Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in mawz's LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Saturday, July 30th, 2011
9:55 am	Two Systems Enter, One System Leaves Yashica FR-1, ML 50mm f2, Delta 100 The OM kit didn’t work out for me, essentially I just never quite gelled with the OM bodies and the lenses don’t really render the way I like. Functionally the bodies were on the small side, which proved a bit of an issue. I do have quite a liking for carrying smaller kit, but there is a lower limit on size just as there is an upper limit. It appears that the lower limit is the size of the Cosina bodies which I like so much. Ideal size for me for a manual focus SLR looks to be around the size of a Nikon FM or FE series body. IE smallish but not too small. The bottom end is the Cosina bodies with the upper end being around the size of a F100 or EOS 3. And thus both the OM-1 and OM-4T are just too bloody small. Frankly at a certain size controls get too fiddly, this wasn’t an issue with the OM-1 since it’s got the minimal controls of a manual, mechanical camera but the much more complex controls of the OM-4T were rather fiddly to use, especially the spot metering. I found the shadow/highlight metering to be unusable for this reason and spot metering to be awkward. It didn’t help that the viewfinder display on the OM-4T is somewhat non-obvious, especially in manual mode and dim as well. The much vaunted OM viewfinders are also rather over-rated. Yep, they’re big & bright, but they lack contrast and there’s little tooth in the focus screens, give me a smaller, dimmer viewfinder with more bite and I can focus much easier. I actually found both inferior to the OM2000′s viewfinder for exactly this reason. Don’t get me wrong, overall both bodies are good bodies. Just a little fiddly and one of the major strengths most claim is in fact a weakness. I also found the bodies somewhat unrefined. I may have been spoiled by my Nikons (and Contax/Yashica bodies) but I’ve found most other systems to be unrefined, mostly due to rough wind-on and catchy shutter speed dials. Higher-end Nikon’s are super-smooth, the wind-on on an F3 is like butter. And there’s just the right amount of tension on a Nikon shutter dial. I found the Contax & Yashica bodies to be pretty good in that respect as well (I had other issues with the 137MD and the FR and I categorize the FX-3 as a Cosina body rather than a C/Y body). On the subject of the lenses, I found the 24/2.8 to be optically excellent, the 35/2 was a bit behind but still very good. The 50/1.4 was merely good, but it’s an early version and the OM 50/1.4 was pretty steadily upgraded through its life. The main issues I had with the lenses was lack of contrast. They’re sharp and offer a great tonal range but at the cost of contrast, both microcontrast and macrocontrast. Essentially this is a matter of taste and the Zuiko’s are not to mine. When I was considering what to go with as my small system last fall it came down to either OM or Contax/Yashica. The OM’s won, mostly because I found an OM-1 for a good price before I ran across a similar C/Y body. Well a couple weeks ago I tripped over two Yashica bodies and a 50mm lens (there was also a 35-70 zoom, but that was the Cosina rebadge and not worth paying for so I skipped it). The bodies were the FR-1 and the FX-3 Super 2000. I’ve owned a FR before and didn’t really like it, mostly because the gimping in comparison to the Contax RTS it was derived from showed. The FR-1 is essentially the FR with the gimping removed. It gets the Aperture priority AE and a better metering readout that justifies being battery dependent along with a more traditional shutter speed dial location. As to the FX-3, it remains my least favourite of the Cosina bodies but it’s still eminently usable. And in terms of size, the FR-1 is just about the same size as an FM, so it’s near ideal. The ML 50mm f2 is a nice little normal, nothing special but thoroughly competent. So I dug out my C/Y adaptall mounts and the much-ignored 28/2.5 Adaptall-2 and put together a nice little working kit. The kit is pretty much this: 28/2.5, ML 50/2, 135/2.5 and either the 90/2.5 SP Macro or the 28-80 SP zoom. Once the 17/3.5 SP is repaired it’ll go in the bag as well. As to the OM kit, I’ll miss the incredibly well damped mirror and shutter of the OM-1, it’s remarkably quiet. And I always did like the front-mounted aperture rings on the lenses. But aside from that I suspect I’ll be pretty happy sticking to the Contax/Yashica kit instead. And I can always feed my Zeiss dreams that way as well. (Comment on this)
Sunday, July 17th, 2011
9:46 am	And We’re back Yashica FR-1, Yashica ML 50mm f2, Delta 100 Mawz.ca is up and running again after resolving a database crash. Hopefully this won’t reoccur anytime soon. (Comment on this)
Saturday, July 16th, 2011
9:05 am	Midsummer Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm f1.9 C, Fujifilm SuperHG 100 So far this year is lagging in terms of shooting, at least compared to last year. I'll probably exceed my rollcounts for 2009 though, I'm almost there in 120 and about halfway in 35mm at this point. 2010 does seem to have been a highwater mark for me in terms of rollcount, but 159 rolls of film is a fair amount. Only time will tell, I could end up going on a tear for the rest of the summer. I'm still shooting a reasonable amount though, rollcounts are ahead of 2009 so far. Note mawz.ca is currently down, the database is broken. Hopefully it's repairable but it will be down for at least a couple more days. Posting is going to be restricted to LJ for now. I've found the replacements for the OM kit. Got a couple Yashica bodies on the cheap. Another FX-3 Super 2000 and an FR 1. The FX-3 may be my least favourite of the Cosina bodies but it's still a nice little body, all its missing are a couple of the updates my preferred Cosina bodies had (mostly the nicer shutter release and release lock). The FR 1 is the bigger brother of the FR I had a few years ago and the small number of changes are a real improvement. It gets Aperture Priority AE and a nicer viewfinder display. My copy's also in better condition than the FR I had although the self-timer is broken (Which I never use anyways). Right now I've got cheap little Yashica ML 50/2 and the Adaptall-2 kit for lenses. I'll be getting an M42 adapter shortly and once the OM-4T's sold I'll grab another native lens or two. Zeiss will come next year after graduation. (Comment on this)
Saturday, July 2nd, 2011
10:35 am	A Little Diversion Sony A33, Minolta 24mm f2.8, ISO 100, 1/320, f8 I’ve been doing a little shooting with the A33 over the last week, mostly travelling light with just the 24/2.8, 35/1.8 and 50/1.4 in the bag. It’s reminded me that the A33 really is a great little camera, especially for street shooting. I’m a little over 5800 exposures on the clock, over a period of 10 months which is right around average for me on digital. Unusually I’m not feeling any real need to upgrade it. I’d sort of like to add a second body to my kit, but only to add capability rather than replace the A33 as it really does handle my digital needs quite well. I’m not going to be shooting digital primarily anytime soon though. It’s just not my bag. On the film front I recently acquired 400′ of HP5+ for a low low price due to damaged packaging. It’s not expired, dated 5/14 in face, just has water-damaged outer boxes making it unsellable for the retail price. That will keep me in B&W film through the end of the year and possible longer. I’ve still got somewhere around a half roll of Tri-X in the loader and around 15 rolls of Delta 100 that’s unshot, so that’s right around 100 rolls of 35mm B&W film floating around for a guy who shoots around 80-90 rolls of 35mm a year. The 7′s have been my go-to cameras this year, I’m just not shooting that much with the 645 Super of late. It’s lying in my bedroom in a forlorn state. I really do need to drag it out and shoot some E-6, if only to get it out of the fridge, I’m drowning in 120 E-6 and C41 right now. In the case of the 7′s, I’ve solved my 35mm conundrum. The problem was that I do like having a 35mm as a walk-around lens. I use the 24/2.8 for this on the A33 and the Color-Skopar 35/2.5 on the Bessa R. On the OM’s I’d had a 35/2 which worked well. In A mount I have the DT 35/1.8 SAM which is a stunningly good little lens but it doesn’t cover full frame, there’s hard vignetting in the corners, I’ve also got a Super-Takumar 35/3/5 which is very good and extremely compact but slow, too slow for some of my uses (slow film in poor weather). What I needed was a 35mm in the f2-2.5 range which covers 35mm. The f1.4 options were all out, even the $500 Samyang was beyond the budget since the budget was essentially ‘What I could get for my OM 35/2). After some discussion on FredMiranda.com’s Alt Lens forum I’d settled on either the SMC Takumar 35/2 or the Carl Zeiss Jena 35/2.4, both in M42 mount and therefore easily adaptable to A mount. So I posted a want ad on Craigslist and Yu-Lin responded that he had a SMC Takumar complete with case & hood to trade, so he’s now got the OM 35/2 and I’ve got my 35mm itch scratched. This means my only real remaining hole in my film system is my lack of a good 85, and that will be solved by an 85/2.8 at some point (either the Sony or the very similar Contax after a Leitax conversion. Both are quite reasonably priced). Hopefully that will be funded by selling off the last of the OM stuff. (Comment on this)
Sunday, June 26th, 2011
11:12 am	Tilting at Windmills Contax 137MD, Zeiss Planar 1,7/50, Ilford HP5+ @ EI 3200 I’ve long had a thing for the Contax system. The bodies are interesting (if generally less than reliable) and the lenses are generally superb. I’ve owned a few bits of Contax gear over the years, a beat up 137MD, the 50/1.4 Planar, the 28-70 f3.5-4.5 zoom and I currently own a 50/1.7 Planar (that’s in pieces needing reassembly). I’ve also owned the Yashica FR and FX-3 Super as well as a ML 28/2.8 and DSB 50/1.8. To this day I regret selling off the 50/1.4, it remains my favourite lens at that focal length. I have to admit, I really didn’t like the Yashica stuff. The FR kinda sucked, being essentially a gimped RTS and the gimping showed, and the FX-3 lacked all the ergonomic improvements that made the other Cosina SLR’s such cheap gems (Improvements like the larger shutter release, the shutter lock built into the wind lever, the improved wind lever, the ergonomic grip, etc). The 28 was a dog while the DSB 50 performed well but unexceptionally, ironically the 28 was an ML series lens, Yashica’s higher-end line while the DSB line was their cheap budget stuff. The Contax kit I liked a lot better, I found it to be a great fit for me and I quite liked the ergonomics of the 137MD. Unfortunately I seem to have the same curse with Contax/Yashica gear as I do with Canon. Every body I had except the cheapest and crappiest ended up failing on me. This actually even crossed over to my Canon curse as the last Canon I owned was purchased specifically to use with the 50/1.4 Planar I so loved. That body, an EOS A2, ended up eating a battery every couple days which is a real issue on an electronic camera which takes $15 batteries. On another side of things I’m still seriously ambivalent about my OM stuff. I really liked the OM2000 and 50/1.8 MiJ combo I used to own and I’m quite liking the OM 24/2.8. But the rest of my current OM stuff comes down to like but not love. The ergonomics of the bodies are OK and while I really like the front-mounted aperture rings on the lenses the optical performance of both the 50/1.4 and 35/2 are merely good. Frankly it’s a system I could live with but not one I’ll ever love the way I love my Minolta kit. Which begs the question of ‘Why keep it’. I could just get a Maxxum 5 as my light carry camera, I had one briefly and quite liked it, only a failed AF drive caused me to return it. But even then I’m dealing with a viewfinder that’s not up to spec. I did like the size and the fact there’s a whole lot of camera packed into a tiny package (the 5 is extremely highly specified for its class, with 1/4000 max shutter, 1/125 sync, 9 point AF with a cross sensor, 3fps winder and a large for its class OVF). And of course Minolta kit allows me to use M42 lenses, which you can’t on OM. So to summarize, I want/need a compact SLR kit for use when the Maxxum 7′s are just too big/conspicuous. The system should be comprehensive, but I would only be looking at having a small selection of primes (28, 35, 50 and 85/100) and would prefer to be able to use my M42 lenses as well on it. Which brings me back to the Contax system. There’s a good selection of compact bodies from Contax, especially the Aria. I already know I love the glass. M42 lenses are readily adaptable using a Pentax-style adapter which can be had even cheaper than the usual $8 adapters for A mount. The downside becomes the cost of entry. Assuming I can readily repair my 50/1.7 Planar (which is likely) I’d be able to fund a body and 1-2 lenses from selling my OM gear. Ideally I’d get an 85/2.8 and I’ve got my eye on a 139 Quartz body with a 45/2.8 pancake for a reasonably low cost. I could then use my Takumars for the wides until I am able to afford some more lenses. The other issue is even simpler, what if I decide I like the system too much? The RTSIII is remains the last camera on my ‘must own someday’ list and I’m a known sucker for Zeiss glass. In this case I’d probably just demote my Minolta kit to backup once I’m done with school and add an RTSIII and some higher-end glass to my system. Oh, and just because I’m perverse, the idea of using current Zeiss ZS lenses on an RTIII appeals to me. They’re readily adaptable, but limited in selection (25/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 only). Would be a fun setup to share between the Minolta kit and a hypothetical Contax setup. (Comment on this)
Saturday, June 18th, 2011
1:05 pm	Film Fads Olympus OM-4T, Zuiko MC 35mm f2, Portra 800 The one thing that worries me about film’s longevity is how much of the current film market is being driven by the ongoing fad for Toy Cameras which is being driven to a great extent by Lomography et al. While I know several superb photographers doing work in this vein, most of the core of this genre is being driven by popularity-driven twenty-something hipsters with a love for anything lo-fi and cheap and eventually they’ll die out as the core market shifts to the next big scene. I’m not going to comment here on the aesthetic but rather the simple issue the eventual death of the fad has for film shooters. That issue isn’t what I normally see acknowledged. It isn’t availability of new film cameras since they’re shooting cameras that most of the film world doesn’t bother with anyways and it isn’t a drop in film sales as aside from Lomography, essentially nobody is selling them fresh film as shooting expired film, especially E-6 for cross-processing is a core part of the lo-fi aesthetic. The issue is labs. Once the fad dies film processing labs are going to see another drop in film processing. And that’s going to kill even more of the already beleaguered minilabs. The minilab business is already pretty marginal, most serious film shooters deal with pro labs, either local or mail order, in order to avoid the risks of having undertrained staff processing film via questionably maintained minilab machines. The disposable market is drying up as cameraphones kill it off and the only people shooting consumer style anymore on film are senior citizens. That really leaves the terminally cheap, kids just getting started shooting and hipsters using the minilabs. The loss of hipsters will put a lot of these labs out of business. The plus side is that this will be good for pro labs, they’ll pick up the remnants of the minilab market which can’t hurt their bottom line. But while that’s good for me, Pro labs tend to be rather much more expensive, especially if you want scans. Cheap minilabs and their low-rez scans are a lot more affordable for a kid on a limited budget. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, June 15th, 2011
9:00 am	More Film Musings Minolta Maxxum 7, 70-210 f4 ‘Beercan’, Ilford Delta 100 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 One of these days I’m going to need to organize my various posts on film use and why I find myself preferring to shoot film in an increasingly digital world. That day is not today, so here comes more of my semi-organized film musings. I’ve pretty much settled that I’m giving up on cheap consumer C41 colour film. It’s simply not worth the hassle if I’m going to shoot quality glass and care at all about IQ. I’ll be putting an order in to B&H or Adorama for 20-25 rolls of quality colour film as soon as it’s in the budget. Most likely I’ll be ordering 5 rolls each of Portra 160 and Pro 160NS, 10 rolls of Portra 400 and 5 rolls of Portra 800. I may add 10 rolls of Ektar 100 if it fits into the budget. Yeah, when it comes to colour I’m pretty much a Kodak guy, looking through the archives shows the only Fujifilm colour films I really like are ProS/160S (now updated to 160NS) and ProZ/800Z and in the case of the latter I like the Portra better. Slide film is the other way around, I prefer Fujifilm to Kodak (although the late Agfa RSX is my true favourite slide film), once again there are Kodak films I like (E100VS, E100GX) but I could shoot nothing but Provia 100F and be happy in terms of E-6. As to camera gear, I’m sticking with Minolta/Sony. There’s no point in bouncing around systems anymore, I’ve shot them all, none are perfect but long-term the Minolta kit seems to fit my needs best. I frankly love my 7′s, best AF camera’s I’ve owned or used (and I’ve owned an F100 and an EOS 3 and used F5′s, F6′s and EOS 1′s). The OM’s remain a quandary. Love the size, love the results, the cameras themselves are nice but a little rough around the edges. Frankly if Leitax did an OM-Sony mount conversion it would be a no-brainer, I’d mod my 24/2.8 and 35/2 and sell the OM bodies and the 50/1.4 (which is nice, but if I was going to have a 3rd 50/1.4 for my Minolta kit it would be a Planar, I still regret selling my Contax Planar f1.4 MM) then I’d replace them with a Maxxum 5 or 70. This summer seems to be turning out to be the antithesis of last summer in terms of camera use. I’m not shooting a lot of MF, it’s mostly 35mm instead. On the flip side I’m on the bike a lot more and the bike doesn’t play terribly well with hauling MF kit so that plays into it a lot. The 7′s are seeing the most use and Minolta is poised to become the second most shot with brand in my records for 35mm as I’ve surpassed 60 rolls with the Minolta kit (Pentax is at 64 rolls, Nikon is way ahead at 171 rolls recorded although the Nikon count is known to be low due to poor record keeping prior to 2007). I expect to break 100 rolls on the Minolta counter by the end of the summer. I’ve been looking through the various threads on the Alt Lens & Gear forum at fredmiranda.com of late. This has driven some thought to rendering style, specifically with regards to lenses. I’ve long known that I don’t much like how Canon lenses render and that I do like how Zeiss lenses render but I’ve dug through a bunch of examples and have been able to pretty much decide that I’m ambivalent on Nikon and Pentax rendering, very much like Minolta rendering in colour and Zuiko rendering in B&W and I’ve got a fair dislike for how Leica lenses render, they just seem flat compared to Zeiss lenses. Rendering style is more important to me than absolute lens performance,the Leica’s show that. I’ll take a good lens with a rendering style I like over a world-beating lens with a style I’m less fond of (Yes, this means I’d much rather shoot my Sony 50/1.4 than a Summilux ASPH 50/1.4, even if I was given the latter). (Comment on this)
Tuesday, June 14th, 2011
10:55 am	Medium Format at 200 (Rolls) Mamiya 645 Super, 80mm f1.9 C, Kodak TMax 400 (TMY2) Yesterday I shot my 200th roll of medium format film, it was a roll of expired Fujifilm SuperHG 100, the predecessor to Reala and was the last of 5 rolls I shot yesterday. The other rolls were PanF+, Scala, HP5+ and TMY2, all shot earlier in the day. At this point approximately 1/4 of the film I’ve shot since I started seriously shooting (and tracking usage) has been on 120 or 220 and the majority of that (124 of 200) rolls have been through the 645 Super. Medium format is pretty clearly what I prefer shooting when all is said & done. I still find the Maxxum 7′s to be a little nicer to actually shoot with but a lot of that is simply that they’re smaller, lighter, quieter and thus less hassle to work with. But given the results I pretty much always wish I’d hauled the 645 Super instead once I’m processing the scans. The problems with actually shooting the 645 Super come down to the following: 1. Too much to haul. My 645 system is all prime based, to haul reasonable coverage means 3 lenses & 2 backs for general use and 4 lenses & 4 backs for serious work. And I don’t really have a good bag solution for either, both bags I use for the MF kit don’t allow me to stick the body in the bag. The solution here is to replace my current bags, one with a sling bag capable of hauling the body, 2 lenses, spare backs/inserts and the other capable of hauling the full system plus room for the desired expansions to the system. The former won’t be a huge issue, it’s just a case of spending a hundred or so and doing some comparison shopping. The latter is a long-term acquisition plan, if only for the fact that such bags tend to go for $3-400. 2. No wides or close-focus options. The 55mm is a great lens but not all that wide and none of my lenses focus all that closely. I really need to add a 35 and the 120 Macro at some point. I’d also like a 50 shift and the 200/2.8 APO to round out the system, but those are long-term goals. Need to get the filter ring on my 55 repaired as well since it’s badly dented. 3. Fairly primitive body. As much as I like my 645 Super, the body’s fairly primitive. The biggest limitations for me are in terms of shutter speed, (4-1/1000) and the metering/exposure compensation system which is fiddly and can’t be adjusted while looking through the viewfinder. Also the body is effectively incompatible with digital backs. Long-term solution here is to transition to the 645AF system, most likely with an AFDII or AFDIII to maximize compatibility. The big wins by that are the extra shutter speeds, especially the slow speeds between 4 seconds and 30 seconds that the Super lacks, and the ability to set exposure compensation easily while looking through the viewfinder. Compatibility with digital backs and the newer D series lenses from Mamiya & PhaseOne are a bonus. This could be done relatively cheaply since my 645 lenses are usable in stop-down mode on the AF bodies (same mount, different meter coupling) and I could replace the 55 and 150 reasonably cheaply, my 80 and 300 have no direct equivalents though so I’d probably keep them. I’d also need new backs & inserts though. If I did this I’d probably end up selling off the 645 Super, my backs & inserts and the 55 and 150 to help fund the upgrade. This won’t happen until I’m out of school and have a proper full-time job again. 4. Super backs wearing out. All three of my Super backs are well used, I’ve recently had to retire one of them due to wear. The solution here is to replace them slowly with better condition Pro backs as I find deals on them. 5. The Super itself is wearing out. I’ve put 124 rolls through it and it wasn’t exactly new when I got it. The long-term solution is to move to the 645AF system, but I could easily augment my system with a bare Pro or ProTL body. I could then either sell off the Super with my spare prism & winder and recover the cost or keep it as a backup until I move to the 645AF system. Long term, MF is where I want to be for my serious work. As much as I do like the Minolta kit, it’s never going to deliver the same quality as MF and even if I went to a FF digital option I’d be lagging what I could get with judicious rentals and a 645AF system. And once you’re looking at FF digital you’re looking at gear weights which are comparable to MF. I’d much rather haul a 645 and 3 primes than a FF DSLR and a high-end f2.8 zoom that weigh about the same. I’ll keep the Minolta stuff, I like working with it and for some uses 35mm is just the right choice but 645 is simply my preferred format to work in. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Sunday, June 12th, 2011
10:20 am	New Toys Announced Sony A33, DT 35mm f1.8, ISO 100, 1/400, f8 Sony’s announced a couple things in the last week, the A35, NEX-C3 and an E mount 30mm f3.5 Macro. In true Sony fashion the bodies won’t ship for 2 months and the lens may not arrive until October. Sony really needs to get their announce to ship time reduced to something realistic. The A35′s interesting, overall it’s less camera than the A33 was, losing the flip/twist LCD and the 7fps burst mode in favour of a 7 fps 2x crop burst mode a la Nikon D2x, which stresses the processing chain less. It gains an updated variant of the A55′s sensor with longer record times for HD Video and a lower price point. This pretty much solves the real differentiation issue between the A33 and A55, which were too close in feature set and in price. It should sell reasonably well, especially if Sony gets aggressive on the price curve. The NEX-C3 is a little different, it takes the NEX-3, drops the same sensor in as the A35 and shrinks the whole thing even more. Should sell well but it doesn’t solve any of the fundamental issues of the NEX series for serious photographers, they’re still problematic in terms of UI. Sony needs a higher-end NEX with standard controls. The 30/3.5 Macro is an interesting choice for a second prime in the system. It’s well positioned to consumers but only increases the idea that the system is lacking lenses suited to serious use as the 16mm is the only lens in the system likely to see any use by a more serious user. I’d still buy an A mount Macro and the E-A adapter instead, or maybe a cheap manual focus macro. Without IS (unlike the PanaLeica 45/2.8 OIS Macro) there’s little reason to buy a native macro lens when a Micro-Nikkor 55/2.8 can be had with adapter for $150 and is both faster and likely superior optically. The good news is it’ll be cheap and likely pretty good nonetheless. Tomorrow sees a new set of announcements from Panasonic. The GF3 and Leica 25mm f1.4. The GF3 shows that Panasonic still doesn’t understand why the GF2 was so much less successful than the GF1. The GF3 is essentially a GF2 in a smaller package, but the problem with the GF2 was that Panasonic moved hard controls into menu options, not that it was too large. I expect the GF3 will sell well in Japan and not so well elsewhere, much like the GF2 did. The Leica 25 is essentially the replacement for the 4/3rds version in m4/3 mount. Like it’s 4/3rds sibling it remains the only fully native lens that can be considered fast (the Voigtlander Nokton 25/0.95 is a fully manual lens in a m4/3 mount without any coupling). It will sell well but no doubt it will have supply issues as is typical for Panasonic. The end of the month should see some new stuff from Olympus, with an E-P3 and possibly a new E-PL body as well and maybe some lenses (that 12mm possibly?). Should be interesting. The Pen Pro doesn’t seem to be coming yet though and that’s what Olympus really needs to get a serious bit of uptake in the market. July 7 brings the big guns from Sony. The A77, possibly a second SLT body, a normal f2.8 zoom for APS-C (possibly a Zeiss), and the NEX-7 and Zeiss 24/1.7 for E mount. This is the make or break launch for Sony, if the A77 underwhelms then A mount is in serious distress. But Sony’s reputed to be coming in very aggressively for the A77, with expected pricing similar to a 60D and expected performance specs exceeding anything in APS-C currently (24MP, ISO range up north of 100,000, 7-10 fps). Nobody’s sure about the rest of the announcements aside from the fact that the 500mm lens is pushed back yet again. Afew people have noted that we had solid leaks on the A77 and the A35/NEX-C3/30/3.5 Macro before launch so why not on the rest? That’s pretty simple, the A35 & Co were supposed to be launched the first week in April, the launch was pushed back due to the earthquake & tsunami in Japan, we had no solid info on these products prior to the originally scheduled launch. The A77 is something that Sony knew they needed to keep blood in the water on as the A700 replacement should have been here a year ago (and I suspect Sony had one, but killed it to go SLT with a groundbreaking body instead of something that was essentially a 16MP A700). I expect we’ll start to see firm rumours on the rest of the announcements starting the last week in June. The NEX-7 is most likely the A77′s imaging chain in a higher-end NEX body. Hopefully it gets a proper set of controls and a flip/twist LCD. Oh, and Samsung’s supposed to launch a bunch of new NX stuff in mid-July. Nobody will care despite an increasingly good lens lineup. Samsung needs a competitive sensor and some buzz. The lack of adaptability of RF lenses kills the alt-community buzz which has been so beneficial for both Micro 4/3rds and NEX and the lousy sensor kills the rest of the buzz from the serious photographer community. Sorry Samsung, but there’s no there there, you need the word of mouth advertising from serious photographers to build any real momentum for your lineup despite a collection of nice bodies and lenses. That takes a sensor which is at least competitive and you currently don’t have it and nobody believes that your new sensor will be any more comparable to the performance of the current 16MP CMOS and the upcoming 24MP CMOS Sony sensors than your 14MP sensor was compared to Sony’s 12 and 14MP CMOS sensors. (Comment on this)
Saturday, June 11th, 2011
9:45 pm	More Digital IQ Musings Sony A33, DT 35mm 1.8, ISO 100, 1/500, f4 One thing that had completely skipped my mind when I was considering the question of why I’d become less satisfied with the IQ I was getting with digital when I switched from the E-30 to the K-x was the issue of the RAW Converter I was using. Partway through the K-x’s run I switched from using Capture One 5 to Lightroom 3 to get access to the far superior DAM capabilities of Lightroom. This happened just before I finally got a good normal zoom for the K-x. I’ve continued to use LR3 to process all of the files I got from the A33 as well as PhaseOne hadn’t updated CaptureOne’s support for Sony cameras since the A550 was released. The early lack of satisfaction with the K-x is probably entirely due to the DA II 18-55, a decent but not outstanding lens which was my go-to lens for low ISO shooting until I got the Tamron 17-50. Ever since PhaseOne finally added support for the 2010 class of Sony bodies in C1 6.2 and thus my A33 was finally supported by C1, I’ve been meaning to try it as it’s got some interesting new features and there’s some capabilities that I’ve really missed while using Lightroom. So I downloaded and installed the 30 day evaluation copy of C1 6.2 and decided to start playing with it on some of my recent low-ISO work with the A33. And it looks like I’ve found the missing piece in my IQ puzzle. There’s not a huge difference between the C1 and LR3 output, but it is there and is visible when I compare the two. Colour is the most notable aspect, in C1 it’s more subtle and finer graduated, LR3 has a more ‘plastic’ look to the output, which reminds me more of Canon than Sony/Minolta. Also noise is better handled, something I’d noticed quite clearly in the move from C1 5 to LR3, I’m still mystified on how the consensus that LR3′s NR beats C1′s came about, my experience is that the opposite is true and by a fair margin even before you factor in C1′s better control over its NR. This pretty much means that I’m going to be getting an upgrade to C1 6.2, the Pro version this time as many of the other advantages of C1 are only in the Pro version (most notably local adjustments, B&W conversions and Lens Corrections). And what of the aspect that drove me to LR3 in the first place, DAM? Well I’ve gotten to know LR well enough that I can integrate C1 into LR3 pretty well in terms of DAM thanks to my extensive use of LR3 to process TIFF format film scans. I’m just going to be treating my RAW files more like scans from now on. LR3 will remain the cataloguing & uploading app, but most of the processing will move to C1 and C1 will simply output 16bit TIFF’s to a subfolder of the day’s shooting folder which will get folder sync’d in LR3. I may at some point alter that to better support C1′s sorting for at the front of the queue editing, but I really need to read up more on how C1 handles things like Sessions first, not to mention my current workflow may break C1′s assumptions on the archiving side of things. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 31st, 2011
4:27 pm	Just a Few Thoughts Mamiya 645 Super, 55mm f2.8 N, Fujifilm Velvia 50 I finally got a chance to play with the much anticipated Fujifilm X100. Nice little camera if you can live with AF. MF is unusable but AF is fine. OVF and EVF both pretty good, almost silent and good ergonomics. Essentially it’s the modern Hexar AF in classic Leica-style clothing. Not really my thing but a very good camera in its own way. Been shooting with the 7′s and the OM’s lately. The OM’s are working well as a light carry kit while the 7′s are handling more heavyweight work well. Haven’t had the Mamiya out much of late. Biggest reason for this is wides, I’ve got them in 35mm, not so much in MF where my widest lens is a 55mm (roughly a 35-40mm equivalent on 35mm). I’ve also been shooting zooms on the 7′s a fair bit, the 24-105/70-210 combo works pretty well. (Comment on this)
Monday, May 23rd, 2011
10:39 am	500px Mamiya M645, 80mm f2.8 C, Fujifilm Velvia 50, Pano crop Like somewhere around half the serious Flickr community I’ve recently discovered 500px, a (sorta) new and growing photo sharing site. They actually predate Flickr but relaunched a completely revised site back in 2009 and have been steadily growing since then. The site is oriented more towards serious photographers than Flickr and as such will no doubt remain a much smaller community. This is not necessarily a bad thing and the work I’ve been seeing so far is quite strong. They also offer some features Flickr lacks, like blogs, Portfolios and direct domain links. I’ve set up my own account, Mawz there and am exploring it. There’s a good chance that I may replace this site with a 500px ‘Awesome’ account, which is their term for a paid account. Right now I’m simply sticking to uploading a selection of my better Medium Format work over there. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 21st, 2011
11:46 am	IQ Concerns in 35mm & Digital Minolta Maxxum 7, A 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 (D) with Circular Polarizer, Fujifilm Provia 100F 35mm Colour’s been a struggle for me ever since I got my first DSLR back in September 2005. Simply put the results never quite justified the cost or effort. Coincidentally over 50% of the 35mm colour neg I’ve shot has been Superia 400 or 800. Coincidence? It appears not. Yesterday I was scanning in the most recent rolls of C-41 I’ve shot, one each of Ektar, Portra 800 and Superia 400. Comparing the Superia 400 to the Portra 800, both of them shot in similar circumstances, ie walkabout and a mix of cityscape & greenery, the Portra simply demolished the Superia despite being a stop faster and out of its designed element(which is skin tones). Portra 800 delivered far superior colour and dynamic range and similar resolution & grain. This indicates to me that I need to stop using cheap consumer film. The downside to that is cost, Portra is $10-11/roll here in Toronto, Superia runs $4-6/roll. However if I start ordering from the US I’m looking at $5-6/roll for Portra. And given that I can get Arista Premium 400 for less than $3/roll from Freestyle that means that I wouldn’t have to bulk-load anymore either. Continuing on the subject of IQ, I spent some time spelunking through the digital archives recently. And I’ve discovered that it’s not so much digital that I’ve got issues with in terms of IQ, despite what I was thinking earlier, but rather my last couple cameras. While both the K-x and A33 have been delivering the goods at ISO 800 and above the results I’ve been getting at low ISO’s have not been up to what the K10D, D300 or E-30 delivered. Some of this may well be glass, I definitely was using less than impressive zooms on the K-x and A33 (my couple months with the Tamron 17-50 on the K-x excepted). That said, I still do prefer the rendering of film but I was entirely happy with the low-ISO results I had from the E-30 and I can’t say the same for the A33 and K-x. At this point I’m not sure what’s missing. Microcontrast is part of it, as is lens performance in general as none of the A mount zooms I own is a match for the ZD 14-54 or Nikkor 16-85, or frankly even close on high-MP APS-C. The 24-105 and 70-210/4 do well on film but even there they start to show limitations when pushed outside their f8-11 comfort zones. The 18-55 is decent, great colour but average resolution. The prime side is better, all four of my A mount primes are good performers. But there I’ve got nothing wider than 24mm until I get my Adaptall 17/3.5 repaired and there really aren’t any good wide options if you want APS-C primes and don’t shoot Pentax (oh for the 14/2.8 or 15/4 in A mount). I’d considered shifting systems, my usual response to a lack of satisfaction. The question then would be what system. Pentax is out, they simply don’t offer the right lenses in the ever-important wide/normal-short tele prime range. That’s too bad because the K-5 is one flip/twist LCD away from perfection. Nikon offers the native lenses I’d want but I can’t adapt my M42 or OM lenses to it. Canon offers adaptation and a flip/twist LCD in the 60D, but with IQ issues inherent to the sensor (I’m not a fan of Canon’s 18MP sensor) and I don’t care about video. And in all of those cases I’d be needed to buy lenses which couldn’t be funded entirely by selling off my Sony/Minolta system (and runs into the problem that I’m almost entirely satisfied by the Maxxum 7′s and would very much rather not sell them). So the plan seems to be to try and get a good wide/normal zoom for the A33, ideally the ZA DT 16-80. May have to look at selling the OM kit to finance that. I’ve got a nice kit there but getting a sane setup for the Sony/Minolta system matters more. In the future adding the 70-300G and a UWA zoom (probably the Sigma 10-20/3.5 HSM) would round out the APS-C kit. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Friday, May 20th, 2011
9:15 am	On The Way to High Park Minolta Maxxum 7, A 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 (D), Kodak Ektar 100 (Comment on this)
Tuesday, May 17th, 2011
8:00 am	Just an Amateur Mamiya 645 Super, 55mm f2.8 N, Fujifilm Velvia 50 I’ve been reading through David Duchemin’s eBook Vision is Better and he’s made a few comments about how Amateur Photographer’s shouldn’t consider themselves any lower than a Professional Photographer. And he’s got a serious point. It is quite common for Amateurs to indicate that they see Professionals as being above them, or at least of higher status and it just isn’t true. A Professional is someone who makes a decent chunk of their yearly income by taking pictures for clients. That’s it, that’s all. They aren’t necessarily better photographers. Some are brilliant photographers, some make a ten year old kid with a disposable look like Annie Liebowitz. Most are average to good in output and a lot of that is simply practice. Shoot a lot, edit your own stuff and you will get better, whether or not you’re getting paid to do so. Personally, I’m an Amateur Photographer. I don’t get paid to take pictures although I occasionally get compensated for picture taking, usually in terms of beer or free admission. I also (very) occasionally sell a print. This isn’t because I’m unable to make money doing photography, I regularly get offered paid gigs and just as regularly turn them down or direct them to a Pro of the right sort. I don’t get paid to shoot because I’m fundamentally uninterested in getting paid to shoot. I shoot for my own benefit, it’s a catharsis and an escape for me. As I often joke, I do photography because it’s cheaper than a shrink. And quite frankly I’ve lost all my love for at least one hobby by getting paid to do it, I’d hate to have that happen with Photography as well. The only aspect to making money with photography I’d ever consider is print sales, because that is existentially disconnected from the shooting portion of Photography. You can buy the results, but the shooting? that’s driven by me and only me. Does this make me better or worse than a Professional? Neither. Different? sure. Heck, I’m probably even a little bit out there by Amateur standards since so many Amateurs would just love to get paid to shoot. So I’m an Amateur, no Just about it. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, May 16th, 2011
8:00 am	Grenadier Pond Mamiya 645 Super, 150mm f3.5 C, Fujifilm Velvia 50 (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 15th, 2011
9:00 am	Workflow Minolta Maxxum 7, 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 (D) with Red 25 filter, Ilford Delta 100 stand developed in Rodinal 1:100 Digital shooters often talk about their workflow, the standardized series of steps they perform to take the image from the camera to the print or online post. Film users don’t generally talk about workflow as much but it’s equally important. Personally, while I shoot film primarily, my post-production is as purely digital as possible, I do not do wet prints at all aside from occasional experimentation. IN this post I’m going to cover my film workflow from removing the roll from the camera through print/posting. I shoot to a maximum of 35 exposures on film to keep all rolls down to a single sheet of storage sleeves. 6×7 goes to 9 shots on 120 for the same reason (all 645 and 24exp rolls of 35mm don’t have an issue here). 220 rolls take 2 sheets of course. Once film is removed from the camera it goes into a dedicated pocket in my pants, normally the left cargo pocket. Once shooting is done, all colour film goes to Downtown Camera, my lab of choice. B&W film gets marked with camera and EI in terms of stops from nominal ISO (ie ISO 400 film shot at EI1600 in a Maxxum 7 gets labeled ‘M7 +2′). I then update my shooting spreadsheet which tracks rolls by camera, emulsion and year/month. B&W rolls go into the developing queue in the kitchen and then are developed. Colour rolls are picked up from DC. Note I have all colour rolls returned uncut and all E-6 is unmounted for ease in scanning/storage. The next step is scanning. All 35mm is scanned with my Minolta Scan Dual IV, all 120 & larger is handled my Epson 4870, using a Betterscanning.com holder & ANR insert for 120/220 and the stock Epson holders for my rare 4×5 forays. Scanning is driven by Vuescan 9 x64. Normally all film is cut into strips of 5 exposures (less for formats larger than 645) and batch-scanned. I don’t do serious tweaking at the scanning stage but rather concentrate on getting a good basic scan and tweaking in post. A note now on filesystem organization. I’ve got two basic systems for organization, a legacy of poor storage techniques. All 35mm colour work gets organized as follows: Filenames are Cxxx-camera-film-xxx.tif where the first set of xxx’s is the index and the second set is the frame number. Slide film replaces the starting C with S and only has a 2 digit index. Files go into a directory of the form Colour Roll xxx, where xxx is again the Index number. Slide replaces Colour for slide film. These directories are in the To Be Worked/35mm folder until they’ve been fully processed. They are subsequently archived to Scans/35mm/Colour/Colour Rolls xxx-xxx with the last directory holding 25 roll directories. once again substitute slide for colour for slide film. For 35mm B&W and all 120/220 everything is tracked by emulsion. So filenames are Emulsion-Rxx-camera-xxx.tif where the first xx is the index number and the second is the frame number. Note that Fuji emulsions will usually have the name for C41 and the code for E-6. (IE Fujicolor 160S will be listed as 160S, but Fujichrome Astia 100 will be RAP) Directories are of the form Emulsion Roll xx, they’re placed in the To Be Worked/35mm folder for 35mm B&W and the To Be Worked/MF folder for 120/220 Once fully processed they get archived like the 35mm Colour and Slide, any emulsion with more than 25 rolls gets subdirectories for each 25 rolls which hold the roll directories, additionally all of the emulsion directories are held in a manufacturer directory. So for example, the 95th roll of Kodak Tri-X in 35mm is held in Scans/35mm/BW/Kodak/Tri-X/Tri-X Rolls 76-100/Tri-X Roll 95. For MF, sorting is a little different in the Archives. Emulsion directories go into the manufacturer directory normally. If there’s more than 3 rolls of a given Emulsion family they get a family subdirectory, if there’s more than 4 rolls of an emulsion, it gets an emulsion subdirectory. So the 7th roll of Velvia 50 will be in Scans/MF/Slide/Fuji/Velvia/Velvia 50/Velvia 50 Roll 7. All images are in a Lightroom Library. There are 5 Libraries, 2 for Digital, 1 for 35mm, 1 for MF and 1 for incidentals including LF shots. The splits are for performance reasons, overly large LR Libraries are slow. Once each strip is scanned, the frames are imported into Lightroom. Once the full roll is scanned it’s then keyworded and edited. Frames to be processed are Flagged. Once the frame selection pass is done the Flagged images are filtered and editing is done. At a minimum this is spotting and sharpening, but any necessary editing may be done. I’m not against serious editing of images although I tend to post-process lightly. After editing the image gets a Star rating, a Title and Description and is added to the Upload collection and unflagged. Once all images that have been flagged are edited the Roll directory gets moved to the Archives from the To Be Worked directory. Flickr uploads are selected from the Upload collection and uploaded via the Jeffery’s Uploader plugin. Once uploaded they get a colour rating and are removed from the Upload collection. Prints are selected from the final edits (Starred) and printed directly from Lightroom to my Epson R2400, usually on Harmann Baryta paper. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 14th, 2011
10:02 am	Comparisons Mamiya 645 Super, 55mm f2.8 N, Fujifilm Velvia 50 Since I’m a multi-system/multi-format shooter, currently shooting Mamiya 645 MF, Minolta AF 35mm, Olympus OM 35mm and Sony APS-C Digital, I get a chance to regularly compare the systems I use both in terms use in the field and in the results I get from them. I’m not going to touch on the digital stuff as I don’t really use it for the same things I use the film kit for. Digital is used for event work, bars, school and general support shooting, film is used for serious work. In the field, the the Minolta’s win clearly, followed by the OM and Mamiya stuff. The Minolta’s have the best handling, the most capability, and the best system range (ie I own more lenses over a wider range of focal lengths). The Mamiya is second in handling, but big & heavy. The OM’s are a little small and fiddly. In terms of results, the Mamiya wins by an even larger margin. the quality possible from 645 is an order of magnitude better than 35mm given equivalent quality of equipment. The Minolta’s and OM’s are tied here, they give differing results but are about even in quality. Frankly I like the Minolta colour better and the OM B&W better. This is frankly what drives a lot of my bouncing about over system rationalization. If hauling the Mamiya stuff around wasn’t a pain I’d just dump 35mm entirely and buy a few more 645 lenses. If I could get 645 quality from my 35mm kit I’d sell off the Mamiya kit. Realistically I probably should cut one of the 35mm systems. The Minolta stuff is around as much because of the Sony digital kit as anything else, but since I do use most of the Minolta lenses on the Sony, I’d be inclined to keep it. The OM stuff is around because of size, I do need small film stuff on a regular basis and I’m too much of a SLR type to stick to my small RF kit for that. As to the Mamiya kit, I’ll admit I regularly think about moving up in the MF world. I really did enjoy working with 6×7 last summer and regret getting rid of the 6×7 even though it did make sense at the time (and frankly, still does). The issue here becomes which system?. RB/RZ is out, too damned big & heavy. Hasselblad & Bronica SQ doesn’t get me anything more than 645 once I crop down to rectangular. That pretty much leaves Pentax 6×7 and Bronica GS-1. While I really did enjoy the Pentax, the Bronica is at least equally tempting and it has a few features like removable backs that the Pentax lacks (and I’d really miss). And of course I could always go with a 4×5 field camera, 2-3 lenses and some roll-film backs. That would get me the ability to use sheet film as well when I needed it, a smaller & lighter kit than a larger MF SLR and keeps the ability to use 120 film when needed. (Comment on this)
Thursday, May 12th, 2011
12:00 pm	The Trifecta Voigtlander Bessa R, Nikkor-S.C 5cm f1.4 LTM, long-expired Fujifilm Press 800 (Superia 800) In the last week I’ve had the chance to do a reasonable amount of shooting with all three of my systems in a short space of time. It’s really reinforced my opinions of each system. Mamiya 645 Super: I do like working with the system, it handles well, fits my style and delivers the goods. But it’s limited in flexibility, mostly due to my lacking a real wide and a good close-focusing/macro option. Need to add the 35 and the 120 Macro at some not-too-distant point. Oh, and it weighs a ton when hauling the full kit. I need a better solution than a shoulder bag, especially if I plan to add 2 more large & heavy primes. Minolta Maxxum: Wonderful ergonomics on the 7′s, so capable I often forget it can do some things (I wish I’d remembered about STF mode yesterday). The VC-7 grip is growing on my (and is welded onto one of my 7′s now due to a broken battery door). I’ve got a good basic selection of lenses covering most of my needs and the lenses are great. Still would like to add a short tele prime, a good 28 and a native ultra-wide. But I can safely say that if I was to sell off everything and cut down to a single system, this would be it. And frankly, that is something that does tempt me on occasion. And it’s invisible, the 645′s a real conversation-starter at times but the 7′s just look like another DSLR, right down to the LCD on the back. Olympus OM’s. Nice bodies, awesome glass. Shooting with the OM’s is always a case of ‘they’re nice, but’. I get along with the bodies alright but I’m not sold on them. Really do like the results though. I’d want to add a short tele prime to the system and a 28 for when the 24′s just too wide. Overall I can’t help but think that maybe I should be looking at getting one of the better super-compact late Maxxum bodies (the 5 or the 70) to replace the OM’s and then sell the OM’s to fund some more Maxxum kit (probably a 85/2.8 and a 28/2.8). It would cut down on systems. I have (and love) the A mount 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 and while I think the OM 24′s a bit better than the Minolta, the Sony 50/1.4′s definitely better than the OM. (Comment on this)
Sunday, May 8th, 2011
11:06 am	A Couple Gems Olympus OM-1, Zuiko 24mm f2.8, Kodak Tri-X 400 in Rodinal 1:25 The little OM’s are starting to grow on me. When I had the OM2000 my general response to it was that it was nice but not worth grabbing over the nearly identical FM10 which I owned at the same time (and had a better selection of glass for). But when I actually got around to processing and scanning the film shot with the OM2000 I was much more impressed, the little Zuiko 50/1.8 was quite an excellent little lens. The same thing seems to be happening with the OM-1 and OM-4T I got late last year. The bodies are nice but not something that grabs me right away, especially since both my bodies are in moderately rough shape. But I was scanning in a roll of Tri-X from the OM-1 that I’d finished off on Friday and I was blown away by how good the results are. I was expecting good things from the stuff shot with my Zuiko 24/2.8 as it’s a known gem and I have a good copy of it, but my Zuiko 50/1.4 is a very early model, in rough shape and somewhat lacking in wide-open performance based on the view through the viewfinder. I was pleasantly surprised by how well it performed stopped down though, the results were every bit as good as the 24 or the 50/1.8 I foolishly sold with the OM2000. Overall, yes it is all about the glass, and the OM Zuiko’s deliver. Which also makes me miss the Oly E-30 I had for a while,not for the body which was merely nice, but for the outstanding ZD 14-54 zoom which is easily the best zoom I’ve ever owned. I really do wish that the E-series stuff had fit my needs better because the glass was great, the higher-end bodies were nice and I still do prefer 4:3 to 3:2 as aspect ratio’s go. Makes me sort of wonder about getting an E-5 or the E-30 successor that Oly’s been hinting about after I graduate next year. I’m not about to get rid of my Sony/Minolta setup but once I’m back in a full-time job a full second system becomes viable and the Oly stuff does a lot well. And while I’m not really a zoom guy, the combo of a 11-22, 14-54 and 50-200 zooms with a PanaLeica 25/1.4 and the Oly 7-14/4 UWA would handle essentially all my needs outside of really low-light bar shooting and that need will mostly go away once I graduate. Going back to the OM stuff, I’ve got the 24 and 50 now, and of course I can use my Tamron Adaptall-2 stuff as well (man, I love the AD2 stuff for that reason. 1 adapter and any system becomes a full system with no more than a body and a normal prime). I’d like to add a 28 since the 24′s a little too wide for everyday use for me and a short tele. The 28′s are cheap ($100 or less) but the real question is which short tele do I want. Right now the 100/2.8′s winning, it’s cheap, good and small. The 85/2′s another option but a little pricier. (Comment on this)