dave_lewis

It's slow today for me and my broadband connection. I've noticed it in the last few days myself...and hope it's just a temporary glitch!

Yes, Hasselblad does make a B50 lens cap that fits INSIDE the bayonet of a filter. I don't have the part number handy (I can get it tonight). But you sometimes see them up for auction on eBay. It's a smaller cap. They work great.

Bob's got it right...

To sum up quickly...

 

When the backs are made...the insert is matched to the shell and the adjustments are done right there in the factory. That's why it's critical to buy a back with the matching insert. That said...just about everyone I know who has used a mismatched back has had no problems with sharpness. So...

My pro lab does an excellent job printing my 120 stuff on Fuji Frontier. Get them to reprint your fuzzy shots and tell them why!

I always leave the camera cocked too ... for the same reason.

You can find both the filter retaining ring...and a Series 63-->B50 adapter at KEH.com.

 

I just checked...they have both in stock.

The whole digital/film debate reminds me about old-time radio.

 

About the time that FM was invented...there were a bunch of people that said the sound-quality of FM would make AM radios obsolete in just a few years. While it's true FM has been wonderful, there is still a place for AM and it's still in use today. Heck, there are some things AM does that FM can't (as in broadcast for hundreds of miles).

 

So there's a place on the radio dial for both FM and AM. And I bet it will be the same for film/digital too.

I use just regular alkaline batteries in mine and I can shoot dozens and dozens of rolls without needing new batteries. I change my batteries about twice a year or so. So, I'm not so sure rechargables are really needed.

It's zippy for me at the moment too.

 

I will say the site was slowed last week by that latest web worm working its way around the Internet. This site, like many others, was pokey ... but it seems to have straightened itself out in the last few days.

I sometimes get fall-off at 1.4 -- but that's it. I've had no problems with mine at all.

I'd second the notion about Fuji NPZ in medium format. But like the other poster mentioned, rate it at 640. Buy a roll and shoot some test exposures...rate it at different speeds and see what works for you. But if I need something faster than 400, this is the film I use.

I'd be willing to bet it has to do with the latest worm/virus that's working its way around the Internet world. It seems that many other sites I frequent are experiencing similar problems.

I can't comment on either of those ballheads. But I use and recommend the Acratech Ultimate Ballhead. You can find plenty of information about it in the archives.

Don't forget that lenses aren't made in dust-proof places. It's always inevitable that any new lens will arrive with some dust. And, of course, once you take that lens out into the real world...

I shoot at the beach maybe once a month with mine and I guess I've been lucky so far. No real problems with grit, sand or moisture to speak of. I never really worry about it. But that's just me.

And you should never, ever touch the mirror with anything. It can easily be nudged out of alignment...and all your pictures will be out of focus.

You can also try Nelson's in Little Italy (on India Street in downtown San Diego)

 

and if you're up north near Escondido, North County Camera is very good.

Richard:

<p>

It's Fuji <u>NPH</u> -- a great portrait film.

<p>

And I also second the notion for Fuji Provia 400F. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between 100 & 400 depending on conditions. It's only knock is its price. Otherwise, an excellent choice.

I deal with facts for a living. And it's good that Brian set the record straight with statistics...not 'impressions' like the original poster.

Danielle:

 

Don't tell your lab anything...shoot it at 320 and then drop it off. They'll develop it as though it were 400 and you're all set.

 

And you probably should run a test. Shoot 1/3 of the roll at 250...1/3 at 320 and 1/3 at 400. Compare the results and then you'll know what you should rate your film at in the future.

I agree with Evan. I, too, rarely visit the 'home' page and instead just check in at the various forums I follow. So, maybe if there was a subtle box on the main forum listing page...that would entice and remind people to click-through when they buy.

Price?

I've shot with dozens of lenses over the years. All have had varying amounts of dust and even smudges on the front elements. I can't think of a single picture that was ever impacted by that.

 

Also: think about it...your lens is focusing on something far off...not on that miniscule piece of dust!

I haven't done a whole lot of B&W portriature. But...when I have...I never used a filter. Much of what I shot was indoors with natural light streaming in. I couldn't afford to lose any stops anyway.