alan_woolnough

Well done Troy,

I was confident you would get a result, and i bet the resulting 6x7 slides will blow your socks off.

With my mamiya 645 i was able to leave the rear baffle in place, although i'm not surprised that you needed to remove it for 6x7.

It really is a bargain of a lens, and although ive probably owned mine for about 16yrs {possibly longer}, ive always been reluctant to replace it. As you will now know, this lens is built like a tank, and although i tend to use mine at close range and full extention {with the weight of the mamiya plus motor drive} it seems to cope nicely with the weight {although focusing is stiff, and the camera body needs support whilst focusing}, and i fully expect it to last another 16yrs.

In case you have not discovered this yet, the entire front element section will unscrew as a unit {if you ever need to clean the internal side of the front lens element}.

best of luck with the new addition to your family!!!!!!

Alan

hello Troy,

Ive been using my pentax SMC 500mm f4.5 on my mamiya 645 for many years, and i can assure you there is "NO" vignetting on that format.

An educated guess would be that 6x7 is on "the edge", and a worst case scenario would be that "if" vignetting was present, it would likely be very feint {possibly only noticable on plain sky type areas}, although i would guess you would just about be fine.

A bigger concern would be the weight of a 6x7 body putting strain on the extended focusing tube, if used at close'ish shooting distances {although for infinity shooting that would be a non-issue}.

Another concern would be chromatic abberations being relatively more noticable on that format, due to the "full" width of the usable image circle being used {i notice it more on my mamiya, than on 35mm}.

Ive fairly recently had another adapter made, so i can swap from the pentaxs mamiya 645 mount, to digital. This helps aleviate the CM problem, compared to 35mm or larger {due to my nikon d70's small sensor area}.

Ive always found this lens to give slightly soft {but pefectly usable} results at 4.5 {ive certainly seen worse, even on more modern lenses}, but at 5.6 onwards the results are nicely crisp in my view.

By todays standards, this lens is a reasonable performer for its intended 35mm use {and price}, but can more than hold its own with digital, and is excellent on MF {although its handling is very clumsey}

Alan

Hello Walt,

My views are similar to Jared's, regarding the viewfinder.

Much will depend on your use for the D70, but i find the viewfinder to be excellent.

I use the d70 on my 500mm lens, along with my Mamiya 645 {with beattie screen} on the same lens, and swap bodies for the different field of view {if needed}. My eyes are old {wear glasses} but it takes me about five seconds to adjust from viewing and manually focusing through the Mamiya, to doing the same through the d70. Hardly a problem in my view!!.

My view is, if someone finds the d70 viewfinder to be poor, then more fool them if they go ahead and purchase it. If they decide not to purchase it, fair enough, but to imply that the majority will have the same opinion to them, if they do purchase the d70, is a bit strange in my view.

I would imagine that users of shorter lenses "may" find the viewfinder less ideal {compared to other viewfinders}, but i personally find it to be excellent for long tele work, and even though my 500mm lens is a manual diaphram, i have yet to struggle hugely with manual focusing with the d70, even when stopped down to F11 {due to the faint freznel type etching on the screen}.

Of course, It is more common to hear complaints than praise about most things {and i have plenty of my own, regarding other camera designs}, but i would suspect the vast majority of d70 owners are very satisfied with it}.

I do think that for its price, the sync capabilities of the d70 are excellent, although maybe only appreciated by owners of medium format/leaf shutter lenses, or those with the need for fill flash/fast moving subjects, but this makes this camera extremely versatile for it price range, and the main reason why i took the plunge into digital.

For me, the d70 is almost the perfect package, even though the meter is disabled, and i have to use a handheld meter {which i have always done anyway}.

A big thumbs up from me.

Alan

Hello Tiffany,

Your D70 shutter WILL fire, even with old manual non-cpu lenses, with the pop-up flash active. The pop-up flash AND shutter will work perfectly, even without any lens attatched to the body.

I suspect the flash settings in the menu are set to ttl {which will disable the shutter with non cpu lenses.

I use non cpu lenses with my D70, and even an old manual diaphram lens {with no electrical OR mechanical linkage to the body} and the pop-up flash and shutter function perfectly.

Although non cpu lenses disable the meter, some of the other functions are still active, and it is worth checking these settings are not conflicting with the pop-up flash and shutter. I use the pop-up flash to trigger my remote flashguns, by dangling a small peanut slave over the flash {which is set to 1/16 power}. the peanut slave is attatched to my remote flashguns by the cables, and this works perfectly.

I suspect your problem is just with finding the appropriate camera settings {which can be a bit daunting for people like me, who has only recently gone digital}.

Alan

Hello Douglas,

I own a K mount SMC version, and assuming it is the same design as your version {with the small removable rear section}, it should be fairly straightforward to use a polarizer on this lens.

The small rear section {on my model} also has a locking nut for swiveling the camera body independently. By loosening this knob, the lens {with polarizer attatched} can be revolved in its lens collar, whilst the camera is held in its position.

As stated though, you may get a slight focus shift, as although these lenses have the threaded rear filter mount, i,m not sure if the lens was designed with that in mind.

good luck

Alan

Hello Douglas,

I own a K mount SMC version, and assuming it is the same design as your version {with the small removable rear section}, it should be fairly straightforward to use a polarizer on this lens.

The small rear section {on my model} also has a locking nut for swiveling the camera body independently. By loosening this knob, the lens {with polarizer attatched} can be revolved in its lens collar, whilst the camera is held in its position.

As stated though, you may get a slight focus shift, as although these lenses have the threaded rear filter mount, i,m not sure if the lens was designed with that in mind.

good luck

Alan

Ligia, that is a very fine image, and your reply {based on your own experiences} shows how very different bird photography and peoples views, choices and personal experiences can be, and i respect your views.

I would say that my personal experience is wildly different from yours, as i have seen large amounts of profesional results with the lens that Quinfang Shi owns. As has already been mentioned, the focal length of this lens is suitable for a variety of bird sizes {from a suitable distance}. The method used to arrive at the suitable distance for this particular focal length and a given bird size can vary, depending on a photographers preference and which method suits the location and the birds behavior in those locations, such as skilled stalking/hide/blind/ and time and effort.

In my own experience ive found that f8 gives very narrow DOF and even f11 at maybe 12ft etc with long lenses, and isolating the BG from the subject has often been dependant on observation of the subject and my positioning and preparation. At very close range a 400/500 lens at f11 will still throw a fairly close BG out of focus depending on the situation and the shooting angle etc in my experience, and in many cases the sky is the nearest BG.

I dont use TCs, so i tend to photograph birds that suit my 500mm lens focal length and design from my hide. This restricts me to birds ranging from 6 inches upwards, but it does take a lot of effort and time. Its up to Quinfang Shi whether he wants to spend yet more money, but in my own personal view, a lot of great bird images can be got from the lens he owns at the moment, if he has the time to devote to the subject.

These just my own views, based on my own experience, and i would expect them to differ from many people, as bird photography is such a variable subject in my view.

All the best

Alan

I have similar views to Frank & paul on this,

You can either shoot from a distance with long lens plus TCs if required, or get in very close by using a hide/blind, and possibly not even need a TC and retain the maximum quality of your lens and also the options of using a faster shutter speed or wider aperture, or a slower film under the same relative lighting conditions. The first option requires a top notch lens {and high quality TC], good long lens technique and possibly skilled stalking skills {depending on how timid the bird is, and the location you are in}. You would still need to be quite close with this method, even with a TC, if the bird is small.

In my own personal experience, hide photography requires a lot of preperation/observation and time and would not suit everyone or every location or every bird, but it can be very rewarding and a good option if someone does not own or can afford a suitable lens/tc set up.

I use the same 500mm lens that Douglas mentioned {i think mine is a later version, as it has SMC coating}, but it is more than enough focal length for hide photography without TCs with small birds, and good enough for use without a hide, and without TCs on larger birds such as ducks etc in many cases.

I only have one image on my computer at this moment, but it will give you an idea of image size with 400mm lens and six inch bird taken at about nine/ten feet.

Taken on my Pentax 500mm f4.5 {converted to Mamiya 645} with 75mm ext tubes.

cropped in between 645 format and 35mm format, giving an angle of view similar to 400mm on 35mm format.

Not sure if this helps

Alan

Mike, i cant believe it,

Have you lost your mind!!

Why on gods earth are you trying to avoid the wind, rain and fog, in dear old blighty.

If you really must go, i hope you have a great time.

all the best

Alan

Ed, not sure if this helps,

Ive got the older J model and the screen holder just lifts out, as it is only gripped in place by a couple of spring loaded prongs {and is simply pushed back in when you have finished}. The two screws on the screen holder have to be loosned, and this releases the thin frame that secures the screen.

Not sure if this is the same as your model though.

Thanks for sharing this Bill, you must have had an interesting few weeks.

The image will be a fine reminder, as the years pass, so hold onto it. Im glad i did not bin an image of a White Tailed Sea eagle that i took some twenty years ago {and this is only about 1/4 of an inch on a 10x8}, and although they dont nest in the UK they are extremely rare here, and im glad i held onto it.

Hopefully your eaglet will survive, now its left the nest. Do the parents continue to feed it?, or do they have to make their own way in life, once they have left the nest.

all the best

Hello Gloria,

I can only speak for myself here {as a fifty year old], and as someone who has rarely bought a nature book since about 1965, and since the arrival of the internet, am unlikely to {unless you publish one of course}.

I think what attracted me to certain books when i was younger was primarily the image on the front cover, followed immediately by recognition of the author. I think my priorities changed as i progressed with my bird photography interest, as the information behind the image became more interesting to me.

If was was to buy a book these days, i think recognition of the author would be a major influence on me, as i would only buy a book written by someone who has experience of UK bird photography, and as i now live in an inland area, i would narrow my choice down to an author experienced in hide photography in these types of area, as opposed to coastal areas or UK hotspots {such as Bass Rock/Farne Islands/Isle of May etc}.

I dont think there is a secret formula for a successful nature book, as everyone is on a different learning curve in variable situations, and i have found that hotspot photography is a completely different animal to most of my situations {both with their own unique advantages and difficulties}, but hotspot photography books "appear" to have a higher sales success, as my local bookshops seem have more of these type of books. I guess a lot will depend on whether the book is deliberately written as a showcase for the authors work, or as an aid for people of similar interests.

Sorry i cant be much help here, and these are only my general thoughts based on my observations.

all the best

Steve, a 65% success rate sounds like heaven to me.

As mainly a bird photographer, with the added challenge of attempting to get a reasonable sized image on 645 format, my efforts are often ruined by distracting twigs etc in the background or foreground.

Ive decided to give in to this curse, and become a twig photographer in the hope that my success rate will improve from about 25% keepers.

In all seriousness, If i knew i was going to get a 100% success with every frame i shoot, i think i would lose the adrenalin rush and excitement i get out of the challenge. However, this is only a hobby for me, so a low success rate is not a major problem for me.

all the best

Another excellent image,

Its great to hear that your friend is approaching this subject with the natural enviroment, and birds welfare being a high priority.

It would be ideal if there was an extremely fast film, with the same qualities of a slow film, to help remove the black background problems with flash fall off.

Here in the UK at this moment, to get a motion stopping shutter speed for a diving kingfisher {probably 1/4000 sec} at F11 using natural light, would require a film speed of about 6400asa in sunlight and 25600asa in our often dreary weather.

Maybe the digital revolution will eventualy solve the problem, but until then i guess that ingenuity and a lot of hard work/trial & error is the only option for this type of thing.

keep up the good work

Gyuri,

That is an excellent image of a tricky subject and I admire you and your friends dedication, as this type of photography requires a lot of planning and knowledge of the subject.

I dont feel qualified to offer any advice, although i own a book on european kingfishers written by David Boag, who did this type of thing a few years back, and he went through the same problems with black backgrounds. He experimented with multiple flash units to light the background, or simply coaxing the bird to dive closer to the background so some of the flash exposed this area as well.

Im sure you will solve your problem sooner or later, and i look forward to seeing the results.

Best of luck

Gyuri,

It would be interesting to know exactly what your friends project consists of, as it sounds very specialised.

As you mention infra red beams etc, and birds, i assume he or she is attempting to photograph small/fast flying birds such as swifts/swallows/martins etc.

Ive never tried this myself but ive read many articles over the years on this type of thing, and usually shutter speed is irrelevent as this is often done by using slow film, a short lens stopped right down, and multiple flash guns set to 1/16 power resulting in an extremely short burst of light to freeze the bird {a lot quicker than 1/500}. Some method of controling the flight path over a precise area, such as a small boggy area of ground beside a wall which attracts flying insects etc, and a lot of experimenting and wasted film determining the exact distance to place the beams {depending on the birds flight speed etc}.

Im sure there is a lot more to it, and most likely i have jumped to the wrong conclusion about your friends project.

Hope you can get some useful advice regarding the shutters

All the best

Jemini, i hope you dont mind me adding a question to your posting, which i have often been curious about.

Ive often heard maximum loads being talked about regarding tripods, and wondered if this is a tripod leg concern, or the tripod head, or the combination of the two. Or maybe a manufacturer underestimating the durability of their product, or simply some sort of marketing ploy.

My very old Slik Black Diamond 88 {which i use for hide work only}, is a very basic tripod, and perfectly usable for me, and can certainly take my full body weight. I have often used it to stand on if i need to observe over the top of bushes/undergrowth/boulders etc {ive even stood on it to change the odd light bulb in my house}. Surely most/all modern tripods should be capable of far more weight than the manufactures state. Or am i wrong?

cheers

Jemini,

Before you fork out your hard earned cash, its worth noting that however well built, designed, and expensive a tripod is, its only going to be as stable as the ground you stand it on allows, and as the exact location of your subject will often determine where you place yourself and tripod, leaving you with no choice in the matter {which could be on grass/mud/concrete/gravel/bogs/etc etc etc}, a top of the range tripod may or may not make a difference over a mid range model in many situations.

Ive found that there can be many reasons for getting a soft image of a moving subject, and often it is nothing to do with tripod quality. I think it was Greg who mentioned that sharp images can sometimes be got with relatively light weight tripods, and i totaly agree. As an amateur myself, ive always been very satisfied with my sturdy but mid priced tripod, and have prefered to concentrate on quick camera/lens handling, rather than sweat over forking out for a top of the range tripod, not knowing the condition of the ground that i will be placing it on from one moment to another {rarely have i had time to bed the legs into the ground and make the ideal adjustments before the bird decides to move to another position}.

Fortunately, ive concentrated on hide photography for the last few years, which tends to be a methodical type of bird photograhy and allows me the time to ensure that everything is set up and steady, and as my tripod is always unextended, i dont feel the need to upgrade my tripod.

If an image is sharp, then it is sharp regardless of the tripod price range/brand/quality. Often a slightly higher shutter speed is all that is required if the conditions allow.

Im not saying you should not get a higher quality tripod, but i wouldnt rely on that alone for getting a noticable difference with this type of outdoor subject in hugely variable situations.

This is just my views, based on my own experiences and thin wallet, so it may not apply to many others.

All the best

Hi Jemini,

Have you tried just sticking a monopod under the camera body. This helps prevent upwards/downwards motion. IMO, a 1000mm of focal length is not the best method of getting a decent sized image { far better to attempt to get closer, and get the maximum quality out of your lens}.

If this set up is only for occasional use i would use a beanbag etc, or use your present tripod without the legs extended on a windless day if possible.

You may even get better results by enlarging from a slow film, rather than using a 2x tc, stopping down and having to use a slower shutter speed, or using a fast film to regain the lost shutter speed.

You have the same dilemma that many of us have faced. Ive found bird photography to be littered with compromises, and we usually end up having to find what works best for us personally {in our particular situations} by trial and error.

All the best

Hello JD,

I cant give you any advice regarding the sales side of your question, but i have often "given away" prints as a gesture to various landowners in exchange for permision to photograph on private land {and therefore avoiding being disturbed by the general public}.

This may {depending on where you are based}, help you in accumulating a back catalogue of images. I have also "given away" prints to schools for their nature projects. When i moved to Fife {in Scotland}, i gave a number of prints to the Fife Rangers and was given a personal guided tour of a restricted sensitive nature reserve, and a key to permanent hide for my unlimited access {although i prefered to use my own hide}.

I only gave away prints and NEVER the originals.

Nature photography has only ever been a hobby for me, but maybe the above practice may help you along the way.

All the best

Hegedus,

The image is quite small on my screen, so its difficult for me to see it properly.

It is clearly a european kingfisher and a superb acion shot. Although these birds are usually thought to be fast fliers, they not exceptionally fast compared to other small birds. When taking prey from the river "surface" they will sometimes hover for split second.

There is probably a large number of ways this shot could have been taken, and most likely it would involve a lot of time setting it up. It is extremely unlikely this was a chance encounter and grab shot. Once these birds have been located and observed for a period of time, it soon becomes clear where their favourite perches are, and because of their daily routine and predictability, these birds give a photograher a good oppotunity to prepare and set up these types of shots {if the photographer is prepared to put in the time and effort}.

These birds are very wary in some places in the UK {although i have heard stories of kingfishers sitting on anglers fishing rods}, but the use of a hide allows very close views. Although i have only used a 500mm lens to get shots of kingfishers perching, it is quite possible to use a shorter lens if enough preparation is done and the situation allows, and take advantage of the increased depth of field. I have had a kingfisher sitting very happily about six inches from me {on the other side of my hide}.

It looks like a great image {pity i cant see a larger version on my screen}

I dont find it boring at all {maybe a little bit},

Since i got my computer and am able to see images from around the world instantly, ive become more aware of the differences in approach to wildlife photography.

As someone who knows full well the frustration and difficulties of getting even a very basic image of a bird etc, i will often look a bit deeper at an image than the face value of it.

Since being on Photo Net, i have never seen so many images of egrets in my life, as they are relatively scarce in the UK. Even though they appear to be fairly common in Florida and have been photographed to death, i can fully appreciate the skill and difficulty in getting an image that will stand out from the crowd {such as Bills}. Having said that, i would also find a "boring" shot of an egret interesting, if i knew that the photographer had spent days of hard work tracking down the subject and possibly ending up with only a couple of minutes photography in less than ideal light.

I usually judge my own images partly on the effort that i have made to get the shot, and would get more satisfaction out of looking at a "boring" shot of a scarce/timid bird, than an interesting shot of a common bird that is accustomed to people. However, i would be more likely to hang the interesting shot on my wall.

I take great interest in looking at the images on this site from all over the world, and just because some of the bird images are pure record shots of very common birds in some countries, does not make them boring to me, as there is often a lot more to them than meets the eye.

I dont envy the pros one bit, as the general public probably dont care about the time and effort involved in getting an image of a creature with a mind of its own {which will often refuse to do anything interesting}.

Anyway, these are just my views.

Rick,

I agree with Dan, that it seems to be a USA/europe thing. During the 60s and 70s in the UK, pentax was extremely popular, as was the Olympus brand {much due to the David Bailey/Olympus trip ads}. Pentax medium format has always been strong here with people ive met over the years.

Daniel,

I was probably the biggest sceptic, regarding the digital image, but ive been surprised how quickly ive got used to it {scannng].

For me, providing the future digital cameras continue to allow the use of my lenses, then it is less important when conventional bodies cease to be made.

The great thing about conventional cameras/lenses is that you can stick a £------ lens on a £30 second hand body and get the same results as using a £500 body much of the time. I think it will be a long time untill the same applies with digital, although i guess it depends on your intended use.

I hope to take the step into digital {camera} very soon, as the more im learning about it, the more interested im becoming.

All the best

Hi Jonathan,

I often carried small binoculars around with me, but as my left eye is slightly different to my right {due to years of pearing through my camera viewfinder probably}, i used to find that the focus correction ring on one barrel of the binoculars would often move from its setting while being carried in my pocket or bag. This was often a real pain if i needed to quickly focus on a bird etc. I ended up replacing the binoculars for a monocular. I find this much quicker and takes up about the same amount of room as a roll of 120 film. My particular one is an 8x21, and it has a similar angle of view to a 300mm lens, which is also a consideration if you are primarily a photographer.

You cant beat a good pair of binoculars, but depending on your purpose, it might be just the thing.

all the best