[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > My suggestion, don't go too far down this road. When it is supposed to be > sharp and it can be sharp it's always best to make it sharp. If it's a > moody shot, an artistic interpretation of a scene or a grab shot than > sharpness plays a secondary role. Maximize your excellent camera and > lenses by making a tripod an essential tool of the trade. That said, there > is something to be said about going out on a nice day, without a tripod, > and shooting away. It's better, I suppose to shoot without a tripod than > to not shoot at all.
I don't think I was really clear enough with my comments. I wasn't talking about technique - merely equipment. In my own case, I don't have much reason to splash out thousands on the best 35mm glass money can buy just for a little extra detail on my slides. Note that I"m not talking about the difference between Barbiecam and Zeiss optics. I'm talking about going from the reasonably priced and easy to find Pentax glass, to the ultra-expensive Pentax stuff thats very highly regarded. Is it really worth it? To you it might be, to me it certainly was but I'm now finding that the real selling-points of a lens are more subjective. Distortion, bokeh, colour rendition, speed (OK thats not subjective), weight, mechanical build and the feel of the focussing, to name a few examples off the top of my head. This was the kind of stuff I evaluated when deciding to spend twice the cash on a 43mm lens over the FA 50mm f/1.4. I think sharpness is important but its not worth obsessing over. That's the point I'm trying to make. Its only my opinion BTW; I'm not trying to convince anyone. > I'm a firm believer that with good glass and excellent technique you can > get pretty close to the quality of large format in the 35mm world. > Especially if the larger format photographer depends on the format to give > good quality and therefore refuses to use good tecnique. It happens. Good film and good technique will get you far better results with a larger format, and I'm not just talking about sharpness. I have a 30x40" print on the wall behind me which would have been possible with 35mm but a lot uglier (actually it was shot handheld at 1/250th). Its not valid to compare good 35mm technique with sloppy large format, BTW. Technique-wise, I rarely use 35mm gear on a tripod. If I'm going to lug a tripod around for the sake of preserving the utmost levels of detail, I might as well put the 6x7 on it. The price I pay is weight, so I may end up just carrying a small 35mm kit anyway. Conversely, I don't often use the 6x7 handheld. I am pretty fussy with my 6x7 technique. However, I made sacrifices here to move from the RB67 system to the Pentax 6x7. I gave away the rotating back (now I need to tip the tripod head over, killing all hope of stability), the nice quiet leaf-shutter lenses, and the mechanical MLU. What I gained was far better glass (I was using non-C lenses which flared like crazy) and much lower weight. Plus, good Pentax gear is far easier to find (and sell, if necessary) on the secondhand market down here. > So with 35mm you can get close to having the best of both worlds. It's > just depends on technique and how you want to use the camera. I think it depends on your own reasons for using the 35mm format. I am not trying to convince anyone; I'm merely explaining my point of view and the reasons behind it. Because I have the medium format gear I can use that when image detail and tonality are the most important factors over all others. I have shown myself the difference it makes, with appropriate technique used in both cases. I will not scan images to show others; this is a decision I think people should make for themselves with their own techniques. This is not to say that I'm trying to make up for sloppy technique. I just find that 35mm suits me better for situations where the 6x7 would be more of a hindrance, or where suitable lenses for the 6x7 are not available. There are a lot of factors involved in my decision of which kit to use at any particular time. My starting point is the full-blown 6x7 rig on a tripod with the some nice fine-grained slow film. That gets modified as I consider all the factors - do I have the right focal length lens available? Do I require AF? Can I carry it up that hill before the light changes? Can I squeeze the tripod in there? Does my required-for- adequate-DOF aperture call for a 1/8th shutter speed? To me, the advantage of 35mm is its light weight, small size and the extremely wide range of lenses available (I currently have lenses from 15 to 400mm including a 1:1 macro). Larger formats basically trade this versatility away for increased image quality. Right, I'd better get away from this computer. I've arranged to go walking around some hills with a friend - and the 67 is coming with me :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
