[Leica] Summer fun at the Zen Cafe

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

> Mark, you are a man of contradictions.
> 
> When someone says they love their Ms, you say, Nah, the true Leica is
> the petite Barnack Leica.
> 
> When someone says they love their APS-C (or god forbid 4/3), you say,
> Full Frame is where it's at!
> 
> When someone says they love their M8, you say, the bigger the better,
> so Medium format it is.
> 
> When someone says they love their Contax 645, Nah, that won't do, it
> has to be the Hasselblad
> 
> But then Hasselblad is nothing compare to the contact 8x10, or 11x14 to 
> you!
> 
> Now the Mamiya 7II is too big, comparing to the Bessa III? But what
> about its size compare to the Hasselblad? The 7II with 3 lens is
> lighter than your V system, by far.
> 
> So what do you really want? May be you haven't found the system you
> like yet? So everything is just not good enough?
> 
> I am happy with:
> - M8u for 80% of my stuff
> - E-3 for events and wedding
> - Mamiya 7II for the large negatives
> - XPan for the pano views.
> 
> What about you. What do you REALLY like to shoot with? Not 2 years
> ago, not 10 years ago, but now?
> 
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Mark Rabiner<mark at rabinergroup.com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The Mamiya 7 is a monster with the extra lenes its a nice sized camera 
>> bag.
>> The so called Bessa III fits in a jacket pocket.
>> I'd put my money on that one being with you more than the Texas Leica
>> system.
>> The fact that you can pull something out of your pocket with that much
>> acreage is lots of power. A half assed scan from a 6x7 neg could make a
>> large print which could blow away one from a capture from higher end 24x36
>> digital camera.
>> 
>> Mark William Rabiner
>> 


Well the tread topic was all about the Bessa III.
A camera I'd prefer over the Mamiya 7 because of the collapsible portability
factor. I actually would not mind a Mamiya 7 at all. Though less and less as
film seems less viable for my image making compared to digital.

I think we should shoot the largest format camera that we can carry.
And that threes no excuse for a small hand held camera to not have the
largest format in it it can possibly have.
A micro 4/3s camera it it was small enough I'd consider.
Like the new Pentax Pen digital.
But if "photography" to somebody means uploads which are less than 1000
pixels on a side then it doesn't much matter much about anything. Let them
buy a credit card camera.

I did make a crack about the 645's.
I'd love at the time a handy 645 system.
I just wasn't about to trade in my Hasselblad system for one.
And could never afford that second medium format system.
To me that's like trading your Leica m's in for a Contax G.
The 645s gave you 35mm handiness but with medium format.
The Hasselblads did not.
To me this was not a minus.  It was almost and advantage.

Sheet film totally rules that's a known fact. Especially in the area of
contact printing. 
But I'd not want to shoot the Macy's Parade with one.
I did shoot a Halloween party in the Portland Oregon art museum with one.
http://rabinergroup.com/Catagorypages/Halloween2001.html

I don't think I'm all that wavering or off base Richard!
I went out shooting with a friend of mine from Denmark he with his new
Contax 645 had had for a few weeks, me  with my Hasselblad CM I'd had a few
decades. no tripods this time. We both lined up for the same shots.
I'd go click.
He'd go click buzz zap clank click.
8 things had to happen on this Contax 645 before it would take a picture.
Compared to the Hasselblad it definably lacked a certain kind of elegance.
He traded in his entire Contax 645 system for Hasselblad the following week.
He was, by the way, normally a tripod shooter.




Mark William Rabiner