georg_kern

I like the 35-70/4 very much. It is extremly compact, and the build quality is very good - better than anything produced these days. The zooming is just gorgeous. I also have the 35-70/3.5-4,5 and it is also a nice lens, but it is a little bit longer (but also lighter) and has a plastic mount (and is more "plasticky" in general). I once made a rather rudimentary side-by-side comparison, and in general the f/4 was sharper wide open (especially the corners at wide angle), but stopped down the differences seem negligible. The 3,5-4,5 has a bit more color contrast, and the AF is quicker. All in all, I prefer the f/4.

The 28-85 is also a fine lens (I only know the optically identical MD-version), and might be a better choice as an all-round travel zoom, or anytime when you need 28mm instead of 35mm. But as a snapshot-lens for pictures from peoples, the 35-70 can't be beaten, because you can't do anything wrong (IMHO, 28mm snapshots are often weak). The 28-85 is also much bigger and heavier, and zooming is a little bit stiff. Aditionally, 85mm is not a big step upwards from 70mm. I sometimes tend to try out other zooms in such occasions, but I always came back to the 35-70.

Regards

Georg

AGFA does not produce 120 film anymore, because (to my knowledge from different forums) they facility to cut 120 film just does not exist anymore. But there are some rumours going on, that a 3rd party company (Tura?) might start to cut AGFA raw material into sheet and roll film (at the moment they just spool 35mm). So there is still hope.

Regards

Georg

I am not a big fan of the 100-300/APO. Contrast is good, but sharpness is nothing special. The biggest advantage is the build quality (very good zooming an manual focussing). Also it is rather slow (5,6 starts somewhere at 150mm)and expensive, even used, and in my eyes does not justify the price difference. I had the 70-210/4 in MD (same optics), and it is a nice lense, but big, and really good only at 70-150mm. The 70-210/3.5-4,5 might be more versatile in general, and it has good colour contrast (the f/4 suffers from some colour abberations), and is the best of the bunch at 210mm. The 70-210/4,5-5,6 is indeed a very, very nice lens when you close the aperture to about 8-11, so it is manly useful when you do flash photography (with a strong flash) or work with a tripod (which I think to be a must with tele zooms).

Regards

Georg

To Arnab:

There will be professional D-SLRs of smaller size, as soon as there are genetical modified professional photographers with smaller hands.

The introduced lenses (17-35 and 28-75) look like rebadged Tamrons. Has anyone information on this?

To sum it up, Minolta makes a D-SLR, at least 2 years later than any other serious manufacturer, and they are not able to provide a good standard zoom (like the Nikon 18-70). I think, the achilles heel of the D7 concept is showing up: image stabilization means that a bigger image cycle is necessary, which prevents Minolta from designing specialized lenses for the APS sensor (like Nikon 12-24 and Canon 10-to-something). 28-75 mm with a 1,5x crop sensor is pure crap (the 40-80mm lenses were not quite successful 25 years ago, either).

Sorry, but I think Minolta just lost it.

Regards

Georg

With paper, the speed should not be that critical. However, with film I had the experience that slow speed easily leads to "streaks" or "lines" of uneven development on the film (especially with 120 format). The developer might be better "mixed" at high speed, while developer exchange between inside and outside of the spiral is insufficient at slow speeds. BTW, I have changed back to inversion agitation anyway (for both b&w and color).

Regards

Georg

The first picture looks like a digital Contax G2. For medium format, Zeiss will introduce some digital-optimized lenses at Photokina. Don't expect bigger news.

Regards

Georg

To the fading negs: the problem here are not the films, but the processing. Negative film is quite stable in a cool, dry and dark (!!) place (at least films from the last 20 years), but if insufficiently washed or stabilized, it might detoriate much faster.

2nd.: If you buy a scanner, then IN ANY CASE BUY ONE WITH AUTOMATIC DUST REMOVAL (ICE or something similar). De-dusting and de-scratching old negs is pure pain. Scannin itself does not take that much time, because a film scanner can scan the whole strip at once. Just insert a new strip every 5-20 min (depending on resolution and scan speed). Biggest part of work will be the conversion of the negs into useable positive pictures in Photoshop (or equ.), because auto-conversion via the scanning software seldom gives good results. But you might have the same problem if you have the scanning done in a lab.

Regards

Georg

To Yuriy:

You are right. I mixed it up with the Eye-Start (hope I am right on this..)

Georg

It's easier to give "negative" recommendations. Stay away from very early models (the first AF series and the Dynax x000i series), as they are not that technical advanced. Also avoid the low-end models, because the small price difference in used cameras doesn't justify the limitations. The xi-series were somehow "strange" and I would only recommend the 9xi, if you are looking for a very robust and reliable camera (up to professional standards).

I am a big fan of the si-series, which are the most well-thought Minoltas of all times (IMHO), maybe except the new 7 and 9, which would be much more expensive.

600, 700 or 800 si: does not matter much, all have more or less the same technical specifications, although the 600si has no built-in flash.

Finally, my recommendation: 700si. It's dirt cheap (for what it is) at the 2nd hand market now.

Regards

Georg

I also had a problem with chrystals in C41-developer, that sticked to the film emulsion. Developer was mixed from liquid concentrates (Agfa AP70) and distilled water. I am storing the developer in aliquots in simple glass bottles (no Schott Duran or similiar stuff), and I think the very caustic developer just dissolved some of the glass. But anyway, using a paper (coffee) filter imediately before use solved the problem.

Georg

After C-41 processing, I normally do the final washing step (after

initial washing with many water exchanges) in about 3 liters of warm

water, where I leave the films for several minutes. After that, the

washing water has a purple stain. This is definitly not ferricyanide

bleach, but some dye that is washed out from the film. Am I removing

the dye couplers from the film by longer washing, or is this just

some sensitizing or anti-halo stuff (which would just contribute to

the base, not the picture itself)?

Thanks and regards

Georg

I found that my flash never fires at full power in remote TTL, even

at small apertures/low ISO/bounced mode, so it is barely useable for,

lets say, bounced flash. Equipment is a 700si (built-in flash as

controller) and a Metz MZ40-3i with a 3301-M1 adaptor. Two

explanations come into my mind:

1) max. flash output is reduced, so that it does not interfere with

the controlling signals, or

2) compabitility problem, because the SCA3301 is first generation,

and only the xi-series are mentioned in its manual (but AFAIK 700si

and 7xi are almost identical in their electronics).

Anyone with more experience than me?

Thanks, and regards

Georg

Even if someone is happy with his new digital equipment, it is absolutely stupid to throw out all the analog stuff just to gain a few hundred dollars/euros. Why not keep it, just like some people did with their OM-1 / FM2 / SRT303 when they switched over to AF? Why sell a great lens, that can be used for 10+ years, just to have money for a crappy new memory card? Even if someone takes 90% of his pictures in digital, it just might be FUN (listen, technofreaks) to grab the old film camera sometime in the future to shoot some slides or b&w. BTW, i think it is a good time now to buy, as prices will not drop forever. There is not much good, new film-based equipment sold at the moment, so some items may get quite rare in the future.

Regards

Georg

Hello!

The STsi does not have flash exposure compensation. The only Minoltas with this feature are 600si, 700si, 800si, 7, and 9. But even if you use one of this cameras or do override your flash exposure with a trick, be careful. At least with my 700si, the camera reduces ambient exposure by about one stop, once the flash is activated. The flash then takes care for roughly the other 50% of the exposure. When you reduce the flash intensity, the exposure system is too silly to recognize this and still underexposes the ambient light. So if I want a very slight fill-in, I have to set the flash to (lets say) -1.5 and aditionally must set the normal exposure to something between +0.5 and +1.0. Can't understand why the camera needs a computer inside for this. Such a primitive system could work just mechanically ;-)

Regards

Georg

Ultimate-quality nature (landscape) photography might be the area of professional photography, where traditional (I hate this word) film will survive the longest. Not many people will carry a Sinar digital back, a laptop and lots of batteries through the desert or on a high mountain. But they do this with large format film cameras.

Also, landscape shooters don't take 1000s of pictures, before selecting one on the monitor. So, taking a picture in digital does not make much sense. For sure, everything is scanned later on a high-end drum scanner.

Regards Georg

DIGITAL SLRs CAN'T DO TTL FLASH!!! Flash exposure calculation on a D100 is a combination of pre-flash metering and the readout from the sensor in the flash (like in "Auto" 30 years ago). Don't have a D100, so I can't give you a real advice, but you might have to play around with flash exposure compensation (or not use a ND indoors?).

Regards

Georg

There is much praise on the 105/2,5 around in the web. I, too, bought one after reading this and also was a little bit disappointed. Maybe you have to see the "legendary" reputation of this lens in its context: this lens is extremly versatile for a journalist, because it is small, easy to focus, it has very good handling, good sharpness and almost no vignetting wide open and it is very nice for portraits. In short, it allows you to take great pictures with a high success rate "in the field". But, if you are just looking for absolute maximum sharpness and contrast under controlled conditions, look elsewhere. A macro would give you much better sharpness, and a professional zoom (stopped down a bit) is at least equal. So it is not surprising that there are lots of this lens around on internet marketplaces. (BTW, I still like mine)

Regards

Georg

You mentioned a "stop" after the developing. Be careful with this, because C41 developer seems to have high concentrations in carbonate (please correct me, Mr. Mowrey), which gasses out when brought into contact with an acidic stop bath and destroys the emulsion. Some films are more sensitive to this than others (gelatine hardened to a differnt degree); You can ruin your film by doing so (at least I did it). Another hint: it is difficult to 100% duplicate a machine process in hand-processing. So: start with the recommended times and temperatures, check your results (best done by visual examination of contrast of the prints, because contrast changes much quicker in C41 than density) and then adjust your process by changing the developing time in +/- 10 seconds or temperature by +/- 0,5 degrees. Once it works, keep your workflow as constant as possible.

Regards

Georg

Prefocussing is to only way to get good candids. If someone is used to this technique, 250ms time lag could drive him crazy. BTW, there seem to be some guys around, that don't like it when the PERFECT DIGITAL CAMERA that they bought by DIVINE INSPIRATION is questioned by someone. Just a guess.

Regards

Georg

Most likely: bad fix. Second thought: Xtol is a very fine grain developer. At least with Tmax100 (new) and Acros, negatives get a very slight, but clearly visible, brownish "stain" (most prominent in mid-greys). This is the same effect as a warm-tone developer has on paper. Nevertheless, clear (unexposed) areas should be perfectly clear, without any shine or shimmering.

Regards

Georg

I don't think that you need Perceptol for APX25, because normally the only reason for using this developer is fine grain, which APX25 has anyway. Some years ago, I had great results with Xtol stock (don't remember the developing time), which gave beautiful negatives at 25ASA. For me it looked like the ultimate combination, but then the idiots at Agfa dumped APX25.

Regards

Georg

This im mainly an issue with video cameras. Imagine an webcam, which records a panorama all day. There you can clearly see the traces of the sun over the horizon, burned into the CCD. It is not a problem in normal still photography.

Regards

Georg

Hello,

the ISO trick works also on my Metz 40. It is necessary for my 7000i, but not for the 700si which has flash exp.comp. (but akward to use, because you have to push two buttons at once). Main problem is as follows: for daylight fill-in, the Minoltas simply seem to share the exposure 50:50 between flash and ambient light. E.g., when you switch the flash on in daylight, ambient exposure is reduced one stop, and flash fires with 50%, which is useful for against-the-light, but much too strong for a subtle fill-in (at least in my opinion). When you reduce the flash exposure (about -1 stop), ambient exposure doesn't increase, and so pictures will end up underexposed. So, taking a useful picture (example: portrait, group shot) in normal daylight means: Setting flash exp. to -1, normal exposure to about +2/3. Not really easy and intuitive.

Regards Georg

The argument, that (all or most) professionals go for quality, is simply not true. They opt for low-cost and effectivity. Pros started switching to digital already some years ago, when digital cameras deliverd soft pictures with burned-out highlights, pink skin and greenish blonde hair. Costumers did not care. In B&W, a digital print can be manipulated in a way (contrast curve, sharpener, effect filters) that it will always look better (or more attractive) to an average customer (with an "untrained" eye) than the best FB-print with hours of darkroom work behind. It's faster and cheaper (in the long term). And people will ask for digital special effects in their portraits, which they have seen in magazines. Heavy image manipulation (skin, teeth, background) will become absoulte standard, even for Mr. and Mrs. Average. At that point, most people will find a traditional print just dull.

The situation is different with amateurs, which are often perfectionists and also don't like to manipulate their work too much, because they see it as a craft. But for the typical professional, digital is the way to go.

Shooting pictures may be an art (or craft), but producing them is just an industry, and so technology will take over.

Regards Georg