The vibration issue is supposedly with low shutters speeds (from 1/30 to 1 second), and specially combined with long lenses (wich I never plan to own or use). To be honest, Dan, I still have to use the camera in very good conditions. I shot few rolls, and all in not the best conditions (almost-wideopen or wideopen, fairly good speeds, or flash indoors with horrible lighting setup). I want to take some shots with good light, a respectable speed and f stop (ie 1/250 at f8) to start making my own conclusions. By now, I'm satisfied with the results (an example is http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1097688), but I want to use it more before making my own conclusions. I think the DOf is a real defying issue in 6x7 (very scarce), and people saying the 105mm sucks wide open, I think they are seeing images that basically have zero dof. The quality beats 35mm, no doubt. The pic I showed you, in a 8x10 is absolutely grainless, and I think it can go 16x20 without problems. MF kicks 35mm ass when you go bigger than 8x12. There, 35mm must be perfect to keep reasonable, while MF, even not perfectly shot can keep very well up to huge enlargements. As I said, I need to use it more to make conclusions, and to be honest I enjoy using my Rolleiflex a lot, and the fact it weights the half, costs the sixth part, has leaf shutter and no mirror slap, makes me want to use the TLR more than La Gorda (the fat girl). I think it fits my style more (shooting handheld in the streets of a increasingly hardcore city). I keep the 6x7 because I like it, and want it to use it when the situation is more controlled. Also I want to make some paid jobs, and no matter how good photographer you are, you can't appear in a session with a 50 years old TLR. The 6x7 gives you credibility and confidence to the client IMHO. I would like to have at least one more lens, a wide angle to broaden the possibilities of use (and dof). I feel limited with the 105mm. End of rambling. Regards
Albano --- Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Albano. > > A question: even with the vibration the shots come > out better than a > good 35mm with no vibration problems? How much > better? > > Dan Scott > > On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 07:37 AM, Albano > Garcia wrote: > > > Hi, Dan > > Yes, film transport is an issue in old 6x7s. I own > an > > old nonMLU body, and the film transport is a bit > > weared out. It leaves a lot of space between > frames, > > sometimes cutting frame number 10 by half. > > Cosmetically it's like new, not a simple mark. And > > yes, I miss the MLU because I would like to use it > > always I can (in tripod, non moving subject). But > > since I mostly use it for handheld portraits, it's > not > > that bad. I think it's worth it if you find it > really > > cheap (as I did). If you really like the beast, > you > > can buy another body (more modern, a 67 if > possible) > > and use the earlier as a backup. That's what I > would > > like to do, if I had money. but first I want more > > lenses... Somebody has a 55mm for 200 usd? :-) > > Regards > > > > Albano > ===== Albano Garcia "El Pibe Asahi" __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
