steve_chan5

Frank - looked at any of the manual focus nikkors lately?

The canon 35/2 or 35/1.8 are considered very good lenses (some say comparable to the 35 cron of that era). I think they go for around $250 in decent shape. The Voigtlander 35/1.7 is considered an excellent performer as well, and about the same price new.

I had a late (1985) black Jupiter-3 that was soft and low contrast until about F2.8, at which point it really improved a lot. I think that it had focus issues and the lack of black paint on the edges of the lens elements contributed to veiling flare when wide open.

 

That being said, I have an old 1950's J-3 on a FSU body that focuses correctly (on that body) and has reasonable contrast throughout. On an FSU body, with a little paint work on the edges of the lens elements, a modern J-3 could be a star performer.

 

My Industar-61LD was actually a little contrastier in the mid-apertures than my 50/1.5 Nokton ASPH. I was very surprised. The Industar-50 collapsible is very sharp, with a lower contrast than modern lenses, but it has a nice quality to it. The aperture ring on mine is kind of a joke though.

One of the reasons I like the Nikon FG is its supposed ability to

take long exposure shots in aperture priority mode. Will this work

okay for photos of fireworks?

 

I think that I'll probably just put the 35/1.4 on it, at around

f5.6 focused at infinity and let it go (cable release and tripod).

Will it tend to overexpose the sky background? If so, should I dial in

exposure compensation? Any recommended films?

 

Thanks!

Can you refresh my memory as to why anyone really needs to buy the "correct" vented hood again?

<blockquote><i>Before I bought a Leica members were praising the Cl and CLE. Then when I bought a CL..., well, you know, it suddenly became a lesser Leica. ;*)</i></blockquote>

<p>You must continue debasing holy Leica relics by buying an MP with a noctilux, as well as an M3 with a DR Cron. Take pictures of kitty cats, and flowers and other things that the Gods of Leica street photography ninjitsu would never dare to even consider.

If Hal would like to visit the SF Bay Area, I'd be glad to host him for a roll or two.

Adam,

 

I frame by using the outside of the 50 framelines. To me, framing with an RF is kind of a best effort deal anyway - I think the saying with RF's is "frame loose, crop tight"?

 

When I notice a framing problem, it is often because I didn't take parallax into account and not related to the size of the frame.

 

Steve

How about a Nokton 40/1.4 (or a Cron-C if you must have Leitz) and tracking down a Canon 85/1.8 or 100/2?

 

Shop carefully, and you may even be able to squeeze in a DR Cron for under $1000.

I don't think anyone is debating whether or not the bombs should have been dropped, or comparing the relative horrors of being nuked, versus being firebombed, or being a civilian victim of an atrocity, or otherwise second-guessing situations that occurred six decades ago.

 

What resonates with me is a story that wasn't told 60 years ago, that causes me to reflect on the stories are not being told today.

<i>Well they don't drop A-Bombs that quickly today, do they? ;)</i>

<p>That's true, and reportage seems to be self-censored these days.

<p>A friend reminded me the other day that during the time of Tiananmen Square massacre, the photos that CNN got out of China only got out because they were digital photos from Sony Mavicas, that the government wasn't savvy enough to intercept. We have the technology, but not the will to use it.

<p> I came across this article from the first US reporter <a

href=http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/specials/0506/0617weller.html>in

Nagasaki after the bomb was dropped.</a> A picture in the article has

the son holding the old Leica III that his father used. Nothing

particularly Leica specific about it - the most interesting thing

about the story is as an example of censorship during wartime.

<br>

<p>How little things have changed in sixty years.

The Hexar is titanium (just like the Contax G series), has the same shutter as the Contax, and some people have suggested that it was designed by the same people who did the Contax G series. I would not be surprised if they had the same motor drive.

 

I used to own a Contax G1, and currently own a hexar. I didn't notice any particular difference between the Hexar and Contax G1 in terms of winder noise. In fact, aside from the AF and viewfinders, I considered them to much the same. Maybe the G2 has more insulation? I don't have a contax around to do a side by side comparison.

I have an E550 and think its a great little camera. A good ISO400 (and a reasonable ISO800), and while the 12MP RAW files don't have 12MP of detail, they seem comparable to the 8MP RAW files I get out of my Konica Minolta. Its much, much smaller than the C8080 (and the LC1/Digilux 2)

 

I've been sorely tempted by the new Fuji F10 - it is a little smaller (no grip "lump", so it sits in the pocket better), outresolves my E550 and has better high ISO noise characteristics. No RAW, so not as many options vs the E550 in post-processing. It has a huge LCD. Going to wait one more generation at least before picking up another pocket digicam though.

<i>my gf shudders and puts up a black face everytime i bring a ratty camera with me when we go out for dinner with her friends especially in a more formal event. In those circumstances, the camera is less a tool but more an accessory to capture snaps of her and perhaps the event.</i>

<p>Yikes! It starts with not bringing a ratty camera, then she'll demand that the covering on your camera match her outfit, then she'll demand only black and white film for formal occasions and then it'll be "I don't like the bokeh of that lens with this outfit!" and "I can't stand the clinical look of the pictures you took with the ASPH lens, bring the DR 'cron instead! And oh yeah, put on that warming filter as well - the one with a matte black rim, it looks good on the camera."

Apparently the vertical alignment on the Hexar is always a little squirrelly. I used a hexar for quite a while with the alignment problem and still got good focus.

 

Frank - are you just being goofy, or do you seriously think the G2 autowinder is any different? Under the covers, they are apparently sister designs (certainly the G1 I had didn't strike me as different from the Hexar in terms of noise - aside from the clicky AF).

Cheri,

 

Like the others said, digital zoom is a no brainer and 4 megapixels is easy. Are you sure you don't mean optical zoom? Digital zoom just cuts off parts of the picture - so that if you started with a 4 megapixel picture and did a 2x digital zoom, it would get chopped down to something like a 2 megapixel picture (and the picture would look bad if you printed it out to a decent size).

 

Don't you mean optical zoom? And for optical zoom, how much zoom do you want? Do you want wide angle so that you can pull everything into the picture, or do you want a long tele so that you can really close in on distant objects?

 

How big do you want the camera to be? Pocket? Purse? Backpack? Do you want a lear jet with canards, or without?

Mike Elek seems to be kind of the jedi master of old camera gear, so whatever he said. A camera that hasn't been mentioned that can often be had for cheap is a user grade Canon 7. I think I've seen functional 'beaters" go for a little over $100.

I don't really understand the motivation for medium format in this situation. Usually people want MF because they want enormous enlargements, or they want the smooth tonality (or else they just want more cool gear!).

 

A medium format camera with "bells and whistles" is going to be really, really expensive. I picked up a Mamiya 6 with a single lens for $800 and consider it an amazing deal, and this is a pretty basic, albeit high quality, MF rangefinder.

 

I'm seeing Nikon F100's with asking prices of $500 - thats about as many bells and whistles as most of us need (unless you go to the F5 or F6).

It does kind of look like the de-Bayering got mangled somehow, since those patterns of dots are similar to what you see when you look at a RAW file that has not been de-Bayered (the regular pattern of dots are generally green if I recall correctly).

 

What RAW converter are you using?

<i>deep and profound analysis of the composition before me</i>

<p>Well, for hacks like me, a deep and profound analysis is "duh...izzit blurry?" :-)

Amir, the most recent thread on the topic is <a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Bcdh>here</a>. Look in the repair/modifications category and search the page for "screen" and 2 or 3 threads should pop up.

<i><blockquote>Exactly what do you gain by changing focus screens (whatever that means?) I am constantly using my trusty D100 with my old MF lenses, the 55mm Micro-Nikkor f3.5, 400mm Nikon f5.6, 600mm Nikon F4, and a 24mm Sigma f2.8 with absolutely no problems. You just focus and meter manually within the camera, like back in the 50's and 60's.</blockquote></i>

<p>I've noticed that I've made obvious focus errors focusing my 50/1.2 when shooting wide open, and in general I like the feedback of a split image viewfinder. I don't have to fart around going back and forth thinking "Hmmm, is it sharper HERE or HERE?" I generally don't have problems focusing fast lenses on my old FE2 and FG bodies. Maybe its due to my somewhat poor vision?

<p>On the other hand, once I started trying to use the AF confirmation LED as suggested in this thread, things definitely got better.

I've got a D100 that I would like to use with MF lenses, and after

reading a couple of the D70 mods for focus screens, I wonder if the

same can be done for the D100?

 

Has anyone tried this? There was a recent thread about someone

losing a part to the frame around the screen and using a screw to hold

it in, but I'd rather not go down this route! :-)

<i><blockquote>It goes to 800ISO ... some of Nikon's problem may well have been the absurd pre-occupation with noise amongst folk who think that a digital camera must be perfect. </blockquote></i>

<p>I'm happily absurd, I suppose. I suspect the Nikon you mention is comparable to my Minolta A2, which is an excellent camera that also goes to ISO800, but my E550 easily has less noise than the A2 at comparable ISOs.

<p>For what it is worth, I haven't read any messages saying they expect "digital camera must be perfect". I think that luminance noise is okay, because in color, it looks similar to grain. But chrominance noise is just plain ugly, and it is what you often see in these small sensor digicams - you are free to disagree, but I suspect you are in the minority.