File :-(, x, )
$19.99
ITT: /p/'s (realistic) dream camera

Mine's a canon 7/7s/7sz with the 50mm f.95
>> Anonymous
How realistic is realistic? Is it "we could buy it now" or "we could buy it now, but there's no way in hell we actually would" or "we could buy it with a little saving" or "it actually exists, and isn't something we're dreaming up?"
>> $19.99
>>144524
Haha yeah more along the lines of 2 and 3

>"we could buy it now, but there's no way in hell we actually would" or "we could buy it with a little saving"
>> Anonymous
in before leica
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
5D replacement. It's what I'm saving up for now. Hopefully it'll actually exist by the time I've got enough money to buy one.
>> Anonymous
Leica M6
>> Anonymous
>>144525
Then an M8 with the current 35 Summilux and 75 Summicron.
>> Anonymous
>>144530
Actually, scratch the 75. I just remembered how much the 35mm would cost.

And it's all too much to go outside this thread, at least for now.
>> Anonymous
>>144521

If any of the rumors are even remotely close, the 5D MKII sounds like it would be a fantastic camera.

Of course a few years done the line, that desire will have changed, but it seems the most reasonable for now.
>> Anonymous
1Ds Mk II
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Nikon D3, 50 f/1.2 Ai, 200 f/2 VR, 14-24 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8

Realistically? A D300.
>> Anonymous
Nikon D300 w/ AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
horseman 4x5. rodenstock 180mm? maybe 90mm. a schneider is fine too.
>> Anonymous
>>144552
This.

Unrealistically: D3 (obv.)
>> Anonymous
Canon 5D mark II with 24-105 2.8 IS.
>> Anonymous
a fuji gws690iii
>> M/A !n21TE7QU8U
Nikon D300, 50mm 1,2, Sigma 10-20mm and a 100-300.
>> Anonymous
Nikon D300 + SB-600 + 17-55 f2.8 + nikon 50mm 1.4 and maybe the battery grip.

Or a NIB 'blad with 130mm lens and atleast 3 backs and a sekonic l-308. would also gladly take an RB67 with more accessories.
>> Anonymous
Any camera will do.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>144605
tripfaggotry
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>144622

Dumb hipster... Aww who cares.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>144622
I love Holgas (have 3 different kinds) but...
how in the HELL is a Holga your "dream camera"?
>> Anonymous
>>144521
F/.95? Is it for taking pictures of black holes? Holy cow...
>> Anonymous
>>144646
I'm pretty sure that was meant to be a joke :/
>> des
FE2 + Voigtlander 40mm Ultron
>> Anonymous
>>144631
Haha, I have one.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Linhof Technica
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>144667

now, des. you know that i'm your biggest fan, but why the voigtlander ultron pancake? i'd go for the delicious zeiss planar 50 1.4.
>> Anonymous
>>144677
cake is delicious.
>> $19.99
>>144653
Here are some shots taken with it. http://www.flickr.com/groups/50mmf095/pool/ It's got insane small dof, realy cool effect.
>> Anonymous
>>144742

i must be blind or looking at the wrong pictures

what's so crazy about it?
>> $19.99
>>144746
Nothing "crazy" about it, just a nice camera.
>> Anonymous
Chrome M4 with the Voigtlander 35/1.4 Nokton.

EOS 5 replacement provided it has ISO 25000 like they say :D

Other than those two, I'm quite happy with my current cameras, and am more interested in dream lenses. I want the Arax (russian) 35mm tilt-shift, the Takumar 15/4 and the Zeiss f/0.7 they used on the Apollo missions, in M42 mount.
>> Anonymous
I could use TOYO-VIEW 45GII with a decent 90mm and a 150mm lens.


And a Speed Graphic for street photography.

=x
>> Anonymous
i don't understand how a lens could be f/.95. can anyone explain?
>> des
>>144677
>>144692
pamcaek is indeed delicious. I've already got a favourite 50 in F-mount. The first gen AI f/2. I think they only made it a few years before they changed the number of aperture blades (and formula?). I'm not a collector so I don't know the figures, but I've got a couple just in case.

>>fan
god help us all :P
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>144759

aperture is a simple equation. it's the focal length of your lens divided by the diameter of its front element.

the canon 50mm, in order to achieve f/.95, has a front element of roughly 53mm.
>> Anonymous
>>144767

And the zeiss 50mm/0.7 has a front element roughly 71mm in diameter :D

f/0.7 is two stops faster than a fast 50mm prime, and about five to six stops faster than a consumer zoom. Mmmmmm......shooting 1/125 when other people are at 1/4.
>> Anonymous
>>144776
Of course, it's probably ridiculously unbalanced on any 135-based camera, except maybe one of these big, clunky professional DSLRs.

Remember, it's not designed as a normal lens to cover 36x24mm. It's designed as a wide to cover to 56x56mm film in Hasselblads. Add f/.7 to that and it has to be huge. Anyone got a pic of it mounted on a Hassy?
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
i think there was only one or two ever made. kubrick bought one, and it might have been the one that nasa used.
>> Anonymous
>>144521
I'm halfway there :D Though if you can, avoid the 7 because the meter sucks and there's no hotshoe. I love my Canon 7 all the same though.

>>144778
Wasn't the Zeiss 35/0.7 a cine prime, and thus for a format smaller than 35mm? f/1.4 is already really unwieldy on 6x6 because of the insane DOF - that's why all the normal lenses are 80/4 or at most 80/2.8. I can't imagine using anything faster and getting stuff in focus - you'd be getting someone's eyelash, but not their eye.
>> Anonymous
>>144781
I don't doubt people have made really fast cine primes. Cine people need faster lenses (essentially, they have a fixed shutter speed), being on cameras that stand still they can be larger, and studios can afford much more expensive designs than still photographers... $100,000 for a lens that'll be used on several multi-million dollar productions grossing many more millions each is cheap. I know there's some 10-100 (I'm not sure about the long length) Arri zoom that would put most of our primes to shame when it comes to speed. I forget what it's exact t-stop is.

But I do know the Zeiss lens in question was designed for NASA to use on their Hasselblads on the moon. In other words, a limited production run for an agency with a huge budget for people to use in almost no gravity, so weight wasn't an issue.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>144784

the f0.7 was the fastest relative aperture lens ever used in a movie, and probably of all time.

and i'm sticking by my argument that there was probably only one or two.
>> Anonymous
>>144784

Well, weight and size actually are issues when you're trying to launch something completely out of the earth's gravitational field :p

That said, yes, the 0.7 is large. It's not an enormous lens, though -- smaller than some of the longer canon primes, and I've seen people carrying those around. Think like the size of a 1000/f8 catadioptric mirror lens.

Not for everyday pictorial photography, but not unreasonable either.
>> Anonymous
olympus om4ti
>> Anonymous
>>144780
yeah, Kubrick bought one for $$$ and destroyed a $$$ arriflex to modify the mount, in order to shoot Barry Lindon's indoor scenes eith just candle natural lighting... Right now I don't remember how dof was in those scene, anybody has the movie at hand to check?
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
>>144527
Ditto. 5D replacement with a set of 3 f/2.8L lenses:
16-35 II, 24-70, 70-200IS. If the 24-70 had IS too, that would be perfect.
>> Anonymous
A black Leica M4 with a 35mm f/2
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>144790
Here's a f/0.6 lens. IIRC it was intended for some ridiculously small image format, like 10x10mm.
>> Anonymous
>>144667
Heh, I have the Ultron, but local manualfags apparently think that FE2s are the second coming of Christ and ask like $500+ for them D: I'll probably have to settle for a FG, if I can find it in black.
>> Anonymous
>>145062
Well, someone needs to make a 10x10mm sensor camera
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>145064
The FG is a great little camera. Smallest of the metal-bodied film Nikons, I believe. My fascination uses one.
>> Anonymous
Realistically? Everything that's in my camera bag, maybe plus a few pocket wizards and a few more flashes. That'd be about perfect.
>> Anonymous
D300 + 50/1.4, 14-24/2.8, 85/1.4 and some 180mm macro along with a couple of pocket wizards and sb-800s.
>> Anonymous
pentax LX with a 50mm 1.4 smc-m, the 100mm f/4 smc-m macro, & 135mm f/2.5 smc-m
>> des
>>145064
lolwut
You can get them all day on KEH for like 100-250. $500 is approaching FM3a territory D:
>> Anonymous
>>145064
An FE is fine too? Or just go online, those things are everywhere.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
So does the rangefinder still work with that bigass f/.95 in front of it? It seems to be partially blocked...
>> Anonymous
>>145254
Yep, it's coupled. Might block the viewfinder a bit, but the rangefinder should be clear IIRC.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>145355
dont you mean, Might block the rangefinder a bit, but the viewfinder should be clear?
>> Anonymous
>>145401
The rangefinder window isn't obstructed by the lens at all, it's evident on the photo. The lower right corner of the main viewfinder will be blocked.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>145402
ah your correct, I didn't see where the rangefinder was hidden within the lightcells. On my HiMatic, the rangefinder is right in the middle thus i thought the same.
>> Anonymous
I'd rather go for a leica m6 and a noct 50/1.0 than the one OP declares.

Oh well, my current setup used to be a dream camera a while back. EOS 5D + 85/1.2L II
>> Anonymous
As far as lenses go. I'm totally nuts for macro photography and just got my MP-E. I'd so love to get a Olympus OM 20mm f/2.0 macro bellow
>> Anonymous
black m8 and a 35mm summilux