This post wasn’t inspired by your latest pic but by something I was reading in the archives when you were contemplating getting a 5×4 camera. Hope that’s OK. It occured to me that since you’re happy with one lens, then the perfect move could be to a Rolleiflex 2.8F with the f2.8 Planar lens. The diagonal field of view of the 80mm is around 54 degrees which is about the same as a 42/43mm lens on the 35mm format, I think. The Planar is as sharp as anything else on the 6×6 format and its bokeh is OK. Depth of field wide open is a little less than a 50mm at f1.4 so you’d be staying true to your (blog’s) ethos. For the type of portaits you do, it would be perfect. The square format opens up a lot of possibiloities, too. Just a thought…
Part of what I love about your blog is that I learn so much. I’m like a sponge when it comes to photographic stuff. So, Bruce’s comment sent me searching the web for more information about the Rolleiflex 2.8F. Always a treat. Perhaps the funniest comment, mainly a comment about me being a bit of a thick-head at times, is that I never considered that “1.4″ was indicative of anything except a great title of a photography blog. Then, after Bruce’s comment, I thought “you know, there are a lot of images on Matt’s site that are shallow DOF.” Yikes, I amaze myself sometimes. Holiday greetings, Matt, peace and joy.
Bruce, I’ve thought about Rolleiflex a number of times, and even had a loaner offered to me by a fellow photog, but I’ve always lacked the computing resources to make a go of it. However, Kate and I have a new iMac on the way, and a flatbed scanner in the works, so MF is a possibility for sometime this spring.
Chris, you can be forgiven for not cluing into the title sooner. There used to be a more explicit explanation of the site name, but it didn’t survive the this sites first move from static web gallery to blog. Every once in a while I wonder if the name is still relevant . . .
Well, thanks for letting me know I wasn’t totally out there. Wasn’t there just a post about the pluses and minuses of upgrading? I hope you enjoy your new equipment. What scanner are you considering? I began shooting MF earlier this year, chromes and B&W, and all I have is a Nikon 4000, which I love, but obviously that leaves the MF images out in the cold. I’m at the start of a long-term process to re-build a traditional darkroom, where I can print the MF negs (which, ironically enough, will probably cost LESS once I’m done than buying a Nikon 9000). That’s kind of a scary thought, eh? Alterations that could last years vs. a scanner that may not. Hmm . . .
Chris, I’m not sure which scanner, but maybe an Epson v700 or v500. A Nikon 9000 would be nice, but it’d break the bank at this point, and Kate needs a flatbed for scanning some reflective materials.
There was a post recently about not upgrading, and truth be told, I’ll probably run all my current software on the iMac in a virtual machine just to avoid upgrading. FWIW, I always talk about trying MF, but I never seem to pull the trigger.
Matt,
This post wasn’t inspired by your latest pic but by something I was reading in the archives when you were contemplating getting a 5×4 camera. Hope that’s OK. It occured to me that since you’re happy with one lens, then the perfect move could be to a Rolleiflex 2.8F with the f2.8 Planar lens. The diagonal field of view of the 80mm is around 54 degrees which is about the same as a 42/43mm lens on the 35mm format, I think. The Planar is as sharp as anything else on the 6×6 format and its bokeh is OK. Depth of field wide open is a little less than a 50mm at f1.4 so you’d be staying true to your (blog’s) ethos. For the type of portaits you do, it would be perfect. The square format opens up a lot of possibiloities, too. Just a thought…
Part of what I love about your blog is that I learn so much. I’m like a sponge when it comes to photographic stuff. So, Bruce’s comment sent me searching the web for more information about the Rolleiflex 2.8F. Always a treat. Perhaps the funniest comment, mainly a comment about me being a bit of a thick-head at times, is that I never considered that “1.4″ was indicative of anything except a great title of a photography blog. Then, after Bruce’s comment, I thought “you know, there are a lot of images on Matt’s site that are shallow DOF.” Yikes, I amaze myself sometimes. Holiday greetings, Matt, peace and joy.
Bruce, I’ve thought about Rolleiflex a number of times, and even had a loaner offered to me by a fellow photog, but I’ve always lacked the computing resources to make a go of it. However, Kate and I have a new iMac on the way, and a flatbed scanner in the works, so MF is a possibility for sometime this spring.
Chris, you can be forgiven for not cluing into the title sooner. There used to be a more explicit explanation of the site name, but it didn’t survive the this sites first move from static web gallery to blog. Every once in a while I wonder if the name is still relevant . . .
Well, thanks for letting me know I wasn’t totally out there. Wasn’t there just a post about the pluses and minuses of upgrading? I hope you enjoy your new equipment. What scanner are you considering? I began shooting MF earlier this year, chromes and B&W, and all I have is a Nikon 4000, which I love, but obviously that leaves the MF images out in the cold. I’m at the start of a long-term process to re-build a traditional darkroom, where I can print the MF negs (which, ironically enough, will probably cost LESS once I’m done than buying a Nikon 9000). That’s kind of a scary thought, eh? Alterations that could last years vs. a scanner that may not. Hmm . . .
Chris, I’m not sure which scanner, but maybe an Epson v700 or v500. A Nikon 9000 would be nice, but it’d break the bank at this point, and Kate needs a flatbed for scanning some reflective materials.
There was a post recently about not upgrading, and truth be told, I’ll probably run all my current software on the iMac in a virtual machine just to avoid upgrading. FWIW, I always talk about trying MF, but I never seem to pull the trigger.