[Leica] OT: Contax 645 one more time

[stasys1 at cox.net (stasys1 at cox.net)]

Mark- your rant was fun to read. Your coupon image is so good I'd like to 
print it and take it to the store and use it! Best from the left bank. Stasys
---- Mark Rabiner <mark at rabinergroup.com> wrote: 
> Thank you Geoff I've never heard of Oscar Barnack or 35mm film tell me all
> about it please I'm all ears!
> I mentioned that I sometimes crop from squares in the last posts.
> I've probably made several thousand prints rectangle format cropped from
> square format negs. On RC Ilford Multigrade paper.
> The not having to turn the camrea on its side is a point I forgot to 
> mention
> thanks for bringing it up.  A main handiness there is it makes flash
> photography easier as you can position the flash right over the lens and 
> not
> have to use some ungainly contraption to keep it there when you shoot a
> vertical. As there is no such thing as a vertical square. You can use a 
> very
> short bracket or put it on a shoe on a prism.
> A square is the most efficient way to fill out an image circle.
> Picture a circle inside a square fitting right to the edges.
> The bare cube of the Hasselblad is quite shockingly small.
> Take everything off all sides and people are amazed.
> Its a little cube with a mirror in it. That's all. Weights a few ounces.
> Seemingly half the size and weight of 6x7 cube cameras;
> And not that much bigger than 645 bodies.
> 
> I'd vote for a square format film Leica anyday I think there was one "The
> Postal" but it was not exactly designed from the ground up. "The Robot"
> camera was. And square format 35mm is most often called Robot format. A
> German camera. With springs and a cin?ma camera type shutter. Great glass.
> 
> What I could not have done with a nice handy 645 system I'd not want to
> think about. Or a rangefinder 645 system. It might have made me loose most
> my interest in 35mm film altogether.
> But I stuck with my Hasselblad like I also stuck with my Nikons and Leicas.
> I never sold a system. Never traded a system for something else which 
> seemed
> like the next new thing. I just got into systems and stayed with them. They
> never gave me less than I expected from them. Sometimes there would be a
> lull when I'd not use one for months or a year.
> Nikon first, then Hasselblad, then Leica till I had three main systems to
> work with.
> A Calumet Cambo for 4x5 but with only one Fujinon 210 lens. The Speed
> Graphics I really never used that much yet.
> I started an Olympus Pen-FT half frame system but it didn't inspire me the
> F. Zuiko Auto-S 1:1.8 38mm lens I have is close to being an embarrassment.
> Maybe I should have it cleaned but it looks pretty clean. I can adapt Leica
> glass onto it. Or try other Zuikos which float my way.
> 
> I found in the end with the Hasselblad that the use of the old style prisms
> made the use of A16 645 backs more viable as they were not designed for the
> not yet invented polaroids back so they were low slung and low center of
> gravity so the camera could finally be tilted easily on its side. This I 
> see
> would make no sense unless you saw what I was talking about.  Had I got a
> motor for it I could have started doing lots of shoots in 645. I might have
> gone looking for a 220 645 back and gotten 32 on a roll. To me that sounds
> very close to 35mm. But with brownie film quality.
> "BROWNIE FILM" is Japanese for medium format. They say "brownie film" in
> Japan I've heard. Not translated but the English word. And so do I.
> 
> I did know a guy again who I'll pull out prints with at the color lab who
> shot nothing but 645 verticals with his Hasselblad motorized ELM. Glamour
> shots he'd heavily retouch of middle aged ladies. He never ever shot square
> with it. The camera was always on a tripod over on its side looking quite
> awkward. He made a ton of regular money.
> 
> I'm one of the only photographers I've ever met who played around much at
> all with Super slide format on the Hasselblad. 45x45mm The A16S.
> S for Superslides. As I got one for less than a hundred bucks July/8/2004. 
> I
> found it so viable I got another one this one a more fun non automatic 16S
> older version. Which I could get 32 on a roll with with 220 film if I 
> wanted
> to. Mid roll you click something.
> With the backs the prisms and the lenses as well as I guess the grips the
> system, modular as it is can be configured in many non obvious ways which
> have many non obvious uses.
> >From the time I saw one at the age of 12 at the back of a POP PHOTOG
> magazine the size of a postage stamp in the small adds in the back all I
> ever wanted for a holiday present was a Hasselblad C, then CM.
> The holidays were always a disappointment.
> I finally got one when I was 28 Y's & 6 M's old. It was July 21, 1979.
> But as far as I was concerned it was Hanukah and Christmas combined.
> I had a rich friend who bought one a few years ago and brought it back a
> couple of weeks later as he found the lenes too hard to turn.
> 
> I love my Hasselblads. Love my Leicas. Expect to get them both going after
> this prolonged digital lull. Right now I'll have to do with my Nikon
> digitals. Which I Love. Love as in "Love". My work has never been better.
> T...he images I am crafting.
> 
> Oh and for cheap which is  a rare word for Hasselblad new I got a mask set.
> I'd shoot what I'd call 630's with it. One over two format like a Linhof
> 6x12 only 16 on a roll.  One over two is my favorite format.
> Here is one I shot with the mask set scanned from a fiber archival print.
> http://rabinergroup.com/ImagePages/CouponWall630.html
> 
> 
> 
> Mark William Rabiner
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information