|
|
Re: Seagull TLR for landscape photos?
I tend to prefer the 6 x 7 or 6 x 9 formats for landscape photography,
but that's just my rectangular preference in those shots. If you want
to use 6 x 6 TLR, see if your budget will support a used Mamiya TLR
(C220/330). They're heavy, but they do have interchangeable lenses
ranging from 55mm to 250mm which will allow you to add wide angle or
telephoto capability later on should you desire it. No, add on lenses
don't really do the job. The Mamiya also has available for it a wide
range of focussing screens and viewing hoods/prisms, some metered. If
you can't swing a Mamiya C, a Rolleicord (I'd recommend V or, if you
get lucky on price, a Vb which would allow you the flexibility to
change format to 645 or other and which will accept interchangeable
viewfinders [standard chimney and eyelevel pentaprism]), an Autocord
(Minolta), or a Diacord or Ricohmatic 225 (Ricoh) should do it nicely
for you. Some people also will suggest a Yashica, but I've had
reliability issues with each of the ones I've owned. The reliability
of any camera, of course depends on how well it is treated and
maintained.
A down side to using TLRs is that they do not have through the lens
metering with any configuration so if yuou use filters or polarizers,
you will need to remember to make adjustments in your f-stop or speed
to compensate for the light loss. You will also not be able to view
the effect of your polarizer or filter unless you first put it on the
viewing lens and then move it down to the taking lens. A Minolta
Autopol is handy since it allows you to see and adjust the degree of
polarization. It has two linked filters one over the viewing lens and
the other over the taking lens. It is, however, uncommon and expensive
unless you get lucky. The Rolleicords, Ricohs, Yashica, and Minolta
all take Bayonet 1 filters. The Mamiya lenses generally take either
46mm or 49mm although some earlier lenses use a different size. You
can get adapters to use 49mm accessories on your Bay 1 camera. This is
important since 49mm filters tend to be more plentifiul and thus easier
to obtain and often less expensive than Bay 1
|
|
|
| |
Bandicoot wrote:
> "Gordon Moat" wrote in message
> news:42F2C9A6.6A3372E7@attglobal.net...
> > Bandicoot wrote:
> >
> > > "Gordon Moat" wrote in message
> > > news:42EFC443.D7226083@attglobal.net...
> > > [SNIP]
> > > >
> > > > Given a choice of anything, probably 6x9, though
> > > > unfortunately that means using some large
> > > > cameras, or ones with only one fixed lens. Since I
> > > > cannot afford an ALPA 12, I mostly make do
> > > > with renting, or using 645 cameras. I have done
> > > > square for a while, and nearly always cropped,
> > > > to the point that I now try to do only rectangular
> > > > images.
> > >
> > > Just wondering if you've ever used one of the Fujica
> > > 6x9 rangefinders?
> >
> > I briefly handled a fixed lens version. If I recall
> > correctly it was the wide version, with a 65 mm (?)
> > lens. Not a bad handling camera, and the rangefinder
> > worked okay.
>
> Yes, the 'wide' ones are 65mm, the 'standard' ones are 100mm. That applies
> to both the 6x7 and the 6x9 versions. (And to the Japanese market only 6x8,
> though maybe that was only available as a 100mm, not sure.)
>
> >
> > > The new ones have a fixed lens, and the 100mm
> > > might suit you quite well. Older models are
> > > available with interchangeable lenses that include a
> > > nice range of 'short long' lengths - 150mm, 180mm, > > 250mm - that I
> imagine you would like.
> >
> > I have looked with interest at some of the old
> > interchangeable lens versions. What is a question
> > mark for me is reliability and service costs. Of course, > the fixed
> version is much newer, and might work
> > more reliably. I could probably deal with just one lens > of fixed focal
> length.
>
> I don't really know about servicing/reliability - not needed any on mine
> yet. There isn't a huge amount to go wrong on these, of course, though the
> interchangeable lens ones are a little more complex in a sense, in that they
> have a blind to cover the film while changing lenses (since they use
> in-the-lens leaf shutters.)
I see mention about a shutter counter, so I suppose at some count there would
be a service interval of some type. Of course, the XPan also has a shutter
counter, so nothing too unusual.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > [SNIP]
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Don't go too much by what I write. My
> > > > preference is for normal to short telephoto, and I
> > > > do few wide view images. I also do a great deal
> > > > of my imaging hand held, making ergonomics my
> > > > priority in using any camera. If I were to buy
> > > > something soon, I might be more likely to go for
> > > > 6x12 or 6x17, or perhaps another 6x9.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I used to think 6x12 was a very strange format - as
> > > awkward visually as a double cube room is
> > > acoustically.
> >
> > On a psychological basis, it is not an easy division for
> > people to comprehend, at sometimes can be tougher
> > for people to retain an interest in visually. However,
> > that could be seen as a little bit of a challenge
> > creatively. The other aspect is that it is unusual and
> > uncommon enough to get that initial interest.
>
> Yes, it's too long to be a simple rectangle like 6x7 or 6x8, doesn't have
> the inherent thirds relationship that makes 6x9 and 35mm 'work' - but it's
> also too 'short' to look really panoramic. The brain is never that happy
> with 1:2 relationships in anything. But that is why it is challenging, and
> I think maybe also why I'm starting to like it: for the right subject - very
> imprtant, that - you can create an exciting dynamic tension between the
> 'strange' format proportions and the subject.
I think I come at it more from a music CD stance. Since I have my photography
in several music CDs, and put together the design of a few CD packages, that
2:1 ratio happens on the inside spread quite often. Making it interesting is
tough.
>
>
> >
> > > But then it started to grow on me...
> > > Since I got a Sinar Zoom back I've found the 6x12
> > > format is one that suits a number of the sorts of
> > > things I do in landscape - often with either very
> > > wide lenses, or with moderately long ones.
> > >
> > > Peter
> >
> > Even vertically the 2:1 ratio can be effective for some
> > scenes. There are some interesting choices in cameras > now for 6x12.
> There is also a great deal of room
> > for creative crops, if needed.
> >
>
> It's often verticals that I see working on 6x12 - it's not an easy format to
> use, and not one I'd want to be limited to, but when it is right...
>
> Some time ago I wanted to paint a picture with those proportions: just try
> finding a 1:2 canvas off the peg!
Well, I put together my own canvases. It is tougher to stretch and gesso a
canvas yourself, but the reward is more control of aspect ratios. 16:9 is
another good ratio, since people are getting more use to that with televisions
and movies. Of course, it is easy to crop to a 16:9 proportion when using a
6x12 camera format.
>
>
> I'm doing 6x12 via a back for my 4x5s, but I can see for your style that
> you'd be a lot more interested in one of the 6x12 cameras that can be
> hand-held. Scary prices though.
>
> Peter
The Fotoman prices don't look to bad. There are also two other newer companies
from China making 6x12 cameras. There is still a need to get a large format
lens to fit into the focus mount, but cost is not terrible.
I am also looking at adapting a Nikkor 105 mm large format lens to a 6x9 body,
though if the Fotoman 6x9 comes in at a reasonable price it might be a better
direction than fabricating.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
|
|