jose_angel

Used to Nikon, I`m finding a load of awkward issues working with Fuji. I`ve just bought a X100F which I like, but it is becoming a nightmare to simply download and work with its raw (and jpg) files. Used to Nikon, Nikon Transfer worked to me like a charm, just plug the card reader and the download is done; all the images are automatically located and named and then shown in View NX. Editing was as far as a click with Capture NX 2. Fast and quite comfortable. Now with Fuji, when I plug the card reader, the stupid Photos app (Macintosh) opens, blocking everything. No way I cannot avoid it. Of course, raw (RAF) files are not recognized, so it is unusable. Nikon apps used to work with most of my other`s JPG files, not the case with Fujifilm files. (I`m running OS X 10.11). After asking Fuji`s staff, looks like the only option is to do it manually, create and name a folder, copy and paste. They don`t have a "default" viewing software (Finepix viewer is not provided anymore for this cameras) and the only raw developer they provide is such an ugly, obsolete version of "Silkypix". What a pain. So I understand I have to live out of the Nikon`s "easy way of life", buying updated third party software (long ago I abandoned PS and Aperture in favor of Capture NX), maybe messing (at worst, hope not) with png conversions and so. I still shoot Nikon (and others), so I`d like to unify all my workflow if possible. Somewhat disappointed with it, you know... for sure I got it wrong. Any advice?

I have and like this lens (24-120/4VR), but I`d also consider the "new" 24-85, VR version. Lighter and smaller, I find it interesting for camera-hanging-on-neck kind of walking. The 24-120/4 seem to me a bit on the heavy side. In the other hand, it has the benefit of the higher "reach", great for portraiture.

LOL, I was almost a kid just arrived to switzerland that took a shower a bit before midnight... on the following day, I found a polite note on my door from the building`s keeper, asking me to avoid using the bathroom late at night, in order to not disturb our neighbors resting hours. I was surprised, I use to be noiseless. It was when I started to learn why swiss citizens were considered amongst the most respectful people in the world...

Photography is all about light. Personally, if you are shooting 1/30"+ f4.5 @ 1600 ISO, you don`t have too much light. Buying new gear? It doesn`t add more light. It improves performance and/or features, but not the light you have. And only you know if your shooting session is worth the money you plan to spend. If you can shoot at 1/30", it makes me think that they are static subjects; maybe you can extend it by 7-8 stops using a tripod. A small flash unit could help you a bit, depending on what you are looking for.

I always follow this rule. Not only for changing lenses but specially when mounting/unmounting flash heads and other hot shoe items. Notice that we`re talking about gear with electronic contacts in line, and I know nothing about electronics. Also, I always wear gloves in the darkroom, observe speed limits, ladies first, never use the bathroom at night, etc... that kind of revolving guy, I`m afraid. :D

I see the 28mm as a good "one lens only" option... that is, when you want a wider view (than "standard") but you want to carry with just one lens. It has a noticeable wider viewing angle than a 35mm, but still not so wide to look "extreme" like the 24... well, as said, at the end, it`s just matter of each one`s taste. Personally, I used to carry with a 24 (I currently don`t use small film formats so often), but I also used to have a 35 or 50 at hand. My starter was a 28, but 30+ years later it has far less shots than my other wides. I consider 20mm (and shorter) as some kind of "specialist" lenses.

If you plan to shoot interiors or narrow streets, I think the 24 is definitely a much better choice. If not, for landscape or general use I`d get the 28, which is at a middle point between the almost standard 35 and the really wide 24. For closer crowds, I prefer the look of a 24, despite of the perspective distortion. To me, for general use 20mm is simply too wide. But it is just matter of taste.

Ok, so I understand you get a steadier hand held shot with a leaf shutter camera than with a rear one... looks like your cameras "recoil" too much... I see. We have to trust all your statements, even if they are against rationality. Otherwise, we are wrong.

Wrong. I have just checked a D800 Ikelite for $1800 @ B&H.

Housings are expensive, indeed. But way easier and cheaper to made than camera systems. There is a housing for almost every digicam produced. I wanted to mean that nowadays, a lot of divers carry with UW cameras. In the past, the only choices were that super expensive Nikonos (prices comparable to flagship models) or SLR camera housings (expensive too but way more convenient). Right now we have more choices; an UW camera like the one released will be say, below $500, a GoPro is around $400. Compact camera housings start at say, $100. These cameras are affordable to open water divers with licenses up to 30 meters approximately (I have seen Nikon even mention this) so I bet they will be a sales success. A D810 or D500 "RS" type underwater camera will be obviously way more expensive than a land camera (easily, over $4000, without lens), so I think it will be still more convenient a camera housing (and cheaper; an Ikelite housing for any current Nikon DSLR should be in the $1000 range).

I see something that seems the entrance of the leak... so my guess is that it is another light leak case. The "hole" may be not so obvious, sometimes it is hard to find. I cannot help, I don`t have a 7, but maybe you can tape any kind of joint inside the dark chamber to know if it is certainly a leak. As far as I know, the 7 is not foldable, so I wonder how it could happen. Maybe you can post a good pic of the dark chamber.

If so, they will be priced astronomically. Like the "F601" RS was. I bet even fewer than Dfs were sold. And given that almost every diver carry a GoPro kind of camera, I wonder how many people would buy them. Not so many, I guess. BTW, doesn`t a Nikon 1 "open water" already exist? Anyway, this new model for sure take great shots.

It certainly looks like a light leak. If I`m not wrong, Makinas are bellows based foldable cameras, so I think it`d be easy to have a small worn area in the rim of a pleat, I have experienced it on my Mamiya 6. If I`m not wrong, I`d say yours should be near the back frame; open the back door and check the bottom side at right (hope not to miss something, better for you if I`m wrong!). Mine was "easily" repaired with a tiny bit of cloth surgical tape and black paint.

Me too. I use to consider first the long side of the format to make comparisons. Then, I imagine the short side given the aspect ratio.

David, can you give some reasons to support your affirmation? Have you tested it? Proofs? Experiences? Internet is plenty of one and the opposite kind of empty answers. Evidences are really useful these days.

As you mention, my "upper hole" is smooth, just a clean circle. No notches at the corners. There is a part that holds the film carrier who freely fits inside that circle. Don`t you have it? I`d think the notches are designed to hold something in place (but not the film carrier). Also, in my enlarger, the "hole" is almost the same diameter as the bellows side (from inside). I can see the bellows almost reaching the border of the "hole". Cannot check it in yours, but I`d say there is a gap between the border of the hole and the bellows. Think that there are many plate sizes. Don`t know how old is yours (mine is quite old), so it may have parts designed to work with glass plates (e.g. "half" or "quarter plate").

Right. Although mine is not exactly as yours, it looks quite close, the hole diameter is 8-5/8", aproximately. I see it`s the right size to work with 13x18 negatives (just a tad bigger than 5x7" ones). BTW, I tend to think 7" condenser lenses are way small for 5x7". On 4x5", I think it may work with great fall off (I don`t know). In my enlargers, they use to be considerably wider (diameter) than the format... e.g., my 6x9 enlargers use 6-1/2" condensers. They work great.

John, you may be right. I have just measured the width of my 5x7" all original enlarger, and it is close to 7-1/4" (actually 7-1/8", I`d say).

I tested it on my F6 and D700, comparing them to "classic" ground glass finders like the one on the F3. I try to remember that I noticed it on the shape of the bright spots, as it was really difficult to notice on the blur areas. What surprised me was the shape of the stars in the bright spots, quite different in the AF cameras, formed by small circles or so (micro cilinder screen construction?), also with a different shape between the F6 and the D700. I even took some fast dirt photos of the screens to see this effect more clearly. The size of the spots were variable accordingly with the aperture used, so there was actually a (hardly noticeable to the eye) difference. I promised myself about repeating the test with good photos to post the results here, but I'm still in other tasks...

Out of curiosity, I tested (time ago) how the screen on a couple modern AF cameras show the images through very fast lenses (f1.4 to f2.8). The screen actually show differences between say, f1.4 and f1.8 or f2, and in different ways depending on the viewfinder design, but they are quite small, so really hard to notice unless specifically looking for them. If I recall it correctly, it was easier to notice that differences on bright spots.

The column is similar to my "E" clone, but I`d say it looks like there are also missing parts (joints, cams). ... "the column is wider than the D-3 as well. 7 3/4 as opposed to 7 1/4..." I actually cannot distinguish proportions in the photos, and I don`t have a "D" (used them years ago), but I have the idea that the "E" column is way bigger than the "D" column (1/2" seem very little difference). The lens stage and focusing system also seem quite close to mine. I don`t have this head, my first though is that is a 4x5" adaptation. I`m sorry I cannot distinguish anything else. Not so clarifying, I know.

Somewhat hard to post, I need to refresh the page every time. Looks like Pnet doesn`t like my computer anymore, or whatever. I`m so sorry. I should have written "finger triggered with the mirror in down position" instead of "hand" (I see it`s confusing). These are the spot at left. The spots at right were shot mirror locked-up and triggered via cable release. Both shots were taken with the camera on tripod.

I`m on a roll! Next one!