jose_angel

<p>Well, I`m sorry I really don`t have a "best" technique.<br /> My eyesight is not so good. To avoid the focus and recompose technique I have no other solution than to focus in any part of the screen. BTW, it may look stupid but I replaced the split image screen on my RZ with a flat screen. I prefer it to compose.<br /> To make focus easier I simply add light to the subject (even with a flashlight if needed). I also have to use the right diopters in prism finders.<br /> Also, I used to have a LED pilot lamp and now a laser pointer to have a sharp point over the focus plane. Obviously I cannot use them for portraiture on the eyes but is a great aid when focusing in low light.<br> But in certain situations I think there is no other way to use the split and recompose. Perimetral focus points in DSLRs were a great improvement in this respect.<br /> A common procedure is to close the lens down two or three stops to get a bit more DoF and higher resolution.</p>

<p>Image quality is great. Gear size is insane. Upgrades should be more based on simplification and confort instead of complexity and bulk. I think we all want e. g., a D810 + 24-120/4 image quality, but we do not want to carry with such bulk and load. Am I wrong?</p>

<p>Cellular phone cameras have already killed most of the P&S camera market. They are way more naive than compacts but also way more convenient... In the same way I think Nikon is doing it wrong not making a F mount, FX format (or even DX!) smaller camera. Maybe a mirrorless version, even with a EVF will be a good option to keep all the loyal Nikon users that want to stay with their Nikon stuff but doesn`t have another choice that to jump into the Sony and Fuji market for a more convenient product.<br /> Mirrorless cameras are not perfect as some of you say, but makes sense these days (way more than a DSLR) when the focus speed, frame rate, optical finders are not a must. Sensor quality is a must. I bet many Nikon users are willing to sacrifice some features in favor of a lighter weight, more compact option. As Allan suggest, just put a couple features to satisfy Nikon users and very likely they will buy Nikon instead of Fuji X or Sony A7. Simply because I think many people is not buying DSLR anymore.</p>

<p>Internet images are obviously not comparable to printed paper images. Paper doesn`t have backlighted properties, nor digitally oversaturated blacks. The contrast range of screen viewed images is vastly larger than the one on a normally illuminated traditional paper. Don`t believe on internet images... they use to look much better than on paper.<br /> To get the most of your printing paper you need first to know its contrast range, from unexposed white to maximum black. You cannot go beyond this. <br /> To have a "contrasty" look, you probably need to reduce the "grey range" and to get full blacks to full whites. Think that room illumination will reduce or expand this range, so you must work thinking in advance on the place where they will be displayed.<br /> Depending on the negative quality, you may need to burn or dodge certain areas. Or to use contrastier filters. Next step is to split print, and then, masking techniques that lend the best results. Take your time.</p>

<p>I`m not fond of the focus and recompose technique. Better to have good illumination, corrected eyesight and use the whole screen. Stop down for a bit of DoF and to get the sharpest images. Using the split area to focus on the eyes and then recompose is a pretty awkward procedure to my taste. Use this way if the is no other.</p>

<p>Nikon likes playing hard to get, sometimes even up to exasperation... expectations could give way to frustration. Right now the D810 is the best in its class.</p>

<p>Out of curiosity, I checked that suposedly "sixties" look in a portraiture book I have from celebrities at the Harcourt studio in Paris. There are loads of shots starting, say, at the forties up to the end of the first 2000 decade.<br /> Gear wise, the main difference I see is the increased microcontrast in the later images. As used to say, images look "clinically" sharp, specially if compared to those in the 50`s (which use to have an overall soft look), but also even on the 60´s and 70´s. Other than this, all look the same; focal lenghts, formats, etc.<br /> In respect to illumination and composition, backgrounds, etc. there are dramatic changes; from the hash upper-front light to the more horizontal and softer in the sixties... current illumination is free, complex, mostly imitating older styles but also with silly compositions. Backgrounds used to be simple and almost flat up to early sixties, after that maybe any blurred but distinguishable scenario could appear behind the subject. Their latest portraits use to show sharp, environmental backgrounds (like Arnold Newman`s).<br /> So I tend to think that using large format, which is sharp "by itself", will minimize that gear diferences. If you shoot with a lens from the sixties, you will have to work mostly on illumination, composition and scenarios (hair cuts and wardrobe included!) to achieve a "true sixties" look.</p>

<p>FWIW, I have experienced the very same bubbles on top of my black M6TTL.<br /> I noticed how this bubbles suddenly appeared just in the places where my ever-ready case M is in contact with the top of the camera. Two blocks of foam keeps the top in place. <br /> I always use the camera with the case, so I rarely removed it. I live in a dry weather area, so I have no problems with humidity or oxidation.<br />I suspected about that foam blocks. Also, about the strong smelling glue used in the case. Along the years, I noticed how the bublles were increasing its size, and started to spread, always in this contact areas. <br /> I was so stupid not removing the camera from the case, until the day I definitely noticed the problem were on this two foam blocks. So I broke the case lining, removing the blocks and glue on the contact points. <br /> Problem fixed. The bubbles stopped its growth. Now I feel so stupid not doing this before.</p> <p> </p>

<p>The Fuji X flagship although smaller than Nikon SLRs is not very small. But there are other smaller versions I find very interesting, too. As Rodeo mentioned, the key is on the lens size.<br /> Be sincere with yourself, and check your needs. Many times a cell phone is more than enough for a snapshot, some times we want higher quality... but maybe you don`t need a full sized DSLR. And a reasonably good camera make wonders on a tripod.<br /> Personally, if I were for a digital camera I`d look for the smallest bulk. Many times I take a film Leica to avoid the size&weight of my D700. DX is still bulkier than film Leicas.</p>

<p>As Andrew mentions, any AFS G (non "E") lens can be considered as "contemporary" to the F6. I`d say AF-D lenses are contemporary to the F5, while "plain" AF lenses to the F4.<br /> My choice would be the 50/1.4AFS. It is not that expensive, althought the f1.8 version is certainly more affordable. I don`t see the point of using a MF lens on an AF camera, unless maybe you were planning to use it mostly for macro... if so, as an exception I`d probably get the ZF Zeiss Makro planar 50/2 instead of a Nikkor.<br /> About lens conversion, and specially if we are talking about film use, I don`t even consider it. Sometimes I`d like to have a Nikon quality body to use my Pentax lenses, but sincerely, it`s a couple shots` kind of wish. I just use a Pentax body and run.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>I think what might be happening is I'm comparing the focus of the subjects before infinity range with subjects at the infinity range.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I rarely shot my 180 at other than portrait distances. Wide open some lenses are noticeable softer than others, and use to be optimized at certain distances. But I dont think it is a soft lens to notice any image weakness while focusing at infinity. I can test it tomorrow, it`s late night here.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>What kind of damage to the lens would affect the ability to focus at infinity?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>I have no clue on this. I think maybe a misplaced element, but sincerely, I doubt it. And very likely it should be noticed at any distance, not only at infinity. <br /> Anyone could have opened the barrel and mounted the elements in the wrong way. I doubt it.</p> <blockquote> <p><em>what damage to the camera would affect this, if the bellows appear to be working perfectly?</em></p> </blockquote> <p>If the bellows works, I think the problem is in another place. Maybe on the focusing screen. Some users have reported screen calibration issues with their RB/RZ cameras. <br /> You say the clouds are unsharp at infinity. If the focusing screen is misplaced, they may appear unsharp. If so, all your images should appear out of focus (if you use to shoot stopped down you may never notice this issue). I have never experienced this problem, I think it must be heavily misplaced to be noticed. Maybe other more experienced users could extend on this.<br /> BTW, clouds are soft by nature, maybe you should check it focusing at distant buildings, spot lights or antennas.</p>

<p><em>"At the closest focus (=bellows compressed) the lens... "</em><br> My excuses, I wanted to mean<em> "at the </em><strong>farthest</strong><em> focus".</em></p>

<blockquote> <p>Ok.<br /> "I begin composing the clouds (quite far away) with the waste level viewfinder, the subject is out of focus so I begin to use the focusing knob adjusting the bellows to focus, the clouds go from very out of focus and seem to become clearer but then I reach the end of the bellows focusing capabilities and the the subject matter is still far from sharp."</p> </blockquote> <p><br /> At the closest focus (=bellows compressed) the lens should be adjusted for infinity focus. Given the (normal) cloud distance, it should appear perfectly sharp, that is, in focus. So if it is not your case, it may happen that:</p> <ol> <li>The lens is damaged (not the camera, as you say a 90mm lens can be properly focused)</li> <li>The lens you are using is a SB type one (SB stands for "Short Barrel"), a specific lens made to be used with a decentering device or with a specific accessory -not a macro extension tube but another one designed for this lens-.</li> </ol> <p>If 2., the lens will be focused at infinity far from the camera`s "infinity position" (=max. bellows compression). You`ll need to extend the bellows the same amount of extension the specific accesory tube provides.</p>

<p>I think I cannot get your point.<br /> The RZ bellows is obviously capable of focusing any lens at infinity, up to a moderately close distance. <br /> Extension tubes are designed to increase bellows extension, so with them that moderately close distance turns to a very close distance. <br /> When you focus on a subject, only the plane of the subject is in focus. Everything in front or behind this plane is out of focus, despite the lens you were using.<br /> You have to rely on the depth of field to have a sharp looking image. To make it short, the shorter the lens focal length (it`s related to the lens, not the bellows), the smaller magnification hence the greater depth of "space sharpness". <br /> Is this what you are asking for?</p>

<p><em>How to take a perfect shot not over exposed nor under exposed ??</em> <br />I`d say the right exposure is the one that provides the final result you are looking for. So it implies the whole process, from the take to the final print, and only the knowledge of this process will tell you where the right exposure is.<br /> The meter is the tool that gives reference points, just this. So you can use it to know the precise amount of light that reaches the subject, and to adjust exposure accordingly, but at the end it is just a small part of the process, so this exposure may be or not the *perfect* one.</p>

<p>A drop-in filter ask for an open window in the lens body, so I wonder if it is actually practical in a lens this type with such a load of elements and mechanisms. Dust may be a problem. Also, there is the internal reflections issue, you may reduce performance in this respect. I`m more fond of a closed body instead.<br /> Looks like the ring position is forced by design, so if you want the highest performance you should accept this placement. Not an issue at all to me, I think.</p>

<p>It will depend on magnification and/or the subject you plan to shoot. If you are working with e.g., a mockup or miniatures, you`d need to get too close to increase magnification hence to decrease DoF. In this scenario, a longer lens is advisable. If you plan to get architectural images, your 90mm could be the best choice.</p>

<p>Same results here, same scanner.<br /> It is one of the reasons to keep printing via traditional darkroom. To me, hybrid processing doesn`t work.</p>

<p>Your camera&lens is fine.<br> You need some kind of flat background material (e.g. clear paper, cloth or whatever) and a light source (diffused, I guess) pointing to the area you want brighter. <br> Place the background out of focus (check DoF), and with a little post processing/correction you`ll get it.<br> Notice that the subject is also properly illuminated.</p>

<p>Scanned print from yesterday`s session:</p><div></div>

<p>*Some* very old lenses and accessories doesn`t mount on my newer stuff and viceversa, but they are not converted. Looks like the tolerances and/or rigidity of the materials or construction is not the same (all Nikon original). But I think it is not your problem.<br /> I tend to think that yours is a simple obstruction problem. A bit of plasticine will help to locate the culprit (well, just to check the contact point, don't spread the material all inside the lens!) :D</p>

<p>Thanks BeBu. Very likely this is the reason.</p>

<p>Well, I`d say quite the opposite... I think he have inspired much more people that we could imagine all around the world. In fact, he is the main responsible of making me here writing in Pnet. All the best for QT Luong. I have also ordered the book from Amazon.<br> I remember these days, it was more than twenty years ago... time runs fast! Oh my God... :O</p>

<p>Another question to Peter: Why do you like the 9V battery? I must be missing something... :D</p>