michael_fox

Thanks for all the responses. Looks like I avoid the CF at least for the 90mm and probably for the 75mm. I just hate screwing on and off filters so this is welcome news.

 

I just have to say that, as a newbie to LF, I really appreciate the insight and experience you are all so willing to share. I have extrememly limited time to devote to photography which, for me, is a passionately held hobby due to a day job that keeps me traveling all the time. (And no, can't take the camera on business trips since it's usually straight from the meeting to the airport.)

 

Searching the forum database and asking questions here has greatly reduced the time to learn about some of these issues (not just get the answer but learn about the experience of others). Time is my most limited resource right now. Hopefully, my questions are not a waste of your time. Thanks again.

O.K. It's certainly great to hear that a CF is an unlikely requirement for the 90SW. I will be going up to the Redwoods in about a month which, I presume, could mean lot lots of rise on some shots (I'm a newbie). Therefore, if I decide I do need one (perhaps for my 75mm instead), how do I know which one to get for a given lens?

 

Again, I'm new to LF so bear with me, please. I presume that for any given filter size, there are different distributions of the center ND material in order to match different focal lengths, view angles, or whatever the factors are. I presume this because Schneider, for example, has type III, IIIb, IIIc, etc. How does one know which one to pick if the lens manufacturer, Nikon for example, hasn't specified a particular "model number"? Do the CF manufacturers have compatibility charts?

No problem yet. But I don't want to buy the lens, get out on a trip and then discover that I wish I had a CF with me. I have searched this forum and read many discussions regarding when CFs were and were not needed. I shoot mostly landscape and mostly color chromes and I understand from the postings that this focal length can often benefit from a CF, especially when the sky is in the frame.

Any recommendations for a center filter for the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8?

I guess I could get any one that has the right size threads (67 x

0.75). However, I presume that different wide angle lenses have

different illumination fall-off patterns and, therefore, are better

matched with certain center filter ND patters. Yes? If so, which

one for this particular lens?

Thank you both. Very helpful.

I believe the new federal law is that you have the option to "opt out" of an x-ray scan and that this option is required to be posted above all x-ray scanners. I have read more about this, if I remember correctly, in a different forum on photo.net so you might want to check around.

 

I have read stories of people who run into some idiot screener who, after you point to the posted Opt out notice above their scanner, says "tough, it's gotta go through". My personal experience with the new fed inspectors (much to my Republican dismay) is that they are quite efficient and follow the procedures correctly. I like the sticker idea mentioned above - perfect for dealing with those types.

 

One thing I've also heard but do not know for a fact is that the newer scanners have different intensity levels possible. So, if the screener person is having difficulty judging something in the carry-on, they can push a button to increase the intensity. I have read postings on other sites where 100 speed films is fogged, presumably by this process. And, since x-rays are cumulative, it's still best to take even low speed film out.

 

Regarding international travel, you will still be required to re-x-ray your carry-on at Heathrow (and other places) - no exceptions, no arguments, (no sense?). And, the "quality" of the x-ray intensity calibration in other places is sure to be suspect, perhaps giving more than your fare share of rads.

 

Until security settled down in last few months, I resorted to FedEx-ing. I'd schedule delivery for a day or two in advance and verify that it arrived. But, if there had been a problem (which there wasn't), FedEx had time to track it down.

Michael,

 

RE 4x5? Yes

RE reason is to reduce size and weight? Well, size at least - I figure the weight difference is probably negligible

RE 90mm SA XL? Yes, that's one. Another one I was looking at has an 80mm rear diameter.

RE different lensboards for different lenses: yes, of course. It's just that the 171mm square lensboards for the 4x5 are bigger than I'd like and using the smaller 110mm A-S variety would necessitate yet another adapter (unless I put them all on 110mm boards).

 

Thanks much for the comment on the coverage. I don't do architectural work but thought this lens could serve two purposes, allowing me to "play" with interior shots easier.

I have scanned the various threads regarding the use of center

filters for wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses. Several of the

threads mention that problems exist with using center filters on the

rear of the lens but they don't really explain what those problems

are.

 

Assuming that you do want a center filter to compensate for the light

fall-off and assuming the rear of the lense is threaded, the only

problem I can surmise is the additional difficulty of focusing with

1.5-2 stops less light. Is that it or am I missing something else?

Can someone please tell me the exact size of the hole in the Arca

Swiss lensboard adapter for Linhof Technika lens boards?

 

I'd like to mount lenses on the smaller Linhof lensboards. However,

a couple of lenses I'm considering have rather large rear diameters

(86mm, 80mm, ...) and I'm concerned about them being able to fit

through the hole in the Arca Swiss adapter board.

Steve,

 

To be fair, you and Bob are discussing a piece of equipment, not a photograph. Pieces of equipment can be measured and analyzed according to standardized (or at least generally agreed upon) methods and the results can be compared in an objective fashion. I think Bob's point is to try to make sure that others who read this exchange can separate opinion from fact.

 

I, for one, tend to simply ignore comments which are some derivative form of "because I said so". Perhaps, if you don't have side-by-side comparative results, you have specific experience with specific lighting situations or contrast situations that you can share so we can all understand better how you arrived at your opinion? Your particular experiences may not be charts and graphs but they would certainly be factual (and helpful!) information.

Good summation Steve. I never said MTF was the end-all and be-all. I also asked for Illumination, Distortion and Transmittance data. Other recent posters over the last couple of days have asked about whether center filters are needed, about pin cushion distortion, etc. and this is all covered in the data I asked for. Those that think all lenses work the same at f/22 are just plain wrong as both the objective data and my own subjective experience can demonstrate. Yes, weight, size and cost are other important pieces of the equation - especially weight since my search is for lenses for use in the field. But I have found this info already so didn't need to ask for the forum for pointers to it.

 

So the accumulation of all of these data points is, for me, a good process for narrowing the field to the top two (or so) choices in a given focal length and it saves me a whole bunch of time and expense. Since I'm considering purchases in several focal lengths, it just doesn't make time/financial sense for me to test more than 1 or 2 in a given focal length.

 

As an aside regarding "data", I bought a Jeep Grand Cherokee and ignored the objective Consumer Reports data on the car that said, in a nutshell, that it was a maintenance nightmare. I liked how it looked and drove and my friends who had them were passionately attached to theirs. I've regretted the decision ever since as it spends most of the time in the shop, either for a recall or some other problem. Coming from an engineering background, objective data is an important part of my decision making and any time I've ignored it, I've paid the price.

 

OBJECTIVE data aside, I have found the experience and opinions expressed here (some expressed quite passionately!) to also be invaluable. Experienced photographers are usually passionate about their results but not generally passionate about a piece of equipment unless it's really good. So I consider these opinions to be an important part of the decision. It all goes into the pot to be "shaken, not stirred". Next step - rent a few and make a final decision.

 

I certainly didn't mean to spark such a discussion when I asked what I thought was a simple question. But, I agree with Steve. It's been informative and enlightening.

Hmmm. Well, for all those who disparaged my requests for MTF data in a different posting, please don't read further! ;-) The Schneider MTF data for this lens shows that it is very soft at f/4.5 except for the middle. Specifically, at f/4.5, the only part that is sharp is about the 1st 20% of the radial distance from the center outward. It falls off pertty quickly after that, especially the further you get from infinity focus.

 

At f/8.0 it shows good performance for about the first 40% of the radius from the center to the edge and for f/22 it shows good performance out past 80% of the radius (except that the sagatial lines (lines that are radial out from the center) resolution is much lower than tangential lines (lines that are tangential to a circle around the radius.

 

My conclusion, your experience describes what Schneider's MTF diagrams say the lens SHOULD do. Still, for a lens of this focal length, if you tend to shoot at f/16 or f/22 (or even f/32), the performance graphs show this lens to be about as good as it gets. This is probably why many folks say this is such a great lens and describe it as being very sharp.

Hah. You're the lucky man to have a 9600! I could probably afford the printer but not the bigger house to put it in!

 

Short answer is I don't KNOW (for a fact) because I haven't tried it. But I can surmise the following:

 

The Imacon 6x6 scan gives me about 7100 pixels square. The 4x5 scan is about 7500 x 9500 (rough numbers). So, if you're using 8x10 aspect ratio cropping, there's definitely more data to enlarge without interpolation. If you want square, however, the difference is less than 10% (7500 vs. 7100). So, given a particular ppi setting for your output, the 4x5 will be somewhat sharper (no interpolation). And, even with interpolation, it will still be somewhat sharper since you started with more data so Photoshop (or the printer) has to make up less.

 

Regarding ppi: I print larger prints to the Lightjet which is optimized for 304.8ppi. But my print size is no larger that 16x20 so far, so I can't really comment on what a 35" output would look like. I have an Epson 5500 that I use for proofing and smaller prints and I get excellent results at the 304.8 resolution. I've never been able to get Epson to tell me what the max input resolution is (the resolution beyond which it doesn't matter) so I just leave the file set to 304.8 since it's going to the Lightjet later anyway. I have not experimented with lower resolutions.

 

You may be able to print at something lower like 200-205ppi (which would get your hassy 6x6 shot up to about 35") and still get good results. Again, it's something for you to try. Regardless, even if you have to interpolate upwards to 35", you're asking Photoshop to make up fewer pixels with 4x5 cropped to square and way fewer pixels with 4x5 uncropped. That's got to result in sharper pictures.

 

I bears repeating that I sense smoother tonality and greater sharpnes as I zoom in on the screen with the 4x5 than with the 6x6 shot but this is just my personal feeling and I have no objective way to measure it. I presume this is due to the fact that there are more particles in a given area of the film vs. the scanner resolution in 4x5 than in 6x6. So with the bigger neg., the scanner "sees" less grain, more continuous tonality. Again, my own speculation.

 

BTW, the way you're scanning (neat trick!), you may actually get MUCH more information in your scans than in mine since your scanner is probably using a higher ppi setting since it thinks you're using the medium format holder. (I don't remember the resolutions on the Photo model). Therefore, you'd see a HUGE gain in clarity because you could easily blow the shot up to 35" without any interpolation.

 

Oh, and I didn't say it before... your work is beautiful - quite moving.

Mark,

 

As a newbie in 4x5, I can't address your camera or lens questions but I CAN help with the Imacon scanning part.

 

I shoot a Hassy and I scan with an Imacon 848 - typically at 16bits. I just checked a recent Hassy shot and a 4x5 that someone else shot and I scanned (and kept a copy because the shot was of me!). Some data for you:

 

Both were scanned at the maximum resolution for the Imacon 848 for that format. I don't recall right now but I believe it's 3200 ppi for 6x6cm and 2040 ppi for 4x5". (If you need me to check, I can start up the scanner and do that). The resulting file sizes (again, 16 bit per channel) were:

-- approx. 420MB for the 4x5

-- approx. 290MB for the 6x6

 

If I go into Photoshop at use the Image size function to resize (but uncheck the resample checkbox) and set the ppi to 304.8 (res 12 for the Lightjet), it tells me I get a print size of about 24"x24" for the hassy shot and about 25"x32" for the 4"x5" - without resampling.

 

So if you want to keep a square format and chop off 1" of the neg from the 4x5, the result is about the same size print due to lower scanning resolution on the Imacon for the larger neg. Of course, you can make it bigger by letting Photoshop (or the Lightjet) interpolate.

 

All my stuff is color so I can't speak for B&W but I do notice better color and what seems to be better detail when blowing up the 4x5 than the 6x6. Of course, that could be lots of other factors since they were taken with different lighting, different lenses, different photographers, etc...

 

Hope that helps.

Richard I: I appreciate your comment that the 300M is a good choice. That seems to be a common opinion. But, with all due respect, I don't know who you are or what your standards are or what you do with your photos or how large you make them, or how your style is related to what I plan to do. Therefore, I don't know how much weight to give it to give your opinion. That's why I'm looking for objective data.

 

Richard B. While I can guess that the Nikkor is better than a coke bottle, I can not guess if it's better than other choices which may be out there. You wrote a lot but didn't provide any information. BTW, since you mention it, I learned about MTF diagrams from one of Ansel's assistants.

 

To Richard B and Richard I: While I appreciate your points of view, I have neither the time nor inclination to test shoot a bunch of different lenses. In fact, I don't have the camera yet either and won't have it in time to check multiple lenses before I need to leave on a trip.

 

I prefer to find objective criteria, coupled with the subjective comments from people on this forum who have specific experience with the various options and then use both of these types of information to make a responsible selection. I respect that you made your decisions in a different manner. Please respect that others have a different process.

Thanks Ed. Useful info. I can't even find a mention of LF lenses on the nikonusa.com website. I'll try the tech support number on the website tomorrow but I'm not holding my breath.

 

Does anyone know of a number other than the one on the nikonusa.com website to call to get more complete info on LF lenses?

Can anyone tell me where to get MTF curves and Illumination,

Distortion, Transmittance graphs for Nikkor lenses? I'm particularly

interested in the 300mm f/9 Nikkor M that people on this list seem to

rave about. Other possible interests are 200mm M f/8 and 210mm W

f/5.6 and 450mm f/9.

Yes. The classic brand is InFocus but Epson, Sony and many others make these now. These are used by every sales person around the world to present Microsoft Powerpoint slide shows or to perform training by projecting the computer screen. Their resolution is quite good today. I'm no expert but I believe you can get units in the range of 1600 x 1200 pixels quite easily. They improve every year in resolution, brightness, etc. so you can get used ones pretty cheaply. You can also easily find them to rent if you want to try the concept to see if it accomplishes your objective. There are units which as quite small (9"x11"x3")and yet still VERY bright. Again, if your intent is a critical review of your slides, then it may be difficult to display the subtle tonalities that the film can record since these projectors use LCD or DLP technology which is mostly intended to produce crisp saturated images (for Powerpoint shows).

Not a direct answer to your question but have you thought of scanning in your transparencies and then using a standard PC projector? I believe the resolution of the newest ones are quite good although you will probably not get the smooth tonalities that only film can provide today.

Thanks for everyone's generous and informative responses. RE the latter comments on weight... Yes, weight is a concern. But my experience (at least with 35mm and medium format) is that the lenses far outweight the camera so I'm thinking that an extra pound or two on the camera is not going to be my biggest problem.

Does anyone have experience with the Arca Swiss lens board adapters that allow the F-line 4x5 format 171x171 lensboard to accept a Linhof (96x99mm I think) lensboard or Arca Swiss 110x110 lensboard. Do things fit correctly? Is the Linhof that Arca Swiss refers to the Technika/Technikardan lensboard? It seems like this would be an excellent way to make it easier to pack your lenses since 171x171mm seems quite large.

Thank you all for your generous responses. The one thing that I had heard was better about the Linhof for a beginner was that it had optical axis tilt as opposed to base tilt like on just about every other camera out there. The Arca Swiss orbix feature seems to take care of that issue by adding axial-tilt. So, aside from lensboards being rather large and the rail perhaps not being as compact, it seems that the Arca Swiss is where I'm now leaning... We'll see.

 

For any arca swiss or Linhof shooters out there, I be interested in hearing your views and experience on availability of support/service/accessories for either camera. Thanks.

Completely agree. That's why I'm looking for more info. Any idea where I can get a copy of the manuals? Are they available somewhere in PDF?

I'm trying to find *detailed* info on the Linhof Technikardan and the

Arca Swiss F-line (I believe) in order to compare and contrast and

evaluate which one to buy. I got a color brochure on the Linhof at

my friendly neighborhood pro camera store but would like more detail

and can't find anything on the Arca Swiss at all.

 

For those familiar with Hasselblad, I'd die for something like "The

Hasselblad Manual" - book by Wildi. As it stands now, I can't even

figure out what the difference is between the various F-? types of

Arca Swiss.

 

The company websites for Linhof and Arca Swiss are pretty sparse.

Anyone have any pointers?

I'm new to large format so forgive a few newbie questions, please.

In fact, I'm in the process of putting together my shopping list. I

think I've settled on a Linhof Technikardan (but I'm open to

alternate suggestions!). Regardless of camera, I'm reading the

various opinions on this forum regarding what should go into my lens

set. But the question I have is how to know which lensboard to use

with which lenses. I have looked for references on this and haven't

located anything. A quick review of the B&H website for Technica

lensboards shows flat and recessed; recessed with and without a quick

connect for the cable release; etc. I understand that recessed is

used for wide angle but how do I know how wide before I need one?

How do I know if I want the quick release connector or not in the

recessed boards? Basically, what I need is a primer on lensboards.

Any suggestions on where to look or can someone provide their

thoughts?

 

Thanks,

Michael