PaulCoen

I was a Minolta shooter for years (US 500si/600si/5/7), and I've been picking up some working used bodies lately just to make sure I've got some on hand that work. One of them was a 7000 (listed in BGN condition) that I got from KEH for $16. I already have lenses (including the 28/2.8, the 50/1.7 the 28-138/4-4.5 and the 70-210/F4). I've been impressed with it overall. Having used the 600si/7, and the 7D when I first went digital, the push button interface isn't my favorite, but the camera works well, the AF is at least predictable, and the viewfinder is nice and bright. I was genuinely impressed with the 7000. I'd love to get my hands on a decent 9000 (when I've had issues with the older cameras, it tends to be the film advance mechanism), but those are a little harder to come by (especially with readable LCDs).

If the Dual III is made like the Elite II (and I think the internal layout may be similar), when you pop it open, the transport/scanner/etc. is a piece that sits in front of and slightly over a board that includes the internal power supply along with some other components. There's a ribbon cable that connects the front piece to that card, plus power supply cables, and then a cable for the front buttons / door sensor. I've had that internal power supply stop working - I had more than one unit to test with, so I experimented a bit. I'd suggest reseating the cables. Also, the Scan Elite II had a ferrite band added to the ribbon cable (part 2888-1034-01) and it's in the service manual as needed for "Noise reduction". It's possible you're seeing internal interference, not external. That was a later part substitution on the Scan Elite II - there was another part there previously. This is a long way to say that the interference COULD be generated from inside the unit if moving it, trying a different adapter, and changing out the USB cable all fail to help.

I'd be surprised if they add autofocus at that price point. It's one of the major selling points for the XL series, and a lot of colleges, museums, archives, etc, who could get by with the smaller form factor for photography would gravitate towards it. I could be wrong,. But we see from some of Apple's decisions about things like not being able to put an i7 in the previous 27" iMac (at least, it was the last , so it's the i5 or paying a huge premium for the i9). Now you can get an i5 or an 8-core i7, but not the i9. Most of these companies don't look to deliver value, they're about delivering "just enough" to increase margins at the lower level while protecting the larger margins at the higher price points.

I shot some Agfa Scala back in the 1990s. Loved it, and when I got access to a slide scanner, I found that it scanned really, really well. Having to mail it out to get processed prevented me from using it more. I haven't looked at today's stuff - in the grand scheme of things, I don't want to take on processing it, and I don't know how the mail outfits are (back in the original Agfa days, they had specific labs). It's more effort than I want to take on - I'm already shooting several different B&W negative films, plus Polaroid SX-70, 600, and (still) Packfilm. The beauty of the original Scala - in addition to how it looked - was that it was SUPER predictable, both in terms of how the film handled and the work the approved labs did. I've got enough unpredictability in terms of photography already :) If I happen to hear that the results are good and the service is predictable, I might give it a shot, though.

That's not bad - if you have Photoshop, and the "fading" is fairly consistent across colors, try duplicating the background layer, and change the layer from "Normal" to "Multiply". You can then adjust the opacity for the new layer to get the level you want. There are other (more sophisticated) ways to do it, but this has the virtue of taking about two seconds to see if it gets you close to where you want to be.

You might have trouble scanning negatives and getting the same look that you would have from a film lab without fiddling in Vuescan, and if you can get close, outside of it to finish. I use Lightroom Classic, so I just picked up the Negative Lab Pro plugin (there's a trial version). You can shoot your negatives with a DSLR/Mirrorless, or use Vuescan or Silverfast to scan as a negative. I used Vuescan, saved out as a DNG, and ran them through the NLP conversion. In spite of the extra steps, getting results I was happy with using old C-41 negatives was MUCH easier. I'm probably going to go back through to some rolls that just gave me fits years ago and rescan some. The software has color models that are a good match for Fuji's Frontier and Noritsu minilab scanners. Also gives you the option to save out an additional TIFF file for each, making it easier to do additional edits using Lightroom's (or another tool's) controls later. If you stick with the DNG, even post conversion, the slider functions are all reversed because it's still a negative "under the hood", even if the preview now shows a positive image. The plugin currently only works with Lightroom (Classic), either the standalone v6 or Creative Cloud - the developer has looked at the Capture One SDK, and it doesn't provide what he needs. There are a couple of other similar programs out there, at least one of which is a Photoshop plugin. Might not be for you (or anyone else :), but if you have Lightroom, the free trial doesn't take much work to figure out. It took me about five minutes to get up and running reading the guide.

Check with Brooklyn Film Camera. I bought a refurbished SX-70 Sonar from them in the fall, and it was in great shape. They do good work. Services — Brooklyn Film Camera

On the same day as Robert Frank. The Life of Fred Herzog, Vancouver’s Beloved Photographer | The Tyee Noted Vancouver photographer Fred Herzog dies at age 88

So I've got a Pro-10, and I'm printing from Lightroom. I have calibrated my display - I've got a BenQ SW2700. Scanning through the thread, I didn't see if you were using Windows or MacOS - I've got Windows at home. At least in Windows, the Canon drivers include default printing options that work really poorly with both Lightroom and Photoshop if you're doing color management in the applications. In the "Printing Properties" tab, there's a "Color/Intensity" section. Set that to "Manual". Click "Set" and then go to the "Color Matching" tab at set it to "None". Until I did both, I was getting weird color shifts. If you're using MacOS, this may not be an issue - I've only seen the PRO-1000 drivers on a Mac, and they're a bit different and I didn't see a similar set of options there. Not sure if that's a difference because of the platform or because of the printer model. Also, even with a profiled display, I find that I have to up the "brightness" slider in Lightroom's Print module, especially on glossy or semi-gloss paper, even with the right paper profile selected, etc. It's not really an issue with matte. I'd recommend using the Soft Proofing feature, especially if you're going to print the same image on more than one type of paper. If you save the settings, it'll make it easier to go back and reprint later.

I'm currently using a Domke F-5XA for when I'm using a Sony a6500 with a couple of small lenses (16-70 F/4 being the largest or maybe that lens and a flash. I've got a 5XC for the same camera with a longer zoom, extra lenses and the flash. Works well enough.

Try resetting your lightroom preferences before messing with a catalog restore. How to set Lightroom Classic CC preferences After you reset, you may have to browse to the catalog location - you may get prompted or you might have to do it from the menu after it launches. I don't think I've had to do it since Lightroom 6, so I don't remember the default opening behavior after a reset.

Saul Leiter - "Early Color" and "Early Black and White". I'd recommend the first over the second.if you had to choose.. Francesca Woodman, "On Being an Angel" by Tellgran. SFMOMA's Gary Winograd retrospective, Stephen Shore's "Uncommon Places". Inge Morath "First Color". Davis' "Clarence John Laughlin: Visionary Photographer". And I'd echo the Herzog recommendation above.

One of the great things about the 7 (I bought one when my 600si developed a front dial fault) was that you got the same basic layout with a camera that was pretty much the fastest AF on the market for a long time. The 600si - while I loved the camera - was pretty slow. I had a bunch of little lock/recompose angle tricksI used to use depending on the scene to force the sensors to grab onto something at the same distance.

The Metz Mecablitz m400 is great - capable, bounce/swivel, manual controls, and it fits and balances great on the a6500. I picked one up using Amazon reward points in early September this year, and I'm really happy with it. None of the Sony offerings seem to fit the a6000/6300/6500 as well.

Actually, the Minolta hotshoe had a few real advantages in terms of being able to easily (one handed) slot the flash in and not have to tighten anything. It also didn't have the fiddly, delicate metal contacts you find at the front of the current Sony ISO mount - and if you had the shoe cover on there, if a raindrop hit the top of the cover it couldn't get under it and cause a problem. Not so much with the ISO shoe on the A6500 - even a single good-sized drop of water WILL get in under the cover if it's in place.