peter_rivard

Download the manual at:

 

http://www.pentax.com/docstore/file_save.cfm?thispath=cat%5F201%5C&file=1%20degree%2021%20degree%20Meter%2Epdf&app_id=1

 

note that the filename doesn't have the necessary extension at the end of it, so you'll have to change the filename to end in .pdf (it's an acrobat doc). All these questions are answered in it. No offense, but it took me only a few seconds to find the manual by googling "honeywell pentax spotmeter." A lot of questions can be answered this way in less time that it takes to type out and post a question.

After reading countless reviews, where A says the Canon's got better image quality and B says the Sony does, it dawned on me that everybody looks for something different in image quality. So I was happy to find a site where I could see reviews that include many different cameras' versions of the same few pictures (at several ISOs, too) so that I could compare for myself, if only in a few particular situations. After downloading the big files so I could look at them side by side, I decided to go with the Sony. I could see where someone else might look at the same images and say the G6 is better, but in terms of what I like and what bugs me about optical flaws, I liked the Sony's images better. Plus the much faster shutter lag was a big selling point for me. I'm still waiting for it to come.... <br><br>And I'll remember the advice I've seen several places not to let the camera stop down to F8, at which point sharpness takes a nosedive. I've never trusted anything but manual and aperture priority anyway, so that won't be an issue for me (but could be for someone else).<br><br>

 

Check out the SF nightscapes at <a href="http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php?listall=1&start=0">DC Resource</a>.

I see the respondants are nudging your price range up a bit--DSLRs are looking plausible. Here's a retro response, but before you go the DSLR route, have you considered film? An old manual-capable AE camera with a zoom and prime can be pretty cheap, and will be capable of ANYTHING. Mastering focusing and, say, an aperture priority mode won't take much time, and yet will give him an understanding of what aperture, shutter speed, etc. really mean in terms of the final image. When I started, my interests went from general stuff to long (10 m--2 hr) exposure night stuff. I was perfectly happy using one focal length for everything. A friend went nuts with the teles. Someone else might find himself fascinated by taking macro shots of flowers or bugs, or carefully lit portraits, or "decisive moment" street shots. The point is, you and he don't know what direction his interests will fly in, so why not get a cheap system that will accomodate anything (but still produce images of a quality only the very best DSLRs will match)? Then when he starts having more of an idea what sort of thing he wants to do, that's the time to pull out the wallet, so that you're sure what you're shelling out for is what he needs. If you've already got a scanner, he'll have the advantage of using a digital darkroom (or not, but rare is the 14 year old boy who can't get swept into anything on the computer), and since you only need prints for seeing which shots are worth scanning, you can use the cheapest processing (as long as they're nice to your negs:). If he turns out to be a couple-of-rolls-a-month shooter, the film and processing won't kill him, and if he goes nuts and shoots a roll a day, then maybe a quicker move to digital will be in line, but even if it's only a few months later, you'll still have more of an idea of what he'll need and use.

This isn't a luddite perspective. I'll never toss over my photoshop to go back into a stinking, orange darkroom, and I'm starting to slaver over DSLRs myself, but I'm at a different stage of life.

I've been using this one for a while, with a lot of hiking. Just over 1kg, and more important it folds up to about 45 cm (thanks to the weird ballhead design) while still putting the camera above my eye level (I'm 183 cm)--great for travel, stuffing in pack, or strapping under a camera bag for a hike. It's quite solid, very little vibration, and I find it holds my 80-200 f2.8 securely, although it's over the stated weight limit for the tripod. Not the most solid tripod I've seen, but excellent for the weight and small folded size. The ballhead design is ingenious--I can't understand how the tiny ball manages to hold so securely. You'll want to add a quick release adapter to it, though, so add 1 cm to the length and US$25 to the price if comparing it to something that includes that. I've been very happy with this; I can see that the plastic in the leg locks could be thicker, but it's not thin enough that I'm worried about it breaking.

The Dmax issue is more complicated than scanner makers' literature says. 16 bit A/D

converters will handle up to 4.8 Dmax, 14 bit up to 4.2, but that doesn't mean the

image produced actually has a Dmax of 4.8 or 4.2. If your local interstate had a

speed limit of 275 mph, would that mean that your Honda Civic would go that fast?

What the scanners actually produce would be lower. I'd guess the 5000 would have a

slightly higher Dmax than the V, but any difference might be theoretical, because the

Dmax of a film image is quite a bit less than 4.2--either scanner would probably

succeed in getting ALMOST everything out of a piece of film--I don't think you'd

notice an improvement over the V unless you went up to a drum scanner. Again, 4.8

and 4.2 are the maximum allowed by the A/D converter, not what the imaging system

is actually capable of producing, and not what the the film is capable of containing.

 

Multiscan might improve the apparent Dmax even more--but that doesn't distinguish

the scanners either: the Coolscan V is capable of multiscan if you use the vuescan

software. But isn't the main advantage of multiscan supposed to be reduced noise in

the shadows rather than increased shadow detail?

 

As a user note, I've been running the V, and for me the scan enhancer, which adjusts

the highlight and shadows, seems to pull more out of the extremes than I'd thought

possible, far more than I've been able to see in highlights and shadows of

professionally made (darkroom) prints. If the 5000 can make a better scan, it

wouldn't be a dramatic improvement, perhaps only slightly noticeable in only the

most extreme shots. I think the 5000 is a good investment for someone making a

living with it, someone who needs the speed and convenience it and its accessories

offer.

 

Obviously, if anyone can manage to test both scanners on the same image, I'd love to

see it.

Beautiful composition and colors, skillfully captured. Cheers!

Some guys talk as if Adams were drawing in the dust with a bent twig. He was using

good quality optics -- not up to today's standard in resolution tests, but more than

made up for by the size of the negative and by very careful and precise exposure and

processing control; artistic concerns aside, no one would examine one of his prints or

negatives today and say it isn't up to modern technical standards. Whatever

technology you think he was using, don't think you can get the same amount and

quality of data out of a mere 10-15 megapixels that you can find in one of Adams'

4x5 negatives.

Jerry, there's no problem with USB2.0 on the Mac. You can get Cardbus and PCI

USB2.0 adapters. OSX 10.2.x WILL support USB2.0 easily--USB2.0 isn't built into the

OS, but that doesn't mean you can't add it. Download a driver from the adapter

manufacturer and, voila, problem solved. My Ratoc systems adapter works beautifully,

as promised on Nikon's web site. Having to get a $40 adapter and spend 30 seconds

downloading and installing a patch is no reason to overlook this scanner.

 

By the way, the Nikon documentation for the scanner itself DOESN'T say anything

about Firewire--that's in the section about the Nikon Scan 4 software. Since that's

also the latest driver for the old 4000 ED and 8000 ED as well as the new 9000 ED,

Scan 4 supports Firewire. Could've been clearer on Nikon's site and info, that's for

sure. For the record, the Coolscan V and 5000 DO NOT HAVE FIREWIRE.

Yes, no firewire, but since I can get a USB2.0 card for $30, that isn't killing me. Price

was the equivalent of US $540 in Japan (online retailer)--about $80 less than the

Minolta 5400 from the same seller. It went on sale on a Saturday and it arrived on

Wednesday, so there wasn't a huge wait. I don't have another recent film scanner for

comparison, but I've been looking into getting one for a year and was about to

pounce on the Minolta 5400, and in the scans I've done so far on my Nikon, the depth

into the shadows has astounded me, with no banding and less noise than I've seen in

similar shadows in people's reviews of the 5400, FS4000, and previous Nikons. But

since I don't have any of those and can't scan the same image on them to compare,

all that means is that the shadow depth and cleanness of the shadows is impressive.

Seems like the big differences in moving up to the Coolscan 5000 are 16 bit A/D

converter instead of 14 bit, which will only make a difference if the rest of the scanner

puts out an image with a dynamic range greater than the 4.2 that 14 bits allows (not

only has no one else done that yet, but everything I've read says that the film itself

doesn't even come close to 4.2), greater speed, Firewire (spend $30 on a USB2.0 card

to make up the difference), and--and this is the big one for you pros--the ability of

the 5000 to take the whole-roll film adapter and bulk slide loader accessories. For

half the price, it seems to come pretty close to its big brother.

 

Wow--I didn't know anyone out there was mourning SCSI. I loved the speed, but

damn was it temperamental, especially about power fluctuations.

Good software recs above. If you want to do a little more, Adobe GoLive is the easiest

for formatting, etc., but Gallery is even simpler. For hosting, there are a lot of free

hosts, but they (1) put ads on your site (some don't, but then after a while they do or

require that you start paying) and (2) require that you upload files one-by-one via

web browser. A pain in the neck, and it requires you to know what files you need to

upload, etc. Plus, they do weird things like suddenly deciding to go out of the free

web page business or pulling the plug on your site and erasing the files if you don't

log in for a month.

The do-it-all-for-you programs mentioned

above can all upload automatically by FTP, which is much easier for you (just enter

your ftp info from your web host and your password and click "upload"). To use FTP,

you'll have to pay for web space. The cheapest host I found was http://

www.xeosdd.net. Check them out before you pay anyone else. Their cheapest plan

was $20/year for 50 MB when I signed up, but it was full featured, and they've been

not only reliable but exceptionally helpful when I've needed it (I was new to all this

when I signed on with them).

I say "impression" rather than review because I haven't had time to really test it, but

right out of the box my Coolscan V put out some impressive scans. I've been thrilled

with the detail it can pull out of highlights and, especially, shadows, compared to pics

from other scans I've seen online, but I haven't worked with a recent, high-quality

scanner before so I can't offer a head to head comparison on the same slide.

However, it gives me deep shadows with plenty of detail and I've yet to see even a

hint of noise, though I've looked for it after reading about noise problems in the

shadows with the Minolta 5400 and Canon FS4000US. I'm pretty happy. I wouldn't

have considered placing an order for a product as soon as it becomes available with

any company but Nikon (working out the bugs, etc.). I bought in Japan (from an

online retailer), and paid the equivalent of US $540 at current rates--about $80 less

than the 5400 from the same retailer. I've looked for loss of sharpness I've seen

described in user reviews of the previous Nikons when using ICE and haven't seen it,

but I haven't looked rigorously. Speed--on my old Powerbook G3 400 with 512 MB,

connected with USB1.1, a 4000 dpi 14 bit scan with ICE takes 5.5 minutes for a

negative, about half that for a slide.