lukep

<p>I have been puzzled to discover spapsort.com is rating the K5 way over the K5 ii s. I presume they just don't feel it is worth the extra wedge. Nor do they expound on any advantages of the ii s.</p>

<p>It isn't THAT clear because I have used medium format plenty (and small, and large). Medium format has a place sure, but it's a shrinking one. Want to deny that? 645D will be dead as a dodo when the next 46MP Canon SLR comes out.<br>

The reason I don't use it any more (even though I would like to) is because it is expensive, cumbersome, with limited versatility and the comparative advantage it offers in image quality is ever shrinking compared to upcoming small format systems. Still, I would like to see the format modernised into something more applicable and more affordable. That was the point of posting this.<br /> We have ditched the video idea on this. You didn't read through. So sorry to have offended your sensibilities with my suggestions. I am nearly sorry I raised this post.</p>

<p>Why limit yourself to the 5D as a choice? The 5D mark one was THE camera to have (for anyone outside sports) about 6 or 7 years ago. It has been surpassed in terms of image quality by many many cameras, even in the APS-C sensor range. If IQ is what you are after there are many more options to consider within the same price bracket.</p>

<p>OK, well maybe we have to ditch the video and make it a purist's stills camera. I don't understand too much of the electronic niceties of CMOS sensors.<br>

More than ever, with flops like the K-01 and GXR, MF digital is the biggest remaining strength Pentax Ricoh has. As good as the K5s and K30s are they aren't going to threaten the big boys.<br>

But that sensor sure has a lot of mileage left in it. I would love to have access to it. It's way over my budget right now. Putting it out in a chopped 'boutique' body for half the price I think would be awesome and I would be willing to sacrifice a little in terms of ergonomics and write speed, and so forth to get that ultimate image quality. Clearly some improvements in write speed would be nice.</p>

<p>With the likes of the D800 and soon-to-come Canon retaliation, the 645D's days are surely numbered. Pentax have recognised this by slashing the price lately. The advantages in image quality are getting more and more marginal and less worth the extra £4K you pay over a D800. Soon the 35mm sensor cameras will probably surpass it.<br>

<br />Where can Pentax go? Well they could escalate their sensor and come out with a 645D II with 60MP, either at the same size or beef it up to 645 frame size (56 x 42mm or whatever it is). This is possible, even likely, if Pentax is serious in continuing its MF range. Its time will still be limited though with the progress that Canikon are making.<br>

But how can Pentax sidestep the threat and respond with an out of the box market beater? Well how about a mirrorless MF camera, taking the fantastic 40MP sensor out of the 645D and putting it in a slimmed down hyper-modern mirrorless body, with an EVF (no K-01 mistakes) and live view. Keep the mount, so it can use all the old lenses. Add a 4K video mode and 2.5 fps. Suddenly landscapers, studio-ers and film makers are salivating. Put it out there for £3-4K and, well... wouldn't it be a world-beater?<br>

<br />I picture it in a sleek white avant-garde body (keep Mark Newson away from it though), and call it something like the Pentax Eye. What do you think?</p>

<p>I think the issue is that most people do not exceed the capability of the camera they already own before getting the new one. That said, for a professional, having something that is truly reliable is absolutely paramount.</p>

<p>I was going to make a thread about this but I'm glad you did spot it too. It is indeed photo phishing at its most brazen. Sadly a lot of (perhaps older, or younger) photographers will not read the rules and fall into it. These people are laughin: "we'll shell out 5 grand and gather 100,000 photos with free usage rights in perpetuity to fill all our guide books and materials." It's 5,000 for an overnight photo library of their own. How sad. Please please stay away from these things. They will destroy what is left of the photography industry.</p>

<p>This camera is not bad, especially at the prices you can get it for these days. I am not sure about the digital back situation, but if there are backs out there that will work with it it would seem like a particularly low cost digital platform to work with, with a lot of lenses available cheap on Ebay.<br>

Now, for build quality, you notice with these small Mamiyas, they are not Rolleis or Hasselblads. They feel plasticky and a teeny bit cheap if you don't mind me saying so. They do the job though. There are two prism heads - a metering and a non metering. Now, it depends how considered your photography is. If you don't mind pokin about with a light meter, the non-metering prism is fine. Otherwise get the metering one, for more money of course.<br>

As for the lenses, I think Mamiya glass is pretty good. However, if I compare side by side, grain for grain with my Nikon 35mm lenses, they are not as good. i.e. the Nikon glass is sharper IMO. To be expected. Nikon have invested '000s more man-hours into developing '000s more lenses than Mamiya. But Nikon can't give you 6x45 frame size, so that's the trade off. From my experience also, build quality is an issue with the lenses. Of four lenses I own, one works fine with good image quality. One works, with soft focus problems, two do not stop down (the little sprung lug has gone that shuts the diaphragm). I bought them all second hand, for not much money, but it has been disappointing. There is no point in repairing, since they can be bought cheaper off ebay. Mamiya have told me to service an 80mm costs £60 + parts, handling and VAT. No way! These quality issues and the age of the system now would give me grey hairs if I were a pro and this my only tool.<br>

As MF SLRs they are a good purchase. Lenses are affordable, you can get polaroid backs, lock up the mirror and change backs. ie. all the versatility and control a MF SLR should give you in a compact, affordable package. As such, there is a certain future-proofness about them. MF image sensors are starting to be popular, but don't look like exceeding the 645 frame size, possibly ever. No need! This is making the RBs, RZs etc. start to look sluggish and obsolete... not the 645s.<br>

Ultimate image quality-wise, you will do better with a Pentax 67 or an RB 67 or a Mamiya 7, or a Hasselblad. But you'll pay more, and lose some of the compact control the 645 super gives you.</p>

 

Well, I'm about to do my first experiments with a Zeiss Ikon Nettar 6x9. But to do panoramas

I wouldn't bother trying to run 35mm through it. I'll just crop the 120.

It sounds like you are doing right. If I remember correctly there is a circular catch around the

base of the rewinder. You basically twist this a little and then lift the rewinder. It should lift

about 1cm and pop the back open.

Does the thing lift up at all? If it is coming up have you tried gently pulling the back (it may

be sticky). If it is not lifting at all then I think you are not twisting the catch properly, or the

thing is jammed and needs a service.

Phase One back?! Well I'd sure as hell get as much power as I could, but then I do use

layers, filters, and the rest and we'd soon be talking 300Mb files. If you don't then all well

and good. The other question is if you keep several programs running simultaneously.

Then you need more Ram. Also bear in mind the obsolescence factor. A slower machine

may run today's software fine, but will it run next year's? How long do you want to keep

the machine for?

As far as Mac v PC goes...

You save a hell of a lot of time and headaches, in system crashes, maintenance, updates

etc. Mac also has built in firewall so you don't get hacked by worms every 3 seconds (and

the vast majority of viruses affect only windows).

You get OSX - the most solid, easiest and prettiest operating system ever built!

You also get more refined colour management.

I will never EVER, willingly use a PC again in my life... (unless apple buys microsoft

perhaps)

Definitely get a Mac. Someone posted a very valid point about waiting for CS3. This would

be wise. If your budget stretches then a 20 or 24" iMac will be your all in one solution. I

would recommend getting the 2.33 GHz over the 2.14 as it wil surely last you longer (you

pay extra for this custom upgrade) and as much RAM as you can cram in (actually 2GB is

porbably sufficient - I make do with 1!). If you are really on a tight budget and especially if

you want to get a third party monitor, consider the tiny mac mini. As far as I know they

have maximum memory of 2GB RAM /160GB (customised) hard drive which may be

sufficient for your purpose. They also have the slower 1.83 processor. You have to work

out how much the saving is after all the upgrades and see if it is really worth it. Good luck

and whatever you do don't get a windows pc. Please. You'll do yourself more favours than

you could know.

I meant Pico knows what he's talking about.

I'm sure Nathan knows what he's talking about, but I would say there is a strong case for

using levels. It's the only accurate way I know of optimising the dynamic range of an image.

You can't see a histogram with curves. I typically adjust levels channel by channel.

Addendum - Having installed Vuescan on Mac OSX the scans are considerably better. The

images are noise free and the software allows you to capture more detail from an original.

They do remain a little soft however.

I want to stress the glaringly obvious here - if the nikon d50 feels cheap, isn't that

because IT IS cheap?!! I think it's about the cheapest deal you can get in a DSLR, and to be

honest, for the price you can't complain. I bought mine because it represents value for

money. It lacks a few features - LCD illuminator, DOFP, PC socket..., but aside from this

you're getting performance of some cameras that cost three times as much. I handled a

D1X today for the first time- and coincidentally a 5D. The D1X is very sturdy, but feels

like it came from the jurassic. The D50 seems to be a much more evolved creature. As for

the 5D, it does feel expensive, but not 7 times as expensive as the D50 (which it is).

This is "good" to hear. I will try this. Was thinking I would have to replace the lens. What a major oversight by Mamiya!!! The mind boggles.

Have been experiencing similar problems with my 645 super. When using 55mm lens, and using hyperfocal scale at f16 or f22, and crucially keeping infinty mark within the scale markings, everything in the distance is blurred out. Is it the scale or do I need the lens serviced. Seems to me a wide angle stopped down should cut diamond.

I wanted to post this review for other who are considering this , on

paper, attractive compromise scanner for photographers.

I bought one about a month ago as a replacement for my Minolta 5400

which produced lines on scans.

The reason I went for the Epson - a resolution over 4000 dpi, which

I need for library submissions that require file sizes (TIF) around

50Mb. 4000dpi is the minimum that can get 50 Mb from 35mm film.

Also, because I shoot rollfilm and this scanner can scan all formats

up to 5x4.

 

I use a Mac powerbook G3 500MHz with Mac OS 9.2

 

I researched the purchase on the net as best I could but have

discovered a few nasties.

 

1 Nobody mentioned the TERRIBLE NOISY SHADOWS

 

After seeing crisp, clean shadows on the Minolta I am quite

horrified by all the artifacts that appear in the dark areas. This

is largely due to my inability to multi-sample.

 

2 Nobody mentioned you can't multi sample

 

This is kind of necessary to eliminate shadow noise and random noise

from a scan. My preference would be a 4x pass (which should

eliminate half the noise).

 

3 Didn't realise Vuescan won't support this scanner. Now, this only

applies to my OS which is older and the Vuescan version I use is no

longer updated for this scanner. I would have to upgrade my system

and buy a new version of Vuescan.

 

4 Visibly soft. I directly compared the same image scanned on the

Monolta and the Epson and there is a visible difference in

crispness. To be expected for a flatbed.

 

5 Terribly long scan times with ICE. Though ICE is a wonderful

feature, it takes 26 minutes to scan a 35mm tranny at full res. I

have grown so fed up of this I have taken to switching it off. It

actually takes me much less time to spot out an image in PS as long

as it is relatively clean. It takes 6 minutes without ICE.

 

6 Neg holders are flimsy things, that do not inspire a lot of

confidence.

 

7 Due to the nature of flatbeds, there is a tendency for the glass

to get smeared and dusty. Something you have to be careful with.

 

8 Banding. Other people have mentioned banding problems with this

scanner. I notice it occasionally. Not always, and usually feintly.

 

9 Flare. I'm not sure if this is the correct term for the phenomenon

of higlights leaching onto adjacent shadows. Very prononced for

example, in areas of black next to white. Multisampling should help

this, but I have to retouch this carefully in PS - a pain.

 

On the plus side:

 

1 Workflow is enhanced with the ability to mount 8 35mm

transparencies at a time or 24 in film strips, or half a dozen 645

frames.

 

2 It's economical. I paid more than I should at 320 GBP as I needed

it in a hurry. You can pick them up for as little as 260 if you shop

around, half the price of the Minolta.

 

3 Multi format and all the functionality of a flatbed thrown in.

 

4 Software bundled with it is very user-friendly. I use the Epson

version more often as it supports batch scanning. This is not

possible on Silverfast (or at least, I have not discovered a way to

do it yet.

 

5 Colour accuracy is good. I have had to make minimal colour

balance/hue corrections for most scans. Especially good with

negatives. A major improvement over the minolta which I never colour-

profiled properly. That was terrible with negs, out of the box.

 

6 No need to focus. This is a crucial part of a dedicated film scan,

but unnecessary here - saves time.

 

 

In conclusion I find the lack of multi-sampling and the levels of

shadow noise undermine my confidence in this scanner. I am waiting

to see if the scans I have made are acceptable to libraries. Whilst

the scanner is an affordable compromise I don't see it as a truly

professional tool.

Epson are launching a replacement, the 4990. I don't know if this

will be better. When I first read about the 4870 it seemed too good

to be true and I think it is. It has not solved my scanning needs

adequately.

 

I think there are two reasons you will find the entries in the fine art category

unsatisfactory.

 

1 Categorising photographs is not a precise science. Some photos just won't

fit in any of the available pigeon holes. I find myself resorting to the fine art

category at times when I am just at a loss as to what category to go for. For

instance the "travel photography" category I believe to be a lie. What is "travel

photography"? e.g. one man takes a photo in his home country - it is a

portrait. Another man takes the same photo but he is from another country - it

is a travel photograph...! Where is the line between "street" and

"documentary"?

 

2 Art itself defies adequate definition and there is no necessity for the photos

in ANY category to be wonderful. Tha bad as well as the good are welcome in

all of them.

 

Happy new year.

"If the images produced are satisfactory to the owner, and the camera continues to produce those images, how would the camera be obsolete? Outside of a marketing strategy, that is."

 

 

Photography, like any other tech-based pursuit is competitive and progressive. If you stick with old stuff you aren't gonna keep up with the herd. No point dragging around a view camera to cover a civil war; no point using 8-inch floppies to store your images; no point making a movie without dolby surround.

What is "satisfactory"? To me it means good enough to match up to current standards.

2 ideas to try.

1 - check out the Association of Photographers' website (AoP). They have price guidelines I believe.

2 - go on to alamy.com and do a moch purchase of a photo for a similar usage. That will give you an instant price from a leading photolibrary.

Frank

 

I would go for TMax 400 CN as a preferred choice. It's got realtively great grain and is very versatile. You can push it +2 no probs if you need and then develop it anywhere! But if Delta is your thing then fine.

It's true what they say - UK is mainly grey, heavy low cloud, occasional rain, but rarely very heavy.

Light can be very diffuse and flat, but skies can be so BORING. So I recommend a grad to balance things out a little. THese days when I shoot B&W I almost always use an orange filter. Gives bounce to pictures, especially useful in flat light I find.

Scotland is where you will have most fun for sure (if you can get to the Highlands - it's beautiful up there, and the west coast too - Oban, Skye, Glencoe, Kintyre, Arran, Lomond. Wonderful for landscapists and most likely covered in snow around now (higher ground only).

But then, you can be totally surprised. You can wake up one day and find it's a beautiful sparkling frosty morning with a pale blue sky and fresh apricot light. Keep an eye on the weather forecasts. BBC.com has a 5 day forecast which is pretty good.

As I'm sure you'll know we are almost at the winter solstice and in Scotland the days can be very short indeed. So get going early as you can in the morning. By 3 o clock there may be no light left.

 

Something I have been planning to do on one of those dull flat, contrastless days is take a tripod and some Kodak Technical Pan. It's really smooth stuff but incredibly contrasty so I'm waiting for the right moment.

 

Whatever you do have fun and give it your best. Regards.

Hmmm, points to ponder. Don't like the idea of never enlarging past 5x7. Whilst the film is still affordable I guess I shall try and make the most of it, cos quite frankly you can't enlarge most digipix much past 5 x 7 anyway (I know someone will disagree).

I bought a D70 (for a day then returned it - pocket was complaining) and found that I was always going to be stuck in smallish images with it. For now I want to go bigger. Going out with my F90 again somehow felt right - I knew there was going to be heaps more in the trannies than on the RAW file.

And I think I have a solution to the scanner problem - the Epson 4870.

This last point is very good and further convinces me that digital SLRs will not last as long as their film cousins (pound for pound or dollar for dollar).

An FM3A will last 50 years if it's kept away from nuclear test explosions but I doubt a D70 would. And this leads me back to the other fundamental point - no possibility of hardware upgrade of a digicam, so whether they can last 10 years or 50 years, it's irrelevant if they're gonna be obsolete in 2!

Why do none of them do this?

I think it would be superb to be able to buy a sturdy Nikon D2H or whatever, knowing that in 5 years when the next 20 MP sensor comes out I can subsititute it for the obsolete one.

OK, there would be more to change than just the sensor - but why not a self-contained component that slots in and out like a battery?