anand_raghavan1

Is there anything that holds these online merchants to their word about shipping time? When you pay for 1-day shipping or whatever, is it just a promise that you get, or are they actually liable for anything?

The website for the above lab is e-sixlab.com. It's located in the midtown area (on 10th st. between Northside dr and Howell Mill rd).

Another good lab in the same area is Moakler (www.moakler.com). I don't know anything about their large print capabilities though.

Ok, that clarifies matters up a little bit. Looks like my recommendation will be for the 5D, since he much prefers a smaller camera.

Greg, I'm actually not looking at any of these cameras for my own purposes. The responsibility of making a recommendation from the sub $1k DSLR market for someone else has fallen to me. Since this person has no existing lens line up to be loyal to, the considerations you have mentioned are probably not very important.

 

If it were me, I'd have to go for the Nikon offering having Nikon lenses. However, on second thoughts since all the Nikkors I have (or am likely to have), with the exception of the one AF 180 prime are manual lenses that wont meter on the D70 variants I might not stick to the Nikon. In which case, I would pick the Minolta 7D. I like its build quality which I think is superior to any of the other sub $1k alternatives, and in fact even like its slightly larger proportions.

Hey thanks for the responses.

 

I did actually see and hold a Minolta 5D yesterday at the local Wolf (eek..). They said they had just got it the day before (that makes it Friday).

 

Unfortunately, the sales rep said he had only one memory card and I could only alternate between the 7D and the 5D (Maxxum). So I didn't have a chance to look at the shot in the LCD in the two cameras simultaneously. Bummer.

 

Anyway, I confess I know nothing about digital shooting, and how important the qualities of the LCD are. Only what I have read. There are constant mentions of how you check the picture on the LCD and make adjustments. So I thought it may be important. Of course, if this is only used to check histogram (for clipping, tonal distribution etc..) or composition, I understand that LCD resolution is irrelevant. Please enlighten me on this aspect.

 

I thought the 7D was able to take AAs as is. Can someone specifically confirm this? I agree that this is not a big deal, as AAs probably don't last very much and in conditions where recharging etc are not an option, one must anyway have a mechanical camera backup.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post my questions. As the

topic says, I have three questions regarding the comparison.

 

1. How observable/significant is the LCD resolution difference between

the two cameras? I mean in real world usage. Are there any users of

the 5D who are hindered by the lower resolution LCD display on the

back? [or should my question be are there any users of the 5D? at all :)]

 

2. Is it not true that the 7D can take AA batteries (owing to an

integrated grip) while the 5D cannot? Would people consider this of

major impact? (Ok I know it's silly to ask you that, I can tell just

as well)

 

3. Are there any who have used the 5D and find that the 7D's expansive

outer body controls and dials would be more convenient, or any users

of the 7D who think the lack of these on the 5D would mean troublesome

mucking around with menus?

 

Thanks. Any opinions from users would be tremendously helpful.

Suggestions from non-users may be insightful as well.

By the way that is a good example picture Steve. Pleasant OOF areas if I may say so.

Steve, I don't mean to start any debate either. I was only saying that this is determined by physics and is fixed. As you have said, you may have a good estimate of the DOF on various formats, but the DOF itself is different for each (all other things being equal). This has nothing to do with film/digital.

 

For example, using DOFmaster on the web, if you look at these approximate numbers you'll see the difference. For 6x6 with an 80mm lens at f/2.8 focused at 6ft, the DOF is 0.42ft. For 35mm format with a 50mm lens (ok not exactly equivalent to the 80 of 6x6 but near enough) at f/2.8 and 6ft, the DOF is 0.73ft. For a 1/2.7" sensor (as in some digicams like the powershot A10) with a 7.7mm lens (equivalent of 50mm focal length) at f/2.8 and 6ft, the DOF is 6.42ft. The difference is quite clear.

 

The Ricoh (or your digital camera) may not have as small a sensor, but it is still small enough to hinder some shallow DOF applications. That was the gripe. Not to make a big deal of it, but things are as they are. Sorry if I sounded offensive. Not my intention.

Steve, if I may hazard a reasonable guess, you primary subject (the flower/plant) is very close by and the background (house) very far. Also, I don't know the focal length used (you may have cropped etc..). You agree that these two factors are very important to the apparent DOF you have achieved?

 

No one's saying absolutely everything will always be in focus in every situation. But saying that it will be equivalent to a large sensor (or film) camera in this regard is hardly accurate.

What? Nikon MF primes can't be metered on the D70? That's horrible! Anyway, I doubt that would be a consideration in this case as the DSLR is not for me and my Nikon lenses will not be of use.

 

Rather unfortunate thing about the Nikon registry. For long I had been wondering about the possibility of using some great M42 lenses (which are bargains) that are out there on the F3. Later I realized this would not be. I just like the idea of using some old lenses (good ones mind you) on my body. Wonder if there is any 35mm SLR camera system of any vintage out there that has a greater film-flange distance than the Nikon. But that's just an OT rant.

I appreciate both responses. I have of course considered almost all the other options available and arrived at these two by a process of elimination. The reasons are too varied and in some cases ambiguous, so I won't go into the whole thing here. The options considered were D70 (D50, D70s), D100, Rebel XT, *ist DS (DS2), KM 5D (7D), Oly E-1, Fuji S2 Pro.

 

As for the Rebel XT, I have heard of a dearth of suitable wide angle optics. The body itself feels rather cheap to me. There are other reasons but let's not worry about them.

 

Lex, I understand that the multiple wireless flash stuff works well with the D2H and the other strengths of the D2H are great too, but that camera is way out of the price range. Would your remarks hold for the D70 also?

 

Is anyone aware of a review for the Maxxum 5D. I can see the specs but not review (editorial or user). Has it appeared in any recent magazine issue? Thanks.

I'm researching the sub $1K DSLRs on the market to recommend to someone.

My knowledge of DSLR specific issues is not great though I do

understand things from the traditional film point of view. My own

opinions and reading have narrowed the choices to the D70 and the

Maxxum 5D (7D).

 

I have a couple of specific questions, so please don't feel I'm asking

for a blanket recommendation. Also note that I'm somewhat familiar

with the Nikon lens line up (especially manual focus) as I use it, but

not with the KM lenses. I mention 5D and 7D together because the

former is only just released and not much user opinions are available.

 

I wonder if anyone can tell me the greatest strengths of the D70

compared to the Minolta offering. I remember someone mentioning good

wireless flash capability but am lost after reading the myriad

specifications and details available. The strengths of the Maxxum are

clear.

 

Second, is there a strong reason to go for the D70s vs. the D70?

Please don't hesitate to be concise if you feel this topic of

discussion very boring. Thanks.

It's a rather special purpose lens capable of very high resolutions at specific reproduction ratios. Not suitable or very usable at all for general photography from what I can gather. Look at the similar thread in the Nikon forum. There are more explanations there.

 

These lenses are rare and expensive.

I have perused the KM USA website and looked at the parts. It does appear that the only option is to buy the FL-100 thing. I will still call them up to confirm though. It's very odd though, because the average life should be much greater than the use the machine is supposed to have got (a few hundred slides).

 

Another thing is that it came on once or twice and didn't most other times I tried it. I'm sure there are no other causes as I've verified the manual and checked for everything. I wonder if towards the end of its life, a fluorescent bulb comes on sometimes and fails to at others.

 

Thanks anyway.

Quite interesting. I'm going to get myself some glass mounts, hunt for a wide angle lens to mount on the P66S and wait. For a good slide to mount of course!

I understand your point Christian. But that wasn't what I was saying at all. I guess I assumed that 50mm and 80-90mm were still the normals for 35mm and MF in projection too. So when I said I was using a normal projection lens with the 35mm projector, I meant either a 50mm or a 60mm lens (those are what I have). I was comparing this with the 150mm lens on the MF projector. The image from the former is definitely bigger, very much so.

 

I understand that if I were to use a 90mm on the 35mm projector, it might be the same image size. Sorry if I'm not familiar with the normals for projection. My point, however, is that my observations are valid from a practical perspective. This is because you can easily lay your hands on a quality 50mm or 60mm projection lens for a 35mm projector at a very low price (at least on the used market). However, obtaining an equivalent lens for a MF projector (I guess that would be 90mm or so) is neither easy nor cheap. Not by a long way. So if you are looking to get into MF projection encouraged by the low prices of said equipment, and if projection distance is a concern, you are likely to encounter this hurdle without previously realizing it. You may end up in a situation where you get a larger projected image from a smaller slide, for practical/economic reasons. Of course, size is not everything and some of my 6x4.5 slides jump out better than most of my 35mm slides. Still size is one of the big merits of projection.

 

I hope I'm making myself clearer now.

I'm not very sure so don't take my word for it, but I think the P66 does not have a lamp dimmer. The P66S definitely does (as I have one). Are you sure there is such a thing as the P66E? There may be other differences, but I'm pretty sure they aren't very consequential.

 

As for scanning, you will have to check and see if your scanner's film holders accept the bare film or mounted film. This info should be available from a spec sheet. For example, the Minolta Scan Multi (I and II, I don't know about the Pro) accept mounted 35mm slides, but only unmounted MF film.

 

Mounting itself is best done in glassless metal mounts, in my opinion. Glass leads to all sorts of problems, and metal mounts are firm and help hold the film reasonably flat. But these mounts are not inexpensive and if you have many slides, you're going to run up significant costs. Gepe is a popular brand for metal mounts. I don't recollect accurately, but I think these will run you more than 50 cents apiece and maybe as much as a dollar. Another option is to use coardboard mounts. There are some that come in a self sealing variety, and are quite cheap. But the caveat is that these are meant more for storage/presentation etc.. and not really for projection. Their ability to hold flat in the face of a projection lamp is questionable. Also it's a bit of a pain to align and affix the trannies to these things. I use them for their economy.

A word of warning here. I buy into the argument that a 6x6 projected slide will yield a better image than a 35mm projected slide, all other factors being equal. But the point that we may sometimes fail to see is that all the other factors are hard to make equal.

 

For example, my projection setup allows a very small projector-screen distance. I have a normal angle projection lens for my 35mm projector. This gives me a huge image on screen. I have to place my 6x6 projector at the same place, but the lens is a short tele (as most MF projection lenses seem to be). This gives me a much smaller image on screen. Therefore I'm looking at a comparison of a small (relatively) MF image and a large 35mm image. I don't see a difference. Had I been looking at equal sized images, the MF quality would probably show. But as of now, the 35mm image sometimes seems more impressive by the sheer size.

 

The difficulty lies in getting a normal (or wide) MF projection lens. While MF projection seems to be available at small costs now (via the Kindermanns, Rolleis and so on), if you try to get a 90mm MF projection lens (of good quality) you wouldn't find it cheap at all.

 

I'm not discouraging MF projection. I like it very much and would do it again if I had to start over, but there's just that one thing you ought to keep in mind.

That is exactly what I looked at Walter. The FL-100 at B&H is $89. I would be glad not to spend that having just got the scanner. Also, Jean, I will check out osram.

 

Erik, is there a direct phone number for the Minolta parts department, or do I have to go through Minolta USA. Their website was down yesterday. I'll be looking them up today to see what they say. The lamp you bought for $29, was it just the tube or did it come in a black plastic holder thingy? I'm not sure the Multi pro and the Multi II are similar in this regard. I remember reading on KM's website that the Multi pro uses a cold cathode light source unlike the Multi II.

 

If someone else knows more, please be so kind as to respond. Thanks.

I recently obtained a Minolta Scan Multi II (f-3100) film scanner off

of you know where. After one use (consisting of 5 frames), the lamp

seems to have given out. The busy LED blinks a fast red, and the lamp

is off. As you may guess, I have contacted the seller about the lamp,

but I'm sure someone here can help me with it.

 

Do I have to buy the whole lamp-holder unit (fl-100) to replace the

lamp or can the lamp alone be bought separately? I'm afraid the manual

only says '3 wavelength hot cathode fluorescent lamp' to describe the

part, and I can't bring up a good match on google. As you may

understand, this is quite distressing. Does anyone have an idea what

the average life of such a lamp is?

 

Thanks in advance for responses. By the way, I have to mention that

KM's website doesn't seem to have any support on these things as such.

I tried to use the 'contact' page but KM's USA website seems to be

down today.

As noted by Torben, the CLE goes to 1600 ASA. But you can always dial in exposure compensation of 1 stop when you want to shoot at 3200. This works well if you are using aperture priority AE.

Actually, just out of commone sense I would say digital and water don't mix. Of course you are using a marine purpose bag, and film cam and water don't mix well either, but still...

 

Anyway, another thought was that I'd imagine a superwide type lens (15-24mm FF) might get a lot of use under and I see you have a 18-35. Do you think you have something comparably wide for your D70?

Sorry I have no useful input, but I gotta say that is a funny title :). I'm sure some people must already be smoldering without checking out your post. He He...

Damn! That Tintin edition minilux would make a nice (albeit expensive!) gift. Is it still available somewhere? Or is it like some insane collectible?

Oh! To actually hear someone being inspired by Tintin in real life! I guess fact is indeed stranger than fiction. Great idea.

 

Amazing you should mention this. Though I have no recollection of 'Tintin in Tibet', I did observe another instance of camera usage in one of the other books. I think it was 'Cigars of the Pharoah', or maybe 'The Broken Ear'. Tintin points what looks like a medium format folder at a perplexed native American Indian at point blank range. It's a truly funny sight. Was trying to speculate what this camera might have been. Any ideas?