I do think the 20D will go next. I know this seems drastic - and it might be useful for certain projects - but how often do they come along? Once a year? No, I think it's going to go. Lenses all stay. I still want to be able to shoot with the Canon SLR.
Other than that - continues to be busy for me (good!). Haven't been able to work on the book layout during the last two days. Still matting and packaging.
15 comments:
Are you going back to using only firm? Sounds a little drastic to me in view of the results that you have been getting from digital.
For me being able to see the shot immediately has acertain value.
Dave:
You're making me think about buying a developing tank, chemicals and getting back into developing film. Oh no, back to the dark bathroom to load the tanks, etc., the chemicals, the smells, my wife will kill me!!!!!Then scanning and going to digital to print.
All kidding aside, why is film better? Sometimes I think it is but all the work that can be done in Photoshop, etc. and also being able to see the image instantly after the shot causes me to do a lot of thinking. I don't know which is better?
Being an avid reader of your over the past year, tired of scanning my work, and seeing the inroads you have made over the past year; I find this current group of entries astounding.
Colour me surprised but not astounded. I've been spending a lot of time lately going through books and B&W sites (Martin Fuchs, Dave, Markus, etc) looking for the differences and what sets them apart. B&W street work has a "character" that digital doesn't have despite the plugins. I'm leaning towards an R3A (Leica is far too expensive, Zeiss Ikon isn't yet available and is probably too expensive though the lenses are reasonable, but the R3A is within reach.) As I've been leaning heavily towards film lately I'm not shocked that Dave is ahead of me. :)
My 2 favorite shots you have posted were taken on the Digi Rebel. It served you well:)dll
I would sell my D70 in a heart beat if not for my wife and daugther. They just love images fast and easy. My love of black & white has lead be right back to film since making the digital purchase. There is a special feeling I get from the process and results. I won't try to explain. Maybe it's an age thing? 50+
About two years ago I sold my first 10D and
did everything with film for some time (I do
some product photography and some events
or portraits from time to time).
For these high volume commercial applications
I prefer to use digital, due to it's advantages in
batch processing. It's a real time saver, opposed
to scanning. That said, I bought another 10D for
these jobs (I didn't like the feel and sound of the
20D)
soooo, if you really need a digital - they rent them
for $100/day at Adorama...
Oh Dave.....
This actually makes me happy seeing you write this. Now, no matter how all-over-the-place my photography decisions are, I get to point you out to my wife and say see, "someone's crazier than me!" :):):):) (She's a fan of yours too, btw).
TBH, I've even been toying with moving to film for some wedding work :0)
actually, this seems to fit in with your *scheduled* equipment change ?? About 2-3 years or so?
Heath - this is ahead of my equipment change schedule. Only one year since I picked up the A75, then the Rebel then the 20D.
I have a roll washing now. Still quite exciting to see what's on it.
Crazier than you - we'll have to compare equipment frequency changes :) I'm sure I have you beat.
Luke:
I have a R2. Bought it as a second body for my Leica M4-P. The R2 is great. Uses all the Leica M lenses and has a built in manual TTL meter. Also bought the Rapid Winder which is very cheap compared to the Leica or Abrahamsson Winder. Photo Village in NYC on Broadway carries thge Bessa cameras.
Craig, I was thinking of the R2 as well.
The R2 works well. The R2A and R3A are shutter priority automatic versions. They are nice cheap alternatives to Leica. I have a Leica M4-P which Sumicron 2.0 which I bought almost 20 years ago. At that time it was expensive, approx. $900 with the lens. I ended up buying 28 mm, 40mm and 90 mm Minolta lenses because Leica is just too expensive. The Minolta lenses work graet. They had been designed for the Leica and Minolta CL which was discontinued. I recently bought the Voigtlander 35mm wide angle. A nice small lens which is very sharp. The Bessa Rs are a good alternative to the expensive Leica bodies. The R2 cost me about $500 last year. The 2A/3A are about $550. Photo Village stocks the Bessa, so does B&H and Adorama.
Whew...what a flurry of blog replies. ;-)
Dave and I were going over camera stuff the other night - I was fondling his Konica Hexar Silver while talking details about my Hexar RFs (one of which I gave up my black Hexar AF to get). Other than possibly getting either a user M6 TTL or Milonlta CLE for non-motorized shooting, I haven't been happier with another pair of cameras.
If I were to buy a CV Bessa, It would be a 2a since it has 35mm framelines (as my Hexars do), and roughly similar VF magnification. And CV has that sweet -petite 35mm f/2.5.
Of course, since I'm busy saving up for that Epson 4800...
Forgot to mention: one reason to pick either a Bessa R2a or R3a over an older R2 is shutter noise: the R2, like the original LTM R, has a two-shutter system to prevent light leaks, which is likely largely responsible for the additional noise it makes. The R2a and R3a use a single (electronic) shutter which manages light-tight operation without the need to double-up.
Post a Comment