ray_locke

Paul-

I think the Provia is a more neutral film than the Velvia 100F. Provia is probably the better film for daytime use because it handles contrast better than the Velvia family of films does.

I would also probably use the Velvia 100F at sunrise and sunset when it's warmer and more vivid color pattern would be better recorded.

I think you have the 81A filter use down from your comment about shade. However, I would probably NOT leave it on all the time. On days with blue sky and/or puffy clouds a polarizer will be a better filter to leave on all the time.

I would save the warming for cloudy days or open shade. Even at sunsets I would probably go without it since sunsets are already warm and I would use it maybe it very weak light.

Otherwise if you are willing to bracket alternate images with and without the 81A and decide on the light table.

Sounds like a good trip. Have fun!

I think the new Velvia 50 has much better contrast and accurate exposure than Velvia 100 (and that is 100 not 100F). Velvia 100 was a very frustrating film. I had a very difficult time getting a good image with it. I finally settled on ASA 160 as the best exposure, but was less than happy with the results that film delivered. It always lacked the color and luminosity of classic Velvia. If you are a studio photographer you might not notice but as a landscape photogrpaher working at the edge of the day, it was something that I noticed.

Chrome films like Velvia have strong contrast but Velvia 100 had one of the worst. Velvia 100F had better exposure and contrast but lacked the punch in the colors that classic Velvia had. Actually, I was even using Kodak E100VS as my chrome of choice after Velvia. It was a bit grainer than Velvia but it has good colors-better than either Velvia 100 or Velvia 100F.

By the two rolls I have used- the new Velvia 50 is better than both Velvia 100 and Velvia 100F on color, exposure, and contrast. It also appears to be better than E100VS based on two rolls on a sunny day. But I cannot say if it is as good as classic Velvia.

hopefully we will know more soon.

I managed to be luckily enough to run into the Fuji Rep at my photo lab and he

gave me a couple of rolls of the new Velvia 50.

Took them out and did some images one afternoon. Bracketed the images at spot

on with 1/3 and 2/3 stops brackets. Also bookended each roll with Velvia 100

and E100VS.

Looking at the results I was pleased, I have not had the chance to do direct

comparisons with the old Velvia but this is pretty promising.

Impressions:

Rating it at ISO 50 was spot on for me. I saw no need to goto a 40 rating like

I sometimes did in bright light with the old 50.

Gives great colors, detail, and sharpness.

I saw no grain with an 8x loupe. You can detect some with the E100VS but none

here.

It looked bright and colorful but in several images of blue sky, white clouds,

green trees and rocks compared with the E100VS it looked like it had a slight

green cast and the E100VS had a slight magenta cast. I liked the Velvia 50

better.

Both Velvia 50 and E100VS were better than Velvia 100 across the board.

I had been leaning E100VS as my 35mm film since I ran out of Velvia. I liked

it much better than Velvia 100 which never did it for me. Now i think I will

be going to Velvia50.

I am waiting to get some 4x5 sheets and then I can do a real test with the same

camera, same lens, and alternate sheets of V50, V100, and E100VS back to back.

So I cannot say if this is truly the "same as" the old Velvia but it is alot

better than Velvia 100 and at first glance appears to beat out E100VS in the

color department too.

Mostly film. Large Format Velvia landscapes, 645 Velvia landscapes, and 35mm E100VS....landscapes. I did pick up an XTi to play around with digital or for the time the images aint worth spending 4x5 chromes on. Kinda a fun toy.

But when the light is right-it's 4x5 time.

Just what I was looking for. Thanks.

Never can tell what the weather will do. Have been there in June and could not sleep at night it was so warm and then was there in another June it got cold.

This will help me pack.

Thanks again!

Anyone been to Yosemite this June (2007) that can report on current conditions

in the valley?

Temps look fairly normal but is it hot or cold in Yosemite Valley? Will you

need an extra blanket or a fan at night?

Waterfalls look low on webcams, are they?

With the lack of rain in the region are the skeeters bad this year?

Any insight would be great.

Thanks.

Phillip- I think you are right, especially on your last comment.

This is my first auto focus lens and it is a still a frustrating learning curve. It does pretty good at closer range about focus but has a tough time with infinity. Sometimes it seems right on and I get a crisp image, but others it seems like alot of lens blur. Especially when there is alot of sky in the image-it does not like sky at all.

I have tried manual focus and at the wide end and distant subjects it is tricky since the lens does not stop at infinity. However I think I get better results that way more of the time than the AF does.

My AF results seem to lack alot of detail I was hoping would be there. I am using an XTI and have all 9 focus points on. Maybe I should cut back to just the center?

Is all this just the nature of AF or is it sign of a bad lens too?

Doing more testing tonight.

They names they use for sensors do not equal math equations.

Small point and shoot models use very small sensors. Often just 5mm x 7mm or similar. A DSLR like a Rebel or All Nikons, Sonys, Pentaxs etc are about 15mm x 22mm. finally a full size sensor or a piece of 35mm film is 24mm x 36mm.

See more here:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Camera_System/sensor_sizes_01.htm

Thanks! I was a bit worried that I had a lemon for a second. Glad to learn that is normal.

Guess I am still trying to figure out this auto focus stuff. Who knows this AF thing might just catch on ;-)

I just picked up a Tamron 17-50/2.8 lens and I notice that the lens will focus

past infinity. Is that normal on auto focus lenses?

Specifically when I put it in manual focus on the close end it stops exactly at

the closest distance marked on the barrel. But on the long end it has the

Infinity symbol and a line that marks it. When I focus there at the line it is

at infinity, however it will go about 1/4" past there. When it does that

nothing appears in focus.

This is my first auto focus lens and I have never seen that on my manual focus

lenses for my Mamiya.

Is that normal for AF lenses? Is that normal for this model? Do I have a bad

lens?

Thanks for any insight.

If you are in Dallas try BWC. If you are in Arlington you can drop off at Arlington Camera and they deliver to BWC.

In Fort Worth I really like Barrons. They do good work and have the best customer service of any lab in DFW. Prices are great too. I can get same day turn around on E-6.

First off have a great trip the Four Corners are is wonderful. From the overlooks I used both moderate wides and short long lenses. 300mm worked for me. No it does not do closeups from the overlooks, but it will give you a good scene setting image.

Second, and please do not take the wrong way, IMO Canyon de Chelly is not that great of an area to visit. It is historic and scenic but the rules about canyon access and the signs at every overlook about break-ins of your car really ruin the place for me. This is a National Monument but not the pristine place you think about when you think National Monument. I waited for years to get there and was very disappointed in it.

Personally Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde are nicer places to be and photograph as is Hovenweap.

BTW-I also would put Acoma Sky City in the avoid category.

So, while I will not say don't go. I will say be sure to visit some of the other areas if you want scenery and Anasazi ruins.

Have fun.

I did one of those Seward day cruises some 12 years ago. I loved it and I think you will too. A very neat location. You will see neat seascapes and alot of wildlife.

I was using 35mm film and my long lens was a 70-210. That was decent for landscapes/seascapes, but probably not really long enough for wildlife-but it was all I had.

I would agree a something up to 200mm or 300mm would be decent. Your 50-200 will work but something faster would be a bit better. The problem with faster is they are bigger and more expensive. A 70-200 f/2.8 would be a great choice, but at least $800. A decent lens you might consider is the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro lens. They sell for about $220 and get good reviews. That would give you more reach. Note Sigma sells two versions of this lens and be sure to get the APO version. Like all basic zooms it aint the fastest but it will work and give you added reach.

A couple pointers:

Pack small. The boat will have alot of people on it. You do not want a big backpack, a small shoulder bag (or less) would be better so you can always have it with you.

Have plenty of battery power and cards. This is a scenic area and you will be camera happy.

Bring a rain jacket and even gloves and warm hat (sunglasses if sunny). If it is misty, it will be cold. If so most folks will stay inside and you will have the deck to yourself and a few other hardy souls.

If it is raining (it does this alot along the Alaska coast) have rain protection for your camera. At least a big ziplock and maybe a dedicated camera cover. BTW- the clear bags that bedding comes in makes a great camera rain cover. You can even photograph in them since they are clear.

Have fun!!!

I Spent some time trying out a few models at Best Buy. I reconfirmaed my belief that too many were bigger than what I wanted. Size wise I liked the XTi and D40x. I liked the XTi's menu structure better. I also printed some landscape images I had taken this last weekend with my point and shoot as 12x18s. Well I really found them lacking. Printed a few images I had taken with my friends XTi and they looked really good.

So,I decided that the XTi is the camera to go with. Took a big pause for thought but I am getting it and the Tamron 17-50/2.8

Now I can just take the 4x5 and the XTi and not worry about the other stuff.

Thanks for the input!

No I have not really ruled out the Oly or the Nikon. Ok, maybe the Oly is in 3rd place.

There are just enough things to dislike about all three to give me pause. I am hoping to gain enough insight to have one take the lead.

I was not aware of a aps-c sensor in a point and shoot. But still I want a camera I can set focus as one of the things I dislike about the point and shoot is it misses low light focus alot. I wish I could set it to infinity.

So really I am probably thinking Canon vs Nikon. Considering that most folks are using zooms the lack of prime support is not as big of a deal. I did like the crispness, color, and exposure of what the Nikon samples showed. And since that was something that turned me off about the Rebel I wonder if it was operator error, bad sample, or a combo of both.

The Canon lenses in the L and IS range often seem too big. Having an Oly OM I was spoiled by tiny primes with 49mm filters. Having 1-2 pound lenses with 77mm filters seem awefully big.

Now if the XTI would produce images as crisp as the D40X I would be sold, but hesitate to spend money to be a beta tester. Bad enough I have to do that with Windows Vista ;-)

Anyway, I know cameras are a compromise. I am just not sure which is the best compromise.

Thinking about getting that DSLR but not sure what route. I know you probably

see this question a thousand times a day, but please indulge #1001. ;-)

I still use 4x5 and for that matter medium format and 35mm on occasion.

However what I have found is that even though I often take all three formats on

a trip, I really use the 4x5 the most, or least when the good light happens.

So, I have been thinking why take all that extra luggage of excess formats and

also why have the expense of film when I use those smaller formats in less than

the best light? I have been using alittle pocket digicam for record shots of

locations, for email images, shots of friends, etc. I find it does ok for

email but really lacks detail in a print past 8x10.

I would like to replace the medium format, 35mm and little point and shoot with

a compact dslr. I am still going to keep the 4x5 but would like a better

camera for hikes, pics from car, etc. The 4x5 will be my main camera at sunset

for a landscape but I would like a camera that I can check composition with,

use quickly, a good hand holding on a hike, and get a decent print out of too.

I would like to be able to make a nice 12x18 and maybe even a 16x20 on

occasion.

Not that it matters but Iam legacy glass free so could go any way. I have been

thinking one of the 10mp DSLR's would be a good choice. A 5D sounds great but

the $2600 price tag turns me off and frankly I would like a smaller body-if you

carry 4x5 you understand. D80 and 30D also seem too big, or at least bigger

than I want.

So I have been thinking of a Canon Rebel XTI, Nikon D40x, and maybe an Olympus

410. I have looked at all three online, checked them out at a local camera

store, and read online reviews. All have pluses and minuses. Having a hard

time picking "the best" for me. Want a camera and lens that would give the eq

of about 28-100. Something compact and something that will not cost too much-

ok too relative- less than $1500 for a camera and a decent lens.

Rebel XTI seems the easy choice. I have a friend that has one and I have taken

a few images with it. He is a beginner so his settings might be off but I

found a lot of underexposure issues with images out of the camera. Really my

point and shoot had better exposure and built in color in the jpgs. He had

better detail. Also not really a perfect lens in Canon lineup (would pass on

kit lens) for me, so leaning Tamron 17-50/2.8. Like that I could use primes.

D40x. Seems to be a better holding camera than the Rebel. Love the color and

crispness of the sample images at DP Review. But, the lack of the AF motor

bothers me as I might like a couple of primes. The 18-135 lens sounds

interesting and seems to get reports of being pretty sharp.

E410- Like the size. Worried the 4/3 sensor is really too small and a

strategic mistake by Oly. Full frame 35mm seems more possible now than ever so

feel there is less future in locking into the 4/3 format. Got burned by Oly

when they pulled the plug on the OM system and do not want a repeat. If I went

this route I might get the kit lens.

So what words of advice can folks give? Does one option really stand out? Am

I splitting hairs and any will work?

Thanks for listening.

My favs are the 21/3.5, the 50/1.8, and the 100/2

Both my 21 and 50 are older single coated silver nose and I love them. The 100/2 is very sharp. The only "flaw" it has is a 55mm filter ring as the other two are 49mm.

I'll cheat and add that I also really like the 24/2.8 and the 28/2.8. I had both the 28/2 and 28/2.8 and I prefer the f/2.8 as it is smaller and stops down to f/22. I find that more useful than the f/2 of the faster one. Both are pretty sharp too.

Dan-

The Discovery is a great way to enter the Arca system. The Discovery can take the accessories from the other Arca cameras. It can even become an 8x10 (if you get the 8x10 frame and bellows). In a nutshell, the Arca system is very modular and the Discovery is just as modular as the rest.

It is VERY STABLE, smooth, and precise in movements. A wonderful camera to use. With due respect to Linhof, I like it better than the Tecnika.

The one downside to the Arca is carrying it in the field. The Discover does come with a nice case, but it is a pain to use the camera with a Lowe Pro backpack. All of that changes if you get a folding or telescoping rail. This is also a perfect example to how modular the Arca system is. Get the rail, and suddenly the Discovery folds like the Arca F field camera. And it does so for hundreds less. Add in a lensboard adapter and you can use Arca 110 or Linhof boards.

Ok, now you have all the functionality of the F-field for hundreds less. Get a used Discovery and save even more.

I find the Discovery can be used with upto a 210mm lens easily. You can maybe squueze a 240mm if you overhang the rail ends. On the short end, I have seen a 75mm used. You can still tilt all you want (base tilts) but rise and swing will be minimal at that focal length. If you go that short or use rise, consider a bag bellows for any lens shorter than a 135mm.

If you like what ARCA offers, the Discovery is a perfect way to get into the system

I am considering a week long trip to Death Valley early next year. Would

there be any month "better" than another of Jan, Feb, or Mar?

I know the wildflowers are always fickle and we need to see what the fall

rains are like. So, really when would the best chances for clouds, or snow,

or other sky features besides clear blue?

Ideally I would like to see the racetrack, badwater, the dunes, and the other

areas while camping.

My first thought was Jan 15-20 since I now get the Dr. King Holiday at work

and would only need four days of vacation to get a full week. Would January

be too early for any flowers (if they happen at all)?

Or would waiting until late Feb be better and just use that fifth day?

Most of the features you think of in DV are all about rocks so are flowers

just a rare bonus or a worthy goal in themselves? I know in Big Bend the

flowers are spectacular when they happen (they didn't this year), but the

landscape is worthy on it's own.

So when to got DV?

Thanks.

I have a growing collection of 4x5 chromes I would like to scan and I need

some advice and suggestions about a scanner or computer. I used to be able to

get scans done easily, cheaply, and close to home. But now it is a real

hassle, so I am thinking of getting a setup to do it myself.

My current computer is a 4+ year old 1.53 Athlon/1GB RAM/60GB HD/64MB Ge Force

graphics card/USB1. The RAM is already maxed out for the motherboard. It is

about time for a replacement but I am relunctant to buy another XP based

system, with Vista (hopefully) out in seven months. I have also thought about

switching back to Macintosh. I also thought about just getting the scanner

and waiting on everything else. But whichever way I go I do not want to

deadend myself with a choice.

My thought is a scanner like a Epson 4990, Espon V700, Microtek 1800, or

similar. I would like to be able to do 12x18" prints and maybe a 16x20. For

larger, I'll deal with the hassle of the lab and a drum scan. Actually

leaning to the 4990 since it can be had for $500 with color management

software and full versioon Silverfast. I have already ruled out the V750

since I will never be interested in wet mounting (a hassle).

My dilemma is to get a scanner now and just keep using the existing 'puter.

Wait to Vista for the computer and maybe the scanner. Go to an iMac.

After the utter PITA that it was going from Win98 to Win XP I would prefer to

keep everything native to one OS. And that is also part of the reason I am

thinking of going back to Mac. Of course Apple gets a nice premium on those

20" iMacs, so if I go to Apple I figure $2,000 for the computer but with a PC

I can get similar specs for $1000. Yes, I know the iMac has a flat panel but

I do have a nice NEC 19" CRT already. It is this dilema that causes me to ask.

Have even had thoughts of going to a two computer setup. A simple machine

(existing one or Mac Mini)for the internet and a seperate offline machine that

is just for photography (no firewall eating RAM)

So any suggestions on how much/which computer system to get and should I wait

or jump for a scanner is appreciated.

Jonathan-

I have an Arca-Swiss Discovery,purchased it last summer after using a Tecnica III field camera and finding it less than what I was wanting. I found field cameras were difficult to use with grad filters and wide angles like a 75mm(bed gets in way of both). So after alot of research I bought the Discovery sight unseen.

Wow, I really like it. It is very stable, easy to set up, very bright screen-even with the 75mm, it is everything I was hoping for.

With the standard rail (30cm) you have maybe 240cm of usable rail and that is with a little overhang. You can reverse the front standard (since it is modular this takes 1 minute) and get another 20cm. But I think a 210 is the practical limit, but you can just squeeze a 240 at infinity.

I was using the standard bellows with a 75mm lens and 135mm lenses. With the 75mm you have full back tilt, about 5 degrees of swing, about zero rise (maybe 10mm) and about the same shift. I have added the leather wide angle bellows and it gives all the movement and then some a Nikon 75mm will do (about 200mm image circle). It also covers the whole rail so it could be used with a 210 easily.

The standard bellows will do a 300mm easy (but you need the 25cm rail extension). Ken Lee says ( posted pics at lfinfo page) of just being able to do a 450 Fuji at infinity with the standard bellows. so you can use just the standard bellows with a 110 and 300, you just will not have full rise, but about every other movement.

The agony of Arca is it can be difficult to get accessories. I am trying to get the 171 to 110 lensboard adapter. Ordered in January and still waiting.......

Gripe number two, no backpack really fits it right. I bought a Super Trekker II and I do not like the fit. Camera is wider than the pack and it bulges. I am afraid the leather wide angle bellows (which sticks out just beyond the frame) will rub and wear prematurely. I could disasemble it, but do not want to for in the field use. I have the Discovery case, which is very nice and I store the camera in it while in town, but find a shoulder bag uncomfortable for a hike. Considering digging out my old Kelty external frame backpack (as in backpacking backpack)and using it.

I would love to hear suggestions about the bellows and a better packing option.

You cannot go wrong with the Arca, although you probably cannot go wrong with a Tachihara either. Knowing what you like does help.

Good luck!!!

Thanks. I have been over the Boulder mountain area in summer and that would be ideal except it is probably a little further than we can make it on that day. Cedar Breaks would be more within reason and we will probably shoot for that.

So many wonderful sights and so little time. Ah, to have unlimited vacation, instead of just a week off work.

BTW- Great image in the snowstorm, exactly what I would hope to find.

I will be travelling to Utah in the middle of October. I am driving

in and I have reservations for both Zion and Bryce but I have one

open night and am looking for suggestions on where to stay/what to

see.

I am looking for where we might find decent fall color. My open day

is the 8th. I have thought about the Mount Caramel Junction area

but have only passed through it once and did not stay or linger in

the area.

We have been to Page and that could be an option but I would like to

see some fall color if possible. I know we are a little early for

Zion Canyon color but maybe the aspens would be nice along Hwy 12?

We are heading to Bryce on the 9th and then into Zion. Bryce, and

the Ruby Inn are both booked for the 8th so I was looking at either

Kanab or MCJ. Again, it is for just one night and we will need a

motel (no camping-bummer).

Any suggestions on a town and area to see would be great. Thanks.

Jordan-

Congratz on your OM, they are wonderful cameras. I happen to own three myself and even though I am mainly medium format these days I still really like the OM system and plan on always keeping it.

For landscape I think a good kit would be a 28/2.8, a 50/1.8 and a 100/2.8. That is a nice range, very sharp, very small, they are all cheap, and all take 49mm filters.

I had the 28/2 and the 28/2.8 and frankly I like the f/2.8 better and so I sold the f/2 to a friend. The f/2 might be a bit better for hand holding in lowlight but for landscape I like small apertures and the f/2 only goes to f/16 while the f/2.8 goes to f/22. For me the smaller stop was more important than the bigger. Plus the f/2.8 can be picked up from KEH for about $100, quite a value.

Ditto for the 50/1.8 and the 100/2.8 both are sharp and can be had fairly cheaply. I think you could get all three from KEH for under $300, maybe under $250.

Now the 24/2.8, 21/3.5, and 35/2.8 are also nice lenses that take the 49mm filter but the 21 and 24 are a little more than the 28. The 35 is inexpensive but I think the 28 is a better lens.

If you like zooms look into a Zuiko 75-150/4. Again fairly cheap, decent image quality, and 49mm filter. Personally the 100/2.8 is a better lens and it is much smaller but the zoom gives you a little more reach.

With my OM kit I use a LowePro Omni Sport bag. It is about the size of a lunchbox and holds gear "briefcase style". It easily holds an OM with lens on 2-3 spare lenses, filters, film, etc. Small, light, compact, easily caried. I have even had 2 OM bodies with lens, 3 spare lenses, and still have a slot for filters and film.

Good luck!!!