derick_miller

Check the airline regulations on batteries. Batteries in checked luggage are considered hazardous because they occasionally catch fire and, in the cargo hold, this can go unnoticed. Airlines also have other means, such as Delta Freight, which can work out cheaper. I heard Getty, to send photo gear, uses a service where you can place stuff on a supplied pallet and they will wrap it and send it for you. A photographer I spoke with said many airline employees are not familiar with these services, but once you know the name of the service, you can ask for and get it. Be prepared to get to the airport hours earlier.

Thank you for the golden tip about the Lithium swap option, Sheldon. I had never heard of this and was wondering why Elinchrom hadn't gotten onto that upgrade.

>Have you looked at the Hensel Porty II? Next stop, Google :). Thanks, Ellis.

For my working methods, the Sony interface is horrible. But that doesn't mean it can't work for you. As stated above, if video is important, Sony wins. The XT-2 might have better video (and I'm guessing it will have 4k). We will probably know soon enough. Fuji lenses are fantastic. There isn't a bad lens I am aware of and there are some truly outstanding lenses. The 18mm is often pointed to as the worst Fuji lens, but I think it has a lot to recommend it, depending on your purpose. The 35mm f1.4 is among the best normal lenses and is very light for what it is. The 16mm f1.4 is unique in its quality, rendering and price, focuses to 6" and, for its angle of view has little competition even at twice the price. In the 56mm f1.2, the APD version renders substantially better, but has some shortcomings. As stated above, even the kit lens (18-55mm f2.8-4) is surprisingly good. If your style of street is to use a tilting screen, the XT-1 could be a good choice. But many street photographers have a strong preference for rangefinders because of the type of optical viewfinder they provide. If you feel that way, the Xpro2 is your choice.

Fuji produces fabulous JPEGs straight out of the camera and a number of wedding photographers just use the JPEGs. Fuji has a substantial edge here compared to other brands when it comes to skin tones. I prefer to use RAW files. Lightroom does a decent job with Fuji files. There was a substantial problem in the past, but this has been sorted out in recent years. Fuji RAW files processed in LR stand up quite nicely compared to whatever brand you want. Having said that, I strongly prefer Capture One as a RAW processing tool. It does a significantly better job with Fuji RAW files (and Canon and Nikon). It probably does better across the board, but my experience is limited to those three brands with Capture One.

Having the switch set to M enables focusing aids. The Xpro2 works well with legacy lenses. I used the Xpro1 with legacy lenses and it was ok, but not great in general. There were some lenses, such as the Nikon 105mm f2.5 which work exceptionally well on the Xpro1, even photographing people (static objects are never a problem). Zone focusing also works well on the Xpro1. The improvements to the Xpro2 in this regard are game changers. I mention this because those who have used the Xpro1 but not the Xpro2 may not give you the information you seek. The one thing to know is that if you are using the EVF, what you see is what you get (100% accurate view). If you use the OVF, you will get two overlapping boxes, one extending a little bit up and to the left, the other a little bit down and to the right. These represent parallax correction for infinity and close focus. Because the camera doesn't know your focus distance with a legacy lens, it doesn't automatically compensate as it does when manually focusing native lenses. If you use the peaking feature it helps to use a color like red (another feature the Xpro1 lacked). The joy stick for focus point selection is another substantial difference. It is easy and obvious to use, but you need to experience it in practice to see the utility. The Xpro2 allows for substantial reconfiguration, allowing you to customize several features of the interface. It is worth considering which features you end up using with legacy lenses and adjusting the interface to improve your workflow once you have identified which aids serve you best.

There have been some interviews with senior employees at Fuji where this issue has been discussed. They have been quite enthusiastic about the idea (in the understated Japanese way), but as far as I know, have never tipped their hand to reveal any development. But the IR camera was a "surprise," even with their history of developing IR cameras. The advantage of a monochrome camera which seems to elude many who discuss it is that every pixel sensor is used to generate direct image information. A Bayer or Xtrans based camera uses some of its pixels to take a monochrome image with a green filter over it, other pixels are with a red filter and still others with a green filter. The information is combined and recalculated to give the best guess at how much green, red and blue should be incorporated in one pixel. But this is an interpolation, not an actual representation of the light which strikes a given pixel. To get to a monochrome image, the information which was translated into red, green and blue has to be retranslated into monochrome tones. At this point it has been recalculated twice. A true monochrome sensor registers the actual tonal information which strikes each pixel. So the quality of the image is substantially different. Fuji could create a unique value proposition with a monochrome version. It would probably cost more than the base Xpro2 or whatever it was based upon to help recover the development costs, but it would still be a substantially better value proposition than the Leica and a much more functional camera system than the Sigma DP cameras. The Leica Monochrome is a very niche market, but it has been large enough to justify continued development of a new generation of the Leica Monochrome cameras. The price of the Leica camera and lenses limits it much further. Leica has built the desire among many who cannot or will not afford the price. I suspect that a better price point with a far more functional camera system from Fuji would find a much greater market.

What do you recommend that is capable of 1000+ watt seconds out of a single head and runs off of battery power? Elinchrom Ranger RX is currently at the top of my list. Profoto B7 is bigger, heavier and AFAIK no longer in production. I have used it and it is a nice unit. But I think Elinchrome has it beat on price, size and weight. Profoto B1 and B2 are out for being under-powered. I am not interested in solutions which gang together more than one head. Yes, I DO know that watt seconds are not the same from unit to unit, but it gets us in a similar ball park :). Main purpose: location portraits. Other uses: events, skateboarders in action, setting up an improvised studio for headshots, 3/4 etc. Do you know of any worthy contenders?

I would think you could create a slip-on collar which holds around the outside (there is Velcro there) and adds Velcro tabs on the inside. There are also third-party options. For example: http://www.honeycombgrids.com/grid-catalog/elinchrom-grids/elinchrom-octa-grid-detail

Thank you for the thoughtful response. It's an interesting idea. The filter is, effectively, a 77mm disk inside a metal frame. The holder takes rectangles that are bigger (I think it will go up to an 82mm filter size, so it's bigger than that). So it would either need a frame for the filter to make it bigger or have to be reworked the frame to be much smaller.

I've already made a little progress, but it is an imperfect solution. I have a Cokin-style adapter ring, which is like a flat disk that's about 80mm in diameter with a hole in the middle which is the size of your filter ring (say 62mm). This is normally used to attach the Cokin-style rectangular filter-holder onto the front of the lens so you can use the rectangular filters. So if I place the adapter without the filter-holder on my lens, it makes it easy to hold the Hassleblad filter in front of my lens in the correct position with little risk of scratching or smudging anything. Not perfect and takes up a free hand, but it is workable.

I would like to adapt bay 70 (Hasselblad) filters for use on non-Hasselblad lenses which take threaded filter rings in normal sizes like 72mm, 58mm, etc. Is there a way to do this? The closest I can get so far is to combine a Bay 70 lens end to 77mm female threaded end adapter with a male 77mm to male 77mm (reversal) adapter. This will mount the filter backwards. I would prefer to mount the filter in the right orientation and, if possible, with a single adapter. Is anyone aware of a better solution? Do you know where I might find it or what terms I should search on? Surely there were some photographers with a Bay 70 collection of filters who wanted to use it on other gear or who preferred the easy on and off of the bayonet design. No?

This lens has some technical drawbacks when compared to the regular 56mm f1.2 R lens. From an exposure point of view (how much light reaches the sensor) this lens is equivalent to an f1.7 wide open. The aperture and depth of field are still f1.2, but because of the filter, you lose almost a full stop of light wide open. Autofocus is limited to contrast detection. Phase detection doesn't work, due to the APD filter. So the lens does not AF as well on cameras which support both focus methods. So the lens is not as good in low light, it's not as quick to autofocus and it costs 50% more. I think the difference in image quality in the out of focus areas of the image are worth it. The rendering is more natural and less distracting in a way that is similar to the way Zeiss lenses render. If such things matter to you, this lens is worth a look. Otherwise, not so much.

Sorry, guys. I'm not against old or old school--I was printing Tri-x in 1980, way before it was hipster :). What I am against is the tendency in more recent years on photo.net to stomp on questions by people who have often never worked with the solution in question or have never considered the possible application in work that is unlike their own. There are still good and helpful forum members, but photo.net as a whole is not as friendly as it used to be. Too many kermudgens ;). I still use strobe more, but LED has a lot of promise and I have begun to experiment. The rising need for video in many areas of the modern photo business means that for many, continuous lighting has more versatility. Here is a blog post with links to other blog posts about using video lights for stills: http://neilvn.com/tangents/flash-photography-techniques/using-video-lights/ The author has written several books on strobes. LED technology is moving quickly. The Lowell GL-1 seems to demonstrate that portable power is coming along.

I think it's time :). Old school kermudgens will stomp on anything that strays too far from what they have always done. :) Sure, it is not going to stop action like a strobe. And even if you could get enough power to overcome the noon day sun, no one would want to stand in front of that much continuous light. I don't think that makes sense. But we shoot in a variety of conditions where it makes a lot of sense. Many wedding photographers have already been incorporating video lights in still photography and LEDs can do what video lights can already. Dedolight's LEDzilla looks like a promising technology and the focused beam is a place where continuous light is far more useful. Think old Hollywood portraits. You could do this with strobes, but would you want to? Even the best modeling light isn't going to be as good as continuous. In this case, LED beats strobe :). The ICE light and its far more economical clones MTL, "Magic Tube Light," are very handy although admittedly specialized. Not as versatile as a strobe, but excellent in certain applications. Dedolight is also developing a new line of continuous LED studio lighting which might be good. Things to watch out for with LED: light color, especially when varying power level and flicker. What counts with light is quality (size relative to the subject and direction), relative relationships of intensity between sources if there is more than one, balance of color temperature and having enough for a good exposure. In the right circumstances, LED can do all of this.

First I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful and detailed responses! I will, no doubt, be returning to this thread many times as I work through my questions and do my research. I will attempt to respond to the questions raised in and by the responses in this thread and clarify my experience and intentions. This may make clearer what I do or don't understand :). As many here, I started with film (35mm, MF and even an 8x10 with a Polaroid back!) and the darkroom. Got a Canon G1 "for family pictures" and soon transitioned to Nikon DSLR since I was in the film system :). I photographed portraits and events for a while but now it's just for fun. In my photographic experience, macro is a fairly new thing, but I am not new to photography. I have transitioned to the Fuji X system and am playing with a macro lens that is capable of 1:1. Over the years, I have acquired some gear (as so many here) and I am trying to edit down my collection to the most useful. That is why I now "overthink" any additions to the collection. I do own a stable tripod (although I am contemplating something with more positioning flexibility) and lighting equipment of various types. I have played with handheld and tripod with the macro lens. I have photographed plants, insects outdoors and inanimate subjects on a tabletop. I have played a little with strobes (including an Orbis "ring flash"), reflectors, diffusers, etc. I'm also enjoying the ease with which I can make less than macro close ups with a portrait length telephoto lens. I ran up against magnification limitations. In the Fuji system there is no provision for higher than 1:1 magnification. There are third-party tubes that maintain electrical connection, but there are reports of shorted out cameras (no thanks). Close up filters seem less desirable. The other option is legacy lenses with bellows, etc. I have also played with attaching a reversed lens to get greater than 1x magnification. Both of these quickly become somewhat unwieldy--ok on the tabletop but a bit much in the field. Chasing insects, I have found it hard to use a tripod :). My next experiments will be around increasing light or finding better support solutions. This will only get worse as magnification increases. It is the reason I think higher ISO would be a benefit. I understand the basic issues of diffraction as f stop gets smaller and effective f stops at extension. I also have experience with the DOF and focusing challenges as magnification increases. I am aware of but have not tried focus stacking. I will probably experiment with it at some point. Live view and an articulated screen have been added to my "must have" list. Thank you. Is the use of an iPad supported as an external monitor? I can see a computer in the studio, but not in the field. "what are your expected subjects?" I am enjoying a wide range of subjects right now. I have been making images for decades and never explored anything closer than a headshot :). The area that seems the most challenging to me is insects in their environment at high magnification.

I am interested in the Canon 65mm MP-E macro lens, which goes from 1x-5x magnification. I don't own an EOS camera body. What is the best digital SLR choice for macro? In other words, what is the least expensive way to get great results with this lens and more traditional macro lenses. I am not interested in the best results possible. I realize that a more expensive camera will give better results or have other desirable features. I would like to be able to print easily to 12"x18" and preferably to 20"x30". Ability to use higher ISO settings with low noise is a good thing with macro, since light is at a premium for macro. This lens does not have AF ability, so I suspect variations in this capability won't matter. Features which help me with manual focus would be helpful. Most of this is done by moving the camera rather than traditional focusing. I realize that a tripod, focusing rail, self-timer or cable/remote release and appropriate lighting are very useful in macro work :). I am open to FF and cropped sensor suggestions. I am open to currently produced and no longer produced bodies. I would be very happy to be given an annotated list with comments like A is the cheapest and has these pros and cons. For a little more, B is better in these ways. I would like to figure out the least expensive way to gain access to this lens without being in a position where I feel the need to upgrade the body once I become competent in using the lens. What is the best inexpensive body for this purpose and why? What other factors should I be considering?