Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Help with tripods please
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katastrofo wrote:
Gentle Orio, would you have wanted the pregnant Vera Miles to have
done this part? She was originally chosen. Yes, it's all a matter of
perceptions, where one will think it a bravura performance, and another
will think it sux. Wink
Bill


I would have liked Vera Miles even less. She's too boring for this kind of role.
What that movie needed was Rita Hayworth. She's the only actress of those times that could display a strong dark side along with her beauty - see Welles' Lady from Shanghai to see what I mean.


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm hip, Rita Hayworth would've been a better choice! I place Kelly in
the same room as Doris Day, Stella Stevens, and other luminaries. Laughing
Wasn't Rita abit earlier? Lauren Bacall era?

Bill


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katastrofo wrote:
I'm hip, Rita Hayworth would've been a better choice! I place Kelly in
the same room as Doris Day, Stella Stevens, and other luminaries. Laughing
Wasn't Rita abit earlier? Lauren Bacall era?
Bill


Actually, a bit more mature woman would have helped Stewart to show less his age by contrast and to look less like a senile maniac.
Novak was too young. This brings the movie farther from the noir mood it was supposed to have, and closer to Death in Venice themes

Sorry, Vertigo was a movie that I loved VERY much, but with the time, when it cooled down, I started to see the shortcomings. It is still a tearing, decadent movie, with his own undoubted very sick charm. But not his masterpiece.


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good points, Orio, but then, we'll never know, will we? Gosh look at the
time and the thread police will be here any minute!

Sorry, Peter! Embarassed

Bill


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Orio wrote:
oops I see now that Contarex Super is a camera of the Sixties... so this rules it out.

I just give up.


OK, good guess. It was an Exakta Varex V or VX with the name taped over. The lens is a Kilfitt 5.6/400 - I've never heard of it.

http://www.cameraquest.com/kil400.htm
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/exakta/exakta-gallery.html

Thread on photo.net : http://tinyurl.com/3696lf


Last edited by peterqd on Fri May 04, 2007 11:09 pm; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2007 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

katastrofo wrote:

Sorry, Peter! Embarassed
Bill


yes, oops, I thought we were in the Caf forum Embarassed


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
Orio wrote:
oops I see now that Contarex Super is a camera of the Sixties... so this rules it out.

I just give up.


OK, good guess. It was an Exakta Varex V or VX with the name taped over. The lens is a Kilfitt 5.6/400 - I've never heard of it.

http://www.cameraquest.com/kil400.htm
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/exakta/exakta-gallery.html

Thread on photo.net : http://tinyurl.com/3696lf


I was going to make a stab at saying it was a Kiev or Zenit. I would've
been wrong at any rate. Confused

Bill


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

katastrofo wrote:
Sorry, Peter! Embarassed

Bill


Don't worry, I went to bed! I'm far too young to remember any of the people you were talking about. Razz

As for tripods, I still don't understand what I need to buy or how it fits together, and there's no salesperson to help online. So I'm going back to talk to the camera shop and buy one there, hopefully when it's quieter this time.


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:

As for tripods, I still don't understand what I need to buy or how it fits together, and there's no salesperson to help online. So I'm going back to talk to the camera shop and buy one there, hopefully when it's quieter this time.


Peter, tripods really aren't complicated.
Ask yourself a few questions:

- will I use it in studio or outdoors mostly?
- will I walk a lot with it?
- do I plan to use big heavy tele lenses with it?
- will I use it to photograph architecture or organic landscapes? Or fast moving subjects?

and when you have the answers to these questions, write them on a piece of paper and give it to a good salesperson, he will help you make the right choice.


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Like Orio says Peter, tripods aren't complicated - manufacturers make them look more complicated than they really are because of all the accessories that they offer, and 90% of which, you'll never need....

I've been using the same tripod for the last twenty years - it's decidedly old hat, but it does the job for me, and that's what counts. Smile


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="peterqd"] The lens is a Kilfitt 5.6/400 - I've never heard of it.

The company is German and the name of lens is Tele-Kilar.
There is a 5.6/300 Tele-Kilar on auction on Ebay Italy right now. As I am a fan of old German lenses I would like it, but the seller reports that it has a M39 mount and that he used it on his Leica, so this means it is a rangefinder lens. if it was a reflex lens, even M39, I would have bid on it.


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kilfit lenses are expensive if you able to get cheaply that would be a bargain.


PostPosted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Kilfit lenses are expensive if you able to get cheaply that would be a bargain.


but what do I do with a Leica rangefinder lens? I have already too many lenses that I do not use.


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 2:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Help with tripods please Reply with quote

peterqd wrote:
I have a very old (and very cheap) tripod I bought from Boots the Chemists in the 60s. It is not very solid and it doesn't have any fancy equipment - I just screw the camera on the top.

I want to buy a new tripod or perhaps a monopod to take away on holiday in a few weeks. I've been looking at websites and went to the local camera shop, but I couldn't wait to speak to anyone. I am totally lost on how modern tripods work and fit together and I need some really basic help and advice.

Basic questions:

1. If I buy a basic tripod, what else do I need? I've seen various fittings and bits and pieces but I don't understand their function.

2. What are the loose plates for? Do you keep them screwed onto the camera? Do I need to buy the plates separately, or do they come together with the tripod? And are they standard or do you have to stick with one make for everything?

2. It is best to get a ball-head? I don't understand the advantages of this. What other types are there?

3. What is an "equatorial" mount?

4. I'm think I'm leaning towards a monopod rather than a tripod, for ease of carrying really. Is this sensible? The thought of carrying a large tripod around doesn't really appeal.

That'll do for now -
Thanks

Oh - if you think of Viejo's wonderful pictures of Helsinki, I'll be trying to achieve something near that! (No harm in aiming high is there?)


As the holiday is the first shoot! I would buy a Monodod and spend as much as you can afford on a ball head. Don't even think of ?20-30 for one you will be wasting your money. Get a Manfrotto 484 or 486 with quick release plate. You can buy a better tridod latter again Manfrotto a 55 is about the best for value and performance. A monopod with a good ballhead will allow you to wedge the end of the pod against kerbs, rocks, trees etc and give you a good shooting platform. Spend the money on the monopod and don't get distracted by a monopod with a nice looking head already on it. you just want one with a thread on it to take your ball head.
Money spent on good monopods, tripods and heads is never wasted if you are a serious shooter a support will improve ANY shot, not just the slow ones. If you want a tripod that can be carried about for occasional use look at the Manfrotto digi range. The smallest of these can fit in your bag and is a good tool.


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:27 pm    Post subject: Re: Help with tripods please Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
a support will improve ANY shot, not just the slow ones. .


I strongly second this statement!
Unfortunately, I am too lazy to be always coherent with it.


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's right, Rob. If you have and take the time to think about your photo thoroughly, a tripod will help a lot.
But often I shoot quickly (I am a kind of composing snapshooter), then a tripod will slow me down.


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 6:35 pm    Post subject: Re: Help with tripods please Reply with quote

Rob Leslie wrote:
I would buy a Monodod and spend as much as you can afford on a ball head


Many thanks Rob - excellent help


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a monopod and it did not bring me the expected 2 stops.

The good things about it are that it carries the camera weight (good with heavy lenses).
The second good thing is that you impress the people arrond you.


I have one, i use it but it does not replace a tripod, at least not for me.

Guido


PostPosted: Sun May 06, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jigt wrote:
I have a monopod and it did not bring me the expected 2 stops.

The good things about it are that it carries the camera weight (good with heavy lenses).
The second good thing is that you impress the people arrond you.


I have one, i use it but it does not replace a tripod, at least not for me.

Guido


With a long lens 200 or 300 I would say I get at least an extra three stops. with a normal lens I haven't done any tests but would be happy to shoot at around 1/15 sec with one. There is perhaps a common sense knack when using a monopod. It is one part of a stable platform it is up to you to find the extra parts. which is why I recomend a good ball and socket head on one. I always like to brace my pod against something. Just using it at 90 degrees is pointless as you just providing a fulcrum for your camera to swing on. just by leaning forward and having the monopod at an angle towards you is prvideing two legs of a tripod, a piece of string attached to the top of the pod and tied to something handy can provide the third brace which gives a support I would expect to be able to cope with a 1 second exposure with a normal to wide lens and 1/50th with a telephoto. Usually I don't go to the trouble of the string as it is easy to find a fence post, wall, bench or other such thing to brace your monopod against. I wouldn't take my camera out without a monopod hanging from my belt. I have three, one kept at home, and two in the car. A monopod used properly will IMO give a better support than many of the light flimsy tripods that are sold cheap. About the only use for that sort of tripod is time exposures which give plenty of time for the vibrations to stop. Also try focusing a 400mm or 500mm lens at 3-4 metres and holding focus without a monopod.
Camera supports become a very important factor when your photography gets to better quality levels. There is a ready market for tripods costing over ?200 and heads the same. Many consider it a small price to get the best from a good lens and camera.

A point about tripods that has mot been mentioned is vibration. The real danger of camera shake takes place at about 1/20 of a second. That is when the mirror and shutter go into action. This causes vibration which with a cheap tripod can be magnified. The effect of this is that even shutter speeds of 1/50 and 1/100 second produce shake. This is no problem for time exposures of a few seconds and fortunate for these manufactures that is the only time many use their products. The reason carbon fibre tripods are so sought after is not the weight reduction but the vibration damping effect of the material. Many of the light weight and some of the old heavy tripods may feel and are very solid but the older materials they were manufactured with are prone to magnify vibration, a good solid bolted joint often only serves to transmit vibration up and down the tripod legs!. I believe Peter mentioned his wooden survey tripods. Wood like carbon Fibre is one of the best vibration damping materials, if the joints are well designed and made. A nice solid lump of old steel with some nuts and bolts is not. Anybody can knock together a strong looking tripod but only the companies with the reputation for producing good ones do the tests and use materials and designs that dampen vibration.

Peter Have fun at Buxton, it is a lovely town. I once lived between there and Ashbourn in the village of Hartington. my parents owned and rebuilt the mill house there (!960's).

PS never seen a monopod or a tripod impress anybody? The people carrying all the top carbon fibre Manfrotto tripods. (Usually covered with a old camo tape) are the bird watchers. Seems they take their hobby more seriously than some of us photographers.