Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Isn't 5.6 supposed to be sharp? If u shot f/5.6 at infinity, it should be sharp. Even f/4 would be sharp at infinity

Not necessarily.

The reason is that when your aperture is open up that far, it is allowing rays of light that are being bent a lot more that are coming through the sides of the lens elements. By allowing light through a tiny aperture opening, the only light that strikes the sensor/film is coming in relatively straight through the lens elements, which is why you get less depth of field blur.

This, of course, is relative to your depth of field between the object you are focusing on and the distance it is from objects in the background. So, depending on context it could potentially be moot and 5.6, in that case, would be sharp.

It shouldn't be assumed, however, that shooting f/22 or something at all times will yield better results in terms of sharpness because every lens has a sweet spot that you can find using various methods that I can explain in PM or something if you want. The reason why the smallest opening isn't always the best is due to diffraction.

edit: man, it's really late. I hope i explained that properly :-\

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased a Polaroid Back for my hasselblad which arrived a few days ago. I just now got around to testing it out. I managed to tear the tab of paper and waste my first three shots, but now it seems to be working fine.

Heres the first shot:

3492602440_823ca384d0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased a Polaroid Back for my hasselblad which arrived a few days ago. I just now got around to testing it out. I managed to tear the tab of paper and waste my first three shots, but now it seems to be working fine.

Heres the first shot:

3492602440_823ca384d0.jpg

That's really cool. Where did you get it from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well basically i want a super cheap more manual film camera than my yashica t4.

already got an olympus om2 but im not sure whether i like slrs. i was going to try out a rangefinder to see whether i liked them better. would an electro be the best option?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what are people's opinions on yashica electro 35s?

It was my first camera actually. I think the viewfinder is poor, not very bright and easyviewing and the focusing is pretty primitive and difficult to focus because its just this really small orange dot in the center that is split focus. When the lighting is a bit dark or a bit light, its nearly impossible to see the small orange dot that takes up 1-2% of the whole viewfinder. Also because the dot is so small and in the CENTER, it limits the ability to choose your framing/composition, because you only know its focused when the orange dot that is in the middle is focused on your subject/whatever you are taking a picture of.

Rangefinders are probably not for me. They are super silent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man... yesterday i came across a Canon (Bell & Howell) Demi for $9.99 and didn't get it (I didn't really know what it was, and it looked so funny). I looked up some shots that people have taken with it today and was really impressed. So I went back and it was gone. :(

SIGH

im peeved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well basically i want a super cheap more manual film camera than my yashica t4.

already got an olympus om2 but im not sure whether i like slrs. i was going to try out a rangefinder to see whether i liked them better. would an electro be the best option?

rf might be hard at first, but once you lock down the focus they are fantastic.

consider getting a bessa R2A with some voigtlander glass, should give you a nice introduction to RFs.

I quit SLR´s all together midway during my bachelors in Photography, as i found them to be restricting as far as composition goes.

started shooting heaps of 5x4, but later got caught in the whole flaneur-esk appeals of silent cameras, with minimal shutter vibrations.

A lot of people dont like RFs,meaning that since you actually dont look trough the lens but rather through the separate viewfinder it allows you to observe beyond the borders of your normally given viewpoint.

I also found myself taking different "pictures" compostition and decition-wise with the RF than with the SLR´s

but thats just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well basically i want a super cheap more manual film camera than my yashica t4.

already got an olympus om2 but im not sure whether i like slrs. i was going to try out a rangefinder to see whether i liked them better. would an electro be the best option?

contrary to some others i dont find focusting with the electro 35 that hard. the small orange split focus bit works well once you get used to it.

its really big and heavy though. not quite lynx 14 size, but still pretty big.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree. obviously its not gonna be as good as a leica, but to check if you like RFs its a cheap option. daylight focusing is fine, I had some problems at night when drinkin etc, but I probably can't blame the camera.

edit: plus it's a f/1.8 if I don't remember wrong, so you'll have a pretty epic lense for next to nothing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...