[filmscanners] Re: film and scanning vs digital photography

["" <lotusm50@sprynet.com>]

Bob-

I too came from a Contax G2 -- how I wish a digital version was
available!  I also used a Contax N1 (after using manual focus Contaxes)
where the G2 wasn't appropriate, and Bessa L with its 15mm lens.  I
still use the Bessa L -- I just can't beat the size-performance-cost
combination.  I'm now using a Canon 5D (as previously mentioned) with
the Zeiss lenses from the N1 converted to fit, and some Zeiss Contax
manual focus lenses via adapter.  I have to say I find the size (even
though the 5D isn't that large) and the handling of the G2 a lot, and
the ergonomics and build quality of the Contaxes generally.   I can only
hope that a digital equivalent of the Contax G2 will eventually appear
on the market (otherwise, I might go for the next generation Leica
digital M).

That said, the 5D with the Zeiss 100mm/f2.8 Makro-Sonnar fitted is a
spectacular combination for macro.  Other great macro lenses for the 5D
would be the Zeiss 100mm/f2.8 Macro-Planar (for Contax, manual focus)
and the Leica R 100mm/f2.8 APO-Macro.  With film, I had gone to the
Contax 645 and the Zeiss 120mm/f4 Makro-Planar, so this has given the
N's Makro lens new life. (Convenience and the clean quality of the 5D
file now means that the the positions are switched and the C645 + 120
Makro aren't used much!).   The best thing about the Canons, and why I
went with them when I went digital is that I could use my Contax lenses
on it.  The N's AF lenses could be converted for full auto operation,
and the manual focus Contax RTS lenses could be used via adapter.
Further Leica R and Olympus OM lens can also be used by adapter.  For
landscape, that give you a very, very good range and choice of some
excellent lenses -- and since the 5D is "full frame" you get the full
angle of view of these wide angle lenses.

I am pleased with the output of the Contax 5D, but am frustrated by its
poor ergonomics, handling and controls -- I've been spoiled by Contax
over the last 20 years.


Bob Geoghegan wrote:
> Going back to Paul's original post...  and writing as an SS4000 & D200 owner
> who just unloaded his most modern film gear, I'd say macro & landscape are
> good territory for the D200.  If you prefer the wide range & lower contrast
> of negative film then there's some adapting.  I'd put RAW files about
> half-way between slides and negatives for range (just my experience, no
> citations).  The Fuji-Nikons like the S3 are one way around this.
>
> The film gear I parted with was the Contax G2.  For now only the Leica M8
> (M8.0?) replaces the 35mm rangefinder with compact high performance wide
> angles.  Not that I don't love the images & handling of the D200 & Nikon's
> 17-55/2.8, but it's a big attention-getting rig compared to a Leica, Contax
> G, Bessa, etc. and a fixed lens between 21 & 50 mm.
>
> As people have mentioned, the 36x24mm Canon sensors put a lot of stress on
> their lenses off-axis.  The smaller sensor Nikons (& others) can deliver
> corner-to-corner evenly illuminated images that are arguably (sometimes)
> better.  Current 36x24 cameras are more often lens-limited where the smaller
> ones are more often sensor-limited. (Extended discussion omitted for
> civility's sake  ;-) )  I'd rather see a generation of cameras with better,
> wider-range pixels over their predecessors instead of just another 50% boost
> in the current type of pixel.
>
> Nikon will probably have a D3 to compete with Canon's eventual 36x24mm Mk
> III.  Nikon reps have informally mentioned a body "for the pros later this
> year."
>
> Bob G
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body