mike_nunan

For anyone else who might be having trouble getting the ACR 3.2 update to work, watch out that you don't back up the old version of the "Camera Raw.8bi" file into a subdirectory before replacing it. For some reason, that seems to cause the old version to be picked up from the subdir (at least, it did on my machine). Also, certain thumbnails didn't appear in Bridge, and there was no Open In Camera Raw for them, until I'd moved the raw files to a new directory. My guess is that the cache contained something to indicate that the old version of ACR couldn't recognise the files, but strangely even clearing the caches didn't seem to fix this. Can't provide a solid explanation for all this, but at least it gives you a couple of things to try if you're having problems.

Hi,

 

Thanks for all the interesting responses and related postings on this subject. Robert, thanks for clarifying the 4Ti-vs-4TiB distinction. I have a TiB then, as mine is still mostly black ;o)

 

Koichi, I agree completely with your comment about the self-timer. Another irritating "feature" is that you can't cancel the timer without exposing a frame of film, so if you make the easy mistake of leaving the self-timer enabled after a macro session, you will experience frustration the next time you use the camera. Usually you both miss the shot you were going for, and end up taking a picture of something completely worthless that happened 10 seconds later! I also appear to be completely unable to remember which direction of the switch enables the self-timer and which one disables the beeper, and I have a similar problem with the memo/clear switch too. Then there's the lack of a shutter release lock, the clunky (IMO) meter on/off switching method, plus what kind of lunatic came up with THAT method of setting the ISO? And don't even get me started about the battery compartment cover...

 

Despite this litany of complaints I still have a warm liking for the camera, and I'm prepared to learn to work around its little annoyances for now at least. Frank, I can understand why you say that you use the camera under sufferance, but for some reason it still satisfies enough of my top priorities that I don't feel that way about it myself. The compact dimensions, good viewfinder, ultra-sensitive meter and (last but not least) the f/2 21mm and macro lenses will keep me using it as my "second fiddle" MF SLR, although my ultimate benchmark for SLR handling -- the Contax RTS II -- will never be totally replaced by the Olympus upstart. Put it this way though, I think I'm going to be keeping it for long enough to justify a full service for it.

 

Anyway, thanks for all the input, and happy shooting everybody...

 

TTFN

 

-= mike =-

 

PS. For those who don't like the self-timer, how about using one of those clockwork jobs that screw into the shutter release, like the Leica M guys have to use? I know, no mirror lockup, but you get a shorter delay if you want one.

Cheers guys, for clearing that up. It was obviously inattentiveness mixed with wishful thinking on my part. I can understand (sorta) why Olympus have chosen to measure the exposure using their highly accurate OTF metering but perhaps it would be more useful if it locked as soon as you used the lever, since the main purpose of AE lock is to allow recomposition after metering. I guess it was a clue that in the manual the lock-recompose-shoot procedure is illustrated using spot metering only.

 

One last thing: Robert, what is an OM4TiB? I've never heard of that.

 

Best regards to all,

 

-= mike =-

Hi all,

 

I may be losing my mind here, but I'm sure that my OM4Ti used to lock

the meter reading immediately in centre-weighted mode as well as spot

mode. Trying it now, when I actuate the Memo lever, the camera still

meters continuously until I fire the shot, whereupon it locks the

shutter speed value (based upon the OTF reading made at the time of

exposure).

 

In the past, I'm sure I've seen it lock the currently displayed

shutter speed as soon as I nudged the Memo lever, allowing me to

recompose the shot. Can anyone please confirm what the correct

behaviour should be? Is it me or my camera that's gone 'round the

twist? <g>

 

TIA

 

-= mike =-

 

PS. I've RTFM'd but it isn't exactly clear either way.

Ok, gotcha, so it's probably fair to say that the non-rotating carrier is quicker when you have a sequence of frames to scan (better still if the thumbnails are disabled in Nikon Scan), while the rotating one is slightly faster to use for a single frame. Plus, you have the option of scanning 35mm using the supplied masks (using the workaround you mentioned) using the rotating carrier, although DIY masks could be used with the non-rotating carrier. Sound like an accurate summary?

 

One more question: if I have strips of 120 film cut into four frames of 6x6, will either of these two carriers be better suited? I imagine that since the rotating holder has a fixed scan "window", it would be necessary to reverse the strip so that the long end always protrudes from the outside end of the carrier, right?

 

-= mike =-

Hi Johann,

 

I'm in no doubt that I want one of the glass carriers, I'm just not sure what benefits there are to the rotating one. When you say the standard glass carrier "takes longer", I take it you mean it takes longer than using the glassless one -- or do you really mean it takes longer than using the rotating carrier (can't imagine why that would be so when the rotating carrier only works one frame at a time, but I'm ready to be enlightened!)

 

Also, can you clarify whether it's possible to scan 35mm with the rotating carrier and a supplied mask. If so, that would be a plus.

 

Cheers,

 

-= mike =-

Hi,

 

Please can anyone help me understand which of these two holders will

be better for my needs? The "G" holder lacks the rotation feature,

but is that the only thing I'll give up if I decide not to spend the

extra hundred bucks? I've read a message here saying that the GR

holder includes masks for panoramic 35mm scanning, so maybe that's

something that I'll miss out on with the cheaper item. Can anyone

confirm?

 

And as for the rotation itself, maybe I'm missing the point but

generally I'd be happy to scan the film as near to straight as

possible, and apply any rotational correction in PS. If you can scan

the whole frame area in the regular holder, then what more do you

need? (I understand that rotation in the digital domain will

introduce a tiny bit of image degradation, but IME it seems so minor

as to be negligible.) Or is it that the rotating holder allows more

of the rebate area to be scanned? Now that would be something worth

paying extra for... Any info from owners, users and cognoscenti

gratefully received.

 

TIA

 

-= mike =-

(Sorry, typo on the warranty supplier there: should have said Mack, not Mace.)

Hi Alan,

 

The version of the unit which is sold in the US (and presumably elsewhere) has an auto-sensing 100-240V 50/60Hz power supply, so it will work fine in the UK. However, the warranty is restricted to the Americas and the Carribean, and I just spoke to Nikon UK customer service and they informed me that they would not honour the warranty on US-market products. I guess it would be possible to work around this by buying an international third-party warranty from the seller (e.g., B&H offer Mace warranties on many products which I believe are internationally valid). If anyone has any suggestions or experiences to share regarding this type of warranty, I'd be very grateful to hear them.

 

Many thanks,

 

-= mike =-

Hi Johann,

 

Thanks for posting these. May I ask, who supplied your 9000 and how much was it? I'm looking around and the best UK price I've seen so far is GBP2300 from Ace Cameras. Given that most suppliers in the US appear to be asking $2000, even if I allow $200 for shipping then I can still have it in my hands for less than GBP1600. I'm assuming the power supply isn't switchable (can anyone confirm?) so I'd need a step-down unit, but that's no big problem -- I've done the same thing with a Minolta unit without any hitches.

 

The main thing that would stop me from doing this would be the question of warranty service. Johann, did your unit come with a UK or European warranty card, or an international one? Can anyone with a US market unit please let me know what type of warranty you got?

 

Thanks v. much in advance,

Hi Nick and Gord,

 

I used to have an LS-30 and experienced the problems of scanning Kodachrome. I now have a Minolta 5400 does a superb job of these, and I believe the difference is all to do with the light source. My theory is that the "spiky" spectral distribution of the LED emissions is an unfortunate match for the absorbtion characteristics of the Kodachrome dyes.

Sorry, just realised that could be clearer: the assist light will not illuminate in manual focus point selection mode, if the selected point is not on the middle row. It physically covers a larger area, however.

Just in case anyone passes by this thread and would like to know the hard facts regarding the 420EX's assist coverage, I should mention that this unit covers ONLY the middle row of sensors with an EOS-1v. The same is probably true of the EOS-3 but I didn't test it out on that camera specifically. In the end, in very low light I tend to use the centre sensor most of the time anyway!

Thanks for the help guys. Dave, I've probably been very stupid and not even realised that the glass is permanently mounted (I just saw the clip and assumed that the whole lot came out -- I will have another look at things tonight). Thanks for clearing that up anyway, and thanks to Andreas and Robert for letting me know that it's possible to get a glass filter holder should I wish to.

 

Happy shooting

I've got a 200/1.8L which uses drop-in filters (same holder as the

300/2.8L and some of the other L teles I believe) but up to now I've

never messed with it. I'd like to shoot B&W with a yellow filter, so

what's the right thing to do? I'm hoping someone with a copy of the

instruction booklet can tell me what the official recommendation is

(I tried ordering the manual from Robert Scott in the UK, but they

don't stock many EF lens manuals, apparently).

 

Do I remove the UV filter and replace it with a yellow gel or

polyester filter cut to fit the holder? Given that the glass filter

forms part of the optical configuration of the lens, how can a much

thinner sheet of gel serve the same function? Or am I supposed to

leave the UV in place and sandwich the gel one or other side of it,

in which case does it matter which side?

 

Alternatively can I get a glass Yellow 8 filter from Canon to fit the

lens? That might be a better option if it's available, but the only

accessory filter I've seen listed is the polariser.

 

Any help or info gratefully received.

 

TIA

 

-= mike =-

Great stuff, thanks for the info.

A few companies make adapters for Contax and other lenses, but I've

been unable to track one down to allow me to mount Olympus lenses on

a Canon digital body. Please can anyone help me find one?

 

TIA

 

-= mike =-

Hi Gerald,

 

Thanks for the info and the links. I would definitely prefer an MDC if I could find one for reasonable money, but for now the ML will do. Unfortunately the one I received had a faulty meter, although it was cosmetically immacculate. It would flip randomly into P mode when the aperture setting was elsewhere and even when it was correctly showing a shutter speed, that speed did not seem to vary with the aperture setting as I would expect it to. Fortunately the supplier had another ML that they can exchange for the faulty one, so hopefully I will be up and going this week. I did think about the Rollei but it's not as convenient to carry and I suspected it wouldn't be as silent. Was that a fair assumption on the latter point, or was I worrying about nothing?

 

-= mike =-

Thanks for that Martin, you are undoubtedly the guru of Minox!

Thanks Martin. I've located an ML for a reasonable price, so I'm going to go ahead with that. The only MDC I've seen so far was priced exorbitantly, but I'm still interested in one if I can find it for the right money. Re the DX coding, do I take it that since the MDC is basically an ML with a different lens, that it has manual ISO just like the older camera?

Hi,

 

I'm on the hunt for a Minox 35mm compact, specifically one with

exposure lock. I understand that that limits the field to two models:

the ML or the MDC. The ML is of the older era and has manual ISO

control. So much the better. I have seen contradictory statements

regarding the MDC, with some people saying it has DX control

(presumably without manual override) while others claim it has manual

ISO. Can somebody, ideally an owner, clear this up for me please?

 

Also, should I favour the MDC because of its better optical quality,

or is the difference marginal? I've been shooting with a Contax T and

the lens is great but the lack of exposure lock has become too much

to bear. That plus the woolly shutter speed indication. The

rangefinder is nearly useless IMO so it's an obvious step to try a

Minox instead. But I digress; the point is, will an ML give as good

results as the T?

 

TIA

 

-= mike =-

My hunch turned out right:

 

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news_release/2003/ls9000ed.htm

 

There are new versions of the 35mm units too, have a look on the news page:

 

http://www.nikon-image.com/eng/news/index.html

 

=)

Hi Tim,

 

I share your interest in this matter. In my case, I have a substantial collection of unmounted chromes and negs which I wish to digitise efficiently, to reasonable proof quality. A Canon 300D would suit this purpose perfectly if only there were a slide copier available that allowed for the 1.6x cropping factor.

 

Harold, I have yet to encounter a desktop film scanner that takes less than a minute to generate a scan. Typically it's around 90 seconds, and this can increase dramatically if you use features such as ICE and grain reduction. Even at 90 seconds per frame, this is still an hour per roll, and at that rate digitising a lifetime's collection of 35mm film becomes a daunting endeavour. With a DSLR and a slide copier, you can rip through the frames very quickly and then see which are worth spending the time on with the film scanner. This is especially useful with neg film, which is much harder to judge under the loupe. I've tried this with a borrowed Nikon Coolpix 950, and the resulting images are sufficient for initial quality assessment and screen-based slideshows (even with neg film).

 

Best regards,

Hi Kooen,

 

Great news, thanks for that. It's amazing that the main Metro branch in Clerkenwell haven't even heard of the film, but whatever, it's great to know that I can get hold of some.

 

Cheers,

 

-= mike =-

I currently shoot more Astia than just about anything else, so I'm

experiencing a mixture of trepidation and excitement regarding

Fuji's update to this film. I'd very much like to try some, but the

suppliers in the UK don't seem to have it yet. Since some people

seem to have commented on it as far back as the spring, that seems a

bit surprising. Is it generally available in the US yet? What about

elsewhere? Anyone know where I might find some in London?

 

Any assistance very gratefully received!

 

Thanks,

 

-= mike =-