david_smith35

<p>Using mirror lock up and a cable release will contribute more to a sharp image than worrying about how heavy your tripod is.</p>

<p>It can't be that trivial a thread, otherwise you wouldn't keep posting comments would you?</p>

<p>It didn't take me months to come up with a thought - I just don't spend every waking hour lurking on these forums nitpicking and waiting to start an argument.</p>

<p>Quinten, strange isn't it how the most waffling and long winded posts on here by self appointed experts are the same people who have no images in their portfolio.<br>

Those who can do; those who can't teach.</p>

<p>Marco, Of course you can't repair a broken part, but surely replacement is repairing the back is it not?<br>

I'm not aware of any design "flaw" with this back - in fact your post is the first time I've seen it mentioned. I have three of these backs, all over 20 years old - two of them have been repaired due to faulty light seals and not one of them has displayed the problem with cracking you mention.</p>

<p>Of course these devices will give a warm (but nonetheless pleasing) impression of your slide, but they are for casual rather than critical viewing. I personally find the daylight illumination of most light boxes too cold for me, and they don't give an accurate rendition of what you will see when your transparency is projected with a tungsten halogen lamp.<br>

I too have found the slides a little too warm using a slide viewer, so I obtained some pale blue colour correction gel (1/8th CT if I remember correctly) and fitted a piece of this behind the screen of the viewer which neutralises the warmth of the lamp somewhat.</p>

<p>Marco, all cameras with interchangeable backs will eventually require the light seals to be replaced, not just Bronicas. The backs can indeed be repaired and do not crack - at least if repaired by a reputable dealer.</p>

<p>Carlos, I also would recommend the Paterson slide viewer - (<a href="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1950s-OLD-PATERSON-SLIDE-VIEWER-/221115204291?pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item337b7e42c3">http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1950s-OLD-PATERSON-SLIDE-VIEWER-/221115204291?pt=UK_Photography_VintagePhotography_VintagePhotoAccessories&hash=item337b7e42c3</a>)<br /> They crop up regularly on fleabay for a reasonable price. The optics have a low magnification, but will give a surprisingly acceptable image. If you're handy with DIY, it's a simple job to convert it to mains use with a low voltage mains adaptor which is much better than using batteries.</p>

<p>I think that feeble is a good description of your arguments on here. Incidentally I did not say the best, but correct exposure (according to the meter) and neither did I say it doesn't exist. Furthermore I didn't say anything about bracketing way too much. Amazing how you never fail to twist someones words when to trying to prove a point.<br>

You've also ignored the fact that I mentioned one of the good reasons for the odd bracketed image is having a spare transparency or two. Very useful for someone like yourself who suffers from overheated slides and outgassing(!) of slide mounts.</p>

<p>Quinten, I think your ever weakening argument only proves that I'm correct. I think that something in your mind is having you on!!</p>

<p>A light meter at best is only a guide, and there is no such thing as correct exposure, only the most pleasing exposure. No matter how clever some of us think we are and how good the exposure meter, none can predict the outcome (on slide film) every time. More to the point, it's always nice to have a spare tranny or two even when there's little to choose between them.</p>

I can't understand why anyone would think that bracketing the odd exposure would be considered a waste of film. If you have a potentially great image with spectacular lighting, then why not have a couple of spare shots for insurance - after all the object is to capture the image, not worry about film usage.

<p>Nicholas, if you read Pauls question it seems he has yet to purchase the C330, so asking a question about the screen would seem reasonable.<br>

Paul, I've owned and used both cameras you mention, and indeed the C330 does have a somewhat dimmer screen than the SQA - from memory I would say that the SQA screen is at least twice as bright. You could of course buy a replacement screen, but they are usually very expensive. Having said that, I found the C330 screen okay in outdoor daylight conditions, but a little tricky with dim indoor lighting.<br>

I can only echo Marco's comments about the shutter - much higher success rate for sharp hand held shots with the C330. I never use the Bronica without a tripod.</p>

<p>I would imagine that most people will mount slides for projection which is why viewfinder accuracy is so important. The slide mount will only crop a very small amount of image area - similar to the loss made by a prism finder.<br>

The loss of viewfinder image at the top of the frame is significant with longer lenses and close up accessories, and will certainly be greater than that of any slide mount that I've ever used.</p>

<p>My mistake about the close focus - I was thinking of the 180mm Bronica lens which does focus closer than the 150mm. Regarding the accuracy of framing, if you're using slide film you really need to see all the viewfinder image as cropping after is not a realistic option. </p>

<p>Contrary to the above comments, the 150mm does not focus closer, but the 180mm does. The loss of image at the top of the viewfinder is indeed a major nuisance if you are trying to accurately compose a landscape for example. However, it may be less of a problem with portraits and macro subjects which tend to occupy the centre of the frame.</p>

<p>Silvio, from memory you will probably have about 1/4 inch or 6mm of vignetting at the top of the viewfinder. I would guess that there is no significant difference between the 150 and 180mm focal lengths in regards to this.</p>

<p>So what? Where is it written that posting images is a prerequisite to participating in discussions (or even arguments)?<br>

No one has suggested that you need to post images to take part in a discussion. However, it does seem strange that one or two regular contributors (at least in the medium format section)seem to enjoy causing arguments, but have no apparent interest in photography.</p>

<p>"I have had this suspicion for a while that those folks who are the most vocal on forums don't have many photographs to Photo.net."<br>

Interesting theory, Danny and a thought that's passed through my mind on more than one occasion. I've also noticed that the people who cause the most arguments on forums contribute practically nothing (if anything at all) in the way of images.</p>

<p>Kenneth, I didn't realise that some these marks were on an inner element, and I wasn't suggesting you dismantle the lens for cleaning - unless you have the expertise, of course. I would agree that they look fairly insignificant and would not affect image quality.</p>

<p>Kenneth, I would agree with Vincent - it looks like the remnants of cleaning. Have you tried removing them your self? Try breathing on them and gently polish with a micro fiber cloth. A Lens Pen is another device I can recommend.</p>

<p>Tommy, assuming the method is the same as the SQAi, you have to make sure that the pins on the rear of the converter are in the cocked position. If they move freely, just push them round towards the green marks until they click into position. You can then mount the converter on the camera body and then mount the lens. Alternatively you can mount the lens on the converter then mount the assembly on the camera body.<br>

The same applies to mounting an extension tube. </p>

<p>Dan, If you think back a few years it's possible that the square format was more popular than 6x7. There were lots of 6x6 folders and TLR's not to mention SLRs, and it's certainly possible they outnumbered the 6x7 cameras on the market. This could be the reason that there are more 6x6 projectors available. Also, 6x7 slide mounts are very expensive and more difficult to come by. Not forgetting of course, if you use the 645 format you still need a 6x6 projector.<br>

I have no idea how many 6x6 or 6x7 projectors are still being manufactured, but I would imagine you could count them on the fingers of one hand. They still crop up on ebay from time to time, and your idea of procuring one before deciding on a camera, isn't unrealistic!</p>

<p>Richard, one of the most important features of the later models which you should be aware of before making a purchase is the "gliding mirror system" which allows viewing of the entire screen with longer lenses and close up accessories. The older models do not have this feature, and the top of the finder suffers from vignetting with longer focal lengths, making accurate composition more difficult.</p>

<p>Quinten is correct - you do get used to veiwing a laterally reversed image with a WLF, and in fact after a while you won't even realise the image is reversed as your brain becomes used to viewing that way.</p>