dan_fromm2

No, you need coordinates. Matching those to maps can be done at a later stage, using, for instance, maps downloaded from the web, with no 3, 4 or 5G involved.

 

Where, pray, do these coordinates of which you speak come from? My GPS receivers listen to GPS satellites and calculate their current locations' coordinates. My cell phones do nothing like this without connectivity.

Often wondered why some Ebay prices are thousands of dollars higher than the value, maybe its a way to launder it?

Asking prices or transaction prices? Asking prices are meaningless.

You need telecom for GPS navigation.

Interesting if true. I've had three cell phones that claimed to have GPS receivers. None could find where it was when in a location without cellular signal.

 

This happened most recently in a mountain valley in the Dominican Republic.

 

Since I do fieldwork in places without connectivity I carry a hiker's GPS so that I can log locations accurately and use a Garmin routing GPS with downloaded maps to find my way around. I miss gasoline companies' highway maps. I also carry a laptop with Garmin's Basecamp and downloaded maps.

Now that I think of it, OP, you also haven't grasped the reality of shooting with "flexible" flash brackets. Getting reproducible flash-camera-subject geometry with these brackets isn't trivial. When I was working hard at flash photography in the field -- subjects were flowers, insects, sometimes herptiles, ... -- I found that rigid flash brackets that gave consistent geometry were the key to getting consistently good results. The alternative is to use an incident-reading flash meter. OP, do you hav a flash meter?

ISO 100-1800 ? I don't know it depends on the atmosphere...

For film probably ISO 100-400 because that is all I have

For Digital it could be anything from 80-6400

Sigh. Do the GN arithmetic, adjusting for loss of illumination due to magnification. And then, perhaps, you'll understand what I've been telling you.

I will be using both Digital and Film Cameras. I have a Nikon FM2, maximum Sync is 1/125. I also have a Nikon FE2, maximum Sync 1/250 . My digital camera is a Nikon D7000 I think max Sync is 200 ? It takes all Manual Ai and AIS lenses as well as AF lenses. Not sure about what aperture I'll be using, but it will probably be on the high side f8-f22. Even then the light from the flash might be too high, don't know yet. Right now I'm working on a DYI filter system that I can easily slip over the flash-head to tone down the flash(don't want to eliminate ambient totally), or to add Color special effects.

Turning the flash down won't solve the problem. An ND filter on the taking lens will do the job, at the cost of making the view dimmer.

 

For the second time, which ISO will you be using? Film and digital.

Are you shooting film or digital. Either way, which ISO? And what is your camera's highest flash sync speed?

 

The rig you're thinking about was fine for KM (ISO 25) with 1/250 shutter speed. This will completely overpower ambient, giving you full control of exposure without having to stop down too far. Remember that effective f/ number at 1:1 is twice the f/ number set, i.e., set the aperture at f/11, get the depth of field and diffraction you'd expect at f/22.

 

With higher ISO and/or slower shutter speeds you'll have to stop down too far to eliminate ambient light.

The free market, uninhibited by government regulation and control, provides the best natural way to produce the best products at the lowest prices to satisfy consumer demand.

That's the theory. It is a nice theory, seductive even. But and however the practice often falls short, and that's why regulation is often needed.

 

By the way, Milton Friedman's argument against regulation -- technical change will make a regulation unnecessary but the regulation won't go away -- is an empirical argument. Honest observation rejects it.

There's a small screw in the bottom of the rail rider. It adjusts the position of the drive roller. Back the screw off a little.

HI, Ralf. I was there, sorry I missed you. Perhaps if there's a fall show?

 

Nothing much there that spoke to me, but tastes differ.

See Copal Shutters - The Photographers Machinist for mounting hole diameters.

 

Retaining rings have centering ridges. Check that the retaining ring for your lens' shutter is loose in the board's hole with the ridge in the hole.

I have a 135mm Heliar lens from an old Voigtlander Avus 9x12 camera. I have mounted it on a board for Pacemaker Speed Graphic. What can I expect from such a lens? Will it outperform my 127mm Kodak Ektar? I have an Avus with a Skopar lens. The lens is fantastic, especially in mono. Are Skopars considered superior to the Heliars? Some people say the lenses produce different moods.

As Q.G. said in post #2 above, you have the lenses, we don't. Ask them.

 

In my experience, Heliar types have less coverage than Tessar types of the same focal length. Skopars are Tessar types. Voigtlaender priced them below equivalent Heliar types, but this may reflect differences in cost of production rather than differences in performance.

 

Yes, some people say that they perceive differences in rendering, whatever that means, between Heliar types and equivalent Tessar types. I'm a certified ignorant barbarian insensitive to the fine points -- I took the course, passed the exam, have the certificate -- and I don't see the difference. Subjective is as subjective does.

AFAIK Focal plane was generally superseded when Flash attachments were added to press cameras.

I don't think Arthur Fellig, AKA Weegee, would agree with you. Neither would the many other photographers who used flash bulbs with Graphics.

I thought all sheet film camera lenses had shutters. Was it for lenses that didn't have a shutter? Or something else?

Hmm. Some press cameras have focal plane shutters. Others don't.

 

Why? My best guess is historical accident. Folmer & Schwing made Graflex SLRs with focal plane shutters before they started making Speed Graphic press camera with focal plane shutters. The press cameras had shutters first used in the SLRs.

AFAIK, the new Nikkor 105m Z macro won't work via anything other than with a completely electronically connected FTZ i or ii to a Z body. No comms, no work, I'm not even sure there's a way to stop-down the aperture, never-mind the AF, it's focus by wire.

 

Equally, to get it to work as a slide digitiser beyond 1:1, you need to put some e-connected space, AKA an extension tube, between body and lens. I've been very happy with the set by Commlite 26mm and 36mm, and Viltrox 10mm and 16mm.

Mike, a 105 mm lens is too long for slide copying with a PB4 + PS4. At 1:1 sensor to subject distance will be ~ 420 mm.

This discussion puzzles me. I've searched it from the start, found one mention of the ES-2 slide holder, in post #3 above. I don't understand why it or the earlier ES-1, either one mounted on a 55 or 60 mm MicroNikkor on an FTZ adapter, won't do. I also don't understand why the PB-4 PS-4 combination won't take an FTZ.

 

What have I missed?

I don't see the advantage of using a camera over using a scanner except that the scanner generally takes seconds (or even minute) for 1 scan but if he does stacking it would take a lot more time than the scanner.

 

Hmm. I've had my PB-4 and PS-4 for > 50 years. I've had a 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS for 35 years. I recently broke down and bought a used D810. I don't have a scanner.

 

Please explain to me why I should buy a scanner. And please send money.

I doubt it is a Berlebach, but ask them if it is one of theirs. berlebach.de

Roy, what you're seeing is pretty normal for 4 elements in 4 groups double Gauss type wide angle lenses. The general recommendation for them is to use full aperture for focusing and to stop down to get good image quality. This doesn't quite go for Wide Field Ektars because they were designed for less coverage -- 80 degrees -- instead of the usual 100 degrees for most others of this type.

@dan "Chuck, how are you focusing? " ......aim a a target at least a mile away and slide the standard back and forth while checking focus on the GG. ....Marking the infinity position on the rails isn't a bad idea.....

I guess using a magnifying glass is a Loupe.. :) I find myself leaning in to check focus and I'm too close, but when I lean back I am unsure of what I' seeing is sharp. I didn'T use this yet and 6.8 isn't very bright :)

 

Clean your ground glass. If I can focus a 60/14 Perigraphe you should be able to focus a 90/6.8.

The Speed with its deep cavity is not ideal as the WA lens may run out of rail.. so shorter than 90mm is not going to work on a Speed Graphic, but the 90mm might very well be Ok on the thinner body Crown.

 

Which "Speed Graphic" do you have? Pacemaker and Anniversary types both have linked inner and outer bed rails, which make focusing lenses that make infinity with the standard on the inner bed rails easy. The Pacemaker's minimum extension is 66.7 mm, the Anny's is 65.1, if you want to use a lens shorter than 90 mm, check flange-focal distances before shopping.

 

An expression I once read referring to Speed Graphics as LF on a beer budget is fitting to my approach.

 

Re the beer budget, these days f/8 Super Angulon types down to 65 mm aren't quite beer, still wine -- not champagne -- is more like it, but if you want to go that way look into Fuji SW lenses.

I have a 2x3 Crown and a 4x5. Can't remember what lens, but probably the 127mm on the 2x3. I'm trying to remember the configuration for wide angle and what model does it- bed pointed down and lens raised so you don't photograph the bed?

 

On Pacemaker Graphics dropped bed will do it. I can't say anything about older Graphics, no recent experience and I'm too lazy/uninterested to take the book off the shelf ... Front rise -- 19 mm on 2x3 Pacemakers -- works with all focal lengths.

 

As for monorails, my hybrid Cambo will allow useful movements with my 47 SA and longer lenses. Can't say anything about a normally configured SC-1 or SC-2, haven't had to try them 'cos I have the hybrid.

I've never considered a press camera as the ideal wide angle LF machine. An LF with a bag bellows is the better setup

 

Conrad, this really depends on the press camera and on the monorail. The shortest lens that will cover 2x3 (6x9 in metric) is the 35/4.5 Apo Grandagon. Mine focuses to infinity with mm to spare on my 2x3 Crown Graphics and Century Graphic. Using it on my 2x3 Cambo SC-1 isn't really possible, even with Cambo's own bag bellows. I can use it on a funny sort of hybrid Cambo (SC-1 front standard, my own bag bellows, SC-2 bag bellows) with some gymnastics.

 

FWIW, the 2x3 Crown/Century's minimum extension is 34.9 mm. The 4x 5 Crown's is 41.3 mm. Crowns are quite friendly to short lenses. Speed Graphics, not so much. Graphics lack movements but they're more useful than they appear.

Chuck, how are you focusing?

 

I ask because I shoot 2x3 Graphics. 2x3's normal focal length is 100 mm +/-. I have no trouble focusing on the ground glass with a normal lens wide open, using a 3.6x Toyo loupe. 90mm isn't that much shorter than 101 or even 105 mm.

 

In fact, I have no trouble focusing a 60/14 Berthiot Perigraphe wide open on my 2x3 Century Graphic. To put 60 mm in perspective, this is a long "normal" focal length for 35 mm still.

 

You may want to get and use a loupe, also to clean the ground glass. If you clean the GG, be careful when refitting it to the camera. Shiny side towards photographer, matte/ground side towards lens.

 

To find the infinity position, mount your camera on a tripod, pull the front standard out, roll the rails as far back as they will go and lock them in place, aim a a target at least a mile away and slide the standard back and forth while checking focus on the GG. Use a loupe, naked eye won't do.

 

Marking the infinity position on the rails isn't a bad idea. However, I use a variety of lenses on my little Graphics, haven't taken the trouble to find the infinity position for any of them. I just put the standard in more or less the right place and focus on the GG. If I've put the standard in the wrong place for the shot I want to take, I move it appropriately. I always focus on the GG.

 

This procedure -- not using proper bed stops to ensure that the standard is square to the rails -- introduces the risk of slight unintended swing. I mitigate the risk by using a sort of moveable stop. My first was made by the late Fred Lustig, who called it a Chinaman. Seriously. My second was made by SKGrimes. You can see them and read more about them at http://www.galerie-photo.com/telechargement/dan-fromm-6x9-lenses-v2-2011-03-29.pdf

Catadioptric telescopes work best on point sources (stars) and deep space objects (nebulae). Their odd OOF and highlight effects don't do as well as refractors on terrestrial objects, or large bright objects like planets.

Ed, I once made some "test" shots with my 55/2.8 MicroNikkor AIS, 105 MicroNikkor AIS and 700/8 Questar. Same subject, all from tripod, all with flash illumination, all at 1:4, which is as close as the Questar will go. Indistinguishable.

 

I love the Questar for what it can do when used carefully, can't recommend it for moving subjects. Too slow working.

Hmm. Could be veiling flare caused by internal reflections. Are the reversing rings interiors shiny?