scott_paris4

<p>While looking up information about smaller Nikons, I discovered that the Nikon V1 sensor is 13.2mm x 8.8mm.<br>

Then I looked up the Nikon P7100. The sensor size for this camera is described as "1/1.7-in." I'm probably being dense, but I don't understand what this means. It can't mean 1 inch x 1.7 inches; that would be 25.4 x 43.2mm, bigger than a full 35mm frame (about 24x36mm).<br>

So. Can someone explain what "1/1.7in" means, and how the sizes of these two sensors compare? </p>

<p>Great, simple idea! Guess I was hung up looking for something more complicated and difficult.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so it's possible I'm doing something really stupid, but here goes:<br>

I've been a DSLR shooter for years. I bought an E-PL2 a few months ago and find that, with the addition of the VF-2, it's a pretty nice camera. However, twice now I've come home from a day of shooting and found several accidental multimegabyte movies on my card, generally of pavement and people's feet. I have another maximum size movie of a wall in my house, apparently started when I accidentally pressed the movie button while putting the camera down.<br>

I guess I have fat fingers that can't stay away from the red button.<br>

(The top dial has never been set on the movie symbol.)<br>

Now that I know about this, I can make a special effort to avoid the movie button, but it's an annoyance.<br>

So here's the question: is there any way, in the menus or otherwise, to completely disable the movie function? <br>

I believe I've carefully read the manual, and I can't find anything about this. </p>

<p>I think that between the Serenar 50 and the Voigtlander 50, I'd take the Voigtlander, partly because it's much lighter. If the Canon lens was one of the later, silver and black f1.8 models, and was in good condition, then I'd go with the Canon.<br>

The Voigtlander 35 is a fine lens.</p>

<p>Try this: <br>

Open the back of the camera. Open the shutter using the Time setting (if there is one; I'm not familiar with the Canon 7) or the Bulb setting and a locking cable release. Set the lens focus setting on infinity (so the rear element of the lens is as far back as possible). Now screw the lens into the camera, slowly and carefully, while watching the back of the lens through the open shutter.<br>

You'll be able to see if that big rear element bumps into anything on the way in, and when the lens seats in its mount, you should be able to tell whether it will be struck be the shutter. It will be pretty close, but if it clears by a sixteenth of an inch, that's all you need.</p>

<p>i've fixed a couple of these too-loose rear caps by putting a tiny dot of plastic model cement (glue) on the friction surface of the flanges inside the cap. Other glues may work as well. The idea is to thicken the flange a little, so it rubs more firmly on the lens.<br>

Put it on, let it dry overnight, try it. If still too loose, build it up a little more.<br>

Shouldn't have to say this, but DO NOT mount the cap on the lens while the glue is wet. </p>

<p>+1 for cameraleather.com.<br>

The Griptac material is amazing! It's like the camera is glued to your hand. Allows a gentler grip and reduces fatigue.</p>

<p>Wow!<br>

Thanks to everyone for your quick responses, especially Andrew for your short novel :-)<br>

I'm thinking I'll probably go with the 17-70, since it pretty much covers the whole range that I'm likely to use much. If, as you say, Andrew, it's not really gigantic, I think it suits me better.</p>

<p>Dorus: I thought I had described that, but I see I didn't. Sorry. It's for shooting while walking around outdoors, in daylight. Pictures of people and architectural details, mostly. So light weight is a plus, and high speed is unnecessary. <br>

Again, thanks everybody.</p>

<p>+1 for Eric Hendrickson. Your camera will be like new for well under $100.</p>

<p>There are lots of replace-my-kit-lens questions, but I didn't find any regarding the current alternatives.<br>

I have a K5, and several prime lenses, but I'd like a "standard" zoom for walking around. I have the 18-55 3.5-5.6; It's surprisingly good at some focal lengths and apertures, but kind of awful at others.<br>

I think my choice (sticking with Pentax products) is between the 16-45mm f4.0 and the 17-70mm f4.0. The f2.8 lenses are way out of my price range and not necessary for my purposes.<br>

Never having handled either lens, the 16-45 seems a little short at the long end, and the 17-70 looks a little big, maybe, but whatever.<br>

Anyone have experience with either or both of these lenses? Is there another manufacturer's product in this range that I should consider?<br>

Thanks for any suggestions.</p>

<p>Even sending film away to California, I can't find reliable processing for transparency films anymore. (I live in Michigan.)<br>

So, HP5/FP4, which I process myself, and Portra 160 and 400.<br>

I have a bunch of Velvia frozen... anyone have suggestions for processing?</p>

<p>Note that when you download and install firmware 1.10, they include a whole new manual as a PDF! Your paper manual is obsolete.<br>

Great camera, and getting better!</p>

<p>+1 for Youxin Ye. Fast, and very reasonably priced, but only for bodies. Last time I corresponded with him, he did not do lenses. But email him and see.<br>

All of the technicians that others have listed are top drawer, but several are buried in work. Contact several of them and find out how long it will take them to do your lens. Don Goldberg (DAG) has done lenses for me recently in about 2 weeks, and he's one of the best.<br>

Don't worry about the fungus spot. Cleaning will arrest its growth, and it takes a great deal of damage to affect the image quality of the lens.<br>

The M2 is probably the "sweet spot" in Leica film cameras in terms of price vs quality. <br>

Enjoy your "new" camera!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've used the 60mm extensively for portraits and I like it a lot. I wouldn't worry too much about it being "too sharp", or about 2.8 not giving shallow enough depth of field.<br>

Try it, you'll like it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Makes about as much sense as saying: "You need at least 3 cups of flour to make waffles."</em><br>

Not true at all.<br>

If you have an 8 oz. tank (about 235ml) that holds 1 roll of 35mm film, and you want to use a 1:100 dilution, you need 2.3ml of developer.<br>

If the manufacturer says you need 5ml per roll, then your whole 2.3ml of chemical will be exhausted before the film is completely developed. I would assume that the manufacturer is the authority on his own product.<br>

The way around this is to use a 500ml tank and 5ml of developer to process one roll of film.<br>

Of course, you'll get an image in the small tank, but it won't have the contrast or density that it should have.</p>

<p>Hmm, not exactly a rush of responses. But thanks, Peter.<br>

I'll try it.</p>

<p>On second thought, ignore what I wrote above. It'll work, but it's unnecessary.<br>

Set your F3 to the box speed of the film (or whatever you normally use). Set the camera to aperture priority, put the filter on, and shoot away just as you would without a filter.<br>

This will probably give an acceptable result. If the negs are a little thin, then next time set the meter a little slower (say, 200 instead of 400). If they're a little too dense, set the meter higher.<br>

The only reason you would not just meter through the filter would be if the exposures were inconsistent from one frame to the next.<br>

This is unlikely.</p>

<p>Here's a process that I've used. It should compensate for any oddities in the color sensitivity of your camera's meter.<br>

Most filters' instruction sheets include an exposure adjustment amount, like "1 stop", or "2x". <br>

Take the camera outdoors and position it (without the filter) so the entire frame is filled with something of neutral color. 18% gray would be good, white is OK too.<br>

Note the exposure reading given by the camera. Now put the filter on and repeat the reading. Note this exposure reading.<br>

Now, if the filter factor was 2x (1 stop) and the difference between the readings was 1 stop, you're all set. The meter is correctly compensating for the reduced light coming through the filter. Just set the film speed normally.<br>

What if the difference was 2 stops? The meter is telling you that it is a little less sensitive to (for instance) red light than to multi-colored light. So you have to change the meter setting such that the meter reading is one stop less that the unfiltered setting, in this case, by lowering the film speed by one stop. (say from 400 to 200).<br>

May be a little confusing to read, but it's really pretty simple if you step through it.<br>

Of course, all this gives you is a starting point. There are other variables, including the color sensitivity of the film. (They differ) There's no getting around it, you're going to have to shoot a roll of film, develop it, see if you like the results, and adjust again if necessary. Take notes. Tag the film so you know which notes go with which roll.</p>

<p>Two thoughts:<br>

1. You said that you've already scanned one of the rolls, so those images are safe, even if the film gets ruined. Why not try soaking that roll, or a 1 foot snip of that roll, and see what happens? Worst case, the emulsion comes off the backing, and you've proved that soaking doesn't work. Best case, you've answered the question for sure.<br>

2. <em>"after I cut and scan them I place them in photo sheets and the sheets then curl!"</em> If you want to keep them in photo sheets, put one strip in face up, and the next in face down. The opposing curls should keep the whole thing close to flat. (Be sure the strips are absolutely dry before you do this, though.)</p>

<p>Another vote for Youxin Ye. Entirely professional. Not expensive.</p>

<p>If you want an "authentic" covering, you've had several suggestions.<br>

If you want the most amazingly "grippy" covering, the most practical covering for a camera that you will actually use, get Cameraleather.com's "Griptac" covering.<br />Feels like it's glued to your hand.<br>

Comes in black and gray.<br>

Absolutely the best.</p>

<p>OK, I make a classic mistake. Loaded a TLR with HP-5. Then it rained for a week. Finally, the sun came out, and I went out and, for reasons that made sense at the time, exposed the whole roll at EI 100. <br>

Now, 200 would be easy. I do that all the time. But 100 is different.<br>

I have XTOL, HC110, and Rodinal that I could mix up, and extrapolate a time from the Massive Dev Chart. But, I just mixed a batch of 2-part D-76.<br>

I'm thinking that if I throw this film in the 2-part developer, it will be really low contrast, but at least the highlights won't block up. So I can print it on grade 4.<br>

What would you do?</p>

<p>Over the years, I've gotten several used Leica-brand adapters, a couple of Cosina/Voigtlander brand adapters, and 2 no-brand Chinese adapters.<br>

The Leica ones (of course) worked perfectly, as did the Voigtlander ones. One of the no-brand ones works OK, but isn't machined very well. The other no-brand one fits, but wouldn't focus any screw-mount lens properly. (And it's not machined very well). <br>

These adapters are simple, but need to be machined VERY precisely. The expensive one are only 50 bucks.<br>

Do what you think is best.</p>

<p>One US retailer (Precision Camera) has informed its waiting list customers that it will be delivering their X100s in about a week.<br>

Maybe the supply line has started to move?</p>