|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.171.114.45
In Reply to: RE: Spring has sprung! posted by pictureguy on April 01, 2017 at 22:20:47
The little LUMIX with the Leica lens is better than average. I know you are Picture guy, but I also know a bit about the subject. Besides the LUMIX, I own a Canon DSLR, a 35 mm Nikon with several Nikon lenses, a Hasselblad with three Zeis lenses, and a 4x5 with Rodenstocks, Nikkors etc. I also have a darkroom with top notch lenses For two enlargers (Beseller) 4x5 and 6x7, so when I say the LUMIX is good, it's still just my opinion, but it's an experienced one.
Follow Ups:
Yes, my name is picture guy,
I consider myself 'A' picture guy, not 'THE' picture guy.
Lots of talent on this site, experience, too and maybe some willing students.
Too much is never enough
No question about it.
Those LUMIX can be pretty darn good picture takers.
The ONLY PS I ever owned was a Canon film type, model unknown. It had a 2-position lens for normal and tele. Problem? It ate Batteries like I owned stock in Duracel. Pictures were only OK so we put it in a drawer or gave it away.
A buddy owns a Canon PS digital and swears by it. Easy and fast with good results.
If anybody asks me about cameras at that level, I say that ergonomics and 'feel' are at least as important as the rest of it.
I owned Canon for decades. Starting with the TLb from mid-70s on thru the 'A' series (A-1) and than to the new lens mount and the EOS1n which was fine. I went digital later, but than discovered a lens I liked was really crap. The 35-105 f2.8 Tamron was only so so and was replaced by a Canon 24-105 f4 'L' lens. a keeper.
I still own my ONLY 120 roll film camera. A Yeshica 635 which is 6cm and 35mm convertible. Non-interchageable TLR, it is a good picture taker but I've kind of lost track where to get film processed any more! I have the full 35mm conversion kit but it is cumbersome to use. And wastes film winding it around in that huge camera.
Havent' done any darkroom in 25 years. Never DID own a good enlarger. And never got past B&W, which for me peaked with the T-Max Kodak emulsions needing T-Max developer.
I still have my Kodak Data Guides. and my GraLab timer!
Too much is never enough
I must have had the same Canon PS. It was given to me by the company I worked for to take damage photos after Katrina. I had to limit what I did with it or it and carry several extra sets of batteries.
I have t used my darkroom in years, but have a descent alternative in a Canon Canoscan scanner that will scan negatives and does a pretty good job. I also have anEpson photo printer that works well for B&W or color. I always developed my own film. I never had any developed that wasn't ruined by anyone else.
I used Kodak HC-110 diluted 1/31 and only agitated at 30 second intervals. This was Ansel Adams choice and I thought it it was good for Ansel it was good for me. His choice film was Tri-X. Go figure. Larger negatives = no grain. It's a very sharp combo. You can use a tank to develop film as I'm sure you know. You only need darkness for a few minutes to load it. A bathroom at night with a towel under the door can work.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: