valeriu_campan

Looks like a back focus issue.

I still have a T90 and after 15 years, I still love it. I am using every day an F5 and D100 with top of the range glass, but for my own stuff I go to the old T90. An excellent design and for the money you can find very good glass. I don't think it is a dead end system yet. The digital has a bit more to go, and if you want to enter there at the top end, you will need VERY good lenses in few years from now. For this budget you cannot get anything that is future proof. Enjoy the fillm while you can, it still has its own charm. And again, I love my T90.

Vuk,

 

What other response would you expect on Leica forum?

I started my photography in an eastern block country, and went through all kind of gear from the russian RF cameras, moving in a german phase, both east and west and using now, mostly, japanese glass (though I still own an M3). From my experience, the russian gear was at times outstanding with one condition. RULE NO ONE was to take the camera to an old german chap who was dismantling it, cleaning, filing few parts, putting it all back and... way you go. The reborn cameras coming out from his workshop never missed a beat and were VERY sought after. The dificult part was to source a lens, that was REALY good. Most of them were good but some were kicking ass. I even managed to find the best enlarging lens I ever had, and that was an Industar 3.5/50mm camera lens, but only after testing about 10 different ones.

 

Moving a little bit off topic, I would like to add that as a cinematogrpher, I am choosing the lenses for my films from a variety of sources and manufacturers. And my choice is not based on definition only, which seems to be the only issue here. Each lens at any given focal distance has its own personality, that comes in many different flavours. It is one thing to use a Zeiss superspeed prime lens, another for a Cooke, Schneider, Angenieux, Panavision, Canon or whatever russian anamorphic kit.

 

I would rather concentrate on taking good pictures, than measuring and gloating about who has the sharpest or the biggest. Happy shooting.

Since you are shoting still lifes on a tripod, you can afford to loose 2 stops, using a 80B series blue filter. You can find it as camera filter or as a gel for the lights named CTB(full).

 

I preffer this method to the one using tungsten balanced film, finding that the late daylight emulsions have a much better quality than the T balnced ones. Also, you will never get a perfect correction in Photoshop, since the exposure levels of the layers is heavily unbalanced. Also, think about the time you spend with each image.

Transfer your tape in the computer. For Mac, use iMovie (free). The files will be automatically separated in 2G segments. Put them back in the timeline, select all and export movie as IDVD file. The resulting file, ~9G can be used in Toast 5.x to generate a VideoCD. A dual 1G Mac converts it to a .mpg format in about 4 hours. This way you can burn a VideoCD, but he quality is lower than VHS. I just did this way two 55 mins documentaries. Of course, the same machine can output a DVD as well.

"Why would Canon make a feature that is bad for its product? "

Just look at their lens... it can hardly focus.

 

I answering the question, try getting a laptop with firewire, and automatically capture a frame at a time directly into the computer without running any tape in the camera.

Our papers have about 50 staff photographers, most of them using film, FujicolorPress 800 which is scanned. There is a transition towards digital of course - D1x and Coolpix (for small ads) but for now the covers for the glossy inserts are shot only on film and scanned with the 4000ED scanner. You ca shoot digital (6 megapixel), work the file in Photoshop output on film recorder (4K); the results can be quite outstanding, but why would you do that when for any commercial purpose, you'll have to scan again? I had to do it few times, when a stubborn agency WANTED slides only. They got them and were very happy!!!