October 01, 2014, 04:55:58 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sootzzs

Pages: [1] 2 3
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 22, 2014, 05:56:35 PM »
Thanks for the input guys.
I've settled on working (hopefully) Super Ricohflex for the beginning. 40$+30$ shipping (the shipping from the US abroad is a bit crazy lately. a year ago it was around 15$ I think). From what I've read it should be a nice, basic and solid enough entry TLR. Hopefully it will be such in reality.

The Rolleis+ shipping were way about my limit unfortunately.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 18, 2014, 06:57:51 PM »

I'll hit the shop on Saturday for more details and start the nego.

Now that we weren't able to dissuade you from buying the Rollei, I'm feeling a bit more comfortable to hijack this thread. Not only I didn't managed to dissuade you out of buying I got some severe GAS myself in the process :). I'm thinking of buying my first TLR. However, I cannot afford to spend more than around 100-120$ including shipping (which unfortunately in my case could mount to 50$ by itself).   I've read a bit for the last few days and figured out that my best chances are Super Ricohflex, Czech Flexarete, Yashica A or 635 and maybe with a bit of luck Yashica-mat (not the 124). Even these, for 60-80$ (after shipping deduction) are extremely hard to find in working condition.

Am I missing something here? Are there any "cheap" but reliable TLR's (not Lubitels or Seagulls of course). Or should I pass it for now? My intention is mostly to shoot landscapes and portraits on 120mm B&W film and develop it myself.

Thanks .       

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 14, 2014, 09:27:20 AM »
Hi Grumbaki,

My guess is that answers to your question will change accordingly to the forum it is posted on. Try to write the same question on APUG or Manual photography forums and you will probably buy two of these. People here are more into practical photography and 2300$ could buy some nice new and shiny lens with a red ring around it. And they will be as right as you'll be if you buy the Flex. The question is what will bring YOU more joy??? Only you can answer it.

I'm kinda in the same pot (well more or less. My budget is a bit more modest, like Lubitel modest). I am new to any kind of photography (2 years with my 60D). In recent months I've started to have interest in vintage cameras and film photography. Why? No idea. I'm a child of the digital era so no "nostalgic GAS" here. It started with buying some vintage manual M42 glass to save some money. One of them came with a battered, broken light meter, Spotmatic SPII attached to. I thought: "why not to run a film through it and see how was it done in the old times. Moreover, it is the real Full Frame". Long story short, now I have about 10 different vintage cameras and I stopped counting the lenses. I developed my first B&W film last week and will try to digitize it soon, I am in the middle of my first cheap medium format film shot on my dirt cheap 1950 Agfa IsolaII and looking into buying Kiev-60TTL. Of-course I could have spent this money on my digital stuff, but would I enjoy the same? Will every good picture feel as special as the ones I get from time to time on film?  So again, it is a VERY subjective question.

On the more technical note: I'm sure that shooting limited number of frames with  film camera, without the possibility to see and correct on the spot the frame and without light meter most of the times (except my eyes ofcourse), already made me a better photographer even with my digital equipment.

PS.: As a side question: except of the obvious advantage of the Medium Format resolution (is it really equivalent to 60 Mega pixel picture?) is there any advantage to the film (35mm or other) over a full frame DSLR (which I can't compare to)?

I've fond these on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-45-Focusing-Screen-For-Canon-40D-50D-60D-Camera-/250805194814?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6527903e  .
 Also the 180 degree. Have no idea what is the meaning of it. Can anyone comment on the quality and usefulness of these? How about the Ef-D? Would it work for both purposes?

The eBay ones are split prism like old manual focus cameras - I think dual 45° is two splits in an 'X' (vs. a '+') and the 180° is a single horizontal line split. The Ef-D just adds a grid for composition aid to the Ef-A.

Have you considered a right angle attachment like Canon's Angle Finder C?  Makes on-the-ground shots easier, and I've found the 2.5x magnification helpful for manual focus through the VF for macro shooting.

It could be nice. I'll look into it. Thanks Neuro! I won't do too much of  an outside macro till next spring, so I guess my priority for now is more for portraits. My 5 months son mostly. I think I'll try one of the cheap Chinese ones. For the price (~20$) I guess it won't hurt. Also, the Magic Lantern will find a place in my camera sooner or later. Just need to find some spare time to read about it a bit.

Thanks for the awesome advice all (Neuro, great as always!)! Mostly I use old manual focusing lenses for two types of photography: Portrait (with lenses like 58mm 2.0 Helios-44 , 37 2.8 mm Mir 1, Sears 50mm 1.4...even Chinon 135 2.8) and Macro (with tubes and various enlargers). I guess that for Protrait work the Ef-S would be great with my lenses. But for general use and Macro it could become a pain as I do my casual photography with EF-S 15-85 (3.5-5.6) or EF-S 55-250 and macros need to be atleast at f8 for sufficient depth of field. Hmm... It is quite easy to change the screen (thank you Youtube), but still doen't looks like a healthy thing to do on a regular basis.

About Live view: I totally agree that it is the best tool when taking macros of still objects in controlled environment, but outside, with direct sunlight and moving bugs it not as easy and I tend to use the VF a lot more. A split prism like I have on my lovely Pentax Super ME (not a just Canon fanboy :) ) could be a great all purpose screen.   

I've fond these on ebay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dual-45-Focusing-Screen-For-Canon-40D-50D-60D-Camera-/250805194814?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a6527903e  .
 Also the 180 degree. Have no idea what is the meaning of it. Can anyone comment on the quality and usefulness of these? How about the Ef-D? Would it work for both purposes?

George, sorry for hijacking the topic a bit. Just didn't feel important enough to open a new one. 

Hi guys,
Very interesting topic! I have a 60D and use manual lenses a lot! I never thought it is possible to change the focusing screen! Great news.

Could anyone please recommend me a good focusing screen for manual photography. Especially for macro work. It would be of great help.


Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 13, 2013, 10:18:45 AM »

That said, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is 2/3 stops, so, it's a noticeable difference, but, I haven't had issues shooting at f/1.8 indoors at all. If you're in a place where f/1.8 and ISO 1600 don't cut it, you either need a flash or to get out of that cave.

I think either the 28mm f/1.8 or the new Sigma 30mm are your best options. Do you have a kit lens you can set to 30mm to see if that focal length works for you?

I've read some reviews on the Canon 28 1.8. It seems that most complaints are about the softness at 1.8-2.8. I don't want to buy a 450$ lens and use it at f2.8. I have good enough 28 vintages (MF) which shoot great at 2.8.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 13, 2013, 08:27:35 AM »
Thank you all for your replies and warm greetings!
I didn't thought in the direction of Canon 28 1.8. Thank you all for pointing it out. Sounds interesting. It is quite an old lens though. How does it fares against the new Sigma? Also, I;ve never used a f1.4 lens. Is significant over the 1.8 Canon? AF and bokeh mostly I guess.

I don't have a problem with MF. I use it quite often when doing macro on tubes or using vintage glass. That is why I still consider the Samyang 35 1.4. My top priority is image quality.

Third Party Manufacturers / cheap lowlight 30-35mm for APS-C
« on: June 12, 2013, 11:53:22 AM »
Hi friends,

I've become a father few weeks ago and looking for a new lens for my 60D to shoot my baby boy. I have a Canon 501.8II but feel it is to tight on my crop and the AF is too slow (babies seem to move a lot :) ).

So...my budget is no more than 500$ and I was pondering what is a better buy:

* Old Sigma 30 1.4 (cheap ~300$, nice but not great (?) pics, especially wide open).

* New Sigma 30 1.4 (not the new 35 Art); 500$, better build and picture quality than the old 30, better AF (?), sharp wide open (?).

* Samyang 35 1.4; ~450$, very good quality (both image and build), FF compatible (for the future). It is MF, which is generally is OK for me, but wide open in low light? How will it work?

To summarize:
1) I never used any of this and all the aforementioned is from the web. I would really appreciate first hand advice on these lenses. Do you think the new Sigma 30 is 200$ better than the old?

2) Generally, is 30-35mm (48-56mm on crop) is a good choice to shoot a baby indoors (or low light photos in general).

P.S I don't have the money for the 899$ 35 Art or Canon L glass ( :( ).

Thanks a lot!

Lenses / Re: Is An UWA Lens Useful on a Crop Sensor?
« on: May 10, 2013, 06:53:03 AM »
Is it OK, then, to turn this into a Tokina 11-16 vs Canon 10-22 thread?  It'll likely be a mix of indoors, landscape, outdoor buildings, large group shots and experimenting.
Thanks again.

Hi Cory,
I am actually debating just the same exact question.  Sigma's UWAs also seem as a very good deal (and almost 40% cheaper, the 10-20 4-5.6 at least). In my case I have the EF-S 15-85 and wonder is it worth to spend extra money on UWA? Why not just stitch to pics with higher final resolution? For distortion: did you considered the Samyang 8mm? It is dirt cheap (less than 300$) and have really good reviews. I've seen some fabulous landscapes taken with it and at the right angle and composition you barely see the distortion of it.   

I can't afford a true macro right now, so this is what I use for now: 55mm of cheap Chinese tubes (6$) and 30$ russian Industar 50-2 f3.5 (which is the smallest 50 I've ever seen) and chiped m42-EOS adapter (9$).

~100% crop

shot at f16 with of camera flash, iso 200. Basic sharpening and PP in LR.
Don't know how it compares with real macro lens but for the price seems like a great deal to me.

Lenses / Re: A Walk Around Lens for a Trip
« on: April 30, 2013, 12:10:16 PM »
7D and the 15-85 is my standard walk-around kit. It will cover virtually everything you are likely to encounter on a tour. I have the Tokina 11-16, but seldom pack it when traveling. The 24mm equivalent of the 15-85 is more than adequate for most situations.

If I think I might be going someplace where there will be critters to take pictures of, I'll pack the 70-300 L, but I'm guessing that on a tour group to Israel that won't be the case. If you want a cheap, light longer lens solution, look at the 55-250 EF-S. It is very sharp (better than any of the Non L 70-300 lenses) and weighs almost nothing.

Totally agree. I own both the 15-85 and the 55-250. I use them on 60D for 90% of my shots (75% them with 15-85). 55-250 is a great, very light and sharp zoom. A bit plasticky, but works great. Actually I do ponder should I buy the 11-16 tokina next. Will it get any use when I have 15-85?
I would add some fast wide prime to your kit though. Ancient cities and temples tend to be dark (old Jerusalem is for sure). The new Sigma 35 1.4 seems like a great lens in this respect (and many other).

Have a great trip and enjoy Israel! I would gladly answer your questions about it, if you have some.

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East
« on: January 17, 2013, 06:11:43 AM »
Wanted to say I made it back last week from three great weeks traveling through the Middle East. Thanks, everyone, for all your suggestions.
I wound up taking nearly 9000 photos, and, yes, I really carried my full pack with me almost all the time. About the only time I didn't was in the tight confines of tunnels under some of the pyramids, though even there I carried two bodies with zooms, one wide and one long.
I'll admit, a few times I ached at the end of the day, but I'm not sure I would have done it any differently. I wound up using just about every piece of gear I'd brought along, the only exception being the 7D I'd carried as backup in case one my bodies failed.
By the way, that 1DX totally rocks; it's just amazing the quality of images I was able to get in almost no light.

I'm still recovering from jet lag, but I'll post pictures in the coming days.

Good to hear you've had fun and listened to yourself eventually. I've sent you a PM. Would be glad to hear from you.

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East
« on: December 13, 2012, 10:09:43 AM »

Roman, thanks so much for your helpful insights. If I ever get to Haifa, I'll see you get that photo lesson.

No problem. Hope I helped a bit.
Have a nice trip...and share photos of course!
Shalom. :)

Lenses / Re: Recommendations for three weeks in the Middle East
« on: December 11, 2012, 06:39:30 PM »
Roman (sootzzs), I promised you my itinerary.
It appears I'll be in Israel for a total of seven, almost eight, days. I know I'll only get a small taste of your country, but hopefully I'll see enough to leave with many fond memories.
Arriving from Jordan, I cross the river and head to Tel Aviv, where I spend the first night. The next morning, I follow the Mediterranean coast north to Caesarea, where I'll see the Amphitheatre and Aqueduct. From there, I travel to Megiddo, on to Nazareth, then staying two evenings along the Sea of Galilee. I visit Dan and Capernaum, as well as a kibbutz (also in the north), then a day cruise on Galilee. I spend a day following the Jordan River down to the Dead Sea. A night there, before visiting Masada, then take in Qumran Caves. The next four days will be based in Jerusalem.
I don't know much time, if at all, I'll be in Haifa. One of the things I would most like to see would be sailing, especially small boat racing, on the Mediterranean. 

OK. I'll be short as it get late here and I'm a bit tired. If you need more info on particular places please feel free to ask.

First of all: Please ignore people suggesting you Glocks, Bazookas or pocket Shermans with you. It is quiet and safe here (right now at least :) ). 

Tel Aviv: THE busiest, 24/7 city of Israel. Night life, nice beach and promenade. You should visit Jaffa if you'll have time. It has some ancient architecture and good restaurants. It is 5 min by cab from the hotels on the beach.

Caesaria: Beautiful ancient Roman city there. Quite conserved if I remeber correctly. Hadn't been there in long time unfortunatelly, so can't help you to much. I guess wide angle is must there. It can also get quite dusty (or sandy) there if it is windy, so keep your equipment safe. Ofcourse there is always salty sea spray in he air near the water. I guess you could take some great sunset shots there.

Megido is an ancient barrow 5 minutes from the city I lived most of my life (Afula). Nothing to spectacular to see, but very interesting history. It is the Armageddon though :) (Mountain of Megido in hebrew), as unspectacullar as it may seem at first.

Nazareth: A bit simillar to Old Jerusalem, just less crazy. Nice marketplace (don't let them rip you off, argue to the lowest price you believe is fair. It is accustomed there). 

Sea of Galilee: Not sure what you have to do there for two days  (maybe just relaxing). You could get to Golan Heights and do some very nice day trekk in Yehudia reserve or go and shoot Vultures in Gamla reserve (been there last week, realy nice place).

Dead Sea and Massada are faulous places for some desert fotography. Most people come to Massada before sunrise and then take picture at the dawn towards the Dead sea. Caution: The water of the Dead sea is extremely saturated with salt. I would be very careful even with your 1DX. Though you could make nice closeups of the salt crystals.

Qumran: I am ashamed to tell that I've never been there (yet) :). So you will tell me how it was.

Jerusalem: Well, The Holy city. The temples and markets tend to be dark inside (lit mostly by candle light, temples that is) so fast and wide lens could be really great. Take care of your equipment there. It could get really crowded on those narrow streets.

Not sure about boat racing. Never heard about it in Israel. Maybe in Tel Aviv or Caesaria marinas.

Hmm...Can't think of anything else right now. Maybe if you'll end eventually in Haifa (we have sea, prehistoric man cave, extreamely beautiful Bahai Temple and gardens and bunch of other things :) ), you could talk to me and I'll show you around (for a free photography lesson that is :)).

That's it. Feel free to ask more, and I hope you'll enjoy your trip.


Pages: [1] 2 3