dan_lindsay

Although a bit more work, you can always purchase a decent medium format scanner and turn 120 slides into 150MB files. I use a Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED which I bought new many years ago.

 

The digital Nikon solution sounds pretty easy. I have been using for years, my Nikon Super Coolscan 8000ED but the software these days is rather buggy.

The first thing I recommend to the buyer of a 500 EL/M or any of the later models with the Palpas anti-reflective coatings is to treat them with that Aerospace 303 stuff. It keeps the cracking from getting any worse. I have no idea why Has had to introduce that stuff and not really do their homework first.

 

I have both a 503CW and the 500 EL/M and aside from the size, the 500 EL/M is quite handy! With today's 9V battery adaptors, they perform quite well. One thing to be cautious of is the battery compartment latch. They can be damaged easily and then you need to call Hassy in NY to send you a replacement latch--nearly $40! But it does save a nice EL/M.

The Superachromat is a terrific lens. I personally think it's worth it to avoid color aberration issues as you get above 100mm. Much like the ED glass for Nikon, the additional cost is worth it if you shoot longer lens subjects.

This is certainly the time to take advantage of lesser crowds in places that are routinely packed. I'm enjoying it!

The Hassy of course shoots without a lens mounted. It also shoots without a magazine installed. These are fairly simple objects and are not difficult to get in synch. (I have a 500 EL/M and a 503CW.

I have to say I'm pleased with the Hasselblad imager and optics in the DJI Mavic Pro 2.

I guess one of these days I’ll have to scan some transparencies to look for the differences between them. When I was into Hassy ages ago I had a 903SWC with the focusing screen and the 40mm CFE which I fitted on my 503CW. Clearly, the 40 was quicker to shoot accurately (I even had the PME45 for metering) and focus. Stand by this channel for images some day.

Despite their best efforts (and like they had nothing else to do on the moon than snap a few pictures) some exposures were way off—in some cases, by a factor of 1000! As such, NASA had to clip off a portion and subject their test development to significant pushing or pulling to ensure they had a workable negative at the end of the day.

You can use an anti-Newton ring piece of glass to avoid that problem. Search for it.

 

Dan

Still have a couple of these left from several years ago. Do these things work anymore or does the stuff just get returned?

 

Address is of course Fairlawn, NJ.

 

TIA

 

Dan

"on long (and thereby high altitude) flights, the radiation from space contributes about equally as the x-ray machines do."

 

HUH? I've never heard that before. What is the scientific source of this? If true, does that mean that getting my 60 rolls of Velvia 100F hand-inspected means nothing on a 10 hour flight to eastern Europe because it's just going to the same amount of radiation while in-flight?

 

Cancer rates amougst frequent flyers would be higher too, right?

 

This is absolutely true. My life was spent in the radar business which is all about ionizing radiation so I know quite a bit about this. Of all career fields airline pilots receive more ionizIng radiation annually than all other relevant career fields, e.g., nuclear power plant workers, dental technicians, etc. I have taken a Geiger counter up with me countless times and the higher in altitude you go, the more ionizing radiation you get! Trip across the pond? Figure it's like an extra chest x-ray. Our NASA missions to Mars are challenged right now about having our astronauts survive cosmic radiation over such a long mission. Earth's atmosphere does wonders to protect us from chromosomal mutation.

 

Dan

Keep in mind that the D2X already has the CMOS imager,--that's not a difference.

Some of this may change with the introduction of the FX D3.

Nikkor 13mm f/5.6 AIS. Period. On a D2X it has the angle of view of a 19.5mm lens. It is sharp simply left on infinity. The 14mm AF-Nikkor is quite poor by comparison. The 17-35mm lens (for a zoom) is quite outstanding.

Been using the highly vulnerable 13mm f/5.6 Nikkor for many years. I may get the 14-24mm just to get something a little LESS vulnerable. Of course, all my gear is covered by insurance.

What Peter said. Coming to this forum for lens advice is silly for someone buying a D3. I have a D3 on order and the last thing I would be doing if going to some on-line forum for lens advice.

What Peter said. Coming to this forum for lens advise is silly for someone buying a D3. I have a D3 on order and the last thing I would be doing if going to some on-line forum for lens advice.

If you're using the 14-24mm on a 35mm camera or the D3 what's you background with ultra-wide lenses? As a bit of an ultra-wide lens junkie (countless 20mm f/3.5, 2.1cm, 20mm UD, 14mm and 13mm Nikkors and zooms I routinely leave my ultrawides on my bodies,--and have been getting lazy with the DX format and those lenses as they take little work to frame a scene. When I move back to full-frame when the D3 comes in I think the ultra-wides will be a real challenge again. Do you really USE the 14mm's 114? of coverage? I know that me 13mm/s 118? of coverage will be a compositional challenge when the D3 is connected to it.

I'm most likely getting the 14-24mm as well, so that I don't have to worry about vulnerability and weight of my 13mm f/5.6. That zoom has to weight less! Sharp? Share your observations.

With faster and faster digital SLRs on the market the days of being concerned about f-stops faster than 2.8 are essentially over. The Noct-Nikkor, for example, won't be produced again because you just turn up the sensitivity of the camera and you're there. Anything faster than 2.8 forces you into a tripod situation which defeats much of what 35mm cameras brought with them,--portability.

The 20-35mm is alright but nothing near the 17-35mm Nikkor. First, the min focus is not that great compared to the 17-35, and it's not as sharp as the 17-35. Forget the 17-55. As a DX lens it will hold you back from future capabilities.

The 17-35mm is one of the best Nikkor lenses Nikon ever made. Keeping the DX lens limits your flexibility down stream. Always chose quality over convenience.

I continue to use my Nikkor AIS 13mm f/5.6 lens on my D2X. If you thought the 14mm was "enormous" wait until you see the 13mm. It functions at roughly a 19.5mm lens on the DX sensor cameras. That's why I have a D3 on order...

This is the issue with buying such a lens used. What you describe is nowhere normal. It needs to go back to Nikon for overhaul. As this is a very good lens you need to do this.