miles stoddard

Keith,

If you don't mind me asking, what IR film/filter yields or leaves you with 1/30th?

Joshua,

My statement is vague, I admit. Here is -I hope- a better version: There are many great 6x6 cameras, but 6x6 is a better portrait format than landscape format, so a Rollei TLR/Hassy might not be the first choice for your travel work. Vibration concerns on the Pentax 6x7 are almost always exaggerated. If you are familiar with the unit and MLU, it can be a very versatile tool. The Mamiya 7 is an excellent camera, though it is hardly a given that it is better than the Pentax 67ii for general purpose, or even landscape work. If someone did landscape and only that, I am not sure what camera would be better for them (the new Pentax zooms are truly impressive). Since I need SLR features for closeup work, and prefer the Pentax 6x7 camera for aerials, I have adopted it without regret as my landscape camera, too.

..I have yet to see any picture (including macro) shot with a lens below 300mm and benefited from mlu...

 

Well, try shooting serious macro in less-than-perfect natural light, with a clear DOF setting, and you will. Try doing real-world 2:1 - 4:1 without it. There isn't any reason for someone not attached to a camera company nor magazine to "make up" beneficial MLU claims. The claims exist for, apparently, less than obvious reasons.

Simon,

I assume some things people have offered above are intended as exaggeration and/or humor; here are two:

 

(1) ...Most pros that travel with a Pentax 67 have assistants to lug everything around for them. I can't imagine schleping one, and a compliment of lenses, around the world alone....

 

(2) ...However,a 35mm system with several lenses can fit in the space of a single P67 body!...

 

Now, both statements are demonstrably false, and opbviously so! There is a Pentax 6x7 forum here on photo.net, and you might get better feedback there - though to be honest even the negative things said above are legitimate concerns. I have used the camera in Asia, Europe, and parts of Central and South America (landscape, stock and street photography). It might be habit, but I think nothing of taking it. As casual use, it is 2 bodies (chrome in one, Trix, or T400CN in the other), one with the great 55mm (newer version, not the 1st, with the huge filter), and the other body with the 135mm or 165mm or 200mm, depending on what I intend to do. A normal lens and tubes with plenty of film fit in an old Sierra bag. I have several tripods to chose from, but use a little Gitzo when the lens is less than 200mm. I would say the zoom question above is what you might look at first. Though slow and requiring huge filters, they are tack on, great lenses. If you have only one lens, this should probably be it. As said by other people above, if you avoid the zoom, one way to look at it is...: (a) 45mm or 55mm? The biggest mistake, if you avoid the zoom, would be to go on the trip without at least one of these fine lenses; (b) if you need another wide lens, then 75mm (if you need speed, get the new one, if not, the old one is super sharp, and cheap used); © Get an old normal lens, cheap; (d) if you don't need fill-flash, and it sounds like you don't, you are out of LS territory, and can pick up a 150, 165, or 200 as a longer unit; all three can be had for little - and the close-focus differences won't matter to you, I guess, so simply pick the one which corresponds to your 35mm preference; (e) Macro? The new 100mm is great, but if you don't need close focus nor other attributes, the 135mm is a steal on the used market, is very sharp, and has MANY uses outside traditional macro work.

 

If you are traveling with someone, perhaps they could be the 35mm person. If not, you could easily take a 35mm and quality wide zoom, and a little p&s for the emergencies that pop up. If you want the 6x7 negative, I dont believe Mamiya is necessairly the better way to go, especially once you understand the MLU P6x7, and 6x6 unit, while sharp, are not necessairly landscape-friendly. If you don't think a Fuji 670-690 will cut it, and the Bronica RF645 nor Fuji GS645 tempt you, the P6x7 could easily be your camera. I second the vote for a rental first, unless of course you have already used the camera on loan.

...Nobody said you could. Just do some research...

...If you don't like predigested facts...

 

Late night Bob? �Nobody said you could�? �Facts�? Really? Do you even read what you type in? Correct me if I am wrong: You claimed �...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined... � I am not putting words in your mouth; this is what you posted, and even now you apparently claim it is a predigested �fact�. You offered this as a fact, as a summary of what you �heard�. Well, someone else posted what was actually said. One great big problem: what you concluded (one of your predigested facts) can not be logically concluded from what was said by NPR! This is the problem; it is always the problem; if you water down the word fact, it loses are useful meaning.

 

For the record, yes, I dispute the numbers. The numbers classify anyone who sets foot on a refuge of any kind as a birdwatcher. Every family on vacation, even though maybe the guy and one kid are interested, the entire family is defined and counted as �birdwatchers�, irrespective of what their hobbies or interests are every other day of every other year. Even the summary acknowledges a discrepancy worth noting: 31.4 million people visited the refuges, yet only 25.5 million actually engaged in �watching� (what were the other 6 million doing?). If you stare at a rabbit in your yard, you are a wildlife watcher. The barrier for classification isn�t all that high, when compared to hunting and fishing - which requires licensing, etc. etc. There is no doubt that there are people and money involved, but a local 10K road-race in a city brings more money to a city than one of the highpoints on the Audubon data you cited (Rio Grande Birding Festival?), and nearly 10 times as much money is made in Northern Wisconsin off the sale of pornography-related materials than is made by the Horicon WI bird thing! With all the lose definitions, the Fortune 500 analogy is little more than a humorous statement (for example, what ranking does �drinking� beer get? Add up the revenue of every single brewery, and how high would it be? Then add on the sponsorships and endorsements and related jobs and charities and etc. and magically, you have Fortune 100 material); a little $$$ perspective might be in order.

...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined...

 

...States See Fewer Requests for Hunting Licenses: The number of people who hunt wildlife is falling, as more people choose to take pictures of animals. However, it's hunting and fishing licenses that pay for wildlife management. NPR's Robert Smith explains states will have to change how they manage public lands...

 

 

Well, you don't have to be Aristotle to figure out you cannot conclude the former statement from the latter! It is not a matter of wildlife management or politics, but simple rhetoric/logic.

Though I use Canon equipment, I would not vote for the Canon lenses as they are grossly overpriced ($100+, in many cases - depending on filter size), and would opt for the Nikon stuff. One benefit to the less expensive sets as opposed to the lone higher quality lens, is that you can combine them for greater magnification. These more basis +1, +2, +3 filters are better than many people think; images taken with them can be publishable if done prooperly - though they are no substitute for a 1:1 macro lens or tubes. In his book on close ups in nature, John Shaw includes a few pics taken with basic lens magnifiers. My first choice would be a Nikon lens; second choice a set from Hoya or Tiffin (both good quality). If you are leaning to the latter, they can e had very cheap, used at many stores and on the internet auctions.

...I heard today that wildlife watchers (photographers and birders) now are both more numerous AND contribute more dollars to the economy than all hunters and anglers combined.

 

Where would one have to be to "hear" this? Better yet, were I to hear it, it would take more than this to believe it. It doesn't even sound remotely plausible.

I must do other types of work, but I find the difference between 2.8 and 2.0 to be extremely important. When you cant control the background or the distance to it, f2 often makes a noticeable difference. At night or in a jazz club or wherever, F2 also matters; in many cases, regardless of film and what you do to it, it can be a deciding factor. I would buy based on blur and speed need, not on sharpness (both are great, sharp lenses). I have tested the two lenses and simply couldn't tell them apart on many basic subjects (they both share the 58mm filter, if that matters). The f2 is lighter, and it does focus down to a meter, and with 100mm reach, that covers a great any things. You could always a tube or diopter or 250/500d filter for the occassional macro stuff. If you think you might become a macro "fan", I would go with the macro, but if not, the 100mm f2 is a great lens, and a good compromise over the 85 1.8 and 135 f2.0.

Nancy, the gap in the first two lenses is the 35-80, which is a VERY common focal length for someone with your tastes. After a few months you should be able to decide if the 35-350 is for you or not (is big, heavy, a little awkward at first). If you say yes, you might sell the 80-200, unless it is a f2.8 lens and you think you might need the speed for something down the road. The 28-135 IS is a very nice lens, and well suited for when you want to carry only one lens. If you decided to sell the 35-350, you will have NO trouble doing so, perhaps for enough money to buy 2+ 28-135's! Canon's 10x zoom still commands big bucks on the used market (maybe $1500+ new, maybe $1100-1250 used - if nice). If you decide to get rid of it, you might reconsider "trading" for something else, and selling it outright and using the money to buy the 28-135, and lots and lots and lots of film.

If for some reason you want to see less light where you are looking, turn the flashlight off; if for some reason you want to see more light there, stick the tip of the flashlight right through the "curtain" till it comes out the back side of the camera! Since apparently you don't shoot film with your camera (if you did with slide film, you would know the answer to your question is irrelvant) neither one of these options would do much harm to your "photographic activities". Of course, you could call the Canon service line and explain your problem to them.

Tom,

I have used the 170-500, on general newspaper assignments in people, politics, sports, etc (with the Sigma 28-200 on the other body). For generic work, it is perfectly fine. Both lenses are not junk, but not fabulous either. Though, once you see the prices, you can probably assume this. If you intend to routinely make 11x14 prints AND need to shoot wide open, they may not be the lenses for you. But, for many purposes they perform quite well. If you buy used or cheap enough, depreciation might not be a huge concern with all the "zoom crazy" EOS people out there. If you want range and can live without the zoom, I recommend the Sigma 300mm f4, or the Sigma 400mm f5.6; the later versions of both are APO, and good deals for the money. Both are considerably sharper than the respective focal lengths in the 135-400 & 170-500. I dont know if Sigma stopped making these two lenses, but they no longer show up in many magazine sellers lists, and are found quite cheap on ebay. Dont read too much into the fact that they might be discontinued or temporarily out of production. Both the 300 and the 400 won lens/photo awards, and were "best buy" lenses by more than one magazine. Neither is a good as a Canon L -I hope this is a given- but they are quite decent lenses. I bought the 400mm HSM Macro whatever in the U.S., in like new condition, for just $315; I recently bought the 300mm f4 off ebay, new in the box, for $407. Both would be in your price range, and both perform well. These lenses are much better than any Sigma zoom, and would outscore a 35-350L, though this is hardly a fair comparison - as noted above. If you like to use filters, check sizes prior to purchase. Many Sigma lenses have been revamped over the years, and exist in 2-3 variations; you might want to avoide those with 86 or 90mm filters as they are almost impossible to find used, and step rngs and even larger filters get real pricey real fast.

The glass quality in and of itself is obviously important, but you are bying a lens, so knowing which glass is "better" wouldn't be the deciding factor in any purchase. The build quality matters greatly, as do dozens of other factors. There are only a handful of optical lens glass makers in the world, so it would not be preposterous to assume that in some cases, and in come applications, that a maker has sold the glass to both a third-party maker, as well as the main-party maker. There is no way to generalize as most companies do not make every lens in their lens line, which further complicates any glass analysis. In general, people complain about edge resolution and flare, and what not. But, rarely are their complaints about any one glass element in the configuration. You can have great glass, and a mediocre lens. Lens comparisons can really only be made within purposes and @ the same or roughly the same focal lengths (105 Nikkor vs 105 Sigma Macro, etc.).

In addition to the Pop Photo article -was it "The Cult of the Canonet"? Or, maybe that is yet another article- there is was also one in a French photo magazine in October on the "$99 Leica?" (At this price, it doesn't matter if it is Euros or Dollars!). If you buy online at auction, unless specified otherwise, you might want to assume you will need new foam seals, and perhaps a self-timer cleaning; other than that, the camera are great and very tough.

...Soligor, Vivitar, Cosina, Danubia, Voigtlaender et al. are ALL coming from the same plant (Cosina, Japan), and I strongly believe that Soligor is NOT made in Germany. It is only distributed with a German brand name.

 

Not sure anyone is following this thread or cares, but the above statement factually incorrect. The lenses metioned in the original post are older designs, the Cosina link is a modern phenonema. I own Schneider enlarging lenses labeled "Vivitar", Leitmeyr 4x5 lenses from Germany also labeled "Spiratone", and at least one t-mount Soligor lens labeled Germany. These companies (Spiratone, Asunama, Soligor, Lentar, etc.) sell badged products. In many cases the relabeled item will be made in whatever country the labeler found it.

 

Some Soligor mirror lenses are excellent, others merely average (I have a 300mm f4 so small it looks like a fat 2x teleconverter, and it is rather sharp). The 120-600mm lens was also sold as a Vivitar. It is a VERY big lens, and quite heavy. Optically, it is decent, but not fabulous (no zoom of such range could be first-rate). I used one only one day, as a employee at the Milwaukkee Zoom in the U.S. had one several years ago and we got to talking and he let me use it for a roll of film; it was better than I expected it to be. A common price at a camera show in the year 2001 was $299-399. It is such an usual focal length, you would need a Sigma 170-500 to be close in reach.

I didn't mean to imply that one could or should use t-mount lenses directly on a M42 mount. I was probably vague, in the earlier post. What I meant to say is an added bonus to having a FD=42, is that you can use a t-mount lens if you ALSO have the t-mount=M42 (and many lenses when you buy them used come with this mount on them already). You might think having two adaptors is a bad idea. The point I tried to make was that I find this combination works quite well. I have a 180mm T-mount Soligor which is extemely sharp, as is a 300mm T-mount Vivitar f3.3 prototype; both t-mount lenses came with M42 adaptors, so I just used them on the Ftb. The FD=M42 is also convenient for various macro applications. Often, an FD bellows setup is $99-199, where you can get a decent M42 bellows, sometimes, for as little as $35-75. I bought two this summer, one excellent Asunama (sp?) one for just $25 at a camera store in Minnesota in the U.s., when on vacation. The M42 adaptor lets you venture into other lens areas, many of which are not as popular an FD, hence items often cost less.

If the focus speed of the Sigma lens is reasonably fast, and if manual focus appears "normal" (smooth, without resistance), then it is hard to believe the lens is the cause of the battery drain, or at least that the battery drain is abnormal. Depends what mode you use on the camera, how many times you are aksing the lens to focus (half-press on the shutter release, etc.) and if you do long exposures, and such. But, there isn't anything in the lens that would be drawing such a load as to kill a battery is weeks. How many rolls of film do you shoot over the course of 3 weeks?

Prices on these units fluctuate greatly. At one point in time, the Canon-made one was $129! I have the Canon-made one, and to be honest there doesn't appear to be anything special about it - least nothing that would justify the price. I have one made or at least labeled "Samigon", which is decent. However, the one which appears most solid is labeled "Rowi FD / M42 Series 2". I can't comment on what "series 2" means, but this is very well made. I have a 400,, f4.5 German lens, and even with that heavy monster on there, it feels solid when handling the Ftb by the body. I have seen adaptors from Pakistan and China that are aluminum (if that), and didn't seem like they were worth the $15 people were asking for them. I paid $22 for the Samigon, $26 for the Rosi (new), and $28 for the Canon (used). They come in handy not just for M42 lenses, but also for odd t-mount lenses you might come across (the tm=M2=FD combo works to infinity perfectly).

If the LCD unit works properly, and the shutter blades are clean and dry, I suspect the camera is ready to go. If you see imperfections in prints, I would attribute this to either the lens or the lack of a tripod or steady hand. I would second the above advice on accessory grips. I don't off-hand remember the Canon code numbers, but one is the bigger, "threee-finger grip", and the other has the socket for the cable release. Both are great accessories. As noted above, the bigger grip can be found new for $10-20 (less than half what is was several years ago). The socket grip can get pricey; I have seen one sell for $88 and $28 within 45 days on ebay. The 630 is a truly SOLID EOS camera; first-rate build quality.

...Nikon claims that in their design of lenses of 400 and greater, that the rear filter (UV,etc) is an actual emement design of the lens...

 

Mark, did you find this statement in Nikon literature (actually, where did you find it?)?

75mm and 45mm (I have owned most every lens, and keep coming back to these two for street and scape). Both very, very sharp, and they share the same filter size. I also use the 200mm, for reach across a river or street or whatever. Many people avoid this old 200mm lens, and some claim it not Pentax's best, but mine is simply great, and it is not huge nor extremely heavy like the 300mm or longer. You could go the new zoom route, but I would prefer the 45 to the low end of the zoom, I don't see how the zoom could beat the straight 75mm (EXC at every single aperture as tested by the photo mags), and the 200 -or even the 135- gives that distance you often need, which the long end of the 55-110 zoom doesn't quite get. What is stated above about cheap prices uses is certainly true at least for people in the U.S. and Canada. Last time I was in the U.S. I bought a basucally new in the box 135mm macro for $385 (and a mint 150mm for $299!), and brought it back to the U.K. as a gift for a friend.

Do you really need to handhold? Have you ever tried buying a larger ball head,, but NOT locking it down? Mount the camera to the ballhead, letting the tripod support the weight of the camera, while you swign up/down, left/right, freely. Just don't tighten the knob on the ballhead. This is what I do at airshows, because it is an all-day, two-day shoot. It works great. If the bird doesn't fill 10-20% of the frame, I don't see why someone would bother with autofocus. I would, at least, want a nice convenient manual focus mechanism. I have the original Sigma 400 f5.6 APO, and it is great for manually focusing, which you can do with thumb or index finger. I used the 500 f7.5, but wasn't thrilled; the 500mm f4.5, well that is another matter - and unfortunately, another price range. If you could get the bal head method down, you might even buy a teleconverter for the big Minolta lens you already have. Having the control, without the difficulties of weight, really changes everything; just takes practice though.

It would be hard to evaluate someone elses images, even if they had the technical data of the shot to provide, especially if they were handheld shots. A great deal depends on what you are asking: Is the lens sharp at all apertures, including wide open? Or, is the depth of field truly pathetic when shot wide open? Depending on whose pics you evaluate, not knowing what all went into making them, you might draw different conclusions. I have used both cameras for years. They have excellent lenses, which are sharp at every setting (I wish the 690 had f/45, which I believe it could easily handle). This is not a lens which is soft til f8, that is for sure. Many of my shots with it were f5.6. I did not specialize in wide open, due to the type of work it was. Ideally, you would want to borrow or rent one for day, so you controlled all the variables. Worth noting is that these cameras can have different lenses (690 + the normal wide 90 or ultrawide lens 65 - I think; 670 with wide lens only); I personally wish they 670 could be bought with the wider lens. It is a great camera, and if you are in the U.S. they can be found, used but mint with counters less than 50, for $750-900, as opposed to $1400 new.

I was just curious if anyone had similar information on Brazil and Ecuador. I will visit Brazil for 6 weeks next year, then move to Ecuador where my wife will be working on a 6-month project. After that we may have a short-term job on Trinidad/Tobago. If anyone had experience using 120 services in these places, I would be grateful for any advice.

The problem, for almost all users, was with the dial, not the top of the camera. What was needed to repair the dial correctly, could have been made and sold for less than $10 U.S. The time-frame of your two repairs are worth noting; the first took place early in the repair history of the A2, and the second after numerous repairmen took to advertising the fact that they could do a better repair (with a warranty 12 times as long) for less money; this caught Canon in an odd spot, and they too started copying the repair offered by the non-Canon repair guys. Canon repairs could be found which were more reasonably priced, with two caveats: (1) You must have done so early on in the life of the camera (though as you found, all they did was install the same defective part which is why you had to pay a second time for a repair); & (2) You would have had to have been in the U.S. If you want to know how much it costs now, you would have to telephone a few Canon repair shops, inside and outside the U.S. (a friend in Rochester, NY and one in Eugene, OR were quote $229 and $259, as recently as this summer). I might still be able to find the paperwork in which Canon in Chicago and Canon in London quoted me $250+ shipping both ways, to repair the dial. I know what is wrong with the cameras, as since then I have repaired more than 10 of them myself (I could have a friend send you digital pics of the parts inside if you are curious regarding the weak spot on the camera - and I believe it is the only weak spot on an otherwise brilliant camera). I suspect your second repair was done with metal parts, as opposed to installing a new dial mechanism using melted plastic pins. Canon's failure you handle the problem in any reasonable way, created some nice work for non-official Canon repairmen. To this day, people advertise in magazines and auction off "A2 repairs Dial Repairs" on ebay. Why are the able to do this? Because they fix it correctly, with better parts, at half the cost. It would be interesting to know how many A2/A2e's needed to be repaired, though Canon would never release this information, and most repairs weren't handled by them anyway (were it a car in the U.S., it would have been recalled!). There is nothing scientific about what I am about to say, but a close friend is tied to a shop in Minnesota; they estimate that 75-80% of the cameras they sold new to people who shoot a roll of film per week or more, were sent off for dial repairs in less than 3 years - and this only shows the ones that came back to the shop for repairs; another friend has a shop here in the U.K. and as far as he knows, more or less every camera he ever sold needed this repair. Charging at all for a repair of a defective design is one thing; charging, like you say, a portion of a cost of another body is another.