pvp

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>The perfect camera bag is one of those super-cheap diaper bags, the kind made of cardboard, covered with vinyl and sporting images of kittie cats. </p>

<p>Such a bag can be filled with thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment, left on the back seat of your car in a shopping mall parking lot during the Christmas season, and will likely still be there when you return.</p>

<p>Optimum tripod height is exactly that height needed to place the camera where you want it. Preceding responses make clear that this will vary from person to person, and from photo to photo.</p>

<p>I suppose it's true that a tripod that is taller than you can work with, might be overkill.</p>

<p>For macro work, consider getting a geared head. Yes, they are slower to use, but it is a lot easier to make small adjustments. Second choice (for me) would be a 3-way head, because again it's easier to make adjustments if you only have to worry about one dimension/direction at a time.</p>

<p>As for the focusing rail, I have one of the early Velbon Macro Sliders; it does as advertised but has straight-cut gears, making it much less accurate than the focusing rail that is built into my Canon Auto Bellows, which has helically-cut gears. The helical gears offer much less backlash and more precise adjustments, compared to the straight-cut gears on the Velbon. (A caveat: I don't know how Velbon is cutting the gearing on their current production.)</p>

<p>Rock-paper-scissors-lizard-Spock.</p>

<p>I think Kirk and RRS both copied Vice-Versa, although I've never seen any of Vice-Versa's products for sale.</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8136272259_46ca785a65_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="533" /></p>

<center>

<p><strong>Sony NEX-5</strong><br>

<strong>Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC</strong><br>

<strong>20mm extension tube</strong></p>

</center>

<p><strong>Sony NEX-5, Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 lens</strong><br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/16521614-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

 

<div></div>

<p>Finding Idiotville was easy. I'm not sure $2 is enough to justify the trip.... :-D</p>

<p>Carey, the old Hwy 101 from Tillamook to Pacific City -- they call it the Three Capes Loop or Three Capes Scenic Drive -- will take you past a number of good photo ops. At Oceanside there is Tunnel Beach, you may need a low tide to access it but can be worth the effort. Cape Meares lighthouse. Haystack Rock at Cape Kiwanda (not to be confused with the Haystack Rock at Cannon Beach, nor any of the several other Haystack Rocks.)</p>

<p><em>.. so my idea was to get a 240. 90, 180, 240= 90x1, x2, x3. Is that the idea? Or should I get a 300?</em></p>

<p>Your 180 is 2X the 90mm, but 240 is only 1.3X longer than the 180. A 300mm will be 1.6X longer than the 180, so the "difference" from one lens to the next will be more even. </p>

<p>My arsenal includes 90, 150 and 254mm lenses, purely by accident. It's a happy accident, though, because each lens is about 1.6x longer than the one before. My next one, assuming I can find one that I can afford, will probably be a Fuji 400T; 1.6X longer than the 254...<em> </em></p>

<p><em>Cheers,</em><br>

<em>Alan<br /></em></p>

<p>It sounds like you loaded the film backward. The antihalation layer on the back of the film has that effect.</p>

<p>I also learned about the A-series cameras; an A-1 can kill a fresh battery in much less than 2 hours if it's cold...</p>

<p>Solutions include the T90, or (cheaper) the FTb. </p>

<p>AFAIK there is no workaround for the A-series bodies. They am what they am.</p>

 

<p>I longest lens I have used on the Auto Bellows is my FD 135mm f/2.5; good results and lots of working room. At the other end of the range, I have a Tominon 17mm macro lens (designed for use on 4x5) that I use with the Auto Bellows to get 15:1 magnification; it's pretty good but you can imagine the depth of field at 15X. The Tominon lens is a symmetrical design so there's no reason to reverse it.</p>

<p>Most lenses for 35mm cameras are NOT symmetrical, so you should reverse the lens if (but only if) you are working at a reproduction ratio greater than 1:1. Reversing a lens at less than 1:1 will not help and will probably reduce the image quality.</p>

<p><em>I've read, that the second(or last) exposure is more dominant, than the others... how can I avoid this effect by taking 9 exposures? is there a factor (e.g. 0.95), I have to multiply with the exposuretimes?</em> <br /> <br /> With multiple exposures on film, you want the total exposure to add up to the same time you'd need for a single exposure. For example, if the correct exposure for the scene is 1 second @ f/16, you'd use 1/8 second @ f/16, eight times to get the same exposure.<br /> <br /> There shouldn't be any difference between the exposures; i.e., no dominant exposure, as long as the light is the same for each.<br /> <br /> As for the effect desired; I think 9 exposures is more than enough. What you get in that scenario will depend on the number of people in the scene and how they move between exposures.<br /> <br /> Good luck on the project and let us see your results.<br /> <br /> You'll probably need to use some ND filtering to stretch the exposure time enough to be able to get in the number of sub-exposures you want. And if you're using negative film, you should bias your error toward MORE exposure; if shooting slides you should accept a bit less overall exposure (never allow your total exposure to overexpose slides.)</p>

I was going to post a response but the robots are dropping all of my linefeeds and paragraphs so I can't make it intelligible.

 

Some other time, perhaps.

<p>When you are metering with the aperture in manual mode (not set to "A") then you must adjust your shutter speed and/or aperture so the needle points to the square symbol in the finder (assuming you are metering a normal scene.) If you need to adjust for light or dark subject tones, you go from there.</p>

<p>Yes the apertures on all lenses can be set at any point. The click positions are there for convenience only. In practice, though, the nearest click will be close enough that you're unlikely to notice the difference in the final image, especially if you're shooting negatives. An error of 1/6 or 1/4 stop is seldom worth worrying about. If you do worry about it, then bias your setting toward a little more exposure for negatives, a little less for transparencies.</p>

<p>The <strong>Epson PhotoPC 3100Z</strong> has time lapse capability from 5 seconds to 24 hours per shot. It has a 3.3MP sensor, not large by today's standards but probably good for your purpose.</p>

<p>Issue: it uses Compact Flash memory cards, which tend to be expensive compared to SD cards.<br>

Solution: get an adapter for $15 or so. </p>

<p>Another possible issue, is that it only supports up to 256MB memory cards, at least according to the specs. I haven't tried larger cards. A 256MB card will hold 200 JPG photos at maximum resolution, over 1,000 at reduced settings. The camera can also store images uncompressed as TIFFs, but it uses 9MB per image in TIFF mode.</p>

<p>The biggest problem you'll have to solve, is power; I doubt if it will last 4-5 hours in continuous timelapse service unless you wire in an auxilliary battery.</p>

<p>An online review is <a href="http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/epson/photopc-3100z/epson-photopc-3100z-review.html">here</a> .</p>

<p>I use both loose sheet film, and Quickloads. They are more expensive, obviously. I'm not sure about any time saving advantage; you substitute a somewhat more fiddley routine in the field, versus spending time loading and unloading film holders. Probably for those who shoot high volumes of film there will be an advantage there.</p>

<p>I've also seen some claims that QL films stay flatter than loose sheets. Pfft... Someone is trying to rationalize the expense, methinks. Film flatness is seldom a problem with loose sheets, at least not for 4x5.</p>

<p>Quickloads will indeed generally reduce dust problems, and if you're trying to pack light most people figure you can carry more QL film for the same weight and bulk, vs. doubles.</p>

<p>Personally, I still prefer loose sheets. The money aspect is part of that, and I just prefer the workflow with an old style double film holder. YMMV.</p>

<p>That little scratch is why the lens was graded BGN. If you're worried about it, get some black paint (we used to use photo opaque) and a fine brush, then dab a little paint on the scratch. The paint will eliminate flare from the scratch, and it's so small that it will have NO effect on exposure. Then enjoy your cheap lens.</p>

<p>Before I got a field camera, I backpacked my Calumet 540 (AKA Cambo SC) a few times. One idea is to take the camera apart; pack the bellows in a box to keep it from getting crushed, then pile the part in your backpack. <br>

My solution was to make a 5" long rail from hardwood. With the bellows fully compressed, I could roll both standards off the regular rail and onto the wooden stub rail. Part 2 of the system was to carry a 12" rail instead of the usual 22" one. It was a pain to do, but it worked.</p>

<p>I'm almost close enough to say I'll drive over and get it.</p>

<p>But not quite.....</p>

<p>You might buy a 4x5 field camera, then mount a pinhole on a lensboard for it.</p>