Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Another photo by Chris

Subject: Re: [OM] Another photo by Chris
From: John Hudson <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 07 Feb 2009 08:22:35 -0400
Claiming that a rangefinder is unsuitable for architectural work because one 
cannot see through the lens is spurious. Using the camera to focus upon any 
object in the scene involves moving the camera  unless of course one uses 
the depth of field markers on the lens itself. All your pre-exposure prep 
work could readily be done with with an SLR or a RF. The only variable of 
significance is the maximum lens aperture and that applies to both SLRs and 
RFs. I relied and still rely heavily on the accuracy of those depth of field 
markers ande have not come unstuck yet.

I have had very successful results using a rangefinder in tight 
architectural surroundings including Salisbury Cathedral,  Montreal' s 
Notre-Dame Basilica,  Ummayed Mosque in Damascus, and the Roman ruins at 
Baalbek in Lebanon.

jh

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Crawford" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Another photo by Chris


>I didn't even consider the Mamiya 7II. Rangefinders aren't suited to the
> kind of architecture work on a tripod that I do. To do the photo of that
> church, I focused first on the foreground, noted the distance, then 
> focused
> on the background and set focus in between and the appropriate aperture. I
> ended up with a 90 second exposure at f16. Hyperfocal focus like that with 
> a
> rangefinder is a PAIN because you can only focus in the middle of the 
> frame,
> which means taking it off the tripod. With the SLR I could compose then
> focus without moving the camera off the tripod or messing up my 
> composition
> to check focus. Rangefinder frames aren't accurate enough for that kind of
> work too.
>
> Rangefinders are great for candid stuff, but with f4 max. aperture on the
> standard lens, no thanks. I regularly do low light work with my OM-4T and
> 50/1.4 at f1.4, 2, and 2.8 and I did so when testing the Bessa Rangefinder 
> I
> was given. I have an f1.7 lens on it and will use it often near wide open
> for low light when it comes back from repair. I think the Bessa is gonna 
> get
> A LOT of use, I really like it for candid work!
>
> The M7II is rather disgustingly overpriced for something so mechanically
> simple compared to a Hasselblad, which costs about the same for a basic
> system (body, lens, back, finder) as a Mamiya 7II with 80mm. The lenses 
> are
> said to be very sharp, but still Zeiss lenses are too and are often 
> cheaper.
>
>
> -- 
> Chris Crawford
> Fine Art Photography
> Fort Wayne, Indiana
> 260-747-3962
>
> http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio
>
> http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!
>
>
>
> On 2/6/09 8:16 PM, "John Hudson" <OM4T@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> How would the Mamiya R7II medium format range finder camera system 
>> compare
>> with the Hassy system in terms of usability, lens quality, output and
>> general appeal ?
>>
>> jh
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chris Crawford" <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OM] Another photo by Chris
>>
>>
>>> Yeah it does, I like it a lot. That shot was done with the 50mm FLE
>>> Distagon, a super sharp wide angle. My only complaint with the Hassy is
>>> the
>>> ungodly cost of the lenses, even when buying used. The 50mm was given to
>>> me,
>>> as was the camera and the 80 and 150mm lenses. I want the 40mm lens 
>>> cause
>>> the 50 isn't always wide enough. The 40mm Hasselblad lens goes for over
>>> $1700 on ebay for one in decent used condition. Beat to hell examples
>>> still
>>> go for $1000 and if I had that much money to spend (and I don't) I would
>>> never pay that much for a beat up lens no matter if it is Zeiss.
>>>
>>> Zuikoholics, console yourselves: the really expensive OM lenses we lust
>>> for,
>>> like the 90mm macro and the 100m f2 and the 35-80 are still usually
>>> cheaper
>>> than Hasselblad lenses that are really common and easy to find!
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Chris Crawford
>>> Fine Art Photography
>>> Fort Wayne, Indiana
>>> 260-747-3962
>>>
>>> http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My portfolio
>>>
>>> http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com  My latest work!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/6/09 5:09 PM, "Wayne Harridge" <wayneharridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That Hasselblad makes great photos Chris !
>>>>
>>>> ...Wayne
>>>>
>>>> Wayne Harridge
>>>> http://lrh.structuregraphs.com/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks! I shot that with my Hasselblad,
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> -- 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
> 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz