Marc453

It sounds like the problm is eith the battery. I tried using lithiumbatteries once and the camera would only fire the shutter at 1/400. Changed back to Duracell alkalines and it worked perfectly.

This happen to me once, and I change the batteries and no problems since.

I’m looking for some infinity stops for a Wista D 4x5 technical camera. Anyone have any ideas where I might find these items. Thanks for your help.

When using a 6x9 back on a 4X5 large format camera you should consider the image circle; the zone of in focus coverage by the lens, available to you from the large format lens. Most LF lenses give you a image circle greater than an 8X10 format so that you can utilize the movements of the LF camera. My 150mm F/5.5 Fujinon W when used with the 6x9 back allows for extreme movements which lets me get a whole bunch of stuff in focus that I wouldn't get with a medium format camera. (In movements I mean tilt, shit and rise of the lens board and lens.) A good reference is a brochure of the Nikkor large format lenses. "http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird/nikkor/LF_lenses_141A.pdf" And you may also want to look at the large format photography.info page "A large format photography home page' there is more than enough info to confuse you and provide lots of knowledge about large format lenses.

I like photography. All kinds. My favorite was the 4x5 Polaroids. I had the backs and holders for my Calumet and Speed Graphic cameras. I also like the Hasselblads. I have four of the motorized bodies and three 500 C/M bodies and a slew of lenses. I also have several Mamiya's including a 330f twin lens and three 645 bodies, and a RZ67 with a bunch of lenses. I shoot with whatever moves me at the moment. Right now I'm playing with the Hasselblads. I would like to get a digital back for the Hasselblads, but the cost is prohibitive. I do scan my negatives and I process my own b/w negs. I would like to see Polaroid make a come back, but that's asking a lot. Photography is supposed to be fun. Now that I'm able to afford all the medium format stuff I lusted for years ago it is really fun!

Today I got two new Exell NH-5 6.0 volt 800 mAh rechargeable NiMH batteries for my Hasselblad 500 EL/M. They fit and work great. Only thing is that there is no information about them. Don't know how long to charge them. (Plugged them up to the DIN charger, but they had a charge in them when I unpacked them.) They cost $33 each but if they work out, it will be worth it. They are way lighter than the original batteries. All one piece construction with a black plastic covering. If anyone knows anything about these batteries, please chime in.

Just got off the phone with Quantum Instruments, makers of the Quantum Qflash. First, they are still in business after being bought out by Promark about four years ago. They are still making the T5d-R and Trio Qflashes. And there is a T6 on the drawing board! For those of you who are new to Quantum, you may have hear of their Turbo batteries and Qflashes. The Qflash is a 150 watt flash that must be used with the Quantum (like) battery. It needs a camera bracket and while it will fire with a PC cord, there are TTL adapters to fit most cameras. The big thing about the Qflash is the quality of light it produces. It's just beautiful. Second thing is that they work, and work, and work some more. They don't over heat and shut down, they just keep on going. The regular Turbo batteries would give you about 225 full power shots, and many more if set to auto flash or ratcheted down to 1/4 or 1/8 power or more. The newer Turbo 3 battery uses the new NiHM technology and will give you more than 1000 full power flashes. Quantum still makes several different batteries to work with different makes of electronic flashes. Of course all this comes at a price; Quantum equipment ain't cheap. Their Qflash T5r-D cost around $700, and the Turbo 3 is about $625. You will also need a Quantum cord (around $50) for your flash if you use their battery. Qflashes come with the cord attached. And there are a bunch of odds and ends to complement the system. But, once you buy it, It will work and pay for itself in due time. I know this sounds like a commercial, but Quantum is an American company that got it right the first time. You can buy a Qflash T2 off Ebay.com and it will still work like it did brand new! Quantum was also the first flash company to really get TTL flash right. Also its wireless radio control of remote flashes is hard to beat. There are knock off flashes that look like Quantum's and I won't put them down, cause I haven't used them. One bad thing though, the Quantum T2 series is out of production and with the new owners, Quantum is not servicing or upgrading these units. The T4's and T5's are being repaired and updated when shipped back to the factory. Quantum also will refurbish and recycle its batteries and other equipment. Most of the time we hear of an American company being sold and soon after that being shut down. Quantum's continued existence is a boon for all serious and professional photographers. Check out their website, www.qtm.com.

The Quantum Qfllash is the only one I can think of right now. Some of the copycat strobes might do it (Flashpoint, Godox,Cheetah) but I know the Quantums will do it without overheating. Now that I said that, your mileage may vary. The Quantums are expensive, but they make up for it in their durability and consistency. And the light they put out is fantastic! You can buy a decent one on EBay for a reasonable price. The older T2 and T2d, could be upgraded to T3d-R, which is in essence a T5d-R, except for use with the Qnexus FW7. What it does is makes the flash compatible with the wireless QTTL system and the Quantum Co pilot and Pilot wireless adapters and its accompanying FreeXWire controllers. Quantum was recently sold so getting the upgrades have been iffy with the older models. They are still upgrading the newer models, and I hIGHLY recommend getting the newest firmware upgrade.

<p>Shooting sports at night is one of the reasons Canon and Nikon (and Sony) make expensive hi-speed lenses and cameras. Once you shoot sports with a 70-200mm F/2.8 or a 300mm F/2.8 you won't try it with a slower lens. Another factor you need to consider besides cost is heft. These lenses are heavy! With the 300mm you will need a support system. Most photographers use a monopod. (Note: Spend the money and get a carbon fiber monopod, you won't regret it!) I sometimes use a pistol grip under my Canon 300mm F/2.8 for support. I also have a strap on the lens and one on the camera. This gets clumsy at times but the security of not dropping my lens makes up for the minor inconvenience strap entrapment. Someone mentioned shooting at ISO 1600, at most night high school football fields, I wind up shooting at 2000 or 3200, at 1/400 and up. Go to the game early and practice shooting the players during warm-ups. That way you can get used to their speed and adjust your framing. If you do get on the sidelines, remember that you cannot go past the 30 yard marker into the team's area. (The team can't come past the 30 while on the sidelines going to the goal line). Also stay away from the guys with the chains. The refs get really peeved if you get in the way when they have to move the chains. Although I know, I always ask a ref where I can stand on the sidelines. That way he knows I'm there and that I know what to do. I also shoot from the end zone, especially if the play is coming towards me. For your own safety do not stand in front of another photographer or anybody else. (If the players come rushing your way, you tend to automatically back up. Which becomes a problem if someone is behind you.) One more point about the stands, I wouldn't recommend using a 300mm F/2.8 lens in the stands as if your sitting, the people in front of you will jump up when something exciting happens. And depending on the excitement, your lens might get knocked around or worse.</p><div></div>

<p>The Ferengi rule of finance number six: Once you have their money never give it back.<br>

You went way above average to service your clients. Point out the opportunities she had to get a reshoot or refund and explain that the opportunity is lost as you have spent the money. Use her logic on her. If it is the same one that told everyone not to order from you as she was taking pictures for everyone else, bring this to her attention too. And remember, only offer retakes if you don't like the photo. I was asked by a client once, "Supposed I don't like the photos? Can I get my money back?" I explained that I use her money (deposit) to pay for the film and processing of her photos, so no she cannot get her money back, "So make sure you want me to take your photos before you give me any money, because I am going to spend it on your photos." Believe it or not, this ends most talk of refunds.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Novatrons on Ebay.</p>

 

<p>The best studio lighting per dollar value IMHO is Novatron. A pack and two heads can be picked up on Ebay for about $200-$300. These are industrial heavy duty, work all day lights with modeling lights. You can also buy them new at Adorama or BH Photo, in parts or in a full kit with a carrying case. A new kit will cost about $600 and can go up to $2400. They include everything except the sync cords (some do include the cord depending on where you buy). They work great with all radio transceivers IR slaves and PC cords. Once you set them up and get the right exposure, you're set. The previous recommendations for a neutral gray background is a good one. With two lights you can pretty much handle anything. Three gives you a nice hair light and four will give you a background light to play with. Have fun.</p>

 

<p>Hi Barry:<br>

I have the equipment you mentioned. If you can afford it get a 300mm F/2.8 and a 1.4 tele-extender and the 1D MK III or IV. The300 f/2,8 lens is way ahead of anything out there other than a 400 F/2.8. The 1D MK IV is significantly better than the MK III, in ISO and image size. I carry a monopod, but usually it just gets in the way. So I got pistol grip instead, works great.</p>

 

<p>I use the 7D and a 1D MK3. I have the 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 300 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. Those four lenses I wouldn't give up for the world. I rarely use a slower (F/4) zoom for sports. but I use them for everything else, especially weddings. I have a Tamron 25-75, F/2.8 which I love because of the sharpness. I haven't tried the 135 because I have the 70-200 zoom. I would buy the 1d-X tomorrow, but I'd have to get the wife another mink coat. It's the speed (fps and good, clear ISO) in the camera body and the high speed of the lens for sports. Those 8-10 fps really do make a difference.</p>

<p>You missed the point. Those guys were selling photos because people could get the photo IN THEIR HAND, RIGHT THEN. Those photos were bought with disposable income, (Meaning people brought that money to the game with the intent on spending it there. I found this out from my wife. She asked me for some money one day when she was going to one of my son's basketball game. She said someone might be selling photos and she wanted to get some. I was stunned because I would go to the games and take photos. "What about the ones that I took," I asked. "Oh, yours are in the computer, they will have someone actually giving them out."<br>

Lesson learned.</p>

Brian, I doubt if your flash will bother the players. I've never had a player complain that I was the reason he

didn't score a touchdown.

<p>Oh, and one more thing. Flash rarely, very rarely bothers athletes at sporting events. In fact at most pro venues and arenas, you can rent their flash system, if the house photographer is not using it. If Sports Illustrated is shooting a basketball game in the arena, they set their flashes (usually humongous commercial units) above the baskets up in the rafters--pointing right down into the players eyes. If I use flash a at game, its a Metz 45CL because I can dial down the power and still keep up with the 10 fps of my Canon 1DMK3. (I have yet to have any player complain of the flash.)</p>

<p>Ok, first have you decided that you really, really, really want to do sports photography? If you've made the decision to do this, then invest in the top of the line photo equipment. No matter what anyone says, if you are going to be a professional sports photographer, your equipment makes a difference. A BIG difference. You no longer are taking pictures just for yourself, you are making photographs for publication. Those 10 and 12 frames per second bursts are a necessity. And you will need every bit of light you can get from those expensive high speed lenses. You are also going to need insurance and credentials. Join the NPPA and PPA. Subscribe to Sports Illustrated just to look at the photos. And good luck...you're going to need it.</p>

<p>I have stop putting images online because people would steal them and not pay. I even went to one family's house and the had an enlargement of one of my photos complete with watermark framed and hung on the wall! They told me, "we never pay for anything we can get for free off the web." Later, this same family called to ask if I would shoot a wedding for them and they wanted a discount because I had already had photographed their son playing football. I gave them a 10 percent family and friends discount, and they said that wasn't enough. I told them to think about it, but I wouldn't change the price as June was a popular month for weddings. a few days later I got a sure commitment for that date. Called the family and told them that they had the first refusal for that wedding date. First they accused me of trying to trick them into committing to the sale. Then they asked if I was coming to the wedding as a friend, couldn't I just bring my camera and take a few photos.<br>

Sorry for my rant.<br>

I have yet figured out a way to present photos on the web that cannot be stolen or encourage sales from sporting events after the event. If you do please post it here.</p>

<p>Wait till you show her a dial telephone.</p>

<p>Consider a Mamiya 7II. It's a great camera, small for its size, but gives a 6X7 negative. Easy to use and fast handling. Lenses are very sharp. A bit pricey, but worth it. Plus you already have the darkroom equipment to process the film.</p>

<p>1 . Loading film at -50 degrees is not impossible, highly improbable.<br>

2. The lightest MF camera is the Mamiya 7 II (Real hard to load in cold weather).<br>

3. Outdoors, in the Artic?<br>

The rest don't matter as you can't get past number 3.<br>

Recommend you look at digital Canon or Nikon, then again... outdoors, in the Artic?<br>

You are in the wrong forum.<br>

Go see the folks at National Geographic.</p>

<p>I am a full time news photographer and I do shoot commercial jobs once in a while. I can tell you that the main reason I use digital instead of film is the lower cost of digital images. Even if you use a medium format digital camera and back, the cost in time and instant results overwhelm any advantage film ever had. I have Hasselblad and Mamiya medium format cameras and I use them and have the negatives converted to digital images. costly, but sometimes necessary, especially if it costs less than renting the MF digital. I don't see film making a big comeback, especially if MF digital backs start coming down in cost.</p>

<p>First of all, your killing a mosquito with a sledge hammer. The Canon 1D-X is a fine camera and the 70-200 F/2.8 II is an excellent lens, one of the best ever made. And it can take excellent photos of 2 year olds running around in the backyard. However, no camera is as good as the photographer using it. Take more than a few moments to learn the camera and how to use it. Read the manual and experiment with the settings. Try to take some photos with some oddball settings and some with the supposedly "right on" settings. Also set the camera to the factory specs and don't do any micro adjustments. Finally, switch to a prime lens and shoot some photos. Then switch back and forth between the prime and the zoom. You will soon see the "errors" of your ways. If you really want some dynamite photos right away, use the sunny 16 method with the camera on manual. <br>

Note: I use several Canon cameras and lenses everyday as a news photographer. I can only tell you what I know.</p>

<p>It's amazing how we ask someone who we've never met, their opinion on a tool we've never handled, to do an unknown task and get an acceptable result. Still, here is what I've learned over the years. The 24-105 Zoom is not in the same ball park as the 24mm prime lens. You will get an acceptable result with the 24-105 lens, but you will get an exceptional result with the 24mm prime.</p>

<p>The only way to prove this is to try it.</p>

<p>Let me know of your results.</p>