eric friedemann
-
Posts
6,221 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by eric friedemann
-
-
<p>Per others, I assumed you'd keep the Hasselblad stuff. The Mamiya 6 and 7 variants can do relatively close work, but you're using cumbersome attachments that require metheodical shooting.</p><div>
</div>
-
Jon, I've owned all the cameras you've discussed. The Fuji and Mamiya 6 cameras are out of production and are getting
more problematic to have repaired. I currently shoot Mamiya 7II's. The 65mm f/4.0 lens is my favorite, as it's pattern fills
the whole viewfinder, and is a little wider than the 80mm.
-
Per L G and Georg, careful focus is necessary with the 150mm- it isn't a lens you can zone-focus for street photography
and rely on DOF:
-
I have a pair of Mamiya 7IIs, and don't need another 6x7 camera ... but that 667W is tasty. Post some pix!
-
<p>I also use Photoshop's Photomerge, which is somewhat forgiving. That said, the more perfectly-alligned your original set of photos, the better the pano result you'll get. Also, there's no sense in dropping the better part of $1K on a pano head to get sub-optimal results by using the head with an unsteady tripod.</p>
-
<p>James, when I bought a Nodal Ninja head with the bells and whistles, I first tried to use it on a lighter-weight tripod and found the tripod legs walking a little when I was adjusting the head from shot to shot. I wound up marrying the NN head to chunky Manfrotto 475B legs:</p>
-
<p><em>"I would avoid the 14/2.8 AF Nikkor at all costs."</em><br /> <br /> Ilkka, it's a lens; not rectal cancer. The 14mm f/2.8 weighs a third less than the 14-24mm and can be purchased in like-new condition for half the price (or less) of a 14-24mm. Melodrama aside, the 14mm f/2.8 is a good lens.</p>
-
<p>I owned a 14mm f/2.8 ED lens for a while. It is a good lens on a D700, if you shoot it at f/5.6-8.0. The lens certainly exhibits CA in corners, which can largely be corrected in Pshop. Again, at f/5.6-8.0, the lens is pretty sharp from corner to corner.</p>
<p>Optically, the 14-24mm is going to be a better lens in every way. Though, as you note, the 14-24mm is bigger and will be pricier.</p>
<p>One particular peeve- the 14mm f/2.8 has a bulbous front element and doesn't take front-mounted, screw-on filters, so you'll want to use the lens cap. Nikon sold the lens with a super-annoying, soft-sided leather lens cap that almost always takes two hands to put back on. S.K. Grimes did a swell job of making me a plastic lens cap that fit like a glove:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.skgrimes.com/products/lens-caps">http://www.skgrimes.com/products/lens-caps</a></p><div>
</div> -
Per one of the links, Paramount is a reputable vendor that makes high-quality, custom cords with hard-to-find tips:
-
<p><em>"Well, make up your mind. Are you mocking the people who buy such things or are you mocking Leica for offering products that people want to buy?"</em></p>
<p>Both; and I'm sure if Leica made adult diapers with a big red dot on them, there would be a market for them. That wouldn't make offering them right.</p>
<p>And so we're clear, I'm not slagging Leica for producing a Monochrome camera. Kodak tried to do this a decade ago; the potential benefit being much greater resolution and somewhat better tonality out of a sensor of a given size:</p>
-
<p><em>"Mocking Leica for being expensive is kind of silly at this point."</em></p>
<p>Mocking a camera company that caricatures itself by selling Hermès Edition cameras and $7K+ 50mm lenses never goes out of style. Seriously, how complete a douchebag- or douchèbag- would you have to be to buy a camera at a Hermès Botique? "Uhh ... I'll take a pair of the $1,100 'men's' sneakers that look like giant toddler shoes and one of those Leica cameras ... yes, the one covered in elephant penis foreskin."</p>
-
<p>No Hermès Monochrome Edition- and Leica has the nerve to call itself a camera company!?</p>
-
<p>The word "cloying" comes to mind.</p>
-
<p>Not to jump off topic, but on the subject of "complicated motorized" shooting, today's Astronomy Picture of the Day is killer:<br /> <br /> http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html<br /> <br /> James, for stitching, I've been using Photoshop's Photomerge, which makes it incredibly easy to do sophisticated panos. You might also want to read Bruce Dale's tutorial on panos:<br /> <br /> http://www.brucedale.com/tutorials/</p>
-
<p>James, you may want to clarify exactly what the client wants. A few years back, an editorial photographer friend was sent to Mexico with a specially-mounted 8mm Nikkor on a FF camera. He took one shot facing one direction and another shot facing in the exact oppoiste direction. He then took a 360 degree round of shots with a 50mm. His client also had him record ambient sound in, say, a produce market.</p>
<p>The client then had all the shots stitched together, including the two fisheye images, so you could "look" up and down and added the sound so you could hear the location. These scenes were then sold as CD/ROM travelogs.</p>
<p>Also, you'll likely need to use a panorama head. I've been very fond of my Nodal Ninja; the company is a pleasure to deal with:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.nodalninja.com/">http://www.nodalninja.com/</a></p>
-
<p>If you see a "pink-ish" cast in a UV filter, return it to the store. You've been sold a Skylight filter by mistake.</p>
<p>I use Nikon L37c UV filters on my Nikon lenses, as I have a bunch from thirty years of shooting Nikon. As some point, I'll switch to Nikon NC filters.</p>
<p>In an old post, Shun provided examples:</p>
<p>"To see the effect of how UV filters degrade the lens' optical quality, I did a quick A/B test, but to exaggerate the effect, I stacked three Nikon L37C filters on my 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. I used that lens at 35mm to avoid any vignetting.</p>
<p>The test images were both captured with the 17-35mm at 35mm, f8 on the D700 at ISO 200. The D700 was mounted on a sturdy Gitzo tripod and I used the 1-second delay to avoid any camera shake. Again, one with three L37C filters on and the other with no filter. The two images were captured about 70 seconds apart so that you can see the shadows moved a little."</p>
-
<p>That's interesting- after I get D800E bodies and see how I like the 16-35mm's performance at that level of resolution, I'll have to think about adding a 14-24mm. I'd really prefer the 14-24mm's lower distortion in a lens that accepted front-mounted 77mm filters. </p>
-
<p>Ilkka, sorry, I transposed the two lenses. I'll refine my question. </p>
<p>Is there somewhere online I can see the same pre-correction images taken with the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm showing the 14-24mm producing superior results at, perhaps, 16mm, 20mm and 24mm? I'm skeptical.</p>
-
<p>Note that while the 16-35mm f/4.0 isn't an f/2.8 lens, it has Vibration Reduction which, I find, gives me two f/stops of stability in lower light. Also, the D800 is going to be very useable at higher ISOs, so as not to require an f/2.8 lens in many circumstances. I've been quite pleased with the 16-35mm f/4.0 and would recommend it to others.</p>
<p>Ilkka, are you saying that the 16-35mm f/4.0 has less distortion that can't be corrected in, say, ACR, than the 14-24mm f/2.8? If so, are there any examples of an A-B comparison of the two lenses posted online showing this phenomenon?</p>
-
I rarely shoot over 85mm on a FF camera any more, but when I was young, I was partial to the Tokina 500mm f/8.0 lens.
It was much smaller and lighter than Nikkor and could be hand-held:
http://www.photo.net/sports-photography-forum/00ETm0
http://www.photo.net/beginner-photography-questions-forum/00a4Do
-
Another vote for Neat Image.
-
<p>Allowing that I've sold my E-P1 and the 17mm in favor of a Fuji X100, which is sweeeet but much higher priced, if I were going to buy an E-PL1, I'd want to pair it with a pancake lens. By the time you put the kit zoom on an E-PL1, it weighs as much as a Nikon D3100 with a kit zoom, which has an optical viewfinder, a larger sensor and a sensor with greater native resolution.</p>
<p>Matthew, I'll disagree with you about the E-M43 12 MP sensor and higher ISOs. I had an 8x10 print of a test image shot in horrific light I used as a sample at my store. The image was shot at 1600 and was noiseless. I would again advise, though, that to get the most out of any M43-sensored camera you will want to metheodically process RAW files and not rely on JPEGs.</p>
-
<p>Then, the second "Manual" screen ...</p><div></div>
-
<p>Steve, I'm on ACR 6.6 and have a similar screen to your LR 4.</p><div></div>
Hasselblad user considering a FUJI GW690 Vs MAMIYA 7 ?
in Medium Format
Posted
<p>Vaudeville joke-</p>
<p>Comedian 1: How's your wife?</p>
<p>Comedian 2: Compared to what?</p>
<p>The Fuji 690 variant cameras are huge compared to Leica M cameras, but are sleek compared to most other 6x9 cameras.</p>