Jump to content

jim_mohundro1

Members
  • Posts

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. I sold my Ftn together with 35mm and 50mm f/2s and a 105 f/2.5 to a friend back in about 2002 or 2003 when I talked myself unto reducing my equipment weight, number and bulk down to a nice, clean Leica M3 with f/2 Summicron. In about 2006 my friend, after scanning far too many transparencies, committed his energies to a Nikon D40 and has worked his way up through a very happy relationship with a D300 to his current D610. I made my transition to the DSLR fraternity in 2008 with a D80 and now have a D750. My friend would practically give the Ftn kit back to me (but might hold on that great 105 to use with his 610). I know that the Ftn is in exceptionally clean and working condition as far as the mechnical elements go (shutter, etc), and I'm just a little bit tempted to take him up on the offer, thinking it would be an indulgence but a bit of fun to do a bit of film shooting from time to time. I have a good working Nikon V scanner, and I'd simply scan and add occasional Ftn images to my Lightroom catalog. I think, but am not sure, that there are no replacement batteries for the Ftn viewfinder/metering system. I think I could probably obtain a decent F finder in the marketplace and pick up a decent Gossen or other competitive meter at a good price, but I wonder if any reliable suppliers are in fact selling batteries for the Ftn finder/meter.
  2. I'm a novice at this exposure stuff, but, if the OP is shooting in RAW, how relevant are the 5600 degree Kelvin and profile setttings? Do they relate to the pre-shot image and histogram seen on the back LCD and its effect on the photgrapher's exposure adjustments?
  3. As a follow-up and correction to one of my previous posts in this thread, I've talked with B&H which had, and still has, two listings for the Dell U2412M, one stating it is available and one, just below it if you use the search panel, that states that it is no longer available. B&H now agrees that the second listing is incorrect and that the monitor is availble. My earlier note on this seemed also to be verified to me because the U2412M was no longer avaiolable on the Staples web site, and based on these two sources of information, I made my mistaken note of the monitor's lack of availability. By the way, I did and continue to consider Staples as a possible on-line vendor for my monitor purchase because Staples' policy provides for Staples handing the return of any item purchased through its web site if the item turns out to be faulty (a DOA monitor or non-functioning camera, for example).
  4. Wouter Willemse, I think if I were only using the monitor for photo editing, using Lightroom, I'd be pretty indifferent between the two formats, but I also do some teaching and writing and I'm not so sure how, for example, MS Word will work on a smaller screen vertically. It's clear from the screen dimensions I've found that my old 19" Viewsonic povides more vertical landscape than, especially, the 16:9. Of course, most modern 16:9 and 16:10 monitor displays can be rotated 90%, and that might work for me if the mechanism is smooth and, perhaps more important, long-lasting and maintenance-free. This new feature for me adds a mechanical element and mchanical elements can bring an additional source o repair concerns.
  5. <p>Wouter Willhelmse,<br> Thanks for the tip on the Dell U2412M but it is no longer being sold in this country.<br> I'm not aiming, on my budget, for a wide-gamut IPS monitor; I know that's not possible. I would like a monitor affordable to me that will do a decent job in the SRgb gamut (say 90% - 95%) and anything left over for Adobe Rgb is a possible bonus.<br> These are the web links for the general TFT site and for its "Flicker-fee" database:</p> <p ><a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews_index.htm</a></p> <p > </p> <p >http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/content/flicker_free_database.htm</p> <p >Perhaps I should just dismiss these articles but now that they've been brought to my attention...<br /></p> <p >It's unfortunate that no photo-editing IPS monitor is available in my locality to view in a brick-and-mortar store, but I'd really at least like to see how the Lightroom panel format lays out on a 16:9 and a 16:10 monitor, to see if I should have a preference between the two. I know it would be different from my existing, older, non-IPS 19" Viewsonic. I posted the question on the Adobe Community forum yesterday but I've not seen a screen shot so far.<br /></p>
  6. I can't find an "edit" link on Photonet, so this is my edit: The maximum budget of $350(or maybe $400) is for the monitor itself.
  7. Here's the set-up: It's time to bring my ailing, but classic, VX922 Viewsonic 19" 1280 x 1024 to the next traveling Antiques Roadshow and upgrade to a modestly-priced 23" or 24" IPS monitor. Considering I'll also have to upgrade my video card to at least deal with as much as 1920 x 1200 native resolution for my desktop PC on which I'm running Lightroom 5.7.1 (soon to be LR 6), I've set my maximum budget to about $350 (well, maybe uo to $400 maximum). I've also just moved up from a Spyder 3 Express calibrator (which I'd comfortably used to date with the Viewsonic) to a Spyder 4 Elite, of which I made a fortuitous purchase in Vancouver, B,C., taking advantage of the excellent (for US folks) US/Canadian exchange rate. Rather than rely on the sometimes problematic HDMI/DVI adapters, I've chosen to stick with my desktop PC's straightforward DVI output and that has limited, a bit, my choices within my budget constraints. The size of the monnitor itself is also somewhat narrowed, literally, by the physical space I've been able to allocate to my monitor choice. I had sort of focused my choices, based on my budget and some reviews balanced between positive and slighty negative, to the NEC ea234WMI-BK on the smaller side, and the NEC ea244WMI and Asus PA248q on the larger side. I was close to making the final choice, also constrained a bit by the fact that no one of these monitors is actually on view where I live, so my buying choice needs to be on-line. Although I've comfortaby puchased a Nikon D700 on line from B&H, I'm a bit nervous about the monitor; it's a much larger, more awkwardly re-packable item to return to an online vendor if the monitor is DOA or obviously unsatisfactory otherwise. I have found that, for a price not much greater than some online sellers, and even sometimes less, that Staples will honor an online order of any of the monitors I've considered with delivery to a local Staples store which will return the monitor for me to the manufacturer within 14 days if there's a problem with the monitor, so that firm may be my eventual vendor. Now, at last, the "flicker" issue. In my review of online forums postings on the subject, I've suddenly been confronted with a problem that, in pratical use, may or may not be a problem. An apparently quite knowledegable and veteran poster on another forum has discussed at some length the apparent problem of "flicker" and has linked to web sites and YouTube videos that purport to show actual flicker on many monitors. Apparently it's a phenomenon mostly peculiar to the now-common LED backlinghing for most current monitors, and the Pulse Wave Modulation (PWM) "circuit" that most moniors employ to "control" monitor brightness. There is at least one web site that tests monitors for the employment of PWM and reports its effects on montor viewing. My monitor choice was simple until I starting reading and worrying about this stuff! The NECs and Asus in which I've been interested apparently have the PWM problem. On expensive, beyond my monior budget level, the problem does not seem as prevalent. The poster who first brought this to my attention noted that there is a Dell P2414h which has been characterized by the Flicker Database web site to be flicker-free but really no others within my budget that also have DVI connections. I've had two or three Dell desktops in earlier years but no Dell monitors, but I infer from many internet postings that Dells can be great and Dells can be not so good and, in general, in their very large line, tend to be uneven, even among the same models. Now I seem to be stuck on the flicker "problem", hesistant to make the move. Is flicker generally a problem in practical photo editing (and MS Word, etc) use? New illumination on this subject would be greatly appreciated.
  8. I'm really surprised that no one responded to my question. Should I address it on Nikonians?
  9. As an old-timer (Nikon F and rangefinders before that, including a Nikon S3, two or three Leicas, a Contax IIA and a handful of various Retinas and Vitesses), and Ds 80, 200, 300, 700 and now a D610 in this digital era, I never realized that, with my 24-85mm VR and my 28mm f/1.8G, the default position of the lens aperture was at its smallest, unlike the operating function of the non-G lenses. That of course must mean that either somewhere in the focusing process the camera and lens, working together in their mysterious ways, fully open the aperture for focusing and then close it down to the "taking" aperture, which seems incredibly mechanically ineffcient, unless of course what I've read in this thread hasn't mentioned what might be happening, i.e., that the unmounted G lens is fully closed down while "at rest", but opens to its fullest aperture when properly mounted on the camera body; otherwise, we'd not see a (relatively) fully illuminated image in the view finder. My personal mental viewfinder is at its smallest aperture. What's happening here with the autofocus and diaphram- setting process that I don't understand?
  10. As an oldster who upgraded from the Daguerrotype to a Nikon F in early 1970, I can report that the f/2 Nikkor "pre-AI" lens available at that time was my standard lens and I adopted it as such based on my earlier experience with the Nikon S3 rangefinder 35mm body and the gem that the rangefinder f/2 version was. I remember that it was fairly widely considered superior to the f/1.4 which, at one stop larger, was a flashier piece of glass but not inherently superior to the f/2; in fact, many critics found the f/2 produced better image quality throughout its range than did the f/1.4. If the optical formula for the f/2 Nikkor you're considerimg is in fact identical with that of the 50mm f/2 Nikkor I used with my Nikon F, it was and is a gem and its IQ will be very competitive with current "standard" lenses.
×
×
  • Create New...