Redux

I started this blog many years ago to discuss my love of cameras.  I started the blog as a means to discuss film cameras, or “analog cameras” as they’re sometimes referred to, in the wake of the digital revolution of photography. 

I didn’t think I was providing new information or new experiences talking about film cameras, as that’s what I grew up with it and the equipment that I discovered and learned photography with.

As time went on, I discovered that many people — an entire generation in fact — were more familiar with digital photography than analog photography.  Their first camera was a digital camera, and through deeper discovery into photography, had uncovered photography’s roots in silver halide emulsion.

The huge benefit of the digital photography boom of the past 15 years is that many people are unloading their film-based photo equipment and transitioned over to digital.  This caused a glut of analog cameras in the second-hand market, causing this equipment to go for a fraction of their value.  Some cameras retained their value, like Hasselblad and Leica, but many popular cameras could be had for a paltry, but reasonable, sum.

Many manufacturers were caught out in the digital photography gold rush with no resources to invest coming up with digital solutions for their brand, and ended up merging (Minolta, Konica  or going out of business or shuttering their brand (Bronica).

Many brands continued on with their film camera offerings.  Leica didn’t introduce a digital version of their flagship M series rangefinder cameras until 2006, and to this day, still offer the M7 and MP rangefinder film cameras.

In the last few years though, there has been a rediscovery, and to an extreme, a pushback against digital cameras, mainly because it has become a megapixel race between the two dominant manufacturers, Canon and Nikon   Some would say that the megapixel race has stifled innovation in other areas to the detriment of the consumer.  Instead of pouring resources into R&D in other areas, they have focused their energies on sensors and auto-focus within their existing camera line-up, but have done little in the areas of lens quality or build, or introducing revolutionary camera designs.  They have adhered to the single lens reflex (SLR) design for their flagship cameras, which has a limitation of functionality, weight, and size due to the use of a mirror box design, size of the mirror box, and the size of the sensor.

In my opinion, the most revolutionary designs have been the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC). The designs have eschewed the mirror box, and is essentially a hybrid of a rangefinder camera and an SLR.  It has the minimalist structure of a rangefinder without the coupled, optical rangefinder eyepiece, but provides through-the-lens (TTL) viewing capabilities with an electronic viewfinder (EVF).

Camera manufacturers such as Fujifilm, Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony have made their top-of-the-line cameras as MILCs, where Nikon, Canon, and even Leica have dipped their toe in the waters of MILC, with the latter two having a single model of MILC, though it appears that neither Nikon nor Canon are entirely ready to devote a lot of resources into  MILC designs as part of the camera lineup targeting enthusiasts or pros.  Fujifilm, Sony, and Olympus are clearly emphasizing the benefits of size and weight of the MILC with quality sensors and new quality lens builds to entice long-time Canon and Nikon users away from their heavy and bulky equipment.

While the benefits of MILCs are clear for the consumer looking for an interchangeable lens camera, the price factor is preventing wider adoption in North America and Europe.  Entry-level MILCs are priced almost the same as DSLRs, but would need to be lower for wider adoption.

The consumer has had as many options as ever when choosing a camera — from smartphone cameras of varying features and megapixels but not much in the way of quality optics, to compact cameras, to zoom lens reflex, to MILCs, to DSLRs — as there have ever been in the history of photography.

The focus on digital photography has allowed me to acquire a lot of the film cameras that I coveted when I was younger, but could not afford on a meager photography student’s budget.

So, thanks to digital photography, I’ve rediscovered photography in some way, but more so I’ve reminisced about a past chapter of my life…and that’s what this blog is pretty much about, as well as all the equipment that I’ve been acquiring along the way.

I've had two new acquisitions since my last post: a venerable Hasselblad 500 CM and a Rolleiflex 6006.
Anyone with a knowledge of photography should recognize the Hasselblad brand. It is associated with quality, reliability, and repairability. The quality of the Zeiss lenses that Hasselblad uses are another significant factor as to why Hasselblads are so highly regarded. I won't go into a lot of detail about the Hasselblad as there are many posts and articles about the classic Hasselblad V system cameras, but here are the high-level details.
The Hasselblad 500 CM is an all-manual system requiring no battery for any of its operations. The lack of reliance on battery power means that it's definitely one less thing to worry about in the field. That also means it does not have any built-in exposure metering, requires manual winding of the film, re-cocking of the in-lens shutter, and return of the mirror into its 45 degree position. It's also compact (for a medium format camera), but has a good, solid weight to it.
The Rolleiflex 6006 is a lesser-known camera compared to the Hasselblad, but is no less of a slouch, and is definitely the anti-thesis of a Hasselblad in terms of "manualness".
Most photo aficionados are familiar with the Rollei name in the form of the small-format Rollei 35 and the highly-regarded Rolleiflex TLR (twin-lens reflex) cameras. The Rolleiflex TLRs featured Zeiss and Schneider Kreuznach lenses. Again, most are familiar with Zeiss, but not so much Schneider Kreuznach. The Schneider Kreuznach lenses suffer from lack of brand recognition, especially in the U.S., but do not suffer from quality in comparison with the Zeiss lenses. That is also inherently the problem with the Rolleiflex SLRs.
Rolleiflex SLRs are very much in a class of their own. When the 6006 was introduced in 1983, there was no medium format camera that had the level of automation and ergonomics in the market. The controls on the 6006 were intuitive, with dual shutter release buttons for either left or right-handed use. It has a built-in motor drive shooting at 1.5 frames per second. It has TTL center-weighted exposure metering and TTL OTF plane flash metering, all within the camera body, not in the viewfinder. The film magazines had built-in, retractable dark slides, and completely reversible film spools. The bayonet lens mount had electronic contacts like the Canon EF lens mount, but came out a full 6 years before Canon introduced them to the 35mm world. Back in 1983, this was a very advanced camera.
Now, 30 years later, the Rolleiflex 6006 is finally out-classed by the Mamiyas in terms of automation, but not in the 6x6 world. The Mamiya 645AFD is certainly a top of the class in the 6 x 4.5 arena, but the newer Rolleiflex SLR cameras like the Hy6 and 6008 Integral Mod 2 are far and above the state-of-the-art medium format cameras of the current generation.
The lenses for the Rolleiflex SLRs and even for the 6006 utilize either Zeiss or Schneider Kreuznach designs. Even the cheaper, "Made by Rollei" f/2.8 80mm kit lens, while not owning the Zeiss label, utilizes the Zeiss Planar design and is by no means a slouch. All the lenses are leaf shutters which can provide flash synchronization at any speed up to 1/500 second, and even higher with the PQS (Professional Quality) lenses, though PQS lenses cannot be used with the 6006.
All this automation is powered by a rechargeable battery, albeit with lower-capacity Ni-Cad cells. There are plenty of modified batteries available that can re-cell the batteries to use Ni-MH cells with the Rollei N charger or custom chargers.

The Pentax 6x7

Recently I added another medium format camera to my collection -- a new (to me) Pentax 6x7. Now this isn't the first time I've owned this model of camera. I actually owned one several years ago but sold it because I needed the money.  Since I've been building out my collection, I've had a hankering to get this camera back. What do I like about this camera that made me get it twice? The first time I owned this camera I was a photography student and wanted to have experience with medium format. There were so many options that looked very similar. If you look at medium format cameras, they all look, behave, and feel similar. Bronicas, Hasselblad, and Mamiya are all basically shaped the same. They all start out with a mirror box body, the film backs are similar in function and form, the shutter is in the same place, and they all start with waist level finders. Folks who own Hasselblads will probably recoil in horror that I lumped that brand of camera with Mamiya and Bronica, but in terms of basic form, they are comparable, but the comparisons will end there without further discussion.  What is obvious about the Pentax 6x7 (and the newer 67 model) is that looks like no other medium format camera. It is an overgrown 35mm SLR camera. The closest competitor is probably the Mamiya 7 line of cameras, though the Mamiya model is a rangefinder rather than using a pentaprism for image framing. I figured, at that time, was that the transition from 35mm to medium format would be eased because of how similarly the Pentax 6x7 looks and handles like a 35mm SLR camera.  Whether I was right or not is debatable, but the camera handling is so effortless that the transition was smooth.  What the Pentax gains in ease and familiarity of use, there are certainly trade-offs: This is a HEAVY camera. It weighs about 6 lbs with the camera body, prism, and lens. Imagine, if you can, hanging this camera around your neck (which i do not recommend). this also means that this camera is built like a tank. If there's any plastic in this camera, you'd be hard-pressed to find it.  This is a LOUD camera. The sound of the huge mirror slapping and returning will awaken the dead. Because of this, camera shake due to mirror vibration is a possibility, which is why Pentax came out with mirror lockup functionality after the initial release of the camera.  Similar to the Pentax 645, there is no interchangeable film back for the 6x7, so unless you absolutely love changing films mid-roll, you're stuck shooting the entire roll of film. The great thing about the 6x7 is that it can accommodate 120 or 220 film sizes without any adapters. You merely need to slide the pressure plate on the camera back to the film size you're shooting.  Lastly, this camera is SLOW. the maximum flash sync speed is 1/30th of a second, due to its massive shutter curtain. No, unlike the Hasselblads, the Mamiyas, and the Bronicas, save for a few lenses, the 6x7 lenses do not have leaf shutters built into them. This doesn't make it ideal for studio work, but then I've never had to use a flash with it.  So I mentioned that I sold this camera, and then I went and reacquired it (not the exact same one, but similar). I had acquired other medium format cameras like the Mamiya RB67 and a Fuji GX680, which were box-type medium format cameras, but I had missed my Pentax 6x7. It was so much easier to handle. The RB67 and the GX680 are the heaviest medium format cameras ever produced, and I'm sure the 6x7 is close to their weight class, but the 6x7 is much easier to handle.  Once i had my heart set on acquiring one, i sold off some of my lesser-used cameras in my collection, like my Nikon S2 and my Bronica ETRSi. I still love the ETRSi with its light camera body weight and ease of handling, but I loved the 6x7 format so much.  I found an awesome Pentax 6x7 up for auction on eBay that had a TTL-metered prism, and it was also modified to let you shoot multiple exposures. The seller even threw in 80 rolls of Velvia slide film! So this beautiful Pentax 6x7 sits on the same shelf as the RB67 and the GX680 and is probably the heaviest camera shelf known to mankind, currently dubbed "The Heavyweight Class". 

Gonna go back in time...

I'm a big fan of Hipstamatic. What a great way to achieve the retro, analog look in digital format. The more I came fascinated with Hipstamatic and Instagram, the more I became fascinated with analog photography.

I grew up and studied photography in the analog era, where you didn't know what you were going to end up with after pressing the shutter until the film was developed. Some shots you nailed it. Some shots you thought you nailed it and your negatives told you otherwise. Sometimes you thought your shots were going to suck and you ended up with happy accidents.

Hipstamatic harkens back to that era in some respects, but still gives you the immediate feedback and gratification of the digital era (after a 10 second wait if you have an iPhone...a few seconds if you have the iPad 2).

The more I became engrossed with the retro look, the more I learned about lomography. Lomography started as a commercial trademark for a line of cameras that took you back to the past and were very niche in their results, like quad-lens cameras, panorama cameras, and toy cameras. Lomography has grown to become to cover beyond these line of cameras, and includes discontinued Polaroid cameras and any camera that provides an unpredictable image because of the characteristics of the camera and its lens.

Lomography has also become a photography movement. It was born from a backlash against the advancements in digital photography where film is no longer part of the equation in image-making. Digital photography has made photography more predictable in its results. The entire image-making process is now faster because of the near-instantaneous feedback loop. Gone is not knowing if your exposure was accurate (unless you had a Polaroid back) or if your subject blinked.

The return of the variance in image-making has made one particular line of cameras very popular -- the Diana camera. Originally sold back in the 1960's as a cheap alternative to 120 format cameras, the Diana never sold well. It had a cheap plastic lens and a manual winding mechanism. It was known for the blurred, chromatically imperfect images that resulted from the cheap parts. It came in all black with a blue top and was often sold or given away as a novelty item.

These days, the Diana has made a resurgence in the form of an updated model, including a 35mm version. The Diana F+ allows for an external flash, a 35mm back, Polaroid back, and interchangeable lenses. It has become a pretty formidable system, all encased in the same plastic camera body as it had back in the 1960's.

Not only has the system been augmented, but the Diana F+ is available in different themes and styles. This allows for a more personalized camera that you would never be able to find in any other camera system, 35mm, medium format, or otherwise. Instead of the standard blue and black Diana, you can get special edition, all white, all black, or all "chrome" versions. There are special Dianas that are based on famous French designers (Colette), rock musicians (Meg White of the White Stripes and Tori Amos each have their own special edition Diana camera sets), and foreign cities (Hong Kong and Tokyo).

The Diana is definitely a quaint, and somewhat delicate camera. It being made of lightweight plastic, you feel like you have to handle it with kid gloves. Changing lenses was somewhat nerve-wracking since I feared breaking the plastic parts of the lens or the camera body.

The Diana F+ cameras are definitely of toy camera quality, but they are not priced like toys. The regular blue and black model Diana F+ will set you back $65. The Diana F+ "clones" consisting of the special edition Dianas can go as high as $180 for the MEG edition, though it comes with the additional accessory of a ring flash.

I have the "Tori" Diana F+ camera set that camer with a wide angle lens with a close-up lens attachment, and an external Diana flash. It also has a burnt orange top, with "Tori" printed on top of the viewfinder, and a facsimile of her autograph on the back left of the car.

I also have a Holga, which is another brand of 120 format toy cameras. It has a built-in hotshoe for a flash but does not have an interchangeable lens system. I've had the Holga for a few years but have yet to put a full roll of film through it yet. Because it doesn't have an interchangeable lens system, it's significantly less-expensive than the Diana F+. In all other respects, it's fairly similar to the Diana F+.

Also available is a set of lens adapters that allows you to mount your Diana lenses onto any Canon EOS SLR or DSLR, or Nikon SLR/DSLR camera body. That and the aforementioned Polaroid are going to be my next acquisitions.

Follow-up on the RB67 --> RB68

Back in a previous post, I was lamenting that there was so much to do to turn my 6x7-shooting Mamiya RB67 into a 6x8-shooter.

I had gotten the light baffle but couldn't find a proper 6x8 rotating adapter. At that time in 2007, I had already bought the 6x8 film back and just needed the camera parts to complete the transformation.

The light baffle I already had was not the same as the 6x8 baffle I purchased from the MAC Group. It did in fact have a slightly bigger opening.

I put the project on hold for awhile. "Awhile" meaning roughly 3 years.

I finally had the funds to return to the project and found a 6x8 rotating adapter for the RB. I got it from my favorite used camera seller, KEH.com.

The final step was to get the light baffle installed. The folks at the MAC Group suggested I take it to a camera repair shop to get the light baffle replaced, but that was not going to be a cheap proposition. I decided to give it a go myself...I just needed to get a proper set of tiny screwdrivers that could handle the torque of loosening and tightening these tiny eyeglass screws. They were in there pretty good but the replacement process was fairly quick and painless.

With the light baffle replaced, the new (to me) 6x8 rotating adapter replacing my 6x7 adapter, the 6x8 film back popped into place and voilà!! I had an RB68! I'm still putting a roll of film through it but I'm fairly eager to see how everything worked out.

Fuji GX680

This is probably the last camera (for now) that I want for my collection of cameras that I've coveted in my life, as I wrote about 3.5 years ago in a previous blog post.

This is a monster of a camera. It's a medium format camera that shoots 6x8 negatives but has the features of a large format view camera. The GX680 has a front standard that allows you to move it with swings, tilts, and shifts, just like a view camera. What this does is allow you incredible perspective and control over your depth of focus.

Just like my other medium format camera, the Mamiya RB67, it uses bellows focusing. But unlike the RB lenses which uses a leaf shutter, the shutter is actually built into the camera via a focal plane shutter. Both cameras are beasts, weighing at over 6 lbs, and both can shoot 6x8 (I modified my RB67 to shoot 6x8 with a 6x8 light baffle, rotating adapter, and a 6x8 motorized back), and both use bellows focusing, but that's pretty much it for similarities.

The RB67 is all manual and pretty much all metal all the way, which is why it's so heavy. The GX680 is controlled primarily with electronics and is primarily plastic in construction, which is why it doesn't weigh twice as much as it already does.

The reliance on electronics means it requires a battery, and boy does it have one. It's the equivalent of 2 Canon 60D batteries in size, but it only outputs 7.2 volts, and the battery is only available in a NiCd variety. There is a AA battery back available but accessories are difficult to come by for the original GX680. There are 2 other versions, with the GX680 III being the most recent and having significant battery upgrades -- it primarily uses a lithium battery or a AA battery pack that has greater availability.

The bulk of the GX680 means it's primarily a studio camera though there have been people who have taken it around as a street-shooting camera. There was even a neck strap available for the GX680 (there are no strap lugs on the original GX680 as there are in the Mk III), though using a neck strap for such a heavy camera may require some training of your neck and back muscles to compensate for the extra 10 lbs that your neck would have to support.

Like the RB67, the GX680 lacks a light meter and auto exposure unless you buy an AE finder that is only available for waist level use, while the RB67 has an available eye-level, AE finder.

It's going to be interesting to lug the GX680 around for some test shots.

Not about photography

I'd like to digress for a second and talk about the passing of Martin Streek.

Who the heck is Martin Streek? For Torontonians, Martin Streek was a DJ for the alternative radio station 102.1 The Edge (formerly CFNY). He had worked for the station for over 20 years as a DJ and was well-known for his "live to air" broadcasts every Friday and Saturday nights from The Kingdom and The Phoenix night clubs, respectively. His voice was well known to many Edge listeners for 2 generations. He was the embodiment of what the radio station was back in the day, the so-called "Spirit of Radio" era.

Sadly, Martin passed away 2 weeks ago, taking his own life. Coincidentally (and really not coincidentally), he had been let go by the radio station that he faithfully served for over two decades because of corporate restructuring. To some, suicide is not understandable. But I can understand the conclusion that Martin might have come to before making that fateful decision to end his own life.

Martin Streek loved his alternative music. As far back as his love of the The Clash to NIN, Smashing Pumpkins and the rise of alternative music in the 90's. Working at the radio station allowed him to express his love and devotion to the genre and the bands that make the music. That expression led others to give those bands a listen, and to love those bands as much as he loved those bands and their music. His listeners respected his love of alternative music, and his knowledge of music in general. His voice was the hallmark of many a Friday or Saturday night for many listeners and club-goers.

I'm one of those people who listened to his broadcasts on Saturday nights from The Phoenix, and attended many of those broadcasts. I was lucky enough to shoot some pool with him a few times in The Parlor inside the club on 410 Sherbourne. My friend and I were up next to play him a game and after his turn at the table was done, he bought my friend and I each beers, just out of the blue. He was the voice of my 90's radio. The entire decade.

102.1 The Edge is pretty much the only alt-rock station in Toronto. With his firing, he was unlikely to find a suitable employer that would allow him to express that devotion again. I'm only guessing that's what was going through my mind. I don't profess to know Mr. Streek, but I know of the obvious loyalty he showed the station, and his love of the alternative music scene.

After the news of his death spread across the internet, a wave of grief and loss echoed from many Streek listeners. It was unusual in the fact that they were so deeply affected because of either what they knew of the man, or what he had meant to them as being the weekend voice for a generation of listeners. But most of all, they were affected deeply because he was genuine. What you heard on the air was what you got off the air. Michael Jackson's death occurred the same week, but I've read many a Facebook or Twitter posting about how Martin Streek's passing affected them more than MJ's death. In some ways, Michael Jackson was on the brink of that downward spiral many a time, but we all thought Martin Streek would live forever. He had been such a mainstay of CFNY/102.1 The Edge that it was hard to imagine the station without him. And now we must.

Rest in peace, Martin. Thank you for being there for us. We wished we could have been there for you.

Anybody want some Scala?

Since I've added the Leica M4-2 to my collection, I've been trying to dig up some film I've kept around even after I switched to digital. I've got rolls of Kodak Technical Pan, AGFAChrome 1000 RS and AGFA Scala among other things.

So I dropped a roll of Scala in and started shooting. I had somehow forgotten that Scala required special processing and was not your standard E-6 slide film. After doing a little research on the internets, I discovered that not only had a lot of labs stopped processing Scala films, AGFA had gone bankrupt! Gah!!! Yes, I've been living under a rock. So far I've found that there's pretty much only a couple of companies that process Scala film -- Main Photo in Santa Ana, CA and dr5-chrome labs in Denver, CO.

I'm contemplating shooting the rest of the Scala roll off and then dropping in another roll of B&W negative film but I'm still thinking about just ditching the rest of the roll of Scala and moving on.