bob_mcbob

<p>Look at Derek's link (I'm apparently not allowed to re-post the url). Those prices are for a ready to use, pre-converted lens.</p>

<p>It's worth noting that these supposedly won't come with a finder, like the newer 21mm in M mount. A German retailer has them up for pre-order on eBay at about $550, which would make it $675 with a finder. Compare at $455 for the current version and a new CV mount adapter. The specs also list a slightly longer minimum focusing distance (0.5m vs. 0.3m).</p>

<p>Hopefully the price will be lower at cameraquest/photovillage. I much prefer the look of the newer CV offerings, and the ability to hold a filter would be quite handy.</p>

<p>I suppose I just object to the idea of paying so much more for exactly the same thing. The 1 gallon packages were only a few dollars more than the 1L ones, and they did 24 or 25 films at 1:1. Buying 1L packages almost triples the cost of the developer, taking it from insignificant (50 cents) to almost $1.50/roll here in Canada.</p>

<p>Yes, a silly reason, but I need all the motivation I can get to shoot, develop, and scan film nowadays.</p>

<p>The pre-converted lenses aren't HORRIBLY expensive compared the alternatives. $680 for the 90/2.8, $700 for the 45/2, etc.</p>

<p>I just got back into shooting black and white film after a long hiatus. I used to do a lot of Tri-X pushed in Microphen, which is a great combo. I know Ilford stopped producing the 1 gallon boxes, which makes it quite significantly more expensive to use. Even at 1:1 it's pretty expensive as b/w developers go, and I don't particularly want to start re-using developer. As a matter of fact, it's actually more expensive per roll than DD-X, which is just crazy to me!</p>

<p>Is there another speed enhancing developer I can buy in Canada (Henry's, Vistek) that would provide similar results? I will also be shooting Neopan 1600, which I've never tried before, so I'd be using it for that, too.</p>

<p>P.S. I still have a couple of unmixed 1 gallon boxes that I bought right after they were discontinued. Will these be any good?</p>

<p>Is there anyone who's tried the heavy duty flex arms and can provide an example of something that doesn't cause it to droop? The lights I was talking about in my original post are apparently only 1.3lbs. If there's another similar product that might work, I'd certainly appreciate any suggestions. It pretty much has to be this type of flexible arm, because anything with joints won't be any better than what I'm using right now.</p>

<p>Er, magic arms, that is.</p>

<p>I'd actually be happy to buy more magic clamps (price is not an issue), but I am working in VERY close quarters, and they aren't as flexible as the flex arms. I'm really interested to know whether the heavy duty flex arms will be any good.</p>

<p>I have a couple of Bogen magic arms supporting little Lowel Pro lights. I'd like something a bit more flexible, and the Bogen flex arms seem to fit the bill. I'm not sure a) whether they will support the lights and b) whether to get the regular ones or the heavy duty ones, which are less flexible. The lights weigh under 2lbs. Bogen says both the normal and heavy duty flex arms are only rated at 1.10lbs., which doesn't make much sense.</p>

<p>Could anyone tell me whether this setup will be okay?</p>

<p>Sad news. I remember reading about the fire at her house last year. I was actually thinking about it the other day, and meant to see how she was getting on.</p>

Traffic really seemed to go down when Phil Greenspun came back and removed the FD forums from the main list. Looks like things are picking up now, though.

 

I know my reason for not posting here recently is that I got into digital heavily with various Canon DSLRs. I still have my FD gear, but the only film shooting I've done over the last year is with rangefinders. I have a pretty huge backlog of film to develop and no time to do it right now.

 

I have been thinking of buying a cheap FD 85/1.2 to play with, since I don't really feel like spending $1800 on the EF version.

Why did you buy a micro drive instead of CF, Carl? I'd return it and buy a proper CF card if I were you.

On the other hand, the Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR is $75 cheaper than the Canon equivalent. There does seem to be a

trend of more expensive lenses, though, especially when you get to the superteles -- $7900 vs. $5800 for a 500/4!

 

One thing I really like about Nikon is that they don't shave every last penny off the low-end lenses to sell them

for a bit less. The Nikon 35/2 and 50/1.8 illustrate this really well. Canon's designs for these two lenses use

the slowest AF motors they manufacture and have pathetic build quality. I have always avoided the 35/2 because

of this, and I recently replaced my 50/1.8 with a 50/1.4.

 

Just to continue this a little further, I originally chose Canon for a few reasons. First, they have many

reasonably-priced f/4 zooms where Nikon only has expensive (and large) f/2.8s. Second, more expensive lenses

(especially superteles -- I plan to buy a 500/4 some time in the next couple of years). Third, Nikon Canada's

pathetic attitude to "grey market" items -- they won't even service an item bought in another country if you PAY

them (meanwhile Canon Canada and Canon USA share warranties!). This was a MAJOR issue for me back when I was

first deciding on cameras, since the exchange rate wasn't terribly favourable, and Nikon prices in Canada were

laughable even taking that into account. And finally, Nikon's distribution system in

Canada sucks. I ordered a D200 in December 2005, and still hadn't received it in March. By then I'd had time to

reconsider things and decided to go with the 30D.

Another vote for hvstar here. They have a great reputation, and I bought almost all of my filters from them.

You do have to be careful with the B+W filters, because some of the ones they sell have aluminum (alloy) mounts

instead of the brass. Their Hoya prices certainly show how inflated the cost of filters is. I made the mistake

of buying a couple of 77mm UV filters from B&H a couple of years ago, and I'll certainly never be doing that again.

 

The two filters you linked are identical. The same filter sells for $154.44 at 2filter.com. hvstar also has the

(discontinued) SHMC Pro1 filters, which have more coatings and higher light transmission. However, I've seen

comparisons of the SHMC and DMC filters, and there didn't really seem to be much difference between them (the DMC

was better in some tests).

The 245T has a PVA panel, and the LCD24WMCX has a TN panel, which I really want to avoid. I've been looking at the Dell 2408WFP, which is IPS, but I've read bad things about input lag.

 

To clarify, I am not looking for a large or fast LCD. I want something that will calibrate nicely with my Eye One and will only be used for photo editing. I was looking at some of the higher-end NEC LCDs, but I don't want to invest in a $1200+ LCD at the moment.

I've been having terrible calibration problems with the screen in my Thinkpad.

In calibrated software, blues are purple, and everything is garish. Otherwise

everything looks muddy and washed out. I've pretty much given up on trying to

use it for anything other than making sure the photos are framed properly.

 

Anyhow, I would really like to get a nice midrange LCD that I can use for photo

editing. I don't particularly care about having a huge screen, so 20-22" would

be fine. Something that will calibrate well (S-IPS panel), preferably no more

than $500-600. I looked at Dells recently, but they seem to have switched over

to mostly using lousy panel to sell their LCDs at low price points. I live in

Canada, so it would be good if I could buy it here, but I'm open to any

suggestions.

Answering my own question: "new flat plate with safe lock disk and hook"

What's the difference between the 3541LS and 3540LS?

<i>

Yes, there has been a change in the Quick Set Devices (locking knob or Flip Lock lever). There is now two dovetails. The lower one is for the camera bracket, the upper for the camera plates. I do understand your frustration since no visuals of the change have gone out. The change occurred in late 2007. I will forward your note on to ARCA-SWISS France so they do know your concerns.</i>

<p>

Well, now we know why they changed it, but I am not really all that happy. They say the design was updated in late 2007, but every single reseller is still using the old product photos. This change is only useful for large format users. For everyone else, it makes the Z1 clunkier and less functional.

The second photo comes from a <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/630371">thread</a> on the Fred Miranda forums. The poster was complaining about exactly the same things noted here, and linked to a photo he took of the head he'd purchased from B&H. I also found photos of the same clamp design in the quick release lever version on a French photo site <a href="http://www.galerie-photo.com/rotule-photo-arca-flm.html">here</a> (scroll down a bit).

<p>

I've e-mailed Arca Swiss and Precision Camera Works to try to get to the bottom of this.

I ordered an Arca Swiss Z1 from B&H last November. I have been using it

regularly since then, and I am extremely impressed with the way it handles. I

always thought it was a bit odd that the safety stops on my Wimberley plates

were useless because of a second lower dovetail groove below the main one. I

remember reading a post by a user with a similar issue, so I decided it wasn't

worth worrying about.

<p>

I've just been looking over photos of the Z1 to advise a friend on which head to

buy for his own tripod, and noticed that none of the product photos of the Z1

show the double groove. Even the-digital-picture shows two versions (one with

level pan lock and one with knob), and both have the same QR head. I don't get

it. I seem to recall someone mentioning that the lower groove is used for large

format plates, but I have no use for that. It just makes the head less

functional for me. It's also substantially different from what I expected to

receive. Is this a universal change in the AS line, or is B&H just selling the

wrong product?

<p>

<br>

Product photo:<br>

<IMG SRC="http://sig.fortepianos.com/as1.jpg">

<p>

What I received (not my photo):<br>

<IMG SRC="http://sig.fortepianos.com/as3.jpg">

Well, I drove to Toronto to have a look at them, but managed to arrive about a minute before the store closed. I got them to let me in and have a quick look, but I wasn't able to actually try them out.

 

I was definitely surprised by how light they were. Even though I knew they were CF, I was expecting them to FEEL a lot heavier (especially the larger one). The weight difference between them was not noticeable. The folded length length issue is a bit more complicated. The LS looks tiny compared to the XLS. However, because they're so light, neither was particularly difficult to handle. I'm not sure how much the extra length would affect portability. I'm just afraid if I want to carry it on a backpack or for any extended period of time, it might be rather bothersome. I am not too concerned about the carry-on thing since I doubt I'll ever take it as carry-on.

 

Since I didn't have a chance to actually try them out, I'm going to do some tests with the large Bogen tripods we have at work. It's pretty much a matter of deciding whether the LS will meet my needs; if not, I'll get the XLS. I've seen multiple recommendations of the XLS for anyone taller than about 6'3 (Wimberley and Arthur Morris of birdsasart.com), and lots of "the LS is perfect for anyone up to 6'!" remarks. We shall see!

 

In other news, B&H raised the price of the XLS by $50 on Friday. Hopefully they will price match Adorama and other stores as I'd like to order some other stuff from them as well...

The LS extends to 57.5" and folds to 21.7". The XLS is 78"/27.6". I'm not really concerned about either of them fitting in checked luggage. It's more carry-on and strapping to a backpack. Do you ever find the height of the LS restrictive? I noticed Wimberley specifically recommends the XLS for people 6'3 and taller.

<p>

<i>just order it.</i>

<br>

Which one?! :)

I posted last year on <a

href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NXCR">Tripods For Tall

People</a> and got some helpful advice. I've finally got to the point where I

feel comfortable spending $750 on tripod legs, but I'm still having a really

hard time deciding which set of legs to order. It's really come down to a

choice between flexibility/convenience and portability.

<p>

In my original thread, I was basing my choice on whether the tripod would get my

camera to eye level. I've since discovered that it's a bit more complicated.

Obviously there are a lot situations where the subject dictates the tripod's

height. However, there are many cases where it's preferable to have the tripod

at a comfortable standing height, such as long distance wildlife/landscape

photography. Furthermore, in these situations, you probably actually want the

viewfinder a few inches BELOW your eye level, so you can see the top LCD and

look over the camera at your subject.

<p>

With that in mind, it's possible the 57.5" height of the 3540LS would be

acceptable for most situations. My eye level is 71", and my AS head, lens

collars, and camera take up about 9". Aiming up at the sky or birds in a tree

would definitely require some stooping. I'm also concerned about whether having

the tripod legs at max extension would adversely affect the stability or

vibration damping, especially considering I am thinking of purchasing a 500/4 at

the end of the year. The major benefit the 3540LS has over the 3540XLS is the

6" shorter folded length (under 22"), which makes it much easier to strap to a

backpack or place in a carry-on bag. It's also half a pound lighter, which

isn't as big a deal.

<p>

What the 3540XLS has going for it is incredible height flexibility. It's almost

the same folded length and weight as the 3530LSV (a 3 section tripod), and with

three sections extended, it's about the same height. You get a further 20" of

height to play with for uneven ground, hills, overhead shots, etc. compared to

the average "eye level" tripod. Someone described it as "two tripods in one,"

which seems like a good description. Unfortunately, it's also 6" longer

retracted than the 3540LS. I'm concerned it would not be as easy to carry

around with me when hiking (short hikes) or travelling by air.

<p>

So, as I said, it comes down to flexibility/convenience vs. portability. The

3540LS is JUST ABOUT tall enough for level shooting on flat ground, but that is

at full extension of a 4 section tripod. It's also more difficult to shoot up,

and I lose out on the overhead aspect. With the 3540XLS, I lose out on the

portability over the sake of a few inches of height. It's frustrating; Gitzo

used to make a 65" tripod that would be PERFECT for someone of my height. Now

there is a big gap in their lineup for anyone taller than about 6'.

<p>

I've been thinking about this since my original post last year, and I just can't

make up my mind. Which aspect do I give up on? I want to decide today and just

order the damn thing!

I don't think anyone but Sigma would have replacement parts.