Minolta Thoughts..

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Kramer, Jul 13, 2006.

  1. Kramer

    Annika1980 Guest


    Bite my crank, dipshit! Isn't that exactly what I wrote?

    Here, I'll reprint it one more time for your dumb ass:

    "It's good that you have fun with your old camera system.
    That's what it's all about, after all."
     
    Annika1980, Jul 15, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. I use both -- but the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 mostly solved that. I don't
    find much need for fast ultra-wide lenses. In fact, I sold a Nikor
    20mm f/2.8 and a Tokina 17mm f/3.5 when I bought my D200; I find the
    slower Tokina a satisfactory replacement.
    Absolutely true. Which is why 4x5 cameras and lenses are still made,
    never mind 6x7. Or 8x10, even.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 15, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Not if you need to zoom during the shot!

    It's easy to end up with large numbers of lenses, if you don't clean
    out the lenses you replace. It's even easier if you buy used stuff
    that looks "interesting" :). Before my big cleanout when I bought my
    D200 and committed to 1.5x digital as my primary photo system, I had
    11 primes and 6 zooms, I think; the zooms especially had leftover
    lenses sitting around. (And I've bought two more lenses, one zoom and
    one fixed length, since the cleanout.)

    I got my numbers without having either a full-frame or a circular
    image fisheye, and without a prime wider than 17mm or longer than
    500mm (300mm if you ignore the 500mm f/8 mirror). Then there's
    special portrait lenses (Nikon's 105 or 135 DC models for example).
    One might easily want more than one macro lens (significantly
    different focal lengths). PC and/or tilt/shift lenses -- perhaps the
    28mm PC *and* the 90mm or whatever it is tilt/shift. And I'm weak on
    the long end; you could add three more there easily, without going
    over 600mm. I think I could come up with 17 primes that each served a
    valid purpose and which I wanted to keep. I couldn't *afford* them,
    though -- I have to include the exotics on both ends to get that many
    :). (I have probably two dupes in my 11 primes, so 9 unique lenses,
    I need 8 more -- but I've got more than 8 referenced up there.)

    It's harder to justify them all along with the zooms, though. For
    example it's kinda questionable whether one really needs *both* the
    180mm f/2.8 *and* the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom. (Many of you will have
    figured out by now I'm talking in terms of Nikon; I know them better,
    it's what I actually have.) Similarly for the 17mm f/3.5 and 20mm
    f/2.8 if you've got the 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom.

    But most people with that many lenses *do* have a fair amount of
    overlap, and some entirely vestigial lenses.
    Yep. That's why you should *also* give yourself the fun of processing
    them yourself. Well, at least for B&W; you can do a LOT better than
    the lab, and do things they won't even try. The color processes are
    made for automated processing with precise control, and IMHO there's
    little point except perhaps immediacy in doing those yourself.

    Also you should use a lab that doesn't employ Mongo :). Though
    sometimes he slips in even in the best places. I've Mongoed a few
    rolls of my own for that matter (especially back at the beginning).
    Not if you actually carried all of them at once; the pain in your
    shoulder would cancel out the fun.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 15, 2006
    #23
  4. Compare it to the equivalent modern film SLR, though. My Fuji S2
    weighed a lot more than an N80, but not more than an F5. My D200
    weighs considerably more than my Fuji S2 -- but still not more than an
    F5 I don't *think*.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jul 15, 2006
    #24
  5. Kramer

    Tim Guest

    Yeah, and then you went on write paragraphs about how great it was to
    not have to mess with ISO settings and change film. Did he ask you about
    that? Does he care? You are such a broken record ... it's pathetic.

    Why don't you start learning how to "play nice" with people in these
    groups instead of being a distraction. If he asked you for info on the
    positive aspects of digital photography then your response about not
    needing to change film and the advantages of changing ISO electronically
    would be appropriate. But you instead hear someone saying they are using
    film bodies, and you enter in a list of why digital is better. Again,
    you're a broken record. Take your blinders off and start seeing the big
    picture -- just because you enjoy your way doesn't mean that it's the
    only way.
     
    Tim, Jul 15, 2006
    #25
  6. Kramer

    jeremy Guest


    I do enjoy the convenience of digital imaging, but I am not about to make a
    huge investment in it, as I already have my film equipment. I use film for
    what I consider my more important work.

    After some careful consideration, I've decided to use both systems. I use
    digital for the more casual stuff and I use film when I need to exploit the
    capabilities of my excellent lenses. This works for me, and it allows me to
    take advantage of the best of both worlds.

    I do find it curious why the conventional wisdom always seems to dictate
    that one must choose one system over the other. After all, it's not like a
    marriage. Variety is the spice of life. (Please don't repeat that to my
    wife . . . )
     
    jeremy, Jul 15, 2006
    #26
  7. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    That's me, allright! I never got rid of anything. I bought a couple of
    selected pieces each year that were in excellent condition and were
    bargain-priced. Sure I have a lot of stuff, but I built this system over
    three decades. It didn't cost me very much, expecially when amortized over
    that many years.

    But, regardless of how I acquired it, I now have it, and it seems rather
    silly to even think of dumping it. I have taken very good care of all of
    it, and my camera bodies and lenses all look like they are less than a
    couple of months old. And it all works. SMC Takumar lenses still compare
    favorably with their modern-day counterparts, and remember--I have very
    modest equipment requirements for the type of shooting that I do. Trading
    up would offer me little or nothing in the way of better results.


    I was careful to buy only SMC Takumars after I the first couple of off-brand
    lenses. After that first round of disappointments I bought OEM
    everything--even Pentax filters, body caps and lens hoods.

    As for the zooms, I got them with a few of the camera bodies. I didn't buy
    them because I wanted zooms. I carry two zooms in my bag, just in case I
    need an odd focal length on that particular shoot. I am not much of a
    "zoom" guy, but they come in handy in a pinch.

    My situation is off the beaten track, I admit, but it's nice to have all
    that equipment available whenever I want it. Sometimes the prospecting of
    choosing what to carry with me can be daunting. Decisions, decisions . . .
     
    jeremy, Jul 15, 2006
    #27
  8. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Strange. I use the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 also. I rather like
    it. If I follow the usual wide-angle rule (shot head on)
    I have rather little distortion.
    Yup.

    For me there was another consideration. I've never been able
    to really set up a darkroom. That's what happens when you
    live in a large city. Digital has allowed me to have a
    darkroom on my computer. As a result I've been able to make
    many more of my photos come out the way I've envisioned them.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #28
  9. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Ok, that's true.

    I still want a K-1000 with a digital back <grin>

    - --- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #29
  10. Kramer

    Paul J Gans Guest

    I won't... ;-)

    I think that this is a wise choice for you.

    I do something similar. I've got a Canon dSLR (the early 300D)
    and a couple of decent lenses. It is a nice starter kit and I've
    done some work that I find very pleasing with it.

    But I carry a minicamera, the Canon SD450 around with me almost
    every day. It is a very nice camera but it is a point-and-shoot.
    Nevertheless, I've managed to take some rather pleasing (to me,
    if nobody else) shots with it that I just happened to come across.

    I'm not going to walk around town every day wearing a Canon 70-200mm
    f/2.8 zoom. My neck would break.

    So two tools for two different needs.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Jul 15, 2006
    #30
  11. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    Have you seen the K-1000 Digital, featured on the Pentax Web Site?
     
    jeremy, Jul 15, 2006
    #31
  12. Kramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    Pardon fuckin me! I thought this was a group for discussion.
    Your vendetta against me adds nothing to any discussion of camera
    equipment.

    BTW, anybody seen D-Mac?
     
    Annika1980, Jul 15, 2006
    #32
  13. Kramer

    Tim Guest

    It's hopeless trying to use common sense with you. I bet that you've
    been having these types of issues with people your whole life, right?
     
    Tim, Jul 15, 2006
    #33
  14. I had a bad feeling reading this & decided I'd just count my 35mm primes...

    Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: Exakta mount
    Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: M42 mount
    Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8: Retina mount
    Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm f/2.8: Exakta mount
    Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2.8: Rolleiflex mount
    Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4: Rolleiflex mount
    Leitz Summicron 35mm f/2.0: M mount
    Leitz Summicron 35mm f/2.0: R mount
    Nikkor 35mm f/2.0 AIS: Nikon mount
    Jupiter 12 35mm f/2.8: M39 mount
    Jupiter 12 35mm f/2.8: Contax RF mount
    Voigtländer Skoparex 35mm f/3.4: Bessamatic mount
    Arsat 35mm f/2.8 Shift lens: Nikon mount

    "Only" 13, though I've gone through many more.
    Don't ask about other FLs...

    I guess it's time to sell a few (and these are all carefully selected
    "keepers")!
    :-(
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jul 15, 2006
    #34
  15. Kramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    No, just stalkers.
     
    Annika1980, Jul 16, 2006
    #35
  16. Kramer

    Annika1980 Guest

    Boy, you've got it bad!
    And I thought my lust for new gear made me an equipment junkie. But
    next to you guys, I'm a rank amateur. I suppose if price was no object
    I might have these lenses (all for Canon, of course):

    14 f/2.8L
    24 f/1.4L
    35 f/1.4L
    50 f/1.4
    85 f/1.2L II
    100 f/2
    200 f/1.8L (discontinued, but still the daddy)
    300 f/2.8L IS
    400 f/2.8L IS
    500 f/4L IS
    600 f/4L IS
    1200 f/5.6L
    90mm TS-E
    65mm MP-E Macro
    180 f/3.5L Macro
    16-35 f/2.8L
    70-200 f/2.8L IS

    That's 12 primes, 1 Tilt-shift (they make 3 of them), 2 Macros, and 2
    zooms.
    That's a total of 17 and I went crazy with the list. I could probably
    live without many of those as long as the complete range was covered.
    The sad thing is that I only own 1 of those lenses. Looks like I got
    some shopping to do!
     
    Annika1980, Jul 16, 2006
    #36
  17. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    I give myself credit for at least staying with only two lens mounts--the M42
    and its successor, the K mount (and I only bought a few Ka mounts in the "A"
    series--not any others.)
     
    jeremy, Jul 16, 2006
    #37
  18. Kramer

    jeremy Guest

    What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay
    more in a year for cigarettes than I've paid for lenses over a period of
    thirty years. Nobody ever got lung cancer from having too many lenses!
     
    jeremy, Jul 16, 2006
    #38
  19. What's the harm in having a few too many lenses, anyway. Most smokers pay
    No, but it can give you a social disease....Divorce!
     
    William Graham, Jul 16, 2006
    #39
  20. IMHO you'd have a *huge* hole between 14 and 24mm. I find a 20/21mm one
    of my favorite and most useful lenses.

    All those f/1.4 (and 2.8 teles) lenses: Is the idea of a compact, light
    alternative even considered by Canon. Great for body building but not
    for getting places on foot.

    Also the 24mm TS - the only reason I'd ever buy a Canon body...
    ;-)
     
    Chris Loffredo, Jul 16, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.