The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GRD2 with 40mm Tele-converter pictures

M

Mitch Alland

Guest
....Also 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and our present decade. Why did you stop at the 1960s? But strong work is timeless and the contention between form and content is exactly the same now as it was when we were drawing on cave walls.

As I think you might agree, there's no best format, no best focal length, no best aspect ratio, etc. There's the just the photographer, the subject and whatever tools he or she chooses to use to mediate between the two. A good friend of mine is doing outstanding work on the streets of NYC with a 90 on an R-D1...
Sean, I stopped with the 1960s as that was when 28mm lenses started to become more common. It's because I agree with you that there is no best focal length or format that I referred to Ralph Gibson statement on his preference for "natural" rather than "lensy" space.

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
28s became more common but 35s, 50s, etc. remained, and remain, central to small camera photography.

I like 40s too. Here's a rough print (because I'm still sorting out a new computer system) from the subway pictures. I did that whole project, over several years, with a 40.

Cheers,

Sean
 
Last edited:
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
That's the camera. For the subway pictures, I used a brace of them instead of Leica Ms because I could give up a Canonet if I were mugged. Whereas a Leica.... I still have 4 or so QL-17s just sitting on a shelf.

Cheers,

Sean
 

Maggie O

Active member
Fantastic little cameras aren't they?!?!

I'd love to see a digital version. (I know, I've said that only about a million times!)
 
S

Sean_Reid

Guest
Put a compact 28 on an R-D1 and there you are - Canonet +.

Cheers,

Sean
 
E

ellemand

Guest
Having been away for some days, I'll thank you all for the answers about where to buy the GT-1.
I would like to buy here in Denmark (guarantee etc.) but if I have to wait several months, I'll give the suggested alternatives a try.
Thank you very much - have a nice weekend.

Ellemand.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellemand/
 
Last edited:

Nick_Yoon

New member
Mitch, have you thought of using 2 GH-1 tubes? One for the 21 converter, one for the 40, and switch the whole converter-tube unit rather than screwing the converters in and out?

Seems to me that switching converter-tubes would be faster? Or is the camera-tube connection too fragile for constant switching?
 

Lili

New member
Mitch, have you thought of using 2 GH-1 tubes? One for the 21 converter, one for the 40, and switch the whole converter-tube unit rather than screwing the converters in and out?

Seems to me that switching converter-tubes would be faster? Or is the camera-tube connection too fragile for constant switching?
Having and using both the GT-1 and the GW-1 I can answer for this.
I do have two GH-1's and it does make it far easier to mount these lenses to work this way.
So you suggestion is a good one :)
 

Will

New member
I've ordered GT-1 and another GH-1 to go with it (so cheap anyway). I agree with Mitch though that the lens takes up less room. I will leave the spare tube at home unless I have a small camera bag with me, in which case I think it will be easier to swap with a GH-1 on each lens. I think in practice I'd probably only end up using one lens during creative groove of a shoot anyway, so it will probably make no difference one way or the other.
 

sagar

Member
What a great collection of pics Mitch I have seen such b&ws only from Leica range finders. I am really amazed to see the quality of BW images from such a little camera. I think this forum will force me to buy GX (I know images are from GRD :D)
 

helenhill

Senior Member
She's beautiful......
Mitch, It seems like some of your new Work with the GrD2
has taken on a new persona / a Softer EDGE / a more Refined Real
(which I'm not sure you would like to hear since so much of your work has a certain stylized EDGE about it)
Is that the feel of the camera or less manipulation on your part ?
Cheers- H
 

Lili

New member
I agree with all that Helen says, would add also, there is more Innocence, less of a Worldly air to this one.
 
M

Mitch Alland

Guest
She's beautiful......
Mitch, It seems like some of your new Work with the GrD2
has taken on a new persona / a Softer EDGE / a more Refined Real
(which I'm not sure you would like to hear since so much of your work has a certain stylized EDGE about it)
Is that the feel of the camera or less manipulation on your part ?
Cheers- H
It's a thought, Helen, isn't it? But with this subject I just couldn't make her look edgier than this, and I'm getting into making a pretty picture of a pretty subject, which isn't what I usually do. I've given a different treatment to the second picture below, and I may go back and apply this look to the picture above, in which case I'll have to repost it below because flickr will make the one above disappear.





However, my feeling is that above of the street seller (Feb 15) does have some of the edginess through the high contrast, no?

—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
 
Top