chuck_t

<p>Ops, can't get the picture upload, let me try again</p><div></div>

<p>I have Window 7 with the latest Flexcolor installed 4.8.7. I have already done many white balance calibration, but I'm still getting the cyan cast on some of the white color spot like flower petals or a section of overexpose area. The cyan cast is randomly spoting on the picture. It shows on the preview and the final scan, too. I have no funny profile setup, whatsoever.<br />I'm going to attach a picture here</p>

<p> I felt something is fishy going on the Internet, you see even Ken Rockwell doesn't complain about the expensive Leica M9. But when Nikon D3x started out a little more expensive with higher pixel count, people are in rage. I remember there was no waiting list or shortage for the Nikon D3x when it came out. However, lots of people still waiting for the Leica M9, that is, a manual focus camera without AF focus, no Matrix metering, no zoom lenses available and no 5fps, no liveview and list could go on and on.<br>

One thing Leica is good at are the lenses. They are the BEST, but could easily break your saving, marriage and wallet. </p>

<p>If you really want to use the 35mm format, digital or film, for landscape photography, I would recommend digital Leica M9, Leica M2 or Leica MP with a used summicron IV 35mm lens plus a 24mm Summilux f1.4 lens. Forget about using 4x5 and Nikon because large format is a hassle to set it up and time consuming. Also, the Nikon lacks the micro-contrast, smooth bokeh and the smooth transition in tonality.<br>

The Leica M lenses is expensive, but it always hold their value over the years in the trade market. My 2 cents.<br>

If you do lots of sport and Marco, then you need to keep the Nikon.</p>

<p>I have the same black Bessa RF (rangefinder) with separate focusing and viewing window. I can't figure it out what is the top button is for? It seems that there is a spring under.<br>

I also wonder is there any chance of light leak from the red window on the back when I reel to the next frame??</p><div></div>

<p>The Voigtlander Bessa III is price at USD2250. The Fujifilm GF670 is around USD 2400. Fujifilm is now acting like the D3x.<br />Think about it, I'm comparing apple to apple here. Let's foget the bulky Hassy or other med format, just to be fair. For that amount of money, I could get myself a mint- condition Rolleiflex 2.8F, which could be use handheld in slow shutter speed and has a much better viewfinder.<br />Moreover, for half of that amount, I could get myself a mint- condition Bessa II with Color-Heliar lens and buy bunch of films.<br />The camera is limited to 5000 on the fujifilm GF670.<br />Why on earth would someone want to buy something that is not worth collecting?<br />One last thing, the lens is nothing special and it's not a Heliar design. It is the same old japanese lenses like Nikon, "Sharp but Harsh", unlike Germany made lenses. The old Rolleiflex 2.8f is better in B&W.</p>

 

<h2> </h2>

<p>It is sad, but it's true. Is it because the economy going down? I don't think so, because vintage watches are still holding their value and rising. Is it because digital? I don't think so and film is still exist. <br />We have digital watches and cell phone for cheap. How do you explain the vintage timepieces value are soaring?<br />Let take a look the following examples:<br />A. Few years ago, a Leica M3 over 1.1 million serial can fetch as high as USD1500 but now it is worth almost as same as other M3.<br />B. The Hasselblad SWC are selling for USD2000 in photo.net. The camera worth at least USD3000 dollars few years ago.<br />C. The Rolleiflex wide were sold on evilbay for USD4000+ three years ago, but nobody cares now.<br />D. The Hasselblad 1000f is generally a dog and nobody want to collect it nowadays.<br />E. The price on the Leica Noct f1.2 50mm lens doesn't seem to going skyrocket.<br />F. The Voigtlander BESSA II with the Apo lens is much rarer than any Rolex vintage sport watches, but the value is remain the same and usually less than a vintage Rolex sport watches. <br />G. Unfortunately, the Leica R is discontinued, but I don't see collectors are grabbing it fast. In fact, the body worth around the same as the Nikon F series (The R6.2 worth a little more).<br />H. The Linhof cameras 612 and 617 are also selling below retail value, and nobody want a Linhof view camera for what they should be worth.<br />On the other hand, vintage Rolex Submariner, GMT, Explorer are generally holding the same value. Sometimes, collectors doesn't mind rusty movement. This is like buying a vintage auto with rust under the hood.</p>

 

<p>After so many years of using the Leica M3, I have found out that I have been fooled by many people.<br>

Many people said that M is a compact rangefinder camera. It is NOT true at all.<br>

I recently got a mint R4s and I have realized the Leica R is lighter and has the same compactness and height. I also got a new old stock old cron from another store. Although the lens barrel is larger, but the weight is lighter than the Summilux on my M3. Both lenses height are also about the same; in fact, the R Cron is a little more compact.<br>

My conclusion is that people love the M, because they have never touch the R.<br>

Quality wise, Is the M picture quality really better than the R? No, they are in the same league.</p>

 

<p>I already knew that Bessa III folder is going to cost a lot due to the rise in Yen against the US dollars.<br>

LOL, for that price, I rather get a mint Rolleiflex 2.8F whiteface version on evilbay. Why?<br>

A. That is not a truely German design Heliar lens, it is a Fuji lens with a similar quality like the discontinued Fuji MF rangefinder.<br>

B. Folder camera easy to get misalignment and light leak. That's the reason why TLR became popular in the 60's and most folders cease production around late 50's.<br>

I hope Cosina could make us a TLR with Zeiss Tessar single coated lens for less than USD1600.</p>

<p>I found my an old Nikon FE folding booklet under the drawer. No, it's not a instruction booklet. It's a booklet showing all the great Nikkor prime lenses. Eg. For a 50mm standard lens, there are the f1.2, f1.4 and f1.8. Three choices to choose from depend on your need and budget. For 28mm wide angle lens, there are f2, f2.8 and f3.5 to choose from. For the wide angle 35mm lens, there are f1.4, f2 and f2.8 to select. Now for the tele 105mm lens, there are f1.8, f2.5 and f3.5 for photographers to choose.<br>

I could go on forever, because the booklet is loaded with prime lenses with few zoom lenses like enter in Matrix with all kind of weapons to choose from.<br>

From what I see on their new 50mm and 35mm DX lens, I got very disappointed. They have great digital DSLR, but their prime lenses are not even close to "serious". I really don't care how great their zoom lenses are, because landscape or studio photographers are still preferred to use prime lenses for lighter weight with minimize barrel distortion. The first impression when I hold the Nikkor AF-S 50mm lens, I ask myself "Is this a joke"? Even the Sigma 50mm is sharper with better construction and it is "Made in Japan".<br>

Let's fast forward and look at the Leica S2 for comparsion. They have 9 professional primes lenses to begin with the new digital camera and four of them are leaf shutter lenses for studio use that is capable to have the max shutter speed with studio flash. Their constuction are Aluminium plus ASPH design that is tack sharp even on wide open. (I know there is no test sample yet, but I know Leica ASPH M-lenses are really sharp even on wide open and the bokeh are far better than the Nikkor.) <br>

However, the price on Leica S2 with one standard lens is "Ouch", but the Leica did their homework.<br>

Leica offer a complete system, Nikon is customize "only" with limited choices. </p>

I don't get it. Why don't you spend around $200 dollars and purchase a used Nikon camera like the old F2, FM or FE with a prime lens like 50mm f1.8 The Nikon lenses are fully forward and backward compatible. Thus, save you the trouble. Honesly, you should get her a Nikon D700, too. I know it is expensive, but film is for the basic and digital is for her future career. With the old 50mm lens attached plus a recent new computer, she is all set for the path to become a photographer. You are lucky that she is not interested in playing piano. LoL. A piano costs much more than a camera.

 

Later on, also get her a Nikon 55mm f3.5 Marco lens for around 99 bucks on ebay. May be cheaper, don't destroy her dream.

The new Nikon D3x official announcements didn’t make my eyebrows rise, the price does. I really didn’t want to give

a rant here, because I devoted to use Nikon in almost ten years and I have also purchased of the D700 recently. I

was thinking to get the D3x for the price of US$6000-6500 and that was what many were guessing.

 

Okay, you may thinking Nikon will bring the D700x or D800 to compete with the Sony A900 and the 5D mkII, but I

doubt the price will also be cheap.

 

Nikon D3 to D700 is US 2000 dollars less; I think the D3x to D700x or D800 will also be US 2000 less. That is, it will

cost US$6000 dollars for a D700x.

 

The feature is still 14 bit with same AF focus, etc. The practical ISO is up to 1600.

 

Well, many of the pros are saying they either wait for the price drop or rather get a digital back.

 

What scare the rest of us are the rumor MX, many were saying it could be under USD 10,000. Unfortunately, the

price will be close to the medium format or Leica S2, if the beast does exist in the near future.

 

Everyone pretty much agreed the 8k price is dead. Now Nikon does this. What a surprise.

 

LoL, I can get the whole set of the lens and system with US$8000 from Sony:).

Yeah, thanks for the response. I sometimes still use flash to get rid of the shadow on people face. D-lighting will not help to get rid of the shadow completely. For indoor shot, it depends, but I prefer using a fill flash technique instead of full power and wash out other indoor light sources.

Remember the old wedding days? A wedding photographer holding a Metz 60 CT-4 handheld strobe with a Nikon

F3HP.

 

The Metz 60 is discountined because it's replaced by Metz 76 MZ-5 digital, but I don't see it often nowadays.

 

And then there was a D-lighting feature in Nikon cameras that make you wonder what is the fill flash for anyway.

 

In photography 101, we have been taught that it is always better to use natural lighting source instead of the "harsh"

flash lighting. That's why some professionals are using reflectors instead of a flash unit when shooting a model at

outdoor.

 

If money is no object, would you still be using a handheld flash? Is it necessary at a wedding?

I understand that the D700 viewfinder is 95%, but it looks more like a square instead of a rectangle. If any of you

compare it against the old FM2, FM and F100, which are also less than 100% view, you will know what I'm saying

here. I found out that holding the D3, FM2 and D700 side by side, the D700 viewfinder does not give the feel of using

35mm camera. Thus, this may affect how we, photographers, compose an image.

 

Does anyone has the same feeling or am I alone here?

I went to Katz eyes optics website and nothing mention for the Nikon D3. However, the Nikon D700 split-image

screen is under development.

 

I remembered lot of photographers rave about the katz eyes installed in their D2x and D200 back in the old days.

However, it seems no one care now. What's going on here?

 

I still found the split-image screen is useful on the manual focusing.

No, a leaf shutter lens is expensive and rare on the Mamiya 645. The shutter requires extensive overhaul after a year of use and easy to have problems. I recommend to stick with what you have for now.

I have a Bay III Rolleiflex UV filter. But when I compare to like B+W or Nikon UV filter, the Rolleiflex has the

yellowish tint. Is it normal?

The Fuji Reala ACE is a Japan only film and Fujifilm does not export to other country. I want to give it a try in 35mm

and 120 but I can't find any of them online, included evil bay. I also don't know how to read Japanese, so I can't order

it from Amazon.jp

 

I also have hard time finding the Fuji Reala in 35mm. Places like BH and Henry are out of stock, still.

 

Please Help, any experiences with the ACE?

A friend of mine thinking to get back into photography instead of Nitro RC buggy racing. He had a few Pro Nikon AF

glasses. He likes big prints and he's interesting on the D3 but concerning the depreciation on the camera. Looking

back the history, the D2x was originally cost USD $4499 but now, it is even difficult to sell it for USD $1500 dollars.

He knows that the D300 supercede the D2x in everyway. That's like USD$ 3500 lost within the four years time

frame.

 

He doesn't like the D700 because it doesn't give a solid feel in his hand plus a dimmer viewfinder and less dynamic

range tested in dpreview.

 

He wants a Rolleilfex 2.8F. The Ex+ Rolleiflex 2.8F are mostly cheaper than a recent Mamiya 7II on evil bay.

The Fuji rangefinder is another option, but he's an old-timer and he had a hard time looking through small

viewfinder. He preferred to use a Rolleiflex with prism. He also knows that he only shot around 20 rolls of 120 film

within a year, because he had a Rolleiflex before. He calculated the cost of 20 rolls within a year plus lab developing,

the total film cost included the Rolleiflex itself are still far cheaper than the depreciation of D3 after the next four

years time frame.

 

Of course, I suggested him to buy a Rolleiflex, it's a no brainer, since he had experiences with it, too.

 

The funny thing is that with a Rolleiflex, he said that he will miss a lot of opportunity with kids or family gathering

shot. That's the reason why he sold the Rolleiflex in a first place. That's the only thing he hated about using old

fashion MF camera, digital or not. He is not impress with 35mm film quality after he saw what the D3 is capable to.

However, buying a D3, he will NOT use enough to justify the cost.

 

Yeah, he's an old-timer, around 50, that's why he calculated the depreciation against film cost. Young generation

don't do this kind of thinking anymore. :) Tough choice!!!

Does the majority of photographers really abandon Med format and gone to digital DSLR and digital back?

 

A used Hasselblad 500cm kit drop around at the USD 500 mark; however, 503cw are still very expensive. From what

I have read in many photo forums, photographers have abandon 120 film and migrated to digital because their clients

want digital. Therefore, the Hasselblad 500cm is dirt cheap on evilbay.

 

It's true, but only half true.

 

What I found interesting are from what I read in dpreview in months, on the Canon forum section, some 1Ds MarkIII

owners still use Fuji Velvia 50 with a Hasselblad on landscape, because it had a 3D look and crisper. (Keep in mind

the 1Ds MarkIII has a 21mp sensor.)

 

The Hasselblad 503cw body, 100mm lenses, 60mm lenses, 50mm lenses, 120mm lenses and all CFE, CFI lenses

are still holding their value. Plus, the Rolleiflex 2.8F and 3.5F white face or not are all going up in value in excellent

to mint- condition. The new Rolleiflex FX and FW or the old Rolleiflex Wide are still asking for premium.

Think about this for second. Isn't full frame digital DSLR already surpass MF film long ago? If it is a fact, all of the

Hassy and Rolleiflex should be dirt cheap right now.

 

I also believe there are people who especially use Rolleiflex TLR with close up lenses to do Marco shot. I don't know

reason behind this. Maybe some of you could chime in?

 

To me, it seems the high megapixel DSLR still can't beat a 6x6 film, especially against a Fuji Velvia 50 film in a

Hassy and Rollei. One photographer in dpreview claimed even with a digital back, it is hard to reach to the quality of

the Fuji Velvia 50. Interesting.

A lot of professionals said doing serious landscape shot needs at least a MF

or 4x5 on film to give the viewers "being there" feeling. I agreed because

most digital cameras still cannot match the quality of a 4x5 or MF for large

PRINT.

 

But if one shooting 35mm digital and the file display on a 46 inches HD TV;

such as, Sony XBR series TV, it will looks better than a 4x5 or MF print. Keep

in mind a HD TV has only resolve 2MP of resolution.

 

 

Will the future "wet" or inkjet print become obsolete? (Keep in mind that we

already have "digital" picture display frame.) The Sony HD TV quality,

contrast and brightness is beating a print everyway as far as I can see.

 

I am talking about big format to display on wall, not those 4x6 prints for

family album as a tradition.

 

What is my point? Not the film is going to digital but I am afraid the fuji

paper or Kodak print is also going digital and replace by Sony HD picture

viewer or whatever that is.

The AF 80-200mm f2.8 (Non AF-S) version is selling for about the same price as

the fix focal AF 180mm f2.8. I do not understand the point of manufacture

180mm lens at f2.8 since the f-stop are both the same on the zoom lenses.

 

I never see a pro carry the AF or AI-S 180mm f2.8 nowadays. There is just no

point that I can think of, too. The AF-S version is sharp enough.

Around 10 years ago, many considered the Leica M and Hasselblad kit were very

expensive and not afforable. The cost was about US 2650 for the M6 with a 50mm

lens which was as same as the Hasselblad 500CM kit.

 

 

Now, looking into the digital system, Canon is selling their body for US 8000,

Nikon is selling the D3 for US 5499, and the Hassy H3D is 20 grand. Pros are

still buying them.

 

 

 

The worst part is that digital machines do not hold any value. I do not mind

to spend my money on any Rolex watches but I need to think twice on spending

my money on a pro digital cameras.

 

 

What I am saying is that I think camera companies need a solid plan to protect

our investment on pro digital bodies so it does not become obsolete within

three years. For example, a "trade-in program" like Valentine One company is

doing for the expensive radar detectors. What it does is that we can upgrade

our old Valentine One detector for a newer version one without paying the full

price.

 

 

A modular Nikon system would be nice, if there is a digital back that can be

change and upgrade for the future.

It seems like both cameras do not go on sale at 'bay very often. I wonder is

it because the pro are all using the H3D?

 

Mamiya price seems reasonable but the lenses are limited.

 

I don't intend to buy a medium format digital because I am thinking about the

Nikon D3, however, I want to buy a camera to do landscape and wedding

photography. A lot of people said that Nikon D3 is not a camera for landscape.

Gee...