Ken Katz

My wife's Iphone 13 pro has a 77mm equivalent telephoto that I would bet would provide better files than shooting through an SLR / DSL viewfinder. Produces good files in decent light, but has a much smaller sensor than the main WA camera. When holding the phone in one hand and a sand pail and shovel in the other hand, while taking images of our 17 month old granddaughter at the beach, I don't think the ridicules contraptions described above would work all that well. In the next 1-2 years we will likely see phones with zoom lenses using folded optics and even better computational tech.

Canon started selling IS equipped lenses in 1995, and any EOS body (film or digital) will work with any image stabilized EF lens ever made. If I still had any such EF lenses I still would not be inclined to shoot film of a band playing in a bar using my last remaining EOS film body, for the reasons I mentioned above. Been there / done that.

Katonah NY Cow, again - Olympus E-PL2 / 17mm f1.8

It would seem to me that the first issue to be fixed is the ability of all PN users to be able log in.

While I have shot bands using film (usually Tri-ex pushed a stop or 2) about 4+ decades ago, my advice would be to use the digital cameras you are currently comfortable with and provide your friend with a CD/DVD/cloud files/thumb drive of files that he can make prints out of. For low light imaging without flash, modern digital is simply a much better option than trying to revert to film, especially if you want color images. I am assuming you are not being paid for this, so my advise is to go with what you are currently comfortable using. I have only been taking images for 5+ decades, so I don't think I can provide any additional advise to someone as experienced as you.

Locked again for 14 minutes. Let us know when its working.

Unable to log in. My account is locked for 14 minutes

We bought a piece of petrified wood out west and proceeded to take it though security, with the piece in our carry on luggage. TSA was perplexed by it, and we had most of our stuff swabbed and tested before being allowed to continue. They had no specific interest in my Olympus EM-5 and 3+ lenses. Just goes to show that you don't even need to be carrying suspicions equipment to get extra attention when traveling. As far as quite air travel? As inconvenient it can be, especially right at this moment, my grandchild is 3,000 miles away, so driving is not an option.

A Canon R7 has the pixel density that would require a FF sensor of 85 Mp to match. That plus the cost difference ($1,500 vs $3,900) make it a more practical option for the bird/wildlife photographer on a budget. Fuji's anticipated 40MP camera would need a 90mp FF to match up in terms of reach. Your run of the mill m43 camera has a pixel density equivalent to 80Mp FF and the Panny Gh6 has the pixel density of a 100MP FF camera. That said, folk who want to bring back the highest quality images of things that are far away can always buy (and carry) the needed optics to do the job. The Canon RF 1200mm F8 L is only $20k and remarkably, only weighs 7.4 lb!

Friskybongo I think I understand your question. If you put a 100mm lens in front of a (i) half frame camera, (ii) full frame 35mm camera, and (iii) medium format camera, and loaded all with Tri-x film, the size of that lighthouse rendered on all 3 pieces of film will be the exact same size. If you print all 3 images so that the larger FF and MF negatives are cropped to provide the same view as the half frame camera, all 3 prints would look identical. With current digital equipment though, different sensors can have different pixel densities. A 100mm lens on a 45mp FF Canon R5 would need to be cropped in post to around 17mp in order to render the same field of view as a Canon APSC camera. Put that same lens on a 32mp Canon R7 and resulting image would have almost double the pixels of the cropped R5 image.

If you put a 100mm lens on a Canon crop body camera and compare the image to FF camera with a 160mm lens (or a zoom lens set at around 160mm), both cameras will provide the same field of view. "Perhaps I need to reread the entire thread" Sounds like a wise decision.

I believe the pre thyristor flash units secondary flash tube was called a "squelch tube" or "squelch circuit" (dim memories from about 1/2 a century ago). The first flash unit I used was a Metz 202. A big honking bracket attached / external lead battery type unit with 5 AE settings and a low/hi power switch. Since it would dump any excess capacitor juice into the squelch tube, you could reduce recycle time by setting it at low power if you were close up. I also used a Metz 402 later on, which was similar in appearance but had the famous thyristor circuit, eliminating the need for the low/high power switch. The 202 had a better quality of light IMHO. I was told that using 2 autoflash units at the same time would not work well, but I never got the chance to try it. Frankly with digital, I would set the flash units on manual and adjust levels by eye / histogram. Unfortunately, the 283 does not have a manual setting without getting the applicable accessory gizmo for it. My Vivitar 283 is sitting in an old camera bag, both of which are gathering dust in a closet for the last few decades

Not sure if 400mm on m43 or 600mm on APSC makes sense unless you plan on taking images of birds (or lions, tigers, and bears oh my). Do you want to carry around 3.5 lb / 12.5" lens, or even the 2.5lb / 8" m43 lens? I simply don't understand the comments ascribing the almost impossibility of getting sharp images with FF equivalent lenses of 800 or 900mm respectively (3.1 / 2.7 degree FOV). PN's weekly nature forums are full of sharp, beautiful images shot with similar photographic artillery, not to mention the decades of images published by NG and others, notwithstanding the obvious challenges of stability and atmospheric distortions. There are plenty of folks doing quite well shooting hand held with these lenses, aided by IBIS/IS ect.

I don't own the flash or any Nikon stuff, but most high end flash units have manual mode that allows you to manually adjust the flash output from 100% or less, to like 1/16 of maximum, if that's what you want. I would expect this option to be on the flash unit itself. That is how my Canon and Olympus flash units worked.

"You know Amazon better than I" A Google search of "Plustek 8200 i scanner slide holder" brings up a whole lot of options, including B&H, Adorama, and Amazon. It was about a 15 second endeavor.

In the past, the FD 50 1.8 was available for cheap used, but perhaps I was mistaken given the price KEH is now asking for an "Excellent" rated copy. Nevertheless, I would keep the 50mm that in your opinion renders best, regardless of the maximum aperture. The f1.8 is also lighter. Best of luck. Any film camera I still own is collecting dust, including my dad's black body Canonet QL17, which still has a partially exposed roll of film from about 20 years ago in it.

Not in the market for a film camera, but Canon FTB's are for sale on eBay for a whole lot less than $260. Given the cost of the CLA, light seals, and battery adaptor that most of the cheaper FTB's on eBay will likely need, your price is reasonable, but many folks would opt for the cheaper upfront cost and take their chances on the condition. The FD 50 1.8 does not really add much to the package, but is nice to have.

"35mm (C41) dev and print to 6 x 4 usually ~ £9" For 36 prints (even 24) that is quite inexpensive today. Scratching my head at the "6x4" description. Isn't the UK metric or are you just being kind to us North Americans on PN?

Lightroom has no problem reading the RAW files from my Canon D60, which was introduced about 20 years ago. My machine is running WIN 11. Don't have any Lightroom edits from back then since I only started using it about 11 years ago. Don't think you can imbed edits onto a native slide or negative, but I haven't used film in a decade and 1/2 so maybe I am missing something. I have nothing against anyone using using film or any image recording / processing / printing technology they choose. I look at the images not the process.

Apparently here is your answer (found in about 20 seconds): https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/canon-eos-620-film-leader-out-modification.5523575/ "Can I put it in a changing bag and simply open the back?" That's what I would do (if I still shot film).

It would seem to me (not a technical person), that an out of the camera 16 bit TIFF or an 8 bit Jpeg (extra fine setting), both cooked with the same settings by the camera (tone curve, WB, sharpening, color, NR, ect) would not appear materially different when loaded into your photo editor. If you need to apply significant editing changes, there is a danger that the jpeg could start showing posterization and/or other anomalies when pushed hard. I haven't had the need to shoot anything but raw in the last 1 1/2 decades, and prefer to cook the files myself, which is really not hard using LR. Raw files are certainly smaller than 16 bit TIFFs.

Andrew / paddler5: thank you both for your information. I will likely give the plug in described by Andrew a try, and if successful, I will describe on this thread. While I generally prefer the pain of smacking my fingers with a hammer instead of venturing into the LR Print module, based on paddler4's suggestion, I did give it a try. By setting the "Cell size" to 4x6" and the "Custom File Dimensions" to 4x6" (which changed the "Paper" to "Custom Size" for some reason), the files produced were letterbox for images not 1x1.5 ratio, and full bleed for images cropped to 1x1.5, which is exactly what I need. When I pressed the "Print to File" button, it brought up a File Explorer window (Windows 11 machine) and needed a file name to proceed. I would want a more automated process for multiple files, like when exporting jpeg files to disk. Looked up LR help, which was no help at all of course. Just an explanation of my process, I have not had a photo printer for at least 1 1/2 decades, and generate jpegs for printing that are uploaded to various printing services (Adorama / CVS). I have never printed through LR directly. Using consumer based printers, when ordering 4x6" prints the automations will print full bleed images cropped to 1x1.5 with minimal loss of image and will crop other file ratios to fill the 4x6" paper. Some services will have an option for a boarder but I have never tried that. Adorama was unique in offering a letterbox feature which would print without cropping, as long as you are OK with white borders on 2 sides of the print.

I did see this video (aka 15 minutes of my life I will never get back) in "43 Rumors". Since I use an Iphone 12 (close enough) and have owned three m43 cameras, including a E-PL2 with the same sensor as the GF1 described on the video, I thought I had enough practical experience to comment. First the video tested a GF1 by comparing images of; (a) macro using the Oly 60mm macro lens, (b) low light images of magazines, and © still life of tools. For me, the more telling test would be a social event taking images of people in mixed lighting, vs the GF1 with a kit zoom like the Pany 12-32mm, to better match the 3 camera coverage of the Iphone 13 Pro. For this, the computational features on the smartphone and reliable face recognition AF would likely provide better result than GF1, not to mention much better video clips. Besides my 15 month old granddaughter seemingly afraid of my EM-5 mkiii plus 12-40mm f2.8 Pro, many times I get more natural looking subjects with the phone than the real camera. Using the Oly 45mm f1.8 provided images not duplicatable with the phone, but with most other images, I had to look at the file specifications to tell what device took what photo. For some images, the 6x larger m43 sensor was obviously superior, but many times, the Iphone had the better shot. I do have to back off the "Vibrance" and color temperature sliders in LR for many Iphone images, especially indoors.

On occasion, I am asked to generate a large number of 4x6" prints for family, and many times such images, after appropriate cropping, don't really fit the 1x1.5 print ratio. This has been further exasperated since almost all the images are now produced by either my m43 cameras or smartphones, both of which do not use the 1x1.5 native format. In the past, I have relied on Adorama Pix for such images since they have a feature which allows photos to be printed in Letterbox format (which leaves blank space on either side of the paper, while printing the full uncropped image). As far as I know, no other photo printing service provides this feature, and their automated system will crop the image to produce a full bleed print on the paper selected. The issue I have is that in March, Adorama's Letterbox feature failed, even though it appeared to be activated. Perhaps it was an intermittent glitch or something else. So (finally!) my questions are: - Are there any other online photo printing services that provides a "letterbox" feature? I have checked a number of Adorama competitors, including MPIX, and did not find the feature. - Is there an easy way to do it myself in Lightroom, and generate jpegs for printing with the appropriate borders imbedded in the jpegs? I have done this a few times with a handful of 12x18" prints using the "Print" module, and it was a royal PITA. I would need an automated process that would generate printable jpegs from selected files. - Is there a third party program that would attach to Lightroom that could do this? Any help would be appreciated.

Apparently KEH still does camera / lens repairs. I have not used them for repair but like many, I have sold and bought equipment from them with satisfaction. FYI, starting price for repairing zoom lenses at KEH is $320. Also, if it was in salt water, you should probably reconsider your options in that damage to electronics may be irreparable. Best of luck.