anand_raghavan1

Andrew: extremely sorry for hijacking your thread. I was just plain annoyed at that fee and the moment I saw someone else mention it, I couldn't resist a little rant. The upshot of it is that UPS can go to hell.

Unfortunately, KEH doesn't deal with people as a storefront or I would offer to look up anything you wanted (cosmetically), since I live in Atlanta. It gets a little absurd for me, living 15 minutes from them I still have to ship to them if I want to deal.

Vivek, forget about the digital logic thing. I was being geeky. You seem to suggest that the performance of some lenses is different on film and digital cameras (especially high resolution lenses). I assume this is because of some sensor related issue. So long as it's that, I can safely ignore it (I have no digital cameras).

To Luis:

 

Like those pics. That cat looks lost.

 

To Vivek:

 

Why do you say for digital (when you say those lenses are great performers)? Is it because of the focal length range or some other special digital logic :)?

Pardon me if I'm asking a tangential question, but what is this brokerage fee? I recently bought some stuff from a canadian seller who shipped UPS. About 10 days after I received my package, I get a letter from UPS saying I owe them some fees, a large percentage of which is a brokerage fee. Now what is this and why should I pay it? I don't understand how I owe them anything, when I didn't know the cost upfront. Besides, if the fee was being charged to me at the time of delivery, it might still be not entirely nonsensical. How can I be charged now, long after the shipping procedure is complete?

 

I know this is not really a question for photonet, but my only excuse is that the items shipped were projection equipment :). If someone knows about this, kindly share your knowlegde.

This might be one of the most interesting threads I've seen on photonet for a while. I didn't know about Ariz. Hwys. I must check it out. Thanks.

Ok, I'll admit I'm quite illiterate when it comes to DSLRs. But this whole thing is confounding and I hope you can clear some things up by answering one simple question:

 

What is not there in a D70 that you want from this mid-range DSLR? Of course it can't have everything that's in the D2X, some sacrifice is necessary. In short, is there sufficient differentiation?

 

Besides, that Canon has a semi-infinite number of DSLRs is no reason for you to ask this. I speak from the user's point of view, not the manufacturers. Also, my question is from ignorance not from a desire to challenge your opinions. I don't intend to buy any of these products, only want to file away the information for future reference.

I know it's far from Philly, but it's quickly getting hot here in Atlanta. Other than temperature though, there are little signs of spring in this place. Not unless you count hot asphalt as one.

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. Waterproof cameras (like Nikonos) would have been a good choice, but I didn't have any and wasn't going to buy just for one trip. That said, I am definitely going again (and again) for this sort of thing.

I took the sane advice given to me and took no camera, which of course, I am thankful for. To Walang, I am not the the fretting type (though I might have sounded like that). Nevertheless I wouldn't have enjoyed losing hard earned equipment.

To others, the rapids were mostly class IV and some class III, or so I was told. It was great fun. Someone on shore took pictures, so it's really ok.

True. I already feel foolish. It's quite obvious that water would be all over any camera I take. I guess I was being wishful. It was the thought of projected slides, I can swear.

Hello everyone. The title says it all. But let me add a little

background. I've never been river rafting before and am going

tomorrow. Rather late to ask this question, but I was so swamped with

work this week it wasn't on my mind.

 

So what camera do I take with me? Or do I hazard one at all? Let me

admit straight away I'm scared that my equipment will meet an untimely

end in the water. Since I am a beginner at rafting, I won't be going

anywhere I require to perform mind-boggling feats. So is my fear

unfounded?

 

Recently I got rid of my 24mm lens (for a 35mm SLR). A 35/1.4 is my

only wide option left. I have no zooms in any format and want to take

only one body+lens. Besides, I mean to get rid of the 35mm too. So

that leaves me with a 6x6 SLR that is definitely not going on the trip

:), and a 6x4.5 rangefinder. The latter seems to be the most eligible

contender (what with a 60mm lens). Then again, I might be able to

borrow a little digital camera but won't be able to look at beautiful

slides on a huge screen.

 

There you go. What do you think I should do? A picture is worth a

thousand words, but is a memory worth a thousand pictures? (On another

note I'm sure it is, but you know what I mean..)

 

Hope to get quick responses.

Thanks Tony. I guess I'll just go ahead and try the Bair mounts and see.

The Bronica (6x6) is not too hard to use hand-held, at least with a normal lens. But if I were mostly traveling when I shot, I would fancy a rangefinder. Again, the two quality RFs with interchangeable lenses (the Mamiya & the Bronica) are not as cheap as some of the SLRs might turn out to be (SQ & Pentax 67). You might want to keep the Fuji RFs in mind.

I am not sure if this is the right place for this question. However,

has anyone used the cardboard Bair (self-sealing) mounts for

projection? I am referring to 6x6 or 6x4.5 mounts. Do you think these

may be suitable in terms of planarity, heat-resistance, etc?

I am asking because glass mounts are too expensive and I am unsure of

the whole plastic/cardboard thing. The Bair mounts seem nice and cheap

too.

It is a very small (table-top) tripod with a very long fixed center column.

Pixel abuse!

I don't have a monopod and can't answer your original question from experience, but remember you may be able to get away with using a monopod in places where you can't/ aren't allowed to use a triopd.

This is the usual sort of equipment consultation.

I have been using a 35mm Nikon system for a while and recently

plunged into MF by getting myself a Bronica 6x6 camera. I plan to

use MF as far as possible in the future and to that end I believe I

must supplement my equipment with a compact MF rangefinder. A 6x6

SLR is hardly a travel camera. Besides, to be able to afford another

camera right now, I will have to sell most of my 35mm stuff.

Therefore, I am sure you understand I want to get it right.

 

Mamiya 6/7 is ruled out. Too expensive and perhaps a tad heavier

than I would like. Actually the Bronica RF645 is not too cheap

either, but I might be willing to go for it. The other option is one

of the many Fuji 645's. I rented a GS645S today to check it out. Its

quite nice and surprisingly light for its size, but it feels like a

plastic disposable from say 20 yrs back! Besides the viewfinder

exposure indicators are a little hard to see. Otherwise quite

agreeable.

 

I also have my eye on the GA645. AF doesn't hurt sometimes

(particularly for a travel camera). My question to you is about the

handling of the GA. Does it feel the same as the GS? Is it perhaps

more solid? Will a Bronica RF645 be significantly different in that

regard?

 

Please feel free to pour in your opinions..

(In case someone is interested, FS/T ads will appear in the

classified section soon)

I'm sorry I don't know what camera was being used. It was probably an EOS Rebel or something. But yes, I understand the various points that were made. Thanks.

Thanks Jordan, I think I have seen underexposed negatives print somewhat grainy before. I can pass that along as a possible reason. I guess my belief that a 400 speed film would be good enough stands. I will still suggest continuing with ISO 400 to my friend (with a warning about underexposure).

Yes, I understand that the negative may not be judged from the print. But I have not seen the negative and was trying to infer what I could. So long as you are not scanning into digital format for printing, and the print is not out of focus (which is readily visible), doesn't the presence of grain in the print mean the presence of a proportional amount/size of grain in the negative?

 

Let me make sure I understand your point about the detail on the higher speed film. Do you perhaps mean that the longer exposure required on the lower speed film (other things remaining constant) will entail flaring/washing out of highlights? I am not sure what the term is, but what I mean is that if you look at a night shot including say, a lit window, you will see the window periphery become increasingly hazy with longer exposure times. Is this one of the reasons for apparent loss of sharpness/detail?

A simple question for you folks. This matter sprung up after a

discussion with a friend who wanted some recommendation for a low

speed color negative film for night time photography. Now I rarely

ever use color negatives, so I couldn't suggest anything offhand.

 

In any case, my friend was under the impression that higher speed

films might show more grain under very low light situations. Of

course, higher speed films will show more grain, but does this have

anything to do with light levels? He came to this conclusion because a

few prints from an ISO 400 roll were very grainy and wondered if he

should have used ISO 100. My own thoughts were that the grain was

unusually high and must have been an abnormality in

processing/printing (done at a minilab). Especially so, considering

that only some of the prints were bad. ISO 400 should do very well

indeed for the print sizes in question and unless for some reason you

thought grain was more visible in shadow areas than highlight areas

(there being a lot of shadow area in night photos) there was no reason

to suspect film quality.

 

Any comments arising from your experience will help me clear this up.

Thanks.

I use 35mm equipment. I need to get myself a circ polarizer and 1 or 2

grad ND filters and am extremely confused about the choices I should make.

 

It seems that grad NDs only make sense in a rectangular form (to fit

cokin or some other system). Their use in thread-mount fashion seems

rather strange and obscure. Considering this, if I bought a

cokin/similar grad ND, it wouldn't make much sense to get a

thread-mount circ polarizer (unless the latter is actually comparable

in price to a cokin polarizer).

 

So my questions are these:

 

I have read that the cokin grad NDs are bad (in that they are not

really neutral at all). The best choices seem to be Singh-Ray or Lee,

but these are too expensive for me (at least $100 per filter). Is

there a middle ground? Please let me know your suggestions with regard

to quality and economy.

 

What are good choices for a circ polarizer in a rectangular system?

How important is multi-coating to a polarizer?

 

Thanks

In some sort of continuation of Frank Uhlig's post, I am asking for

opinions/advice regarding the 180mm f/2.8 ED lenses. I have been

considering one for a while. I am aware of the all-round agreement

that it is an excellent lens in either AIS or AF form. But I would

like your opinions on the differences.

 

I am speaking of the ED lenses only. The AF has an IF design which is

an obvious difference. I have read also that the manual focus feel on

the AF version is decidedly good compared to other AF lenses. I dont

think I specifically care about AF on this lens so AIS is fine too.

However, I have also read that the optical construction is totally

different from one to the other. So what are your opinions. Which

would you pick?

 

I should also mention that Ken Rockwell, in his reviews, mentions that

the AF lens, though very good overall, is very imprecise at closer

focusing distances. He says it is not good for distances below 35-40

feet (which is quite a large distance). The AIS has a close focus spec

of 6ft and I have heard no comments about its performance in that region.

"Buying a DSLR is like buying a camera and several years supply of film in one lump sum. A D2H is basically a $1000 camera (mosthy F100 derived) bundled with $2500 worth of film."

 

Just observing that people who say the above should be careful not to include savings in film & dev among the advantages of a DSLR. Many people do both and dont realize they are counting the same thing twice. Just a remark.

Well thats not bad at all. I will be going to Austin for a weekend too. Then I can manage some time at Pedernales.