A Canonet in Paris, Part 2

[photophorous]

I finally got around to developing the second roll I shot with my Canonet in Paris. The film was Plus-X and I shot it at about 250 ISO because the light meter is off. Excuses aside, I like these shots. Hope you do too.

The first couple are from Palais Royal. The third and fourth are from Le Sacre Couer. And the last one was somewhere in Montmartre.

Thanks for looking.

Paul

[Greg McCary]

Nice captures and great composition, I love my QL-17 as well...
Greg

[poker]

Ah yes......Le Sacre Couer....

I remember my wife and I choosing to walk all the way up becuase we were to too cheap to pay for the tram ride. The tram was full fare for such a short distance!

The old man and the bike shot are my favorite

Very nice!

[schrackman]

Great shots! Canonet rocks.

Does that old man know he has a rat on his back?

Greg, when are we gonna see some QL-17 pics from you??

[another view]

Once again, great job - and all these are from one roll... I think this camera and style of shooting suit you well!

[photophorous]

Thanks, everybody!

Greg, I'm gonna have to repeat what Shrackman said...When do we get to see some of your Canonet shots?

Manacsa, We took the tram up and then walked back down. We probably would have walked up too, but our metro pass got us a free ride. That was a very interesting area of town.

Shrackman, I was wondering the same thing about that guy. He just came out of knowhere, and luckily I was ready to get the shot. In most circumstances I would feel some obligation to tell a person they have a rat on their back, but for some reason that didn't seem to be the right reaction this time.

AV, Every time I develop a roll from the Canonet, I start thinking about Brian and his Bessa. I like the prime lens, and I like how the Canonet doesn't attract the attention that a big DSLR does. I just don't like dealing with film. So, I'm waiting for an affordable digital rangefinder.

Paul

[mtbbrian]

You Rock Paul!
I love all of these great photographs!
Does this camera have interchangeable lenes?
They seem a little flat, but I am sure they'd make great prints.
I just back my second roll from my Bessa, and I have some MTB stuff on that roll, from Gosseberry Mesa.
Brian
:thumbsup:

[photophorous]

Hey Brian,

Thanks for looking. I'm glad you like them. I was planning to ask you how things are going with the Bessa. If you're only on your second roll, you need to be shooting more. I hope you've just been busy and not disappointed with it. When do we get to see more pics?

The Canonet has a fixed 40mm f1.7 lens. Best $20 I ever spent. I think it's pretty sharp, but it's hard to tell exactly how sharp, because I'm using a cheapo scanner and I haven't actually been to the dark room in almost a year now. The photos do look kinda flat. I think I overcompensated in post because the negatives are a little too contrasty. It's a long story, but the light meter isn't accurate on the Canonet and I goofed the compensation on all three of the rolls I shot in Europe. This one was underexposed more than the other two, and I think I overdeveloped by a little. I still have a roll of Tri-X, mostly shot in Amsterdam. That'll be next.

Paul

[mtbbrian]

Tri-X Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been doing a lot of Holga stuff lately, I'd say I the ratio of film I have put through my Holga versus what I have put through my R2A is about 2:1, it may be higher..
For example, on my trip to Southern Utah to ride Gooseberry Mesa, I shot two complete rolls of 120 film versus finishing off one roll of 35mm and just starting another.
Most of the shots on the finished roll were shot with the 25mm lens.

I am still firguring out this whole RF thing and RF lenes seem to be wider than their SLR counterparts. Is that the case? The 40mm lens on your Canonet seems wide, and my 25 seems to a lot wider than any 24mm lens I shot with on my SLRs. Is this the case?
Brian

[mtbbrian]

AV, Every time I develop a roll from the Canonet, I start thinking about Brian and his Bessa. I like the prime lens, and I like how the Canonet doesn't attract the attention that a big DSLR does. I just don't like dealing with film. So, I'm waiting for an affordable digital rangefinder.

Paul

I'm flattered!
So far the only digital RF's are the Leica M8 and Epson RD-1 right?
I love the unobtrusiveness of an RF!
I haven't heard of any other manufacturers. I think a reasonably priced digital RF would lure me to the "darkside":devil: :cornut: :crazy:...
Maybe.....
Brian

[photophorous]

Tri-X Good!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have been doing a lot of Holga stuff lately, I'd say I the ratio of film I have put through my Holga versus what I have put through my R2A is about 2:1, it may be higher..
For example, on my trip to Southern Utah to ride Gooseberry Mesa, I shot two complete rolls of 120 film versus finishing off one roll of 35mm and just starting another.
Most of the shots on the finished roll were shot with the 25mm lens.

I am still firguring out this whole RF thing and RF lenes seem to be wider than their SLR counterparts. Is that the case? The 40mm lens on your Canonet seems wide, and my 25 seems to a lot wider than any 24mm lens I shot with on my SLRs. Is this the case?
Brian

Okay, Holga is a good excuse for not shooting more with the R2A. Funny how we're both using our cheap cameras more than the expensive ones.

I'm not sure about your angle of view question. I guess it's possible, but that's something I don't completely understand. I thought it was dependant on the format (or sensor) size, so 35mm film lenses would be the same regardless of camera type. But, I'm really not sure.

Paul

[photophorous]

I'm flattered!
So far the only digital RF's are the Leica M8 and Epson RD-1 right?
I love the unobtrusiveness of an RF!
I haven't heard of any other manufacturers. I think a reasonably priced digital RF would lure me to the "darkside":devil: :cornut: :crazy:...
Maybe.....
Brian

The Leica and Epson are the only ones I know of, and they are WAY out of my price range. I wish the camera companies would come out with a cheaper version, even if it had a fixed lens like the Canonet.

I love the look of film, but it's so time consuming and expensive that I feel like I get more out of digital. I'm just not happy with the feel and shooting style I have with my DSLR. It's great at times but way to cumbersome at others. I've been thinking about you and your Bessa because I figure this is the kind of thought process that lead you to sell your SLR stuff. I'd do the same if I was more comfortable using film, but I'm just not. I'm going to put my 50mm f1.8 back on my film SLR and load some B&W film to see what I get from that set up. If it works out ok, I'll consider buying some wider primes (24, 35) to use on my D70s. I don't know if I'll like that setup, but it's worth a shot.

Paul

[Old Timer]

Sorry I haven't commented earlier on these Paul, but I have been enjoying them in the gallery. Wonderful image. I love the feel and the mood that they invoke. Did you feel like you were rubbing elbows with Henri Cartier Bresson?

[another view]

affordable digital rangefinder

Pick two...

I'm waiting for that day myself! Should I admit that I have a Canonet that I haven't used much? Naah...

[mtbbrian]

Should I admit that I have a Canonet that I haven't used much? Naah...

Get out and use it then!

Brian

[mtbbrian]

Okay, Holga is a good excuse for not shooting more with the R2A. Funny how we're both using our cheap cameras more than the expensive ones.

I'm not sure about your angle of view question. I guess it's possible, but that's something I don't completely understand. I thought it was dependant on the format (or sensor) size, so 35mm film lenses would be the same regardless of camera type. But, I'm really not sure.

Paul

I posted this question over on RFF, and similiar lens regradless of the type of camera are the same as far as angle of view and depth of field. Some though, pointed out that RF lens are sharper. Go figure....
You'll love, the new stuff I'll be posting in the next few days, from both cameras.
I have some MTB stuff from both as well as some "architectural/street" stuff I did with the 25 f/4 Skopar lens.
Brian

[photophorous]

Sorry I haven't commented earlier on these Paul, but I have been enjoying them in the gallery. Wonderful image. I love the feel and the mood that they invoke. Did you feel like you were rubbing elbows with Henri Cartier Bresson?

Thanks, Larry! I'm glad you like them. They were a lot of fun to make. I didn't really feel like I was rubbing elbows with HCB. I just felt like yet another annoying American with a camera who wishes he could make photos like HCB. I was thinking about his photos, though. My first photo book was his photos of Paris, and I absolutely love it. I would never compare my photos to his, but that book certainly provided a great deal of inspiration.

[photophorous]

Pick two...

I'm waiting for that day myself! Should I admit that I have a Canonet that I haven't used much? Naah...

I can only assume that we can't have all three because there's not a big enough market for it. That's too bad. We need to start some kind of campaign to let the camera manufacturers know we want a good alternative to DSLRs. Now, if we can only figure out how to do that.

I already knew you have a Canonet. You really should put some film through it. :thumbsup:

[photophorous]

I posted this question over on RFF, and similiar lens regradless of the type of camera are the same as far as angle of view and depth of field. Some though, pointed out that RF lens are sharper. Go figure....
You'll love, the new stuff I'll be posting in the next few days, from both cameras.
I have some MTB stuff from both as well as some "architectural/street" stuff I did with the 25 f/4 Skopar lens.
Brian

Good to know about the lenses.

Can't wait to see the new stuff! :thumbsup: Don't leave us hanging for too long.

[another view]

I can only assume that we can't have all three because there's not a big enough market for it.

Unfortunately I think it's a case of it costs too much so there's not a big market, so it costs too much so there's not a big market (repeat). The name Leica has always been synonomous with expensive and I don't see that changing with the R8. I'm hoping that Bessa comes out with one, but then wait for their second generation. That'll be the one for the shooters to buy...

[mtbbrian]

Unfortunately I'm hoping that Bessa comes out with one, but then wait for their second generation. That'll be the one for the shooters to buy...

I am with you there Steve and a lot of others would love to see that too, but from the rumblings I hear I don't see Voigtlander doing a digital rangefinder.
They just don't seem to have the clout that Leica has to do it.
I would be great to see them do it though!
Brian

[photophorous]

Unfortunately I think it's a case of it costs too much so there's not a big market, so it costs too much so there's not a big market (repeat). The name Leica has always been synonomous with expensive and I don't see that changing with the R8. I'm hoping that Bessa comes out with one, but then wait for their second generation. That'll be the one for the shooters to buy...

I don't guess it would really cost any more than a digital SLR to develop, but the low sales would require a higher retail price. Is that what you're saying? The Leica is just way too much for me. I can't afford their lenses, even if I could afford the body. So, I'll just root for Bessa.

[another view]

I don't guess it would really cost any more than a digital SLR to develop, but the low sales would require a higher retail price. Is that what you're saying? The Leica is just way too much for me. I can't afford their lenses, even if I could afford the body. So, I'll just root for Bessa.

That's what I'm saying, and same position here. I hope Brian's wrong but time will tell...