jose_angel

Rodeo, I always wondered about that "heat absorbing glass" quality... I have bought several of them for my different enlargers, always expensive original parts, Beseler and Durst amongst others. All of them look similar, greenish, actually a cheap looking chunk of glass for the mentioned Beseler. The Durst versions look pretty similar, although with a smarter polished cut. The Beseler has grinded borders, I didn't`t take a pic (the enlarger is packaged) Below is a pic of one Durst, near a big cheap glass plate used to flatten contact prints. I have a second Durst with a similar looking glass, 3mm thick. My oldest windows have the very same greenish tint, so I always thought it is either vintage technology (for sure, same as my windows) or something I cannot appreciate.

Actually, I have been using a 23CIII for the first LED years until I reformed my home darkroom and discarded the Beseler. I used to have several bulbs in different strengths depending on the negative, so brightness was perfectly suited to each task. I try to remember the strongest one that fitted was 6.5watt (Philips). First higher watt bulbs were too wide to fit the housing in that era. I tested different bulbs, and I stopped using Photocrescentas, although I always had one at hand just in case. I think I never used them again in the 23CIII. LED bulbs were clearly superior. Original american flatter head bulbs were expensive and hard to find around here, so I only used a couple of them before switching to Photocrescentas, back in the nineties, I think.

The main issue with LED is, as Rodeo says, lower brightness. But if you print "normal" sizes, say 8x10, it could be not a problem at all. If you print really large, you may need to use a powerful tungsten bulb. Also, I think many people use to print with too much brightness, hence briefer times. It could be good for fast, massive printing, but not "serious" printing, where you need longer times for burning and dodging techniques. I never print less than 10 seconds. Right now there are really powerful LED bulbs (15, 20 watts), the problem is size. You need a bulb that fit the lamp housing, unless you made a custom sized housing.Brighter bulbs are usually larger.

Just use a LED bulb. Problem solved. BTW, I suspect some diffusion heat glass (some sold as original enlarger accessories) are just thick green cheap glass at outrageous prices. I have some of them (Beseler, Durst) and cannot see anything "special" on them but just a simple barrier. I may be wrong.

I think you should buy the lens you think you want to try, budget permitting. If you don't have a prime, you will be busy until the day you try one. Or a 70-300. Or whatever. The 18-200 and the 70-300 are lenses for different purposes. As is the 35/1.8. So I think it's more curiosity that any other thing (and/or NAS, why not?) , so I'd just start with the most different one to the gear you already have, When someone mentions the 18-200, I think of Richard Armstrong, a forum member that master this lens on his D300. He talently used to use it for everything, it doesn't matter how good the lens is, his images were just perfect. Check his oldest images in his portfolio (sadly, I have just checked that the gear data is not shown). I have never bought this lens, maybe because it is a "too much versatile for a highly serious photographer like me" lens, but my images with premium lenses has always been so far away from him`s. So personally, I´d start with the 35/1.8, that you can use as the classic standard prime. I like to go this way, although my most used zoom Nikon lens has been a 24-105/4 on FX (I also use a 24-7/2.8 but only for "serious" events, because the limited zoom, the size and weight seem to me a penalty for everyday use).

Because of Covid-19, I (sadly) had to turn my home darkroom into a working office for me and my family, so the transparency scanner has ended up inside a closet... this is an old scan I had on the computer. Mamiya 6 + 50/4. FP4+ on D76, yellow filter, f22 I guess.

So I understand the start of internet forums worldwide happened in that years... 1997, maybe? I started reading Greenspuns´s sites around that years, as far I know my oldest membership in an internet forum was in 1999. I think I'm a little bit younger than those people. After some time, I became member here in pnet. I remember the old style looking threads, all were just words and lines. Loads of info, deepest topics, I learnt a lot, more than at the school. And liked that style. No images, boxes, colors, etc. To be sincere, I still miss that look. Fast and simple. Everything has changed.

Agree, it has also been my experience. As said, I haven't used this specific lens, but I also tested some "high magnification" process and enlarging lenses from Nikon, Rodenstock and Schneider, some better than others, but neither of them clearly outperform my "modern" Micro-Nikkors (say, 105/4, 105/2.8, 105AFS, etc.) in both overall performance and convenience, in (D)SLR cameras.

As a great macro 1:1 lens, I think it is perfectly usable. Another topic is price, or if it is of any use for you, assuming that the provided mount fit your system. Anyway, I think that all (good) lenses are fun, specially this odd, exotic ones; never used this one but others from Rodenstock or Schneider which I pleasantly keep, just for fun (although I rarely use them). My last macro shooting were on yesterday, so I just took a common, fast and easy to use Micro-Nikkor, as usual. I also tried it with a Fuji, but prefered the Nikkor images.

Very interesting, thanks! :)

Thanks John, actually better than directly to pnet.

For sure I'm doing something wrong. I was looking for some info here in photo.net, with no success. So I simplified the search to "nikon 70-200"... "No results found"... !?!?

I have several original Polaroid backs, bought new in the film days, that are currently worth nothing. I think I keep them just in case someone in the future make really useful materials and at the right price. I still keep some film boxes that are damaged. Frankly, I think it`ll never happen, so very likely, the usefulness of my Polaroid backs will be the same as its current value.

I know I am very square, my life is based on the Cartesian method, even up to the absurd, I can't help it. But there are times when I get into a loop: in case it is of any use, in situations of maximum existential uncertainty, there is a gold rule that allows me to continue breathing. I call it "what the body asks of me". Please keep in mind that it only applies as a last chance when collapse is inminent. So I have just to relax and simply choose the most titillating path, mind blank, without further considerations, even if it seems the most rugged. Listen to your hormones. In the end, even if the decision had been wrong, it has kept me in spiritual peace. Possibly what Mary says, in my stuck mind. Thanks God I have a wife :)

Double post, my excuses.

Few years ago I switched to Fuji X RF for its smaller size/weight and classic shape... I like its VF hybrid system very much, very good construction, the image quality and functionality is right, so I'm reasonably satisfied but... what I really miss is the Nikon user interface. Fuji controls and menus are ok but not as friendly to me as Nikon; too much buttons and in the wrong place, "flat" non friendly menus, etc. Anyway, although I use the Fuji way more than my Nikons, I still keep a full cabinet loaded with good DSLR Nikkors. I keep them just in case... but I think the Z system ask for Z lenses. Maybe (in order to save some money) it makes sense to have at least a quality compact standard range Z zoom (if such thing exists, I'm not up to date), and to use that "old" (shorter/longer/prime) lenses when needed. Thanks God I don`t have NAS, but still think that I can switch back any day...

Well, this is a big print. In a gallery, you'll need to move back to see it sharp. Check any diffraction limit calculator, the one I have says you can shoot at f64 within the limits, if you are at one meter from the print. Closer inspection will reveal diffraction blur. But all this is just maths... in real life you cannot distinguish the point where that "theoretical" limits are. I'd shoot at f64 and be happy. And just in case, I`d shoot the other side of the holder at f32 :D

Gigi, to assure focus just use a torch lamp. You can always close the lens to get more DoF, the issue here is the size of the print and/or the viewing distance. Diffraction causes blur, but if the print is not so large, sharpness could be right enough for the viewer. You need to consider the final purpose of your image.

Exactly. Notice that the bellows on the camera is limited, so the longer the lens the larger minimum focus distance... depending on the subject size and lens used you may find that coverage is still too wide, or you may not have enough space to focus. Right now Mamiya`s web site keep the camera instructions in PDF format, there are some useful charts inside.

I don't know how you metered the scene; I see there is a bright sky behind the shadowed scene, it looks to me a high contrast situation. If you are using a reflected meter, the meter could be right but the operador missed how to properly use it. In this case you should have metered over the main subject, avoiding to be fooled by other uninteresting (to your purpose) areas. I tend to think it is an operators fault rather than a camera failure. A bad reading is something quite common, camera failures are also possible but quite less common.

Yes, thinner tubes are lighter. I like CF tripods because they are so rigid but light, so the best choice for backpacking. For studio use, I’d say the heaviest the better, here you can have a heavy one, it doesnt matter if CF or aluminum. Excuse me, I cannot check here the weight of the one you mention, but I think it must be around 2.5kg. I think my series 2 should be around 1.5kg at much. Series 3 tripods seem to me the wise choice for medium format, they feel quite strong (specially the ones without center column - systematic?- ). A series 2 feels very lightweight in comparison, but I use to take it when I need to shave weight, even with a (lightweight) LF camera.

You can easily focus with a 300/9 lens. No problem here. But think about size... #1 shutter in the G-Claron vs #3 in the Symmar. And weight... the Symmar sure doubles the G-Claron. That wider aperture has a cost. I would only doubt if it were for exclusive use in a studio.

If I'm not wrong, this a series 4 tripod. So this is a fairly strong tripod. Do you really need it? If I'm not wrong, yours are medium format ("compact") cameras. For lightweight use, I`d take a series 3 at much (most times I use a series 2). The benefit of having a good lightweight (&expensive) carbon fiber tripod is lost by carrying an "oversized" one. I don`t find the reason for this tripod... maybe for nature photography with extremely long lenses... Yes, it folds small (5 section!), which means it`s a pain to fold/unfold. A four section tripod this size is still perfectly compact. Can't say about the price, Gitzo tripods are insanely expensive nowadays. Yes they are good, but also highly overpriced, I think. For sure this is a great tripod, but I wonder if it is the one that suit your needs. I'd think it twice.

There is a locking button in the center of the dial. Just press that button and the dial is free to be turned. The shutter release button is a completely separate mechanism. It doesn't have mechanical connection with the speed dial.