Jump to content

jbcrane_gallery

Members
  • Posts

    181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral

6 Followers

  1. Along Highway 40 through northern rural New Mexico.
  2. Old fire truck near the entrance to town, Farmington, New Mexico.
  3. Highway 40, Northern New Mexico
  4. Methodist Church, Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness, New Mexico
  5. Frontage For Lease, near Dulce, New Mexico
  6. Highway 40 out of Farmington, New Mexico
  7. Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness, New Mexico
  8. Christmas time in River North, Chicago
  9. <p>Thanks very much for the input Neil. I know the 645 system has been around a while. I'm looking forward to putting it to use on some specific projects this fall. I loved the images the RZ produced - but didn't love the form factor. Thanks again. JBC</p>
  10. <p>Greetings All,<br> I'm new this year to the 645 system (M645 1000s with FE-401) and trying to get up to speed on lenses. I've come from an RZ system, which I loved, but my back did not when it came time to get into the field with the kit. The 645 seems a wonderful compromise: bigger (than 35mm) neg; smaller, lighter gear. As an added bonus, the older non-AF 645 gear is going for a relative song; the new goldie lox for me at the moment, at least.<br> I'm shooting mostly scenic/landscape/outdoor, so stuff that doesn't move around too much. Clean, sharp images with good color rendition and contrast at infinity are more important than bokeh. Close-focusing isn't much of an issue... I'm not shooting portraits with it. And I know I can pick up macros and extension tubes as needed. I do usually use a tripod, Mirror-Up and a cable release.<br> <img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s10/v102/p1772891640-4.jpg" alt="" width="791" height="630" /><br> Briggsdale, Colorado, RZ67, Portra 160</p> <p><img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s4/v63/p2013389445-4.jpg" alt="" /><br> Rocky Mountain National Park, 645, HP5 (developed in Ilfosol S)</p> <p>I work in both color and black and white, and am interested in keeping the front diameter at 58mm to easily work with my existing collection of filters, etc. (- you've gotta draw a line somewhere). And- the lenses are smaller and lighter. I do not see myself ever needing AF versions of these lenses. The ultimate goal is to have as complete a set of quality focal range coverage as possible while keeping the load as light as possible. I'm no longer interested in carrying heavy packs - but also realize that's a relative term.<br> I work in color and black and white, and can see myself adding something like a Pro TL with interchangeable backs, rather than the 1000s' insert. But all in good time.<br> As I build out my system with the above in mind, I wonder if anyone has hands-on experience with the following lenses:<br> 105-210mm f4,5 ULD<br> 150mm f3,5N<br> 210mm f4 C<br> 300mm f5,6 ULD<br> I also have the 55mm f2,8 N and the 80mm f2,8 N. Again, I'm more interested in sharpness, color and contrast than close focusing and bokeh. Any input on these specific lenses would be much appreciated. I did a search and found some good opinions on a few lenses, but most usage was geared toward portraiture. I'm sure those beautiful APO's are fine lenses - but they're far too large and cumbersome for what I'll be using the system for. Any information on the selection above would be much appreciated. My general sense is they're all fine lenses, with little difference between the C and N versions - but that's part of what I'm hoping to clarify.<br> Thanks very much in advance,<br> JBC</p>
  11. <blockquote> <p>Some people set infinity using a target closer than 5000 feet <strong>assuming </strong>that the lens will be used stopped down 2 or more stops from wide open and that DOF will carry infinity.<br />Your lens may have been set under such an assumption.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks Charles, this is a good thought. When I tested the lens on the digital starting at ƒ1,2 and progressing to ƒ16 the images did sharpen up around ƒ8, optimizing between ƒ11 and ƒ16. Just the same - it's a little disconcerting to have the image blurry in the viewfinder, hoping it'll actually 'appear' sharp in the print. If it's a simple adjustment by a factory trained tech I'll have it adjusted to be sharp in the viewfinder - unless there's an advantage to the infinity setting you mention above.</p>
  12. <blockquote> <p>Let me know if you want to see a detailed photo of the "Nikon infinity adjustment securing mechanism". ;-) :-)</p> </blockquote> <p>Yes, please... Is this something that could be done at home by an untrained guy handy with small, delicate things?</p>
  13. <blockquote> <p>It is a simple and quick adjustment for any qualified technician familiar with Nikon AiS lenses.</p> </blockquote> <p>Many thanks Michael - and thanks to Ross, Kari and Wouter for weighing in as well. This is what I was hoping. Though simple to the trained tech, I'll avoid the slight temptation to tackle it myself and send it in for proper servicing. The lens is worth it, gorgeous. The build is what drew me in but really enjoy the size and smooth motion of the oversized focus ring. But if it doesn't focus at infinity it's all but useless to me - which come to think of it probably explains why I got such a good deal on it. I haven't been terribly disappointed in the image quality - but can only look forward with excitement to a properly functioning lens.Thanks again.</p>
  14. <p>It's 5 meters/20 ft.<br> For comparison sake, my 50mm 1,4D is 3 Meters/20ft.<br> <img src="http://www.johnbcrane.com/img/s1/v47/p1914118635-6.jpg" alt="" /></p>
  15. <p>When the barrel stops rotating the infinity symbol is aligned with the black dot. The image in the viewfinder is however still out of focus.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...