advertisement


For Vuk...

Sorry, Rob, but regardless how impressive that camera may be it's a 4/3 model and Vuk is a unabashedly 3:2 man.

Joe
 
rob.

i'm still not quite clear about the nature of the viewfinder--though i think i had a bit of drunken rant about it somewhere late last night (can't even remember the forum unfortunately). nonetheless, the 4/3 format makes it a stinker right out of the box. making smaller lenses for a smaller format is not a bad idea, but changing the proportions is.

vuk.
 
What's the (non) deal with the 4/3 format? Smaller sensor = more noise etc?

Why is 3/2 more sacred than 4/3? (or 5/4, 7/6/ 6/6...)

Or a camera with a 1/1.61 golden section proportions?

Guy

(How do you post an image? It wants a http:/ link)
 
Guy,

Why is 3/2 more sacred than 4/3? (or 5/4, 7/6/ 6/6...)
Click to expand...
It isn't, but if you learned on a 35mm SLR it's the proportions you know best, feel most comfortable with.

Joe
 
Joe,

With all the cropping in Photoshop nowadays there's hardly a reason for most amateur photographers to look at the sensor size when buying digital.

Rob.
 
Rob,

With all the cropping in Photoshop nowadays there's hardly a reason for most amateur photographers to look at the sensor size when buying digital.
Click to expand...
True, but the new Panasonic/Leica cam isn't aim at amateurs as far as I can tell. It looks to be a serious contender, not another forgettable camera in a sea of even more forgettable cameras.

I take your point about cropping, but there's a school of photography that thinks you should nail the composition when the shot is taken, not after the fact in PS.

Joe
 
rob.

composing a good picture is difficult enough without having to imagine on top of it all how you are going to crop the thing down to 3/2 and worry about where those imginary lines are going to fall so you don't cut off some guy's foot. also, as joe said, some of us do not crop our pictures. every see a portfolio with a jumble of oddly-shaped shots? it does not inspire confidence. the problem with 4/3 is not that i happen to be used to 3/2, it's that it just does not "compse" well, especially when shooting people (and doing it vertically). i have no trouble with a square format, although my camera for it is annoying to use (still waiting to get a hassy at a good price).

vuk.
 
Joe,

I don't crop either. I think the Panasonic /Leica is more or less a point & shoot camera as was the Panasonic Lumix-lc1, which I quite fancied.
Take your point that's aimed at the (semi) professional market.

Rob.
 
Vuk,

You're absolutely right about composing a good picture. Esp. when taking shots of people. And cropping is easy to see for the trained eye.
What camera do you use ? And why not looking for a Mamiya 645 or so, much cheaper than the Hasselblad. But no Zeiss lenses.

Rob.
 
derek.

i'm not a big fan of ansel adams, though i do admire his skill with chemicals and theoretical understanding of exposure.

vuk.
 
Rob said:
Vuk,
You're absolutely right about composing a good picture. Esp. when taking shots of people. And cropping is easy to see for the trained eye.
What camera do you use ? And why not looking for a Mamiya 645 or so, much cheaper than the Hasselblad. But no Zeiss lenses.
Rob.
Click to expand...

rob.

i have a leica m6, leica r4 (which is a piece of shit SLR body but holds my precious summicron 50), contax 139q, zorki 4 and a minolta autocord (which is the impossible to use, square format TLR). as for the mamiya option, from what i have seen of the output, the character of their lenses is not really to my liking: resembles nikon in many ways and the bokeh appears to be unreliable. i keep hoping medium format camera prices will fall even further as wedding photographers (their principal users) switch over to digital. the problem with hasselblad is that asian collectors like them.

vuk.
 
Vuk,

So you like German glass that's obvious. Then I agree the Mamiya route is not for you .Maybe a Pentax 645(II) fits the bill . Better glass then the Mamiya but brickheavy.

Rob.
 
Derek,
does not compose well - tell that to Ansel Adams
Click to expand...
I have no idea what proportions Ansel Adams would have preferred had he mainly taken streeters, snaps of hot chix or macros of rusting metal, but I suspect it would not have been 4x5.

Joe
 
Rob said:
Vuk,
So you like German glass that's obvious. Then I agree the Mamiya route is not for you .Maybe a Pentax 645(II) fits the bill . Better glass then the Mamiya but brickheavy.
Rob.
Click to expand...

the problem here is that 6x4.5 sort of misses the point of medium format. of course, there the brickheavier pentax 6x7, but the wooden handle would make me feel i was walking around with mick parry's edwardian turntable plinth.

i do like square format. it's got to be the hassy.

vuk.

p.s. where is mick these days? haven't seen a post in ages.
 
Rob,

I think the Panasonic /Leica is more or less a point & shoot camera...
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem that way to me, as it lets the user set shutter speed and aperture with dials (not an LCD panel), its resolution is high, it takes fancy Leica glass, it has a metal body... none of the things the typical P&S user cares about.

Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top