jhbeckman

<p>Does anyone know where to buy additional batteries for the R8/9 motordrive? Thanks</p>

<p>JDMvW: It was easier to get around in the woods with a real SLR in the days of yore when we shot with film. When one was toting around one's camera in a car, hauling around some behemoth like an F5 with an 80-200 was fine. Out in the woods, the FM2n with a couple of primes was king. Digital, alas, is another matter -- I am having trouble finding the digital equivalent of an FM2n. Point and shoots do seem to yield lovely photos; the problem is me -- at this point in my life, I cannot focus on the LCD screen. So, a meaningful viewfinder is a must.<br>

Bill: nope, not familiar with it, but I will take a look. thanks </p>

<p>I would appreciate some advice on a new camera set-up for hiking.<br>

I don't care for digital point & shoots -- I have trouble seeing the LCD screen. So, I want to have an SLR. <br>

I use Nikon equipment, and I have tended to drag along my Nikon D300, but even with two relative small + light primes -- a 24mm and and 85mm 1.8 -- it's awfully heavy. So, I'd like something lighter. The really small/light/relatively inexpensive Nikon bodies, however, don't support my AF-D lenses. The lightest current body that does -- the D90 -- seems like a good, capable camera, but is also nearly $900. I'd like to bring this in for a less than that.<br>

So, I am now thinking about a few other cameras that are SLRs (or SLR-like). The top of the list would be the Olympus e620 and the Panasonic G1. The Canon SX10 is another SLR-like possibility (I would be interested in the SX1, but there appears a lot of questions about problems with image sharpness).<br>

Thoughts? I'd appreciate any guidance.<br>

This was a lot easier when I just carried an FM2n and little 2 x AA Metz flash on a hike...<br>

Thanks<br>

John Beckman </p>

I am a long-time film photographer who has been slowly moving into digital photography over the last six months or

so.

 

I had an odd experience with Aperture 2 last night. I was making adjustments on a duplicate of an image on which I

had worked previously (I had made it a B+W by zeroing out the color saturation, and I wanted to make some further

adjustments to the highlights and shadows); however, when I moved the "shadow" and the "highlight" sliders, the

image went black, and histogram disappeared. I tried it several times -- it didn't matter how little or how much I

moved those sliders, the image went black. I was always able to recover the B+W image I started with by clicking

around, but I could not make the adjustments without the image going completely black.

 

When I went back to the original color image and tried the same thing, there was no problem: the "highlight"

and "shadow" sliders worked as they were supposed to.

 

Any thoughts? Any similar experiences?

 

Thanks

Is anyone familiar with the operation of the Olympus T20 flash with

the OM4 or OM4T? There's a plate on the back that one side

says "fully automatic operation with the OM2"; the other side is a

auto-flash calculator. Is it possible that flipping this little

plate somehow indicates to the flash whether it is on TTL or

automatic? Thanks

 

-- John Beckman

Nikon has a lot of flash "technologies". Sigh.

 

With the SB-28 and the F100, the top-of-the-line flash technology was 3D multi-sensor matrix balanced fill-flash.

 

I am going to get a D70 shortly, and probably an SB-800. Does anyone know if the SB-800, which supports i-TTL with D70, also support the ol' 3DMSMBFF if used with an F100? Or does it just revert to regular ol' TTL?

 

It's difficult to extract an answer from the Nikon website, and the film people at the hot line are all away at training, according the message.

Just out of curiosity -- did you have film in the camera? I cannot remember how the C645 meters flash, but many cameras meter off the film. If you are trying to measure TTL flashes w/out film in the camera, this may be why you're getting odd readings.

 

By contrast, the A setting would not be affected by the absence of film

Just out of curiosity -- was your sekonic an incident or reflected flash meter? If it was the latter, that would be a little weird (although I often get variation among different meters in handheld vs. in-camera comparisons). If it was the former, then your explanation is probably in the skin tone of your subject

I was doing some late day photography up in the Adirondack Mtns using

a Fuji GSW690III. I looked through the viewfinder to compose, and I

saw an insect crawling around, I thought, on the front of the

viewfinder. I tried to shoo it away, but it seemed indifferent. So,

I went around to the front of the camera -- no insect. Until I

looked into the viewfinder from the front, and there it was, crawling

around inside.

 

I don't know how it even could have gotten INTO the viewfinder in the

first place -- it seems pretty sealed to me, and while it is not a

huge insect, it's not tiny, either.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions on how to lure him out or what to do?

 

Note to fellow photogs: in buggy areas, it is probably worth going

back into your car, if it's there with you, to change rolls. Just to

add to my adventures with insects: as I opened the camera hoping that

the viewfinder bug would find a way out, a little bee flew out of the

camera (I think, anyway: hard to know whether it came out the camera,

was just in the car, or was on some other part of me); if it WAS in

the camera, it must have been between the lens and the film, and it

spoiled what I believe will have been some of the best shots I've

ever gotten (which is why I feel sure it was between the lens and the

film).

 

Anyway, I would be grateful for counsel on the matter of the unwanted

occupant of my viewfinder. Thanks.

Someone mentioned finder interchangeability. Unless you do a LOT of landscape, I wouldn't worry about the waist-level finder feature. Since one has to rotate the camera for vertical/portrait shots, it renders the waist-level finder all but unuseable.

 

If it were a 6x6, or if it had a rotating back, like the RB or RZ, a waist-level finder would be honky-dory. But, as it is, it's not an important feature

I think Kurland is still where they were: on Broadway between 3rd St and Bond St (I think those are the cross streets); same floor as the Leica Gallery.

 

They are not related to Tamarkin -- they took over their space.

 

So, is Hansen having a big sale?

I would think that the biggest difference is the shutter. The Hasselblad uses a leaf shutter, which means flash synch up to 1/800. The contax uses a focal plane shutter, and its flash synch is 1/125

check out this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000R7L

 

There are probably others, too; sometimes it's worth doing a quick search.

 

Good luck

I have been thinking about getting one of the new Quantum flashes and

its Freewire wireless TTL system to use with Nikon and the Contax

645. The idea of having a TTL capable radio-slaved flash off camera

is something I have always thought would work nicely.

 

I'm looking for input with respect to the Nikon: has anyone used this

set-up? The reason I ask is that I gather from Quantum that the

monitor preflashes that are part of 3D Matrix Balanced Fill Flash

cannot work with the wireless TTL technology (the 3DMBFF works fine

if the flash is "on camera" -- that is, not being used wirelessly).

 

So, I am curious if anyone has found a way to make this set up work

with a Nikon F100 or another Nikon with monitor pre-flashes

embedded? With a Nikon speedlight, you could simply tilt it a little

to turn off the pre-flashes (and some cameras, such as the N70, have

the ability to turn off the 3DMB flash on the camera), but I don't

know how to do it with the Quantum.

 

Thanks

A vulcan gatling gun?

manual focus:

 

*the Bronica RF645 -- seems like a very nice camera; brightest rangefinder patch I've seen in a medium format rangefiner, and it has interchangeable lenses

 

*The Fuji GS645 series -- three types: a slightly-wider-than-normal lens with rangefinder, a normal-lens folding version with rangefinder, and wide angle version with scale focusing. Lenses aren't interchangeable; I THINK they all have meters, though none have AE. Only available used.

 

*autofocus:

 

The Fuji GA645 series -- three types: wide angle, normal lens and zoom (which, I think, is the only one still available). Basically a 645 point-and-shoot with excellent lenses. I had one for a while but did not like it, so I sold it. I sometimes regret that. Has a meter, AE, and built-in flash

Thomas -- Interesting, but my findings didn't fit the pattern, I'm afraid: my photographs were not being taken in daylight; they done indoors using window light from the side.

 

Ferdi -- I should have contacts sheets pretty soon, but I am was not rigorous about marking down which shots were based on the hand-held meter and which shots used the camera's meter. As I mentioned, I checked the readings against a hand-held spot meter and two other cameras with built-in meters with spot capability. The other units all agreed with one another (within reason) and disagreed vastly with the Rollei. I tried to make the spot angle the same for all to the best of my ability (I was careful to be sure I had the spot meter set on the Rollei); regardless, though, I tested the meters against uniform surfaces -- an off-white wall, a green chalkboard, a royal blue duffel bag. Got the same results each time. I also tried it with two different lenses -- same result.

I was just doing some shooting with my 6008i and had an unusual

experience.

 

I almost always use a handheld, as I did in this case; however, the

recommended exposures were so different, I tested the Rollei on spot

against a hand-held with spot and against another camera with spot.

 

The Rollei overexposed by 2.3 stops against the other devices.

 

I made sure I was using the same ISO settings among the different

devices, and I made sure that the exposure compensation was set to

the same (0) on all of them. The Rollei consistently recommended 2.3

stops more exposure.

 

I cannot absolutely recall calibrating it against other devices

before (though that is customarily my habit, so I would remember this

kind of discrepancy). And I am pretty sure that I have gotten

perfectly fine results relying on nothing other than the in camera

meter (though, as I said, I usually carry and rely on a hand meter).

 

I'm re-charging up a battery now, though I do not think that is the

issue.

 

Any thoughts or similar experiences?

I'll test Mark's claim this weekend. Truth is, I have gotten so used to fingering the shutter release 1/2 way before I know that I am going to do a shot in order to avoid what I believe will be a problem that I haven't had to confront it.

 

I'll get back to you all

It's a little above your budget, but the Mamiya 645E strikes me as an amazingly good bargain. I've half though of getting one to use when hiking, because I prefer composing with an SLR over a rangefinder (whcih I use now)

I haven't seen film flatness problems with this camera.

 

The problem with the standby feature is not so much a fast-moving object -- none of the med format AF cameras will perform well in those circumstances. It's more a matter of bringing the camera up to your eye at the critical moment and then missing the shot while waiting the camera to power back up. It's a power saving feature, but I for one would happily pay for more batteries if it didn't do this.

 

The only way around it is to remember to push the shutter release down on a recurring basis, so that the camera never goes into standby mode.

My feelings aren't nearly as negative as Juan's.

 

The lenses are absolutely superb; it's quieter than its 645 competitors; it's viewfinder is brighter; it uses ultrasonic motors for autofocus, so you don't have to switch anything off to do manual focus; the flash prefire is a nice feature.

 

Still, the standby mechanism and the time it takes the camera to power up from standby are serious flaws; you could definitely miss a shot.

 

The Pentax definitely provides more value; there's a positive review of it on www.luminous-landscape.com that you may wish to read.

 

If I had it all to do over again, I would probably get the Pentax instead and save money. The Pentax' two shortcomings in terms of important features -- lack of interchangeable viewfinders and backs -- ends up being less important than I once thought they might be.

I use the Fuji 690, but I pondered buying the RF645 for portability's sake while hiking in the mountains (it's smaller, and it comes with the meter built in, and you get more shots per roll, and the shots are pretty close to ideal format ratio).

 

Ultimately, I got a great deal on a Fuji GS645, so I went with that instead. However, in one area, it was clear to me that the Bronica was MUCH better than the Fujis -- the viewfinder. It was generally brighter, and the rangefinder patch was MUCH brighter and more contrasty, so focusing was considerably easier.

 

My one real disappointment with the Bronica -- no frame lines in the viewfinder for the wind angle lens, necessitating the use of a separate hot-shoe viewfinder. That was a real pity.

with a Contax TLA 360 flash mounted in the hot shoe, exposure compensation can be adjusted for the flash unit, enabling the photographer to do fill flash.

 

It is possible that this capacity also exists with the 3002 series metz flashes and the appropriate 5-pin module (it is NOT possible with the older 3-pin Contax flash arrangement), but I don't know.

Brian -- that's right. The easiest set-up is to plug the connector cord -- an SC-18 or 19 -- into the side of the flash mounted on your camera, then run the cord to one of the connectors outlets on an AS-10. Why an AS-10 rather than into the side of the second flash? The AS-10 -- essentially a little hot shoe mount with connections for sc18 and 19 cords -- has a threaded hole at the bottom so that it can go on a small tripod or something similar.

 

Works like a charm