rick_jack1

Check ebay. Scientific companies like Edmund optical sell IR light sources and sometimes you find old equipment cheap second hand. Those cameras used by hunters at night have IR sources. Digital by far is the way to go these days. If your DSLR is modified with clear optical glass you can shoot from UV into IR. You then have the option of being selective by using a IR filter from 650nm (near IR with some visible red) to 1000nm (deep IR with near X-ray). Take note that your focus will shift. And removing the cameras filter and replacing it with clear or IR glass might through off the finders focus. Every lens will be different as well. You need to make lots of tests. But considering this all, you have a great project ahead. Have fun!

Sorry, but those images are not sharp.

2018: FUN - only 18 years ago better quality than 35mm, used several for my wedding business.

Congratulations! Ten years ago there was a valid argument for using film but with the latest ~50mp DSLR's and digital MF it does not make sense shooting film smaller than 8x10. But, you get what you pay for, if you want to match the quality that you are use to expect to pay $2000+ and go with full frame and good glass.

Unfortunately most of the equipment is as dead as the owners. Unless it's a rare model or costly APO lens the value is worth peanuts compared to finding it a home where it will be appreciated and used. The person who said give it away is right. Find it a loving home. I wish I knew someone (young) as interested in photography as when I was young to leave my stuff to. My sons don't have a clue what I have or how to use it. You can't take it with you.

The only thing wrong with it is ...it uses film.

Sounds like you bought a dud. Never buy a camera like that at a flea market unless your familiar with it and check it out first. Too bad, that is a wonderful body.

I don't think any of the major film manufacturers make 220, all the newer and excellent emulsions won't be available to you. You'll find 220 on Ebay, but you have no way of knowing if it is still good until you buy it. Fuji discontinued 220, I wouldn't buy that stuff from Japan. Stick with 120.

Stay away from the S2 for several reasons, It was last produced in 1968 and might have light leaks. The gears were not as strong as the S2A 1969-1976. The lens provided is not coated. Look for a P-C or H-C Nikkor. Lastly, for the price your looking at you can get a Bronica S2A which is a better camera. Brighter viewfinder, newer and probably in better condition, lighter and handles better, higher flash synch. 1/500 vs 1/40. Also a larger variety of lenses that are easier to find. Lastly, the newer the Bronica the easier and cheaper it is to service.

I edit every frame. How the heck do you wind up with 1500 frames, are you shooting the floor in burst mode? A typical 10hr wedding with 200 guests can easily be covered with 300-600 frames. I try to half that. It's subject and image quality that count, My customers appreciate not having to go through all these useless frames. Video is for that.

Why the hell would you want to do that and risk loosing images? It can be done but it's stupid.

Sorry, Choosing a DX body as backup for a FX body sounds like a mistake. But it depends what your doing. I shoot professionally and bought a 850 and turned my 750 into backup. If you already owned a 700 I would of said go with that. I find going backwards (to DX) to always be a mistake in life. Best of luck.

I carried a Rolieflex 3.5 F (Planar) for years, not only was it compact my images were fantastic.

Don't do it! A Tamron on a Leica defeats the reason you probably bought a Leica. Save your money and get a Leitz 24mm or wider.

Look at the D750 or save up more money for a D850.

The TC-200 is known to be a bit of a dog. The TC-14a is much better. If your intent is portraits your combination will work fine. The 200mm f4 (AIs) is a gem which is often passed over because of it's speed. Try to stick with AI or AIs versions, the optical designs and coatings are much better. In the case of the 105mm, the "P" and "AIs" results are like night and day unless you want a soft portrait lens. The AIs has better optics than the AI as well.

These days, only for fun. My DSLR is as good as 4x5. Back in the days of film the larger the negative the better and MF was always perfect for just about everything. I shot with MF professionally for years and do miss it. 35mm was rarely accepted by pros as a professional medium, 35mm didn't make clean 16-20's - 24x36" prints, MF did.

Nope, unless its $10. The 28-70mm AF-D is a much better lens for about the same price. I assume cost is an issue, otherwise without going to pro lens the Nikon 28-105mm AF-D and 24-85mm ED AFS (not AF-D version) are inexpensive and excellent performers.

I've seen Rollie MF profectors on Ebay now and then. They are not cheap but well worth it if you have 120 slides. I found a GAF/Ansco projector that holds one 6x6 frame at a time. It works but the lens is only fair in the corners. Regardless of the format the quality of your lens is important. I found a Leitz lens for my Kodak projector. I've also found that adding a black cardboard aperture disk, stopping the lens down to f8 made a huge difference in corner quality.

Any of the Quantum Q flashes will work fine. Forget about TTL, "friends don't let friends shoot TTL". You have more control and better results in auto. Multiple heads and wireless is the way to go.

If you find a lab expect to pay top dollar per print. I found a lab about 5 years ago that wanted $50 per 8x10. I am very satisfied scanning my 6x7 negatives (Nikon scanner) then having them printed. The advantage is I can remove any dust and scratches without paying for air brush work. I'm not sure if it still possible to acquire the necessary color chemistry to process your own. I did so years ago using Besseler RA4 chemicals, but I think because of environment issues it's no longer sold or your not able to easily dispose of waste. It was rewarding but not cheap. Best of luck, I'm sure you'll find labs in major cities (eg. NY & LA). Rick

A few pros that I know switched from 8x10 film to digital MF simply because acquiring film, processing, scanning, and handling time no longer made sense. Comparing a D850 to 8x10 film does not make sense. Each is a tool that has it's limits. I shot film professionally years ago, I would not go back.

The answer depends on how often you plan on shooting objects up close. For me I'd go with the 150mm and use a close-up lens or a extension tube if I wanted to get close. Optically both lenses are pretty equal at infinity. Since you said your not a macro shooter I think you already chose. BTW, the 150mm is excellent for portraits. MC get a bad rap, it's not because of it's optics, many have mechanical issues. Make sure the one you choose has a smooth focus travel through the full range. best of luck

Very nice image. I'm glad to see someone still using that lens. I wish I used mine more before I sold it. I found the 16mm to be more useful for my style.