DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

Contax G2

Thank you Till and John. I do not mean to kick 35 mm out. I do love 35 mm because I have my manual-focus cameras. I do not mean to demand the "best quality." I just want to see if the G2 or others can beat my own cameras. I believe some of them will beat my cameras. Maybe not. Who knows?

Yes I am aware that the G2 provides a good quality photo because of the CZ glass. Of course other cameras do.

I wish that my local dealer has everything to rent out. Unfortunately, they do not. I will try to find a dealer who has almost everything that I need to rent.

Thanks again,
Kian-Guan
 
I totally agree with Till and John. The following msg was composed yesterday but did not get a chance to finish it until today. I apologize for repeating what has been discussed, but here is my 2 cents ....

Kian-Guan, if you have not used larger film format, you should give it a try. It will bring your photography to a different dimension. The quality of large and medium formats are just so beautiful.

I must first warn you that the processing fee is much higher if you shoot medium format with prints. It is not much different when you shoot chrome. I have just picked up a roll of 220 with 4x5 prints shot from my C645 for an assignment. It costed me over $50 USD to process with prints. That's why I usually shoot chromes, scan and print only the pictures that require prints.

I shot mostly with 4x5 for the last 12 months. I like the C645 since it handles just like a 35mm with all the automation if needed. However, sometimes, I miss the 6x7 format that I used to shoot with the RZ67. I think the Mamiya 7II is a good choice for traveling. The satisfaction of viewing a 6x7 transparency on the light table is priceless.

I hope I didn't confuse the issue. One must weight the pros and cons of all choices, and stick with the personal needs.

Albert.
 
Thanks, Albert for your feedback and for warning about the higher fee. Wow, It is more expensive than 35mm prints. Suppose if I use the medium format rangefinder for travel in Europe, it would cost me a lot. 2 years ago, I traveled across Europe (19 countries) for almost 4 months and shot over 20 rolls of 35 mm & 36 exp. Imagine if I shot with over 20 rolls of 220. Wow!

Till, as you mentioned about Konica Hexar RF, is it good? Does it compare with the G2? I believe that the G2 is better than the Konica Hexar RF. Am I wrong?

Kian-Guan
 
The hexar is a nice camera, well put-together with excellent lenses, and the ability to use Leica lenses. It's not real lightweight, and does not auto-focus. Impossible to say the G's are objectively "better". There's no super-compact MF, ideal for travelling light, with the possible exception of the old "folders" like Zeiss Ikon, which might frustrate you if you're used to modern cameras. The Fuji's, as has been pointed out here, are pretty compact. The zoom/autofocus Fuji would limit the number of "pieces" to carry around. See if people like it at photographyreview.com. I had a 6X9 Fuji RF but sold it. It was good, and light, but bulky and *very* conspicuous. Fixed lens. Good for landscapes, though. Rangefinders like the G's or hexar/leica/voigtlander make nice travel cameras with interchangeable lenses. Small 35 SLR's incorporating some plastic construction give very nice results. Minolta/Nikon/Canon/Pentax all make quite good ones. The 50mm lenses for these cameras are the best-kept secret in photography. Cheap, fast, sharp, versatile, and often of a featherweight plastic construction, they can be replaced for $100 or less if broken/stolen. No Contax elegance, but lots of good photos for a small investment. A good scanner for 35mm film is pretty affordable, but scanners for MF were off the chart on price last time I checked, which is something to consider.
 
Quote, ". A good scanner for 35mm film is pretty affordable, but scanners for MF were off the chart on price last time I checked, which is something to consider."


I dealt withthis problem for a long time. I just recently purchased an Epson 2400 with the optional transparancy adapter. The total cost was $300. I've used the $3000 Nikon 8000 and find no difference at all in the quality of the prints.
 
Quote, ". A good scanner for 35mm film is pretty affordable, but scanners for MF were off the chart on price last time I checked, which is something to consider."


I dealt with this problem for a long time. I just recently purchased an Epson 2400 with the optional transparancy adapter. The total cost was $300. I've used the $3000 Nikon 8000 and find no difference at all in the quality of the prints.
 
Hey, good information; thanks. So I gather it's a flatbed scanner with an adapter to accomodate 120 film? Does "2400" indicate dpi? Thanks, Chas.
 
Kian-Guan,

regarding Hexar RF, no AF and TTL flash are the main differences from a specs view. Anyway, I would rather rate it different than inferior to a Contax G. Clearly derived from the Leica M, overall automation level is somewhere between Contax and Leica. Leicaesque finder, much brighter than the G's, with frames according to the focal length instead of zooming.

The Konica lenses have a pretty high reputation I see no reason to mistrust, although I did not yet enjoy them on my own.

Till
 
Charles, I have the Epson 2450 flat bed scanner. It has the maximum of 2400 dpi which you can specify a desire dpi when you scan with the included SilverFast software. It comes with holders for 35mm slides, 35mm film, medium format up to 6x9 cm and 4x5 in. Result for scanning medium and large format films are very good for its price ($360). The new Epson 3300 will be available end of next month. It is 3 time faster, 3200 dpi and Dmax = 3.4 (a little better than the 2450).

For more information, please check out:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Epson_flatbeds.html
 
Albert,

Thanks for the referral to the normankoren.com web site. The site has commentary on many topics in which I am interested.

Howard
 
Back
Top