Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill

Subject: Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 06:25:04 -0400
I'd never heard of KB Canham cameras before your post.  So I looked and 
was surprised to see some unusual and very large sizes such as: 4x10, 
7x17, 8x20 and 12x20.  Those are inches and not centimeters.  Where does 
one buy film for such things?

Chuck Norcutt


Jeff Keller wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
> Yes Keith Canham has a really spiffy looking 6x17 back for the MQC57
> http://www.canhamcameras.com/Roll%20film%20back.html
> 
> The back and the extra bellows length were the main reasons to prefer the
> 5x7 to the 4x5. I bought the back used but I haven't used it myself yet.
> 
> Jeff Keller
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 3:03 PM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill
> 
> Is your 5x7 also used as a 6x17 with roll film?
> 
> Chuck Norcutt
> 
> 
> Jeff Keller wrote:
>> Everyone has their own rough limit for what they expect from a camera. For
>> me the four thirds limit is roughly 8x10 for landscape. The Canon 5D
> should
>> be good to about 16x20 but I haven't printed anything from it that large
>> yet. Film for me: 35mm +> 8x12 and 6x7 => 16x20. The four thirds bag feels
>> bigger and heavier than an OM bag, the 5Dii bag feels bigger and heavier
>> than a Mamiya 7ii bag. Therefore digital is bigger and heavier.
>>
>> A monster that passed in the dark was when I said 20x28 from my Canham
>> (MQC57) in response to Chuck's monster I was referring to an enlargement
>> from 5x7 Velvia. (a slightly larger version of
>> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/canham/canhamdlc.html )
>>
>> Jeff Keller
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chuck Norcutt [mailto:chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 10:16 AM
>> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
>> Subject: Re: [OM] Feeding the rumor mill
>>
>> I have no difficulty calling it the "monster" since the Canon backpack 
>> with 5D, 3 lenses, flash and bracket, chargers, batteries, cables, light 
>> meter, manuals, etc, etc weighs 17 pounds.  21 if you add the 80-200 and 
>> its case.  The A1 is a whole lot less but still a bit bulky at times.  I 
>> really do need a pocket camera.  I haven't had one since I stopped using 
>> the Stylus Epic.  Even that's a bit large for a pocket camera of today.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>>
>> Joel Wilcox wrote:
>>> My mistake.  I had thought when you were referring to the "monster"
>>> you meant the E-3, whereas it is clear you meant the 5D.  Wrong
>>> monster!  Sorry.
>>>
>>> Joel W.
>>>
>>>>> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Well, use the E410 for the joy of holding.  But get the monster out
>> when
>>>>>> you want those 16x20s.
>>>>> Chuck,
>>>>> On the basis of what do you say this?
>>>>>
>>>>> Joel W.
>>
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
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