dave_redmann

<p>Personally I vote for a Sony A6000 with the Sony / Zeiss 16-70mm f/4 OSS, but no doubt there are many good options. A Fuji X-E2 or maybe X-T1 (somewhat larger) would probably be a great choice too, and the Panasonic GX7 looks pretty good. Overall, the image quality should fully equal DSLRs with the same size sensors (APS-C for the first two and M4/3 for the GX7) and comparably-good lenses. Auto-focus performance will lack on some, but the A6000 appears to have great auto-focus (including on-sensor phase-detection), at least with <em>some</em> of the Sony lenses.</p> <p>But if you really want something small to carry around, I'd think long and hard about giving up interchangeable lenses and getting a Sony RX-100 Mk. III, which will really slip into your pocket. It features a 24-70mm-equivalent, f/1.8-2.8 lens, a 1-inch sensor, and a pop-up EVF.</p>

<p>The <em>Time</em> camera looks about the same as the Olympia 35mm cameras one sees--sometimes still new. Every now and then I get a chuckle when Craigslist has an ad for one for $100 or something.<br> http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/%22Olympia%22_camera<br> http://www.amazon.com/DELUXE-CAMERA-Model-Number-EL1124/dp/B000FMFQTS<br> Maybe thirty years ago there were TV ads for that sort of camera, where the announcer knocked on the body lightly and said it was "shock-resistant" and then placed it next to a regular 35mm SLR and said, "Styling: very similar!"<br> Of course, almost all such cameras have high technology like "focus-free" lenses.</p>

<p><em>The A65 has the same sensor as the A77, so image quality wise you will see no difference.</em></p> <p>Actually, not so, if you believe DxO. I almost bought an A65, but went for an A580 instead, in part for this reason. Whether (1) there is some real difference in the imaging hardware and/or pipeline (because DxO tests are based on their own conversions from raw files) or this is some artifact of their testing; and (2) if the difference is real, e.g., an 0.6 EV difference in dynamic range is important, are issues I'll leave you to contemplate. But see:<br /> http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-SLT-Alpha-77-versus-Sony-SLT-Alpha-65-versus-Sony-Alpha-580___734_735_685<br /> Also, even new A77 bodies are relatively inexpensive these days. Would you be happier with a refurbished A65 for $400 or a new A77 for $675? Again, only you can answer that.</p>

<p>As I recall--double-check me--one of the advances from the original A77 (and all older SLTs) to the A77 Mk. II is that now Super Steady Shot can stabilize the viewfinder instead of just stabilizing immediately before and during the exposure. So with the original A77, you <em>don't</em> see the image stop moving. Your post suggests to me that you are aware of this change, at least on some level. Not sure about the A77, but my A580 has a little indicated in its OVF of how much of a problem it thinks shake is, which can be helpful.</p> <p>As far as all of your 40D shots being sharp but some of your A77 shots being blurry: (1) Are you comparing the pictures at the same magnification? Because if you're looking at each picture on-screen at 100%, then all else being equal, the A77's 24 MP will look appreciably blurrier than the 40D's 10 MP. (2) Have you checked for back-focus and front-focus? Because if the camera isn't focusing in the right place, the stabilization may be working fine but the image will still be blurry. AFAIK, the A77 has micro-focus adjust to fix back-focus and front-focus issues; the 40D does not have it, but you don't seem to need it (and IIRC, the 50D does have it, the 60D does not, and the 70D does).</p>

<p><em>DD-X is the Ilford version of Kodak T-Max Developer.</em></p> <p>This is the first time I've seen this claim. I tend to think of DD-X as being the Ilford developer most similar to Kodak's Xtol (although obviously DD-X comes as a mildly-concentrated liquid and Xtol comes as a power). So I'd be very curious to hear about the sources / bases for the comment (chemistry, intended applications, etc.). Thanks!</p>

<p>I think the successor is Mamiya Leaf (http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/), which appears to have hitched itself to Capture One, which may affect the situation. However, Mamiya's websites have often given good support for old stuff. Maybe see what's at:<br> http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/downloads.html</p> <p> </p>

<p>Yes, any Sony (or Minolta or Konica Minolta) lens with "DT" in the name is designed to cover only an "APS-C" sensor, not to work on full-frame (or 35mm film). Indeed, IIRC at least some DT lenses have baffles that restrict the area they illuminate to APS-C regardless of what the optics might actually deliver.</p>

Light weight an issue and mostly shooting video? I think a Sony A5100 might be a good bet. For interviews maybe a Sony 50mm prime or a Sigma 60mm prime.

The two lenses are totally different. I have an old Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7, which I think is a good to very good lens, but it's not too sharp wide open. The Sony DT 50mm f/1.8 is probably somewhat better optically, but it does not cover full frame. The SAM focus motor is built into the lens, and will be quieter if you want to auto-focus while shooting video.

Did I miss it, or has nobody said that Canon sells two OPTICALLY-different 55-250 lenses? I am pretty sure the new STM version is optically more complicated and reportedly better. I don't know how likely you are to find a used STM version for your budget; it's a fairly new model. That said, my dad has the original 55-250, I've used it a couple of times, and it seems like a very good lens for the price. I have the Tamron SP 70-300 USD, and like it a lot, but the rebate appears to have ended, so those are now $450 new.

<p>Okay, I have requests for all the cameras. Upon further review of who asked for what when, I think I was mistaken when I replied to a couple of you. This is the order of requests:<br> 26th, 0609 - LM asked for Canonet w/bad meter and flash<br> 26th, 0649 - DW asked for Canonet w/bad meter and flash<br> 26th, 1026 - RS asked for a Canonet<br> 26th, 1304 - AG asked for Canonet with haze<br> 27th, 0724 - D77777 asked for the Konica Auto S2<br> I will try to message everyone privately. LM will get what he requested (and I think I'll just put in the box the 48mm hood and 48mm->55mm step-up ring, along with photocopies of the camera and flash manuals). RW will have the option to get the Canonet with the haze if he wants it, otherwise AG can have it. D77777 will get the Konica.</p> <p>Except as noted above, the other stuff is all available.</p>

<p>You don't need to calculate the linear apertures to compare, at least when the lenses being compared give similar fields of view. Multiply the aperture on one by the ratio of the linear film (or sensor) sizes to find the aperture you'd need on the other to get the same depth of field:</p> <p>f/2 x (89mm/70mm) = f/2.5 for the Pentax to have the same DoF</p> <p>which tells you that theoretically the Pentax 105mm f/2.4 can get depth of field just a tiny bit shallower than the Contax 80mm f/2. (As did Ray, I have used the diagonal dimensions of the respective film frames. When comparing formats with different aspect ratios (these two are <em>slightly</em> different), if you want to assume some particular output aspect ratio, you can use the respective effectively-used dimensions for each format.) Among medium format options, these differences are modest; if you want to figure out, say, what aperture to use on your Sony A7r when you're used to using f/16 on your RB-67 Pro SD, this sort of calculation will tell you that, for U.S.-standard larger print sizes with 4:5 aspect ratios, the answer is f/16 x (24mm/55.6mm) = f/6.9.</p> <p>Agreed that the <em>quality</em> of the bokeh depends on many factors, and is difficult to impossible to determine from any ordinary specifications.</p>

<p><em>What factor has a larger influence over manual focus: The brightness of the screen, or the ability to have a split prism screen[?]</em></p> <p>IMO, a split prism focusing aid is much more helpful to manual focus accuracy / ease than a somewhat brighter screen is. Of course, experiences vary. Now I have (among other things) a Mamiya M645 1000s with a metering prism with a split prism focusing aid, and grew up using my dad's Canon AE-1 with a similar split prism. I have also used a TLR with a waist-level finder without any focusing aid other than a pop-out magnifier.</p> <p>More generally, I think other differences between the two systems are probably much more significant than any likely small differences in overall manual focusing ease / accuracy, and I suspect that within each system, there are substantial differences model-to-model and scree-to-screen, and between prisms and waist-level finders. I've never tried a Pentax 645, just my Mamiya and (briefly) a Contax 645 (which was great but very expensive)--but the Pentax seems like a solid system too. In case it matters, I don't think either Mamiya or Pentax has sold a "645"* camera that will shoot film in several years.</p> <p>If you really have a deal on a Mamiya M645 AF-DII that's too great to pass up, go enjoy it; if you don't like it, you can probably sell it and at least break even. Just be warned that, IIRC, if you want to use solely or even primarily manual-focus lenses, you may actually have an easier time with a manual-focus body like a Pro or Pro TL, or even an old 1000s. I seem to recall there are metering and/or other issues related to iris operation when using the newer auto-focus bodies with manual-focus lenses.</p> <p>*FWIW, the current digital so-called "645" models are not really 645, and most aren't close, which creates crop-factor issues. 645 film is 56x41.5mm (Mamiya) or 56x42mm (Pentax). The Pentax 645D and 645Z have 44x33mm sensors. The Mamiya 645 digital backs range from 44x33mm to 54x40mm.</p>

<p>Most times if you get scans with your film process and print, the scan sizes will be the size to make the prints. So, e.g., for 4x6 inch prints, the scans are often about 1218x1827 pixels.</p> <p>Last couple of times I had a whole roll of 35mm film scanned (which was with processing and printing), I used Lakeside Camera in the New Orleans area. They appear to offer an option of 2000x3000 pixel scans.<br> http://lakesidecamera.com/index.php/services/C45</p>

<p>If his Pentaxes say "645", "6x7", and/or "67" on them, then you need 120 or maybe 220 size film (which comes in rolls whose outer boxes are almost 1 inch square and three inches long). Otherwise--and this is definitely much more common--the Pentaxes very probably take regular 35mm film. (Pentax also made some cameras that took 110 film cartridges and APS film cartridges, in which case you may want to abandon the idea as a PITA.)</p> <p>Mr. Posner gets some leeway around here to link to his own store, but that's because it's one of the biggest and most reputable photo stores, with prices rarely beaten by anyone reputable. Unless you need something <em>really</em> oddball, B&H is as good a place as any to buy film (and where I've usually bought film).</p>

<p>All: there have been several requests for Canonets and a couple for the Canolite flash; I'm giving these out more-or-less in order of requests. The Konica is actually IMO a somewhat nicer camera--I'd have kept it if the iris weren't stuck--but it's a little larger than the Canonets, and the iris needs to be unstuck. The other stuff languishes. To be clear, I estimate that shipping one of these cameras inside the U.S. would take about $10.</p> <p>Also, somebody said an e-mail to me bounced. I have no idea why. At least one came through.</p>

<p>Diffraction will visibly affect an 8x10-inch print made from a 1/2.3-inch sensor and a lens at f/6.4. The question is whether the OP would find the effect enough that the prints are not "crisp" and "clean". That's a matter of personal standards. In my personal experience, there's very little chance that the longer end of a slow 30x zoom lens is going to produce <em>what I'd consider</em> truly crisp and clear 8x10-inch prints. But again, everyone's standards are different--I like to look at sample pictures.</p> <p>Basically, the Panasonic looks like a pretty nice little camera. But any such camera is a convenience, a major compromise on size (and price) to get what it delivers. The longer the zoom range and the smaller the maximum aperture, the less likely the long end of the zoom range will really deliver.</p>

<p>I don't have experience with this specific camera, but like most similar cameras, it has a tiny "1/2.3-inch" sensor and a long, slow zoom lens (maximum aperture of f/6.4 at the equivalent of 720mm). I strongly suspect that at the wide end of the zoom range, this Panasonic can produce very nice 8x10-inch prints. However, also I strongly suspect that at the long end, the pictures will not be crisp and clean. IMO diffraction is almost unavoidable: with the small maximum aperture (f/6.4) on that small sensor, at least some blurriness is almost guarantied--it's like using f/34 on a 35mm film camera. (Also, almost all zooms are less sharp at the long end of their zoom ranges; at 720mm even with image stabilization, camera shake is often an issue; very distant subjects can have issues with atmospheric haze; etc.)</p> <p>Would you be happy with the results? Maybe try searching Flickr for pictures with this model, and find ones take at a variety of focal lengths and light levels, and see what you think.</p>

<p>I have some older cameras and related equipment that I need to, as they say, deaccession. The cameras themselves have some issues, which may or may not matter to you, and which you may be able to fix quickly. The other stuff was all in good working order last time I used it several years ago. Basically, I want to part with this stuff under the best possible circumstances--which may well mean free to a good home. Sure, if you <em>want</em> to pay me something (either before-hand, or after you get it and decide what you think it's worth to you), that would be great. But this is not high-monetary-value stuff; I may only ask for postage, or maybe even send it totally free if the postage is low or you have a intriguing idea or whatever. So take a look at the list below, and if there's something you want to use, for some project, for parts, whatever, that's great. Don't be shy, either post a message here or send me a private message.</p> <p>Konica Auto S2 35mm film rangefinder, fixed 45mm f/1.8 lens, very good condition except iris stuck (?), I think I replaced the light seals ca. 2005<br> Canon Canonet G-III QL17 35mm film rangefinder, fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens, very good condition, I think I replaced the light seals ca. 2004, meter inoperative<br> Canon Canonet G-III QL17 35mm film rangefinder, fixed 40mm f/1.7 lens WITH HAZE but otherwise very good condition, I think I replaced the light seals ca. 2004<br> Canon Canolite D flash for Canonet, with case<br> Canon case for Canonet<br> Bower 48mm collapsible rubber lens hood, fits Canonet and others<br> Bower 48mm to 55mm step-up ring, fits Canonet and others<br> DiCaPac WP-510 underwater soft case, fits Canon PowerShot A570 IS compact digital camera and others<br> Targus nylon case, fits Canonet and others<br> Promaster FL-D filter, 55mm, to correct for fluorescent lighting<br> lens cap, 55mm<br> Wein Cell batteries, 2, replace PX625 and PX13 mercury batteries, still good?<br> filter, 49mm, sky (1A)<br> 127 film parts lot (for re-spooling)--4 metal film reels, 3 have backing papers</p>

<p>Danny, the "and/or" in my list of issues is for the 'pick your poison' nature of the problems; there's nothing really recent, good, <em>and</em> inexpensive. Also, my comment refers to a lot of older machines discussed in the other thread, including old drum scanners and a Flextight II on eBay (which sold for $2184 "as-is"). As you know, the new Flextights are $13,000 and $21,000. But if I win the Powerball, I'd definitely get a Flextight X5!</p>

<p>IMOPO, there is nothing that will scan medium format film, and products high-quality scans (<em>especially</em> of transparency film), that is not (1) expensive, (2) ancient (in terms of hardware and software working with reasonably-modern computers), (3) quite large, and/or (4) substantially difficult to use. If you don't like 35mm slides scanned on a Plustek, then I doubt you'd be happy with an Epson V600.</p> <p>There's a long discussion over at this thread:<br> http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00clKe</p>

<p>FWIW, whenever I expect to produce different versions of a picture, I try to structure my workflow in such a way that the operations common to all versions come first, then those common to some, then the ones unique to a version. So I do the operations, export as a JPEG, undo as necessary, do the different versions of the operations, export as a JPEG, repeat. For me the main variations are usually about cropping, scaling, and sharpening, but sometimes for other things too.</p> <p>However, B&W conversion may, depending on your technique / workflow, have to come earlier in the workflow. Most recently I've been using DxO Film Pack 3 as a plug-in to DxO Optics Pro 9.5 to do my B&W conversions integrally with the raw conversion. But even before DxO, I often did certain tweaks in raw conversion as a precursor to converting to B&W.</p>

<p>Daniel, I'm not trying to argue with you. I had the impression that the Sprintscan 120--which if you read back in the thread I said had interested me--had gotten some negative reviews here; maybe I misunderstood. I know the Pacific Image has gotten many complaints (why else would a model that sells new for $1500 sell used for $550?). And I thought you didn't want to fool with fluid mounting for drum scanning, both for the hassle and for your health concerns over the mounting fluids that all the experts said you really need to use. And of course, $1450 is a big step up from your original price point $500, and any drum scanner is a big step up from most of the other things we've discussed in terms of size, complexity, and nuisance.</p> <p>You and I are actually looking for pretty similar things, even if we don't weigh the pros and cons of all the options quite the same--so good luck. But I'm done here.</p>

<p>Have we concluded that there's nothing at or near $500 that will scan medium format film substantially better than a $204 Epson V600?</p> <p>I was curious to see what that Flextight II that Andrew linked to (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Imacon-Flextight-Precision-II-Slide-Film-Scanner-/321489473232?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ada440ed0&autorefresh=true) went for--$2184, and it's sold "as is" and maybe without all the accessories.</p> <p>So where does that leave us? I go back to thinking that for medium format film, the next quality / price step up from the V600 may be a Nikon 8000. Complete and working for $1200:<br> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=88839.0<br> No film holders, $810 to $1248:<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Super-CoolScan-8000-ED-Slide-Film-Scanner-/181489238864?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item2a419a0350<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Super-Coolscan-LS-8000-ED-ls8000-/311055276136?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item486c56d868<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/NIKON-Super-COOLSCAN-8000-ED-/361027254156?pt=US_Scanners&hash=item540ee6b78c<br> For the latter three, you'd need a medium format film holder like this one, $380:<br> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-FH-869M-120-220-Mounted-Film-Holder-for-Coolscan-LS-8000-9000ED-/331294891071?pt=US_Scanner_Parts&hash=item4d22b6dc3f</p> <p>Any other / further thoughts? (Yes, I see the drum scanners for $1450 and $1750--good links, Robert--but obviously those are big steps up in price, size, and complexity to use.)</p>

<p>I've bent a pin in a CF card <em>reader</em>, but the cards themselves are female and therefore presumably more robust. Also, CF cards are a bit easier to grasp. But I've never had a physical break or fatal error in any SD card, including those that survived a trip through the clothes washer and dryer. They're fine, and they're it. I can't see any format displacing them in the near future; the next step is probably, IMO, devices having a ton of internal memory and fast near-field communications to transfer data.</p> <p>For the record, I've used CF, SD, Micro SD, and XD cards in a variety of cameras and other devices, and with a variety of dedicated card readers and in-build ones in computers. The only ones I find really irritating to use are Micro SD--just too physically small to handle reasonably well.</p>