DSLR has made photography possible for me because of its affordability. And from a cost perspective the image quality is awesome.

Brendan Swihart
(brendans) - MLife

Locale: Fruita CO
digital vs analog photography on 04/29/2011 08:28:47 MDT Print View

I have to disagree that good image quality is more affordable in digital. I have a Koni Omega (hehe DEFINITELY not UL) with three incredible lenses that shoots 6x7 that I paid about $400 for the body and three lenses. I can make 16x20 prints that are razor sharp corner to corner. I'd have to spend a fortune on digital equipment to get the same quality. I agree that digital quality has improved and I use digital cameras as well, but still prefer film and darkroom. For me it's less about whether or not the final print looks better from film or digital, I most prefer the process of using film and feel "closer" to what I'm doing, if that makes sense (much better that sitting at a computer with photoshop). Traveling with film and trying to keep it out of xray machines and rain, etc=not fun.

Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
Re: digital vs analog photography on 04/29/2011 08:55:39 MDT Print View

You are cheating the arguement by comparing a large format camera to a 3/4 digital. Of course the full frame looks better. Compare 35mm to a new DSLR and you'll have a tighter race.

There is hidden cost in both formats. Most people don't have a dark room while almost everyone has a computer. How much are your chemicals, negatives, and print paper? Development equipment is expensive as well. On the other hand, a good DSLR may be $1500-3000 up front but the cost deminishes signifigantly after that. I can work my image in GIMP which is a free application then deliver the file to "pick your favorite camera shop" for a high quality print for $5-20 depending on the size. Or for a normal print I can go to the drugstore on the corner and get 5x7 prints for 15cents. I can just delete bad exposures while in teh analog world you have wasted film.

I don't buy your cost arguement. Though, any hobby can cost you a fortune if you let it, like backpacking for instance.

If you enjoy the process of analog photography, well, no arguement can be made against that. I like computers.

Brendan Swihart
(brendans) - MLife

Locale: Fruita CO
"F/.95" on 04/29/2011 09:27:10 MDT Print View

It definitely depends on what your goals are. I'm not saying that people should shoot film over digital (especially for backpacking...I use digital). Darkroom equipment is dirt cheap these days. Paper can be pricey but I buy lots of paper from craigslist and ebay from people who have gone to digital. Printing larger prints in the darkroom is cheaper that getting a large digital print done or buying a large format printer. I usually end up with much better photographs from film because I can't shoot 2000 shots like I can on digital, so I'm much more aware of composition, etc. For most people I agree that film is a hassle. I'm not trying to rehash the digital/film argument, I'm just saying that if someone really wanted to get into film that it can be done for very cheap and you can end up with some spectacular image quality. Cheers.

Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
Cost on 04/29/2011 11:03:21 MDT Print View

You are likely correct about cost. I'm going back to my collage years (going on 20 years ago... uuuuggg) when Photo chemicals and materials were budget busters. I haven't priced any of it recently so my information is outdated.

Maybe you take more time to frame your compositions using film but that doesn't mean you don't get a good composition by shooting 2000 pictures. I don't find myself paying less attention to composition because I shoot digital. If anything I get some really cool shots because I'm not affraid to pull the trigger. I'm not boasting, I'm actually not a very good photographer, but I try to frame every shot:) I'm learning.

I'm intemidated by some of the fine work I see from the photographers here. Maybe I'll post something some day.

Khader Ahmad
(337guanacos) - F

Locale: Pirineos, Sierra de la Demanda
Didn't want to start another chapter of th "holy war" on 04/29/2011 12:13:39 MDT Print View

I wasn't speaking about quality, I usually get more quality on digital, film is substractive, bytes are additive, no one can avoid that. But I still prefer the mindset needed to use film, I don't like looking at the little tv on the back of the camera, and I love the darkroom.

I was just taking about the two cosinas I'm using. They are really great lenses, and cheap (for primes),I don't know how good is the 0.95, and cosina made some mistakes with fast lenses in the past, but it's really cheap, about 1k$.

I would like to try it with a Panasonic GH2 in video.

Daniel Fosse
(magillagorilla) - F

Locale: Southwest Ohio
low light on 04/29/2011 12:59:40 MDT Print View

Yeahhhhh! That f.95 on my D7000 on HD video in low light. That sould be nice! Get some nice naturally lit dusk and dawn footage.