sethbaldwin
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Yeah if anyone in here owns an F and or an FT / FV, it would be great if you could measure the distance from the mount to the mirror for me. I'm hoping to see that all body mirrors are the same distance from the mount, because if that's the case i'm most interested in getting an FV over the older F. But if the F has more distance between the mirror and the mount ill go with an F.
-
I see. I noticed that the mirror of the F looks physically different to the FT/FV. And that for some reason the FT and FV have an extra top screw on the mount. Does the end of the mirror protruding out towards the mount opening protrude the same distance across all bodies or does this distance vary between the bodies? Specifically referring to the distance from the base of the mount to the first contact of the mirror. I can't tell from these photos attached alone but the mirrors appear to protrude at the same distance out across all F bodies.
-
I understand the differences with the functionality of these three cameras but besides those differences, are there physical differences to the size of the body of these half frame camera, and are there also any differences to the mount, mirror in the mount, and flange from the mount to the mirror? Thanks
-
What's the sharpest / zero distortion / zero aberration macro lens money can buy. I had a look at Zeiss options like the Zeiss Makro-Planar 100mm F2 but that also had aberration. I plan to use whatever the lens will be in a controlled environment. So as long as it's clinically sharp, has great dynamic range, no distortion and aberration, I'd like to know about it regardless of budget or what brand it is. Thanks.
-
I've been debating between adapting an enlarger lens like a rodenstock apo or using a clinically sharp zeiss macro prime. Relatively speaking, what would yield sharper results for 35mm DSLR scanning? Thanks.
-
I like to shoot and process 65mm vision3 stocks like 500t and 250d for still photography, and prefer to work with flat log scans so I have more control in grading. As DPX is the standard file format for grading film scans in the motion picture industry, and most still photography labs seem to only offer TIFFs (through my experience). I'm wondering if there are grading limitations with TIFF compared to DPX. I'm trying to stick as close to the motion picture process as I can, but for still photography. I heard something about DPX having better color space for log scans.
-
Lol I just did it without a thermometer and the negatives seem to look good. Had the developer in the bucket with the water heated at 41 degrees for about an hour. I also practice rehearsed the process about 10 times before doing it for real. Will see how the scans look tomorrow, maybe send them through.
-
I'm developing ECN-2 at home for the first time (I haven't developed any film before), and the developer needs to consistently be at 41 degrees. I have the cinestill TCS-1000 to keep the water in the bucket at a stable temperature but i'm skeptical whether the bottles i'm using to hold each solution will differ in temperature on the inside. For this reason, is it okay to put a metal thermometer directly into each solution to check the temperature?
-
Hello, I plan on purchasing a tripod and head soon for my RZ67 Pro ii and want to go all out regardless of price. To put it simply, budget isn't the issue, I'm aiming for the most reliable, heavy duty option available atm as I want it to last me as many years as possible. Tripod wise I've had my eyes on either the Gitzo GT3543XLS Systematic Series 3 Extra Long Tripod or the Gitzo GT5563GS Systematic Series 5 Giant Tripod just in case height ever becomes a need in future. I've see a lot of threads debating ball heads or gear heads. From what I gathered, gear heads are easier to level and are potentially sturdier? What would you guys recommend as the top of the line tripod head(s), doesn't have to be from Gitzo btw. Cheers Seth
