neil_parker

<p>The 5400 v1 definitely will clip the shadows if you scan a B/W in the negative mode. I have always had good experience scanning as a positive and adjusting the exposure gain to make sure there is no clipping. Then reverse and adjust with curves in photoshop. Done this way the scanner is quite capable of capturing the full range of a contrasty B/W neg.</p>

<p>Hey batman :), according to an article by Jason Schneider of Modern Photo. written in the 70's, the KE-7A was essentially the same as an M4 (discontinued at that time), but with black chrome instead of black paint. It was made for US military, hence the Mil. markings, and was sealed against dirt: "...a black, tar-like substance seals the baseplate...". That may be the odor you detect. It was assembled in Canada from Wetzlar-made parts.</p>

<p>The Elcan 50mm f2 was constructed of only 4 elements for minimum size for some unknown military use. And was not considered of 'Leitz' quality, so was named Elcan.</p>

<p>One for the collectors, not the users.</p>

<p>The 'trick' to DOF preview on a K1000 or similar is to unlock the bayonet and turn the lens to stop down. Not the safest or most elegant solution. I don't remember seeing a K-mount lens with a DOF preview control, although the Olympus Zuikos had a button on the lens for that purpose.<br>

This, and the fact that K1000 didn't have a meter off switch, always made me recommend an FM or similar as a better camera for students or anyone who desires a manual camera.<br>

A foam kit from 'Interslice' (jon goodman) should fix it up.</p>

 

<p>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Karl Marx.<br>

(The main tenet of communism.)</p>

<p>Someone stated earlier on this forum that Nikon was closing it's facilities in Thailand, due to the political unrest. If true, how would that affect D300 supplies I wonder?</p>

<p>Just nikon's terminology. Most older generation nikkor micros/macros focussed to 1:2 ratio unless an extension tube was used. I still can't call the nikkor 'micros' after using them for years, because I started with an Olympus 'macro'. And all other manufacturer use the term 'macro'.</p>

<p>I've known a few photographers who didn't know their aperture from a hole in the ground...</p>

<p>"I really like Plus X pan, but I am having trouble scanning it. 7.5 min in D76 yields a perfect neg for printing on #2 paper, but the highlights block on my KM 5400 scanner."</p>

<p>Ronald, have you tried scanning your B/W as a positive with the 5400? I have had good results with all kinds of B/W film, under and over-exposed (or badly developed) with the 5400 (first version). </p>

<p>I use the Minolta software (Dimage Scan), scan as a B/W positive, adjusting the analog gain to make sure I'm not clipping. Then I invert it in PS and normally have to adjust the curve somewhat drastically. But this is the only way to prevent clipping with this scanner and the original software.</p>

<p><br /></p>

<p>You say you are keeping the 10.5 fisheye? That DX lens won't work on the D700.</p>

<p>You already have some good tools for this; the D300 and the 17-55 f2.8. Shoot raw and bracket your exposures manually or automatically. Try to underexpose, and use the highlight and shadow recovery tools in ACR or NX2. Play with white balance and try adjusting the curve of just the red channel which is likely to be clipped. Or follow the suggestion of using fill flash.</p>

<p>Also, get closer with the 17-55 and maybe wear some fire safety gear...</p>

<p>Seal it in a plastic bag with a bunch of crumpled up newspaper. It will eventually smell fine. Try it for 2 weeks, if it still smells, do it for another 2 weeks.<br>

I did this with a camera that really reeked, and after a few weeks it smelled spring-fresh. Then I used the paper for fire-starter. I tried windex and other cleaners, but that doesn't do anything for the interior surfaces of the camera.</p>

<p>Looks a bit like a shutter problem, rather than a lens artifact. Check the shutter speeds of the shots with this problem. If they are the same or close, there may be a shutter problem.</p>

<p>Bad neck here. Infact I am currently recovering from spinal surgery having 2 discs removed. I'm an old f* with RA and I won't be hanging a strap for at least 6 months if ever.</p>

<p>I've hauled camera gear through festivals and concerts for 30 years and I switched to a belt (fanny) pack a few years back. I use a LowePro Orion (I think, couldn't find a tag). It will hold a D200, 17-55 f2.8 and an 85 f1.4, barely. I also have holsters or pouches if I need to add gear or carry less.</p>

<p>Normally I carry the camera in my hand when using it and stuff it when not. The trade off is getting lower back pain after a hours of hauling it instead of worsening the neck situation.</p>

<p>Don't do things to aggravate the condition! I ended with some nerve damage because it was ignored too long.</p>

The description of your problem is not exactly clear. But if you get darkening at one edge and it happens at 1/2000s or

1/1000s that sounds like 'shutter capping'; the shutter changes speed at the end of its travel giving less exposure at one

edge.

 

My F3 had the same problem at those speeds and required shutter service.

No sign of it Edward. Try neil (at) artmill.net.

Edward, if you are interested, email me for details. I have a standard back and an MF-14 back, both with pressure plates

and would part with one of them for a reasonable price. My apologies if this post is inappropriate, mods.

 

A note about the MF-14 back; it's data printing feature is mostly useless because it prints in the image area. (MF-18 prints in between the

frames). But it gives a nice serrated thumb rest that balances well if using an MD-4. Also, it can be set to display frame numbers (without

printing) which are far easier to read than the mechanical display on the body.

Me like fast lenses too, but just in case you need a temporary cheap solution, how about 800 film, tripod, or flash?

Owned the 105 f1.8 for years, recently sold and bought 85 f1.4 AF. These are 2 exceptional lenses. I use them mostly

near wide open for concert shots.

 

The 105 is 'decently' good at 1.8, but not nearly as crisp or contrasty as 85 at 1.4 or 2. The 105 is incredible from appx

f2.5 and smaller.

 

The 85mm f1.4 AF is just plain the best, and for me improves both focus (I can't reliably manually focus lenses on a DX

camera) and light gathering ability.

My problem with with AIS, AI and older lenses was just the fact I couldn't focus the darn things reliably anymore when I switched

to digital with it's DX tunnel vision. Never had problems focussing them on my old manual bodies. To me photography is about

seeing, and the finder is most important!

 

My long beloved 105 1.8 still was great for a concert lens, when I was lucky enough to catch focus right. Sold it, bought an

85mm f1.4 AF, no regrets! Same true on my fast shorter lenses. I suppose I should have tried the katzeye screen.

 

Instead I learned the 17-55 beat the pant off most of them and nailed the focus for me reliably on my D200. Too bad its so scary

looking with its hood, I prefer subtle.

 

Sold the 20 2.8, 24 f2, 105 1.8, a couple of 50s. Still have 180 which is great when I get it focused, and a few other odds and

ends. But they'll have to pry the 35mm f1.4 AIS out of my dead fingers. I can't wait to use it on a D700 or whatever when I get

one. Not in the budget for a while though.

The exakta mount lenses cannot be easily adapted to nikon; the registration distance of the lens mount is incompatible.

The lens won't focus to infinity with even the thinnest adapter, (unless it contains a corrective lens element, which will

degrade the quality). I have manually held a 58mm biotar against my D200 body with no adaptor and tested it, (darn good

lens!) and the farthest it would focus was appx. 6 feet. An 85mm as you picture would be worse.

 

However, if the goal is to use this on a modern digital body, they CAN be mounted on Canon with a simple adaptor that

can be found fairly easily. Canon has a shorter registration distance on the lens mount, and many old lenses (including

Nikon) can be adapted. Otherwise having the lens machined or modified would probably be quite expensive, and it would

be more logical and cheaper to obtain a used 85mm manual or auto focus Nikkor.

No adaptor for the k-mount bayonet. There are adaptors for the pentax M42 screw mount, but they will not allow infinity-

focus -unless you buy the type that incorporates an additional lens element to correct, which degrades the image.

The 5400 v1 makes fantastic scans even from kodachrome, and at least mine has been reliable and seems well made.

 

However it is slowwwwwwwwww

 

The v2 has the bad rap, but it's a lot faster.

 

Hard to get minoltas repaired any more if at all, and no one is developing driver/software for them except maybe

vuescan.

 

Get the nikon while they're still made, nikon is more likely to stop making altogether than bring out a new one.

Regarding fuji 800 color casts; I also had problems with NPZ, a slightly lower contrast film than the Press or Superia

(Press and superia are the same emulsion).

 

My usage had been for scanning (minolta film scanners). I would get a magenta/green crossover when scanning NPZ

that was hell to correct. The Press on the other hand was one of the easiest films to scan ever, and was great for white

balance correcting under concert or other artificial light sources.

 

It's been a bit of a journey to learn to correct concert lighting with the D200. I have finally decided that NX2 works best

for tricky white balancing, and also for high ISO noise. ACR has done awful things to noise in my high ISO shots.

 

Also my favorite local venue (Boulder Theater) tends to go a little crazy with the red floods which often leads to clipped

highlights.

I will just add that the D200 at 1600 beats fuji 800 press, superia or NPZ (I haven't tried the newest films) by a

comfortable margin. This is assuming both are properly exposed, either the film or the digital will give apparent grain or

noise if underexposed in the shadows.

 

Many have criticized the D200 at 1600, but with judicious use of a noise program (I use noise ninja), excellent results

can be had. I used fuji 800 films for many years in concert and other low-light settings, it's the gold standard for lowlight

film use. But results are much better with the D200.

 

Here's a shot from a few months ago of Amayo of Antibalas, Much PS work necessary to bring the face out, but it holds

up well for 1600.<div></div>

Everyone prioritizes their purchases themselves for their own needs. I don't see anything wrong in buying the way you are if

that makes sense for your photography. The D700 has many advantages over the D300, and I am sure it will give excellent

results with good lenses of any sort.

 

In that situation I would probably hold off on a zoom for now and consider a 20 or 24 prime, you would get equivalent or

maybe better quality than most zooms (maybe not the 14-24) and it would be far cheaper, lighter and easier to carry

around. The 20-35 f2.8 is another good choice. What I wouldn't do is buy a cheap 3rd party zoom. The truth is that most

great photography through the ages has been created by people carrying no more than a simple prime lens or 2.