lanier_benkard

Petr, I can answer 1 & 2 offhand: Yes and Yes. 3 I think is 7/3 but

I'm not sure. And 4 I don't know. However, all of these answers can

be had at <A HREF="http://www.usa.canon.com">Canon USA</A>.

This was an interesting discussion to read. I only wanted to add that

I believe (but I could be wrong) that Polaroids have much lower

resolution than standard processes. I have never seen a polaroid that

I considered to be "sharp".

Chris, This sounds like a problem with the lens. You should probably

call Canon and send in the lens.

Paul, I don't know the answer to your question myself, but I do

remember that the lightroom's website has a whole section on it.

Rather than go there myself and then misconvey the information, I'll

just point you there: <A HREF="http://www.lightroom.com">The

Lightroom</A>.

I have some limited experience with Ilfochromes and am still

experimenting so I'll offer what I've learned.

<p>

Firstly, if the color balance is off (e.g., greenish snow), then the

lab screwed up and you should take back the transparency and the print

and have them do it over.

<p>

The sharpness issue is one I have not figured out yet. I have had the

same slide printed by two different labs and found that it came out

much sharper at one than the other. I can't understand why this would

be, unless one lab had a crappy enlarger lens or something like that?

Anyway, I've found that the lightroom (www.lightroom.com) does pretty

sharp prints and they will follow your instructions regarding cropping

and burning/dodging and color balance pretty well. The biggest

problem with using them is that I've found it to be more difficult to

give written printing instructions than it is to describe in person.

I suppose you could call them up, but then you don't have the

transparency in front of you, which is just as hard.

I also use a Gitzo 1348, but prefer a pan/tilt head for LF work. I

highly recommend it and don't think it can be beat for

stability/weight ratio. It has no center column, but its legs extend

enough that at 6' it's over my head. It can also go down nearly all

the way to ground level.

<p>

However, I don't have an 8x10 so I can't say for sure that it's enough

for that (you didn't specify what format you are using). I do use it

with a 600/4 that weighs in at 13 lbs and I find it is plenty stable

enough for that. It's overkill for 4x5.

Oops. I read EOS1 followed by the "N" in N90s and thought EOS1n. I

think that a used EOS1n and a used EOS3 in "real" mint condition

(like new) are about the same price. I have seen several EOS 3's for

sale but they were indeed over $1000.

Garnet, I own the 70-200/2.8 and the 300/4 and both are excellent

lenses so I think you just have to take a stand on focal length and

weight etc, which I can't really help you on. However I did want to

make one point which is that neither of these lenses focuses

particularly close. Thus, if you want high magnification (which I

typically do for lizards) you will almost certainly have to use an

extension tube or a converter or both. The only alternative I can

think of that you haven't mentioned is the 300/4 IS, which is

developing a reputation for being almost as good as the 300/4 (but

probably not better) but which does focus a bit closer. Note that the

three of these lenses are comparable in size/weight, though the

70-200/2.8 is slightly heavier (at least it feels that way) and does

not have a built in hood.

Fred- This doesn't answer your question, but I would suggest getting a

used EOS 3 over a used EOS 1. It should be about the same price and,

for my purposes anyway, it's a more useful camera. I also think Bob's

comment is right on about buying into a system. There are certain

things that each system excels at so you should probably consider that

before deciding which body you like better.

You should also have a look at the following web page:

<p>

http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/index.html

<p>

You may find it helpful.

I read a post by Richard Knoppow on rec.photo.large-format that said

that he did not know of a retrofocus lens for LF. If he said it you

can be pretty sure its true. I imagine one difficulty is that

retrofocus designs are inherently asymmetric, which means they stink

at close range, hence the floating elements usually used in 35mm

lenses to correct for this. Since performance at close range is

important for wide-angles and there is no real need for retrofocus in

LF, I guess noone has ever bothered.

Ken- I'll second Ellis on the fact that you should read up on

controlling DOF with a view camera. Also, with larger formats a

smaller aperture is acceptable since you're not going to enlarge as

much for a given print size (16x20 from 4x5 is like 4x6 from 35mm). I

also don't generally go below f/32 though because with tilts you won't

need to. As far as the original question, I've got an SA 90/8 which

is quite portable IMO. Do you have the SA90/5.6?