frank_nikolajsen1

February 17, 2004

Hi Tim,

Yes, both to DOF in your two examples being the same and to the

existence of equations and in depth explanations. Not a stupid question at

all. Please see these two pages for more than you ever wanted to know

about DOF and the hyperfocal distance, among other things:

[<a href="http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dof.html">One</a>],

[<a href="http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/dofderivation.html">Two</a>].

Regards

-- Frank.

February 16, 2004

Walter Schroeder:

this is because a good quality scanner that will be able to take advantage

of the film versus chip quality will cost about 1000$ and up.

</blockquote>

I will have to disagree with this. I own the Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual III

desktop film scanner (around $300), which was recently replaced by the

DiMAGE ... IV

model. While they are comparatively slow, do not have the dust removal

features of the high end models and in particular the negative strip carrier

is not that great, the results are stunning for the price and ought to be

quite good enough for most hobbyists.

When scanning slides, running the 60MB files through PS and having the

result printed as 8x10s on a Fuji Frontier, people, myself including, are

unable to tell the difference from those of a D100 or having the Frontier do

the slide scanning. If anything, then the DiMAGE results are better than the

Frontier scans and those of the D100. This may be down to differences in

image processing though.

-- Frank.

February 15, 2004

Roy,

I'm a bit in the same boat as you, as my eyesight is anything but 20/20

(born that way). I have to tell you, that you can probably not focus the F100

and the 'lower' Nikon bodies like the F80 and the D100 the way you

describe. At the very least I would suggest you do some test runs before

you decide on a body for your nice AIS lenses.

The focus indicator in the F100 is a small dot on the in-camera display,

which is all but impossible (for me) to see with indirect vision. I suspect

you will need the much better indicator of the F4 or the F5 to be able to

operate the way you describe. In those bodies there is not one but three

focus indicators, two reds on each side of a green, all quite bright and

placed, so they stand out from the viewfinder display. It is very easy to

simply 'turn for green' while looking at the focus brackets and the subject. I

have found the focus indicator in my F4 to be more accurate than my own

eyes

(though that is not saying much...).

That said I have to admit that for action photos, defined for me as

anything where the camera is not on a fixed tripod, I have more or less

given up on MF myself and sold much of my MF glass in favour of some

nice AF Nikkors.

The ergonomics of the F4, even on its smaller MB-20 battery grip, appears

to be an aquired taste for many people (love it or hate it), and it has been

out of production for 8 years or so. Try before you buy. The F5 is big and

expensive, but otherwise a super body.

Regards

-- Frank.

February 11, 2004

Sice the word 'European' came up I have to make a comment: The info

presented above about 'almost anything in public is OK' is nearly true here

in Denmark. The one major exception is children, and I suspect the same

is true in other countries.

Her in Denmark children under the age of 15 can only be photographed as

the main subject, even in public, through permission from their parents.

The child is not in a position to be able to give permission. A teenager

between 15 and 18 may be able to give permission, but the maturity of the

individual must be taken into account.

Permission means either precisely that, verbally, or it must be plainly

obvious to the parents that you are photographing their children and they

give a silent permission by not complaining. However you *must* be sure

that the adult accompanying the child is the legal guardian. Any odd

daycare employee will not suffice. So either you know the parent on sight,

or you *have* to ask.

I have a rather nice photo with 3 children as the main subjects taken at a

public event, where I knew quite a few of the people present, and it was

very obvious that I was photographing the children, along with everyone

else. However later I realized that I wasn't sure if all of the parents of the

children were present at the time. Oops. Wasted film.

-- Frank.

February 10, 2004

There are such things as lossless compression, and usually compression

of files is just that. Zip and Gif files comes to mind. The most prominent

compression *with* loss if of course Jpeg. So this might not be a bad thing

if it is lossless compression, that would simply just save CF space.

-- Frank.

February 2, 2004

Hi Luka,

What do you feel is bad about the macro shot of the metal thinggies? You have a very

shallow depth-of-field, but that is normal to macro, of course. One of the pegs appears

to be in sharp focus, judged solely by the low resolution of the web scan.

Secondly, if you do decide to go the reversed lens way, then a quick rule of thumb: The

reproduction ratio is (nearly) equal to the ratio of the two lenses you combine. So

combining, say, a 50mm reversed on a 105, you would get a 2:1 ratio, ie. double life

size. Put the 50mm on a 200 and you get to four times life size etc.

-- Frank.

January 31, 2004

Carl,

I asked for a comparative list of features between the D100 and the D70, so that I

could comment. From the highlights of the press releases I was able to run up, I was

able to identify one 'new' feature, and then it turned out that it wasn't new after all.

You may want to read the article on CNN again. The point of the article is not about

people buying stuff they haven't researched properly. It is about people unable to buy

simple stuff with only the features they want. I can assure you that, however vaguely

documented, the general idea is what I see around me.

It is relatively simple to explain proper exposure in connection to aperture and

exposure time to newcomers by using the bucket-of-water analogy, up to and including

reciprocity failure. But unless people happen to buy a FM3a it is a totally different kettle

of fish to transform their new knowledge into practice. F65? F80? F100? F5? D100?!

My main gripe about the features added is not that they are added, but that they

clutter the user interface, and, additionally, those added are mostly those, which are

implemented in software in the chips, not those, which would have been of most value

to the camera owner. Ie. what gets in costs virtually nothing to the manufacturers,

once the development work is completed.

Examples:

<ul>

<li>On demand grid lines should have been ability to replace focusing

screen because gives higher contrast and surface brightness in

viewfinder. The on-demand was choosen because they were free to the

manufactureres, more or less, due to the already existing illuminated focus indicators.

The mechanics of replaceable screens would have cost additional manufacturing steps

for each unit made.</li>

<li>95% viewfinder coverage should have been 100% viewfinder

coverage because a digicam user can utilize 100% of the sensor surface in

post-processing. But even though the cost and size of the pentaprism needed for

100% coverage of the ASP sized sensor wouldn't have added much, the users still

ends up with only 90% of the area of their photos visible in the viewfinder.</li>

<li>"New advanced digital image processor uses next-generation algorithms to

handle ..., as well as real-time processes to diminish digital noise and produce beautiful

long exposure shots." should have been (unless I misunderstand the press

release text) Newly designed low noise and properly cooled CCD preamplifier

electronics to ensure virtually zero dark current, eliminating almost all electronically

generated noise in the recorded image, even for very long exposures. It isn't

rocket science. The CoolPix 950 is a very good performer for long exposures, but

apparently the feature wasn't appreciated by reviewers at the time, so its successors

are rather bad in this regard. The CP990 is a real stinker in this department.</li>

<li>NEF should have been NEF-II that I just invented because

you can save two thirds of your storage space if you do the color reconstruction in

the PC at a later stage. The processing power in cameras today would surely

suffice for a realtime update of the LCD preview. Record all exposure information along

with the raw binary data from the CCD, and you can do sharpening, color

reconstruction and noise cancellation at your leisure. Unhappy with the sharpening

setting used for gramps? No problem, just try again.</li>

<li>Exposure histogram should have been increased dynamic range with

a logarithmic top because that is the proper cure agains blown out

highlights.

<li>USB 1.1 should have been Firewire or 100baseTX ethernet(!)

because either would be much, much faster and additionally users wouldn't

need to keep a flash card reader around.</li>

</ul>

And I do not own 6 Nikon bodies, I own 6 Nikkor lenses.

-- Frank.

January 31, 2004

Carl,

Certainly, just point me to the exact list of differences in specifications and I'll have a

closer look.

From the previews and press releases I have seen, it does seem to me that the

worthwhile additions to the D70 includes less shutter lag, the spot meter and faster

write-to-flash times.

Don't-care additions include the on-demand grid lines in the viewfinder. I consider

electronic indicators on the screen a significant step down over the more

traditional approach of switching screens. The indicators invariably reduce contrast and

surface brightness in the viewfinder, both of which are very important to me. Also the

1005 segment color matrix meter is fluff on a camera of this class IMHO. Most users

won't be able to utilize its potential advancements over the old matrix meter, as the

pros will be using D2H's anyway. (Am I going to get into trouble over that... ;-)

Things they *could* have improved but didnt, and which would have made a large

difference to many people: Faster AF over the F80/D100. Even my F4 is faster than

those. Also add compatibility with older, non-CPU lenses to the wouldn't-it-be-nice list.

For the record: I have more operational computers at home (8) than Nikkors (6), have

been programming for 24 years, and I make a living of doing just that. So it is not that

I'm a technophobe, only that I have been in this constant upgrade cycle for way longer

than most people. At some point it gets to you (after around 10-15 years I'd say), and

you just want stuff, which you don't have to relearn to use every time you replace it.

That is probably one of the reasons why I prefer cameras with a simple 'user interface'.

Sure you can squeeze nicer LCDs and more CPU power into a given volume and power

constraints as time progresses, but does it really make that much of a difference of the

photos, which is the end results? I highly doubt that it will for most users.

-- Frank.

January 30, 2004

Arnab, I believe you hit the nail on the head. The reality is, hotheaded arguments not

withstanding, that most prosumer cameras, digital or film, are able to produce excellent

results. In reality the only reason the manufacturers keeps coming up with 'improved'

models is that they need to keep the 18 months upgrade cycle going. Mostly they just

add non-sensical gizmotronic features, which cost little for manufacturers and that

sounds impressive. CNN happens to <a

href="http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/ptech/01/30/unfriendlier.electronics.ap/index.html">run

a story today</a> on this very subject. Things keeps getting more and more

complicated with little real improvement in core functionality.

Personally I'll stick to my stone age F4 and slide film until someone can demonstrate a

significant reason to switch. It may not have the gizmotronic aura of a D2H, but it sure

does make nice photos on said slide film.

-- Frank.

January 25, 2004

Olivier Reichenbach:

As far as sharpness is concerned, with lenses of equal excellence, the no-vibration Leica

should have a very slight edge over the mirror-slapping SLR Nikon. Right?

</blockquote>

This would depend on what camera bodies you are comparing the Leica series to. In

general the amplitude and frequency of the mirror slap induced body vibrations depend

on the ratio of energy released compared to the total weight of body + lens attached.

SLR bodies vary greatly

in the amount of undampened mirror slap and shutter energy they produce, and so

does the

weight, of course.

You can get some idea of how well a particular body is in this regard in a side-by-side

comparison, where you place the cameras in question on a soft surface and trip the

shutter with a remote release, while lightly touching the camera.

The not especially lightweight or stealthy Nikon F4 with its special tungsten

mirror/shutter counterweight system

subjectively blows any

other SLR I've compared it to out of the water in this regard (haven't tried an F5 or a

high end Canon body). The main vibrations from an exposure with the F4 seems to

come from the motor drive, and that is of course uninteresting for this discussion.

When using an F4 I do not feel limited by mirror slap or shutter induced body

vibrations for any focal lengths I feel comfortable using handheld, ie. 200mm and

shorter.

-- Frank.

January 23, 2004

One practical issue: People, who have used the 45P, often complain that it is *too*

compact. It is so short/narrow, that it is hard to grab the aperture ring, and, if you are

not using a hood, you are likely to touch the front element when grabbing for the focus

ring.

I own the <a href="http://home.aut.ac.nz/staff/rvink/ais5018n.jpg">latest

version</a>

of the 50/1.8IAS, which is about 1cm (0.5in) longer than the

45P and 26g (1oz) heavier, and I am not sure that in actual use I would enjoy a lens,

which is much smaller than this. Note that I have fairly small hands for a man.

Cannot comment on the optical qualitites of the 45P, as I have never used one.

-- Frank.

January 10, 2004

Actually in this particular case I believe there is a difference worth paying for, though

the 'D' is not part of it IMHO. Unless I am quite mistaken, then the latest AF-D version

is a mechanical upgrade as well as an electronic one. The old non-D 50/1.8AF is not

very nice, mechanically. The 50/1.8AF-D (N), N for new, was updated due end user

feedback. Optics are identical.

I own the D, and it is very nice, 'Made in China' and all. Even manual focus is quite

acceptable, though it is not up there in 'feel' when compared with the AIS manual focus

lens family.

-- Frank.

January 7, 2004

Daniel,

The fact that you're now back peddling shows you're having second thoughts.

</blockquote>

It really is unfortunate that we live so far apart, you in California, me in Denmark.

People around me would know that I will cave in immediately, instead of prolonging the

pain. Unfortunately I only have time for a brief answer for you today.

The question we was asked was: "Is the difference just dust and film grain

?"

Please have a look below at the enlargement of the previous slide from my hand. I

mounted the slide, and didn't do anything to this new scan, not even adjusting the

levels. At this scale a single pixel from the 10D is 6.5 pixels squre, a bit larger than the

5x5 ones shown below. This is the absolutely smallest detail that this detector will

resolve, and then we are not even taking the low pass effect of the Bayer interpolation

into account.

Consider:

<ul><li>Given the technical details of the exposure, stated above, is it likely that better

conditions (tripod, better focusing, stationary subject, etc). would render even smaller

details in the film plane than those hinted at here?

<li>Given the enlarged and digitized/aliased view of the photo, is it likely that this view

is limited by A) The resolution of the scanner used, or B) film grain and dust.

</ul>

I'm going to the movies now. Have fun folks.

Nitpickingly Yours

-- Frank.

PS: Daniel, the cat detail should have been enlarged from 85 pixels square all the

way up to 222 square using 'nearest neighbour' scaling in order for it to properly show

the same viewing angle as my first excerpt did.<div></div>

January 6, 2004

Thanks Arnab, I was beginning to wonder how long it would take. ;-)

Daniel,

The point is that I was using a long lens, hand held while shooting a moving

subject on consumer grade slide film, scanned on an inexpensive desktop scanner,

which I knew was probably out of focus to begin with.

Whenever the results from digital matches my Ilfochromes, then I'll switch. In the

meantime I'll just rescan my slides as the technology improves.

January 6, 2004

Daniel,

You may have missed it, but the cutout I presented was digitally scaled up in size

to be easier to see. The original was only 111x111 pixels. 2820dpi/25.4mm/inch = 111

'dpm'.

If you would like to present an equivalent view from the 10D, then you need to

show us an excerpt, which is an 1/36 of the image sensor/frame width. For a 10D that

would mean 85x85 pixels.

Also be aware, that the scan shown was not done under perfect conditions. The

slide wasn't mounted, and the DiMAGE film strip holder is not the best, so at this scale

the scan is bound to be somewhat out of focus. Additionally the very nature of the

subject means that this particular part is probably not in sharp focus either. I think it is

reasonably close for the section I choose though.

Anyone aware of a proper mathematical treatment of precisely what is possible to

'predict' using Bayer color interpolation? As far as I am able to see, then it is impossible

to properly reproduce a step function at an arbitrary angle, unless the algorithm knows

what we are looking at.

-- Frank.

January 5, 2004

<a href="http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7751">Reality check</a> for Scott. Also note

that some very expensive studio digital TV cameras use a complex optical system with

three CCD chips in order to increase the dynamic range of the digital output. This is still

not enough to avoid burning out the areas around the highlights.

I believe I've read that an additional 10 bits for a grand total of

around 18 bits of data per channel would be needed in order for digital cameras to

properly be able to simulate

the logarithmic response to light as found in film. The electronics within needs to be

linear to within the

same range as well, of course.

January 5, 2004

...and here is an excerpt from near the center, cropped and scaled up by a factor of

two to a total size of 222x222 pixels. As the original, shown above with scan

boundaries, warts and all, was scanned at 2820dpi, then this represents precisely

1x1mm on the film.

<ul><li>Scanner: Minolta DiMAGE Scan Dual III</li>

<li>Film: Fuji Sensia II 100</li>

</ul>

I think I've hear about better film out there... You be the judge. Only image tweaks

after scanning was the adjustment of levels in PS. No sharpening.

Remember that (all but 1?) of the digital cameras out there today make up

two/thirds of the information in the image. Their contrast suffers as a result.

-- Frank.<div></div>

January 5, 2004

Hi Holger,

Here is a photo I snapped a while ago, while strolling around down town.<div></div>

December 27, 2003

Sorry about the delay in my response guys, the holidays came in

between. Hope a few of you are subscribing to the thread.

David,

I'm way ahead of you. ;-) I have already bought an MB-20 from B&H, and

that shaved off more than 200g (~7.1oz) from the F4s when using

alkalines. So now I have the choice of using either the MB-21 with its

vertical shutter release, or the MB-20 for minimum weight.

Todd,

Well, I have to admit I was surprised by my findings as well. However

I have now had the opportunity to discuss the matter with my friend

with the D100, and he says he has never had his camera focus as fast

as my F4. For the record: When we did these tests, twice separated by

two weeks even, my F4 (serial #247XXXX) was used with the MB-20 grip

containing 4 nearly new Duracell 'yellow' AA alkalines, ie. a total of

only 6V. It was not a close race, yet the F4 was definitely faster

than the D100, though not by a factor of two.

You are right about the AF becoming slower in low light, but it is

still way faster than myself and MF...

For those who like numbers: I subjectively time a full focus throw

of the 180/2.8D on the F4 from infinity to closest focus (1.5m / 5ft)

to take just a bit over one second. This is even better than it may

sound, as the 180 has a rather long focus thread, and around half of

that is used when going from 2.5 to 1.5m. Ie. if your subjects stay in

between infinity and 2.5m, then maximum focus time is 0.5s, 0.25s on

the average. That is plenty fast enough for my uses. With shorter

primes the times just gets even better. Note that I have not had the

opportunity to try a really heavy AF lens like the 80-200/2.8AF on the

F4.

So far I have only found a few scenarios as the one described above,

where the matrix meter fails. But, as you suspect, then I'm mentally

used to compensating for the CW meter of the F3. Ie. I don't expect

the meter to save me, no matter what I point the camera at. If the

more modern matrix meters will properly expose, say, a sunset; great!

But I don't expect the camera to be able to do that. This is why I

have the spot meter.

Please let me know if you have any specific suggestions as for test

setups I could try to verify my AF speed results found so far.

Loren,

No matter which body you decide upon, then, if primes is your thing,

feeding your NAS with an 180/2.8D cannot possibly be a bad thing. Go

for it! :-)

<hr>

In case any of you guys are left wondering why I care so much about

this AF issue with the F4, then this is it: The point of diminishing

return.

I am simply wondering how many of the advanced amateurs will 'run out

of camera' if they like and buy an F4. Granted, the ergonomics and the

feature set can be discussed ad infinitum, but currently my pet theory

is that for some people, some of the time, the F4 might be the perfect

choice.

I bought the F4 mainly for the viewfinder + AF. Any other body, save

possibly for the F5, would be a step down for me in the viewfinder

department. If someone else wants some advice for a body for an

individual with less than 20/20 vision, then I reserve the right to

recommend from personal experience the F4. I just don't like it when

people, who often doesn't even own or use the thing, drag the AF issue

up 'just because', leaving whomever wanted the advice in the first

place to buy an inferior choice like an N80 or something similar.

On the other hand I don't want to recommend something, which

obviously appears broken when used by more experienced people. Ie. if

I *really* don't want to use the F4 together with an SB-26 or some

such etc.

So far I'm happy. I'll let you know if I change my mind. In the

meantime I have this thread to refer to, when querying people about

specifics as to the 'slow' AF of the F4. The subject will surely come

up again.

December 27, 2003

Aaron,

The split view horizontal focusing prism is integrated in the focusing screen of the

FM10, so it will stay the same, no matter what lens you use.

There are two versions of the 50/1.8AI-s: The older and heavier with a wide focusing

ring with an integrated rubber grip. This version has a close focus of 0.45m (1-1/2ft).

The latest (current) AI-s is lighter (144g / 5.1oz), has a plastic focusing ring and close

focus at 0.6m (2ft).

All the 50/1.8 lenses by Nikon share the same optics, so the results in that regard will

be identical.

The main difference between the AI-s and AF lenses when used on an FM10, is that the

AI-s will have a metal

filter ring, while an AF Nikkor will often have one made out of plastic (polycarbonate?).

Meaning that if you use filters a lot, say for B/W work, then an AI-s lens may be an

advantage.

December 18, 2003

Loren,

As it happens I made the transition from an F3 to the F4 quite recently. The

reason I did is that I have rather bad eyesight, and had been forced to conclude I

needed AF for any live subjects. I cannot focus fast enough to get the results I like on

a regular basis with MF. Having looked through a few of the consumer grade Nikons,

and the F100, I asked here and elsewhere what 35mm AF Nikon had the best

viewfinder. The answer was unanimous: The F4.

I bought the camera after having tried one for a day or so, realising that it might

not be the latest and the greatest. However if it was just acceptable, then in all

likelihood it would still focus faster than I could, especially in low light.

Now that I have had the camera for a month or so, I am totally confused. Given

the camera's reputation, I was quite prepared to be disappointed, especially when it

came to AF. It was sort of a gamble I have to confess. Granted, I have not used an

F100

or similar high end body extensively, yet the reality is that I am sitting here, wondering

what on Earth people are talking about when they nay-say the F4. I sort of expect to

be out there one day, suddently being faced by a situation, where the 'glaring flaws' of

the F4 will be revealed to me in all their clarity, but so far I am above happy. How it

would compare to the F90x I cannot say, as I have never used the latter.

The 1005 segment color matrix meter of the F5 will be better than the 5 segments

of the F4, and I have actually managed to find a standard situation, where it fails

repeatedly: A vertical, full torso portrait against a very dark background will overexpose

the frame by about a full stop. Maybe I am spoiled by the F3 and unconsiously think for

the camera. I usually know when I'm in trouble.

On the F4 the eyepiece curtain lever is not recessed, so you may have to cover it

with a small piece of black PVC electrician's tape if you wear glasses.

It will only do its two programming modes, P and Ph, using AF glass, as it needs

their minimum aperture lock.

The F4 will reliably AF on distant streetlights at night, and it works in light so low I

have

trouble seeing where the AF sensor indicators are.

When it starts to hunt wildly for focus, it is usually because it is dark, and I have

accidentally pointed the AF sensor at a detailless spot. Coming from the F3 with its split

image screen, I already and nearly unconsiously find vertical lines to focus, rotating the

body a bit when needed. I wonder if this little detail may have thrown off some people,

who may have expected the camera to focus on just about anything not a bland spot.

My measurements indicates that a single high contrast line needs to be at an angle of

5->10

degrees from horizontal to give reliable AF operation.

The spot meter is spot on to the best of my ability to check it. Pun intended.

The DOF preview button has a squeaky sound if released quickly. My local Nikon

guru

assures me that this is normal.

If noise is a factor, then you can rewind manually and save on the batteries to

boot.

The F4 has a very well balanced shutter/mirror system, using a

dedicated Tungsten counterweight. The difference between the F4 and the D100 in this

regard is

profound. When putting the D100 on my Manfrotto 055B tripod with all legs fully

extended, the setup vibrates visibly when the shutter is fired via a cable release. The F4

just sits there, doing its *click-weee* thing. Most halfway reasonable hand-held

exposures I have attempted has been quite acceptable with respect to sharpness,

something I cannot say about my work made with the F3.

I have now sold the F3 in order to fund some nice AF glass, so apparently I am not

totally dissatisfied with the F4...

Hopefully this thread will bring some of the experts around here out of the

woodwork and tell us just what is so bad about the F4. Surely I must be missing

something obvious?

Frank.

December 18, 2003

Loren,

I won't go into the details as to which AF camera is right for you. My experience in

this area is somewhat lacking. I will however tell you, that according to my side-by-side

tests between my F4 and a D100(!) belonging to a friend, then the AF of the F4 is way

better than its reputation. It is in fact faster than that of the D100, and consequently

that of the N80, which has the same AF engine as the D100. I don't hear people

bemoaning the AF speed of either of those, so I assume the F4 will do for most people

as well.

The operation of the AF on the F4 subjectively feels more 'rough', but it gets to

the finish line first, and by a comfortable margin at that. The only real trouble spot for

the AF that I have found, is the lack of sensitivity to perfectly horizontal and straight

lines. Lens used for test: 180/2.8D.

There appears to be several versions of the mainboard within the F4, and they

were refined over time according to what I have been told. Be sure you get one of the

later

ones (24XXXXX or higher) if you do decide for the F4. I am actively wondering whether

the apparently wildly varying experiences with the AF of the F4 is down to people

having used F4 bodies of different vintage.

<blockquote>"Compared to its successors, the

F100 and the F5, then the autofocus of the F4 is slow. However it is faster than the

consumer grade D100 and N80."</blockquote>

December 8, 2003

Carl,

When I am photographing watches, I never use flash. I use whatever is needed of

hotlights, usually daylight balanced incandescents, plus diffusion, absorbtion and

reflection material. From then on it is a process of trial and error, and slowly working

toward what I have in mind for a particular photograph. I don't particularly remember

what I used for the photo above, though I seem to recall the primary light was a quite

ordinary 60W incandescent lightbulb.

However even though I often have a 990 on loan from a friend, I still cling on to my

950. With the small apertures needed and only a few hundred watts of hot lights, the

exposure

times tend to be measured in seconds, and the 990 has a way too noisy dark frame

exposure when you go above 1/4 s or so.

With the 950 I can push the maximum of 8 s without problems, and have done so

in a

number of cases. On one occasion the only apparent source of illumination was the

glowing filament of an electron tube (see attached photo), and even then I had to fiddle

by using the computer to generate a digital double exposure.

Feel free to ask if you have any particular questions on your heart.<div></div>

December 8, 2003

<div>

006izo-15616984.jpg.98d5f9bb52c365ebad21af67fdfb87e7.jpg

</div>

November 24, 2003

The english F4 manual is available <a

href="http://24.237.160.4/files/photography/Nikon/Manuals/F4Book/">for

download</a>.

Hope this helps a bit.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by frank_nikolajsen1