reisenberger

<blockquote>

<p>One solution I intend to try is just taking an extra picture stopped down enough to induce diffraction if I think moire may be a problem.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. My planned approach is to shoot extra frames stopped down if I fear moire may be a risk in a shot. As I shoot exclusively tripod-based landscape, I am hoping that the adjacent frames should be enough in register (or pixel-nudgeable to be) that one could also drop one behind the other in photoshop and only blend in from the higher aperture moire-safe frame locally, ie only where necessary, keeping the full detail elsewhere in the frame. </p>

<p>That said, not experienced any moire so far shooting landscapes on the D800E (using lenses Nikon recommend like the 70-200 VR II).<br>

D</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish Nikon would have given us a 12x36mm crop size. 18mp Panorama would be sweeeeet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Completely agree on this. We are getting enough pixels horizontally now that we can afford to crop off the top and bottom to make panoramas rather than have to go the multi-shoot-and-stitch route. Seems like a missed opportunity to also make a panoramic camera (which after all was enough of a niche in film to make dedicated cameras, XPAN and GX617 etc, former of which I am still shooting).</p>

<p>My $2 workround for this on the D800 has been to cut a simple 1x3 mask for the liveview screen (with an extra strip cut out below to still see the shooting data), and slip the mask between the screen and plastic cover when needed, which holds it v tight. Basic but effective - can now compose 1x3 panos in liveview. I like to compose my panos v tightly, so the main upside is I can see my whole pano in one go as I compose it, not 'guess' how it will look after stitching. <br>

D</p>

 

Many thanks to everybody for your recommendations - Intro2020 seem the place to go. I will feed back further here if I have interesting experience with them to report. Many thanks again.

I am looking for Bronica repair in the UK and wonder if anyone can provide any recommendations. Using the forum

search brought up old threads from 1999 ( http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/000WWp ), and 2005 (

http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/00EG4 ), but I believe that Bronica themselves ceased trading

sometime in the last few years? I am London-based, but would be prepared to post elsewhere in the UK if somebody

knows an excellent repairer elsewhere. I have three lenses whose shutters I would like to get recalibrated, and

the Bronica SQAi driving them has a shutter which blocks - ceases firing (and is not the obvious things like the

darkslide not being removed).

 

Has anyone tried any of the repairers mentioned in 2005 [repeated below], or can recommend another?

 

Bronica UK. Bronica Service Department Priors Way, Maidenhead, Berks SL6 2HR Tel: (Direct) 01628 799902 Fax:

(Direct) 01628 799912 Please send your equipment to the above address and we will send an estimate of costs by return

 

Interphoto Ltd., Priors Way, Maidenhead, Berks. SL6 2HR, Tel 01628 799902. The advert mentions free estimates

within 48 hours & 6 months guarantee.

 

Bromley Camera Repairs, based in Chislehurst, Kent was established in 1986. <a

href="http://www.bromleycamerarepairs.co.uk/" rel="nofollow">http://www.bromleycamerarepairs.co.uk/</a>

 

Camera Repair Centre. For an accurate estimate of the cost to repair your camera, please phone us on 01892 619136.

47 London Road, Southborough,

Tunbridge Wells,

Kent, TN4 0PB

Telephone: 01892 619136

Fax: 01892 540362

Opening Hours: 9am - 5.30pm Monday to Friday

9am - 1pm Saturday

(Closed 1pm - 2pm each day)

 

Camera Clinic

020 7602 7976

HEAD OFFICE: WEST END BRANCH:

26 North End Crescent,

West Kensington,

London,

W14 - 8TD

Phone: 020 7602 7976

Fax: 020 7602 7534 2nd Floor,

18 Great Portland Street,

London,

W1W-8QR

Phone: 020 7631 5224

Fax: 020 7631 5250

Hi Bruce

There is a good deal of discussion about it over on www.choose-film.com, a new website set up by FujiFilm (UK) to promote the use of film. Also similarly on apug.org. Many who have used it are excited that it is 400 speed film with 100speed / near 100speed grain. I think the official RMS rating doesn't quite put it in line with the grain of Provia100, but is a big improvement on 400F. Personally I have shot a roll, but am waiting for it back from the processors to report further.

 

Definitely sounds worth testing, from the statistics on paper.

 

Regards

Dylan

Hi Paul. Thanks for that. Yes, I think the lens is aligned properly. The alignment marks/position lines up as I think it should, and the shutter does fire to whatever exposure is set, so from that I am assuming the lens is aligned fine. It seems to be the mirror and crank synchronisation that is all wrong.

 

Many thanks, though, for all and any suggestions.

Dylan

David, Rick: Many thanks for both of your responses.

 

Rick: Yes, I was puzzling over that procedure in the manual and have tried it several times to no avail, both with and without film in. However, because of the below (see below), I am coming to the conclusion the levers are failing to operate the functions at all, rather than the functions just being out of sync.

 

Most conclusively, I have taken the camera to another camera store this morning who deal regularly in this kind of item. They point out in fact that neither the mirror lock-up lever or the multiple exposure lever are working - both should click between positions, feel resistance and move items internally; neither do.

 

Many thanks for your help.

Have just acquired a Bronica SQ-Ai second hand; everything makes sense to me

except one aspect.

 

Is it the case that, whatever mirror lock-up setting you have, the mirror will

always fold away (up) when you turn the film crank enough that the shutter is

cocked? This is happening to me - every time I wind the film crank sufficiently

that the shutter is cocked, the mirror jumps up, whatever the mirror lock-up

lever is set at.

 

In other words: Do you have to make your composition thru the finder with the

film 'not quite advanced fully' (while the mirror is still down), then advance

the film crank to fully cock the shutter (at which point mirror jumps up and you

can no longer see the viewfinder image), before shooting? Is that normal?

 

Or should the mirror stay down when the shutter is fully cocked? (on N or indeed

other mirror lever settings) - ie only lift and return when you actually fire

the shutter?

 

I am curious if there is any fault with the model I have or if this is the

standard behaviour.

 

Another aspect of the model I have acquired that seems strange to me is that

there is no resistance when moving the mirror lock-up lever. When moving the

mirror lock-up lever between N, S and C, there is very little resistance and the

mirror itself does not move. Does that sound right or normal?

 

If in some way I am operating the camera wrongly - or if it is stuck in some

mechanical loop that it can be released from with a certain operation - I would

be grateful to know - but also wonder if this is a fault.

 

The sequence I am experiencing is that with the shutter cocked, the mirror is

permanently up (so I cannot compose a shot with the shutter cocked). After

shooting, as I wind forward, the mirror returns to position, and I get what is

(what I _assume is) a faithful 6x6 view through the lens... *but*, the mirror

stays in this position only while the shutter is not quite cocked. At this

stage the shutter will not fire. As soon as I wind on such that the shutter is

cocked - such that the shutter would fire - the mirror jumps up with a loud clap

and I have no viewfinder view. ??

 

Many thanks for all help!

The subject of this post is exactly my question too.

 

I always loved the tremendous depth and colour of Cibachrome prints from trannies, and have come across one supplier who is offering Digital Cibachrome (Ilfochrome) using an Oce Lightjet machine, but not well located to me.

 

Does anyone UK-based know of any London or wider UK suppliers who are also offering this combination (Lightjet to Ilfochrome)?

Many thanks all for your answers. Can anyone who is leaving the centre filter on all the time (Ilkka?) vouch that they have never had _overcompensation (brighter edges) at f16-f22? (45mm lens; slide film)

 

I found results at f/16 without the center filter showed only slight fall off, and worried the center filter might overcorrect at those apertures.

 

(...Although just because the center filter graduates from 1-stop to clear from center to outer, I don't know that necessarily always translates exactly into a 1-stop to zero effect from image area centre to image area extremity - the exact effect on different parts of the image area must depend on the paths taken by the light rays to different parts of the image area, right?, which part of the filter those rays pass through and other light/lens interactions - I don't have the optics knowledge to figure this out, but if anyone does...)

 

Many thanks all

What's people's experience with when/when not to use the 49mm centre filter on

the Hassy XPAN 45mm and 90mm lenses? (with slide film)

 

 

On the 45mm lens, discussions seem to agree it's essential at f4-f8, but what

are people's experiences at f11-f22? Hasselblad say it's not necessary, but I

read that many people leave the centre filter on the 45mm even at f11-f22 -

what's the reason for leaving the centre filter on then? Are people still

finding there's some residual vignetting which the centre filter corrects? (Or

is it just that it's easier not to keep changing the centre filter on and off?)

 

 

For the 90mm lens, I read that most people don't use the centre filter 'at

all'. So are people happy shooting the 90mm lens even at f4 without the centre

filter?

 

 

Many thanks. Background: I shoot exclusively Fuji slide film. Most of my work

is tripod-based landscapes shot around f16 for depth-of-field, hence

particularly the question about filter or no-filter on the 45mm at f16...

 

(Have just purchased the XPAN kit plus 45mm/90mm lenses and centre filter -not

30mm lens yet:)..., after being able to try a second-hand one on a hire basis,

but wasn't able to try the center filter from the hire outfit.)

Many thanks Ilkka!

 

I subsequently found this

http://www.naturfotograf.com/xpan_rev.html

which suggests that f/22 is the end to work at to reduce the light fall-off.

 

Would still be interested in anyone else's views on the results working at f/22 without the filter...?

Can the XPAN 45mm lens be shot without the centre filter at one end

of the aperture range or the other (either wide open or fully stopped-

down), on transparency film, and still get acceptable results without

too much light fall-off at the edges? And if so at which end?

 

 

I have the opportunity to hire an XPAN&45mm lens at around 100GBP

only for a 7-day stock shoot to Italy next week - excellent chance to

try out the kit before spending at the 1000+GBP starting price - but

the hire company unclear whether they have the 45mm centre spot

filter available, and I want to know what my shooting options are

without it.

 

I mainly shoot tripod-based landscape, so if results were acceptable

at the f/16-f/22 end but not wide open, for instance, that would bar

handheld shots but could still be very workable for my general

practice (tripod-based landscape). If the other way round, I guess

one could shoot handheld or f4-5.6 landscapes where most of the

subject was at a distance/infinity but not resort to f/22 for near-

far/front-to-back sharpness... Fuji Velvia/Provia is my emulsion of

choice.

 

Many thanks for all info. Have searched hard for the answer on this,

but find conflicting info - some like

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/35mm_cameras/0403sb_hasselblad/

stating that ok at the wide open end, others like hasselblad's own QA

http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/faq/faqFirst.asp?secId=580

stating ok at f/11-f/16.

 

(I would assume the Hasselblad QA should be definitive, but am not

entirely clear from: "is free from vignetting at apertures smaller

than f/8" followed by "however, natural light fall-off reduces the

exposure at the corners by 1-stop"...)

 

Many thanks

 

Dylan Reisenberger

Many thanks again to all for all information!

Two thoughts for London: A rail bridge leads south from Embankment tube station just south of Charing Cross mainline station, and has walkways on both sides. One direction looks towards St Pauls Cathedral, some of the classic buildings of the City of London (including the new so-called gherkin), and the 50/60s architecture South Bank Centre. The other direction looks at the new London Eye (giant ferris wheel), and the Houses of Parliament. Great for dusk crossover light shots. (You can also of course get a lot closer [squarer on] parliament from the river banks furtherdown).

 

Further downstream on the Thames, a new pedestrian suspension bridge - with a nice convex upward-arching arc, by the sculpter Caro - has been built between St Pauls Cathedral and the Tate Modern art gallery - a converted power station usually lit up with some neon near the top. The particularly distinctive shape of this bridge makes for good compositions even in daytime; people also flow over at office-closing time, if you like those kind of blurred lots-of-people-moving-in-the-city shots.

 

Hope this helps.

You probably have enough posts confirming this now, but I too have travelled in with 6 lenses, 2 bodies and 40rolls Provia. The hand-luggage weight limit was much more of a challenge than any customs official.

Many thanks all. It sounds as if everyone so far is confirming that the cameras with brackets on are still basically unproblematic to handhold.

 

(This is really important to me as after dawn scenics, I tend to shoot a lot handheld, eg markets/candids etc during the course of the day, but if there was a real ergonomic fault with these brackets and handholding I guess it would have come out on one of the forums by now - many thanks to all for your confirmations.)

 

Erik/Dennis: the cameras are a Nikon F5 and D70, although I may change the D70 up to the D200. I'm guessing that the D70-specific and D200-specific brackets can't be interchangeable because of differences in the base camera body shape, so that would be another expense if I change, but I'm also assuming the camera-specific brackets are a better/firmer hold on the cameras than the generic L-brackets? (would be grateful if anybody could confirm/deny any of these assumptions!)

 

Many thanks to all

I'm thinking of switching from a tilt/pan head to a ball head for

greater freedom and I read almost everywhere that a combination like

the Arca Swiss is the way to go and that Kirk's or RRS's L-brackets

allow you to mount your camera vertical with the weight of the camera

directly over the tripod.

 

My question: When you have a Kirk L-bracket fixed to your camera, is

it still reasonably ergonomic to hand-hold or do the L-brackets get

in the way of the hand-hold/make it awkward at all?

 

(I shoot a mixture of landscape, architectural and travel stock and

change frequently from tripod-mounted to handheld in the course of a

day. Concerned just if the L-bracketed cameras were awkward to hand-

hold as this might be a minus for me) (or it might be fiddly screwing

the L-brackets on and off frequently)

Hi GX 680III

 

I do not have first-hand experience on this lens, but my related experience may be of interest.

 

From what I read, there was a lot of debate about whether to have the Nikon VR (or Canon IS) on or off when working from a tripod or monopod. I have now used the Nikkor 80-400VR extensively (and with a success rate that made me comfortable at least with having made the outlay for the lens). With this lens, the VR mechanism should definitely be off when working with a tripod, as the VR quite clearly introduces unwanted (unnecessary) motion when the camera is locked tight on a tripod. You only have to look through the viewfinder with the VR on prior to shooting, to see the viewfinder image shift as the lens tries to compensate for some motion it imagines is there but is not. This is not to put down the lens - as I understand it, it is not intended to be used on a tripod (with VR), and it has been an excellent performer for me handheld.

 

By far the best resource I have seen on Nikon VR lenses in conjunction with tripods and monopods is an article by Simon Stafford for the Nikon Owner Magazine (http://www.nikonownermagazine.com/). As I understand it this is only available to Nikon Owner subscribers but I don't know if Nikon Owner or Simon Stafford could tell you if it had been republished elsewhere. As far as I remember, the performance of the different Nikon VR lenses on a tripod/monopod did seem to vary across the range, so you may be best off carrying out your own tests or seeing if you could locate the article, if this point was of particular importance.

 

Another question might be to ask what was the intention behind shooting with the VR and a monopod? Depending on what you were aiming to shoot, you may find that the VR in itself (without the use of a monopod) delivers the kind of results you are looking for.

What do you dedicated and professional nature/landscape photographers

out there think of the realism of greens from today's digital SLRs?

 

My eye tends to find the greens from digital cameras, even pro DSLRs,

all look a little weak/yellowy, sometimes a bit silvery - not way

out, but enough to look 'off'. For instance I find I can flip through

a commercial travel or photography magazine and tell straight away

which images have been shot digitally just from the greens.

 

Are other dedicated landscape photographers seeing this? Has anyone

found a good solution? (eg in post-processing)

 

And has anyone used a range of Nikon digital SLRs (or even the Fuji

S2s and S3s), and found any of them significantly better for

naturalness/ realism of colours than others? (I hear the Fuji S3 has

a so-called 'like Velvia' tonality mode, but haven't seen any reviews

of it yet).

 

I have experience with digital versus film and all the usual

advantages/disadvantages, so not seeking to re-open a debate on

those - it's this particular issue that's my major stumbling block to

going fully digital (for commercially stock, landscape and travel

work).

Tomas

<p>

My answer may be a little late for you, but from my experience I would definitely recommend switching to the Hitech 85 filters over CokinP, for quality - especially as they are not that more expensive. I found the results from Cokin Ps generally left images unacceptably soft (loss of definition). The Cokin 'grey' grads also tended not to be truly neutral, to my eye, but to give a pink cast. Sharpness is of course subjective (I'm not 100% satisfied with the Hitechs, and am considering the Lees), but the Hitechs seem much much better than the Cokins.

<p>I am surprised more people do not know about the HiTechs considering the match with the popular Cokin format and the generally better quality of the Hitechs.

<p>

(This does not address your specific question about polarisers and vignetting, of course.)

Realised we're not supposed to cross-post, but occurred to me might

get more detailed answers to this on the business forum than over in

film&processing... let me know if you have any thoughts.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dno5

REPEATED BELOW

--------------

 

A number of 'pro-am' labs I've used in the past have the usual

statement "Liability limited to cost of film and processing only,

materials of greater value must be insured" etc. Having taken on

some paid comissions this year, I'm now looking to have my film

insured (to the value of each commission/shoot) against 'loss in lab'.

 

--> Are folks out there getting this 'loss in lab' insurance directly

from an insurer? (ie independent of the lab they go to)

 

--> Or does one simply have to go to a pro lab where this would

(would it?) be included as part of price?

 

UK-based, but still interested in answers from elsewhere

 

Many thanks in advance

A number of 'pro-am' labs I've used in the past have the usual

statement "Liability limited to cost of film and processing only,

materials of greater value must be insured" etc.

 

Having taken on some paid comissions this year, I'm now looking to

have my film insured (to the value of each commission/shoot)

against 'loss in lab'.

 

--> Are folks out there getting this 'loss in lab' insurance directly

from an insurer? (ie independent of the lab they go to)

 

--> Or does one simply have to go to a pro lab where this would

(would it?) be included as part of price?

 

 

UK-based, but still interested in answers from elsewhere!

Simon - this was a really interesting debate. It would be great to hear what _you made of it?

I'm looking to use some high ASA *slide* film (400+ ASA, ideally

nearer 1000 or 1600) on my next shoot; intending to make use of the

heavier film grain for misty/atmospheric effect, so obvious grain an

advantage. Colour slide.

 

What high-ASA slide film can people recommend/suggest? I am finding

1600ASA in print films, but cant seem to find anything near 1600 in

colour slide these days??

 

I have seen people quoting they were using AGFA 1000 ASA in the past-

is this still available? Do Fuji do anything colour slide in 1600? Is

pushing Provia 400 to 1600 an option that anyone has tried?

 

Thanks in advance for all feedback.