dano1

Oleg,

There's something screwy going on at Adorama. They have a used 3600HS-D flash for $149 in D condition. This is totally bizzare because they are selling a brand new one for $159, and B&H Photo is selling a used 5600HS for $129 in 8+ condition.

I would buy the used 5600HS, but I simply can't afford that. I just spent $150 on the camera, and $105 on the two lenses (one was kit, the other was a used 50mm f/1.7). I just can't go out and spend another $130 on a used flash.

Sorry, but the HSS flashes are still more than twice the price of the 3500xi, even If I buy used. Even the used 3500xi is going to be spending more money than I should. I can always buy an ND filter set, I need one anyway.

Dan O.

Gee Demetri, I read your post, but completely forgot about which flash you were talking about once I went and started reasearching flashes for the past hour! I thought I could get the Maxxum 2800, which is probably why I didn't consider your post too much. I guess I should have! Would have saved me an hour's worth of research!

Lol, thanks

Dan O.

Thanks all,

I wasn't thinking of buying a new flash. Rather, a good condition used one would do me just fine. I was looking at the Minolta Maxxum 2800 AF, but upon researching Minolta flashes online I realized that it will only work on the Minolta 5000, 7000, and 9000 cameras :(.

So, I found this flash further down the list: http://www.adorama.com/US%20%20%20%20140314.html It's the Minolta 3500Xi flash selling for $59. The really neat thing is that it has wireless capabilities. What I don't know is if the 3500xi wirless mode is compatable with the Maxxum 5, is it? Of course, it also has a power zoom and bounce head, but no swivel :( . The thing has a guide number of 108 feet at 80mm :) .

Would you reccomend the 3500xi? Will it work wirlessly with the Maxxum 5? *crosses fingers*

Oh yeah, and after reading that flash faq I now understand what you mean about stopping down the aperture. Makes perfect sense to me now! :D.

Thanks again,

Dan O.

Thanks Micheal,

I haven't been able to test out the flash outdoors yet because my father has taken the camera to Europe with him. I was hoping to spend the time I have learning a little more about how to better operate the camera for when it comes back. The camera won't be back in the states for another week yet.

I had read in the manual that I would have to use a custom setting to set the flash metering to TTL when using a filter of any sort over the flash or lens.

Of course the question still remains, what flash to buy for bounce? I have seen several Minolta and Sunpak flashes selling for ~$40 or so on Adorama's used section. These would of course help in outdoor group shots of my family because they would have more power than the built in flash. They would also allow me to use an ND filter to open up the aperture while retaining the 1/125 shutter speed.

So, what flash would you reccomend? Minolta? Sunpak? Vivitar? Other? My budget is $50.

Thanks,

Dan O.

"Reducing the brightness of the flash unit will lead to underexposure in ADI flash mode."

Okay, now you have me confused. What I'm asking about is a fill flash, you know, for harsh lighting. If I'm taking a photo of a person with a hat, and I set the aperture and shutter for the ambient light, say sunny-16, how in the heck will I underexpose by adjusting the flash compensation?

From what I understand, adjusting the flash compensation will simply adjust how much of the harsh lighting is compensated, not how the image is exposed. For example, the camera may want to make the person look like his face is lit by full sunlight, but I want to make it look like he's wearing a hat, so I lower the flash output to leave *some* shaddow to his face to give a more realistic appearance.

Am I mistaken somewhere?

Thanks,

Dan O.

Hey all. I was just at Dan Heller's website reading up on using a

fill flash. What I realized is that, according to Dan Heller, I'm

going to need the capability of adjusting the flash output to use the

flash for fill purposes. Of course, that becomes a problem because

the built in flash on the Maxxum 5 does not have flash compensation.

So, what do I do? I have wound up with many pictures recently that

have harsh shaddows, and I would like to solve that problem.

I could do two things, of course, with the flash. First I could get a

flash diffuser to knock the brightness of the flash down a little bit,

right? The thing is, Dan Heller reccomends 2/3 to 1-1/2 stop,

depending of course on harshness of shaddows. Is there something that

I can attach to the built in flasht that will lower the flash's output

in that range?

Second, I could do the enevitable, and buy another flash. This of

course will be expensive. I could get a HSS flash from Minolta, but

these look to be costing as much or more than the camera!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=800359844&is=USE

So, are there any 3rd party flashes that are HSS compatable with the

Maxxum 5? I doubt it, but I just thought I'd ask.

What flash would you suggest for someone that only wants to spend less

than $50 USD and is more than willing to buy used? Adorama seems to

have the cheapest used flash units, I'll probably buy one from there.

I think it would also be nice to buy a bigger flash so that I can use

it for the bounce head. I would probably use the bounce head in

conjunction with an omni directional diffuser.

Well, I think that's about it,

Thanks in advance,

Dan O.

"...and I find all Konica materials excluding impresa to be grainy."

That's quite a statement considering that Konica claims that Impressa is the finest grained color negative film! I have heard many good things about Impressa, what are you comparing the grain to?

Dan O.

Thanks all. I don't think the problem that alot of people have with printing a Konica film will be a problem for me because I don't get any prints. Instead, after spending way too much money trying to get a lab to give me the results I wanted, I've decided that it's either impossible or extreemely expensive. I've even tried out my local lab a few times, one that does nothing but sell camera gear and process film, and have gotten some results that were definatley lacking.

Anyway, I use a Minolta Scan Dual as my scanner, but I hope to someday upgrade to a Dual III or a Dual IV. There shouldn't be any problems developing at a Kodak lab, should there?

One of the big factors that I forgot to mention is cost, though it should have been obvious when I stated that I was a low-budget hobbiest. Spending $5.99 for a 36 exposure roll of Kodak Portra 400UC is just too much. I can buy Konica Centuria on the other hand for $1.29 a 24 exp, which brings the cost from 17 cents down to 5 cents per exposure. After 1,000 exposures, that's a difference of $120.

To say that there is too litte knowledge of Konica Centuria isn't enough for me. I have read great things about it online from people who have dared to use it. I have also seen some great photos taken with it. I will try out one roll and see how I like it. Also, if I ever get a really bright day, or I don't mind lugging a tripod around, I might try out Konica Impressa 50 as well.

I'm glad that due to advances in winding technology it should be alot easier for me to change film midroll. I only wish that were true with my Yahshica A TLR. :-P

Thanks for all the replies all,

Dan O.

Well, my new Maxxum 5 does have a "leave leader out on rewind" custom function. I just got the camera last week.

One thing I'm not sure of. If I rewind the film midroll, leave the leader out, and put it back in agian, will the autowinding/advancing take care of any variation such that I don't have to waste and exposure or two to "be on the safe side"?

The only other cameras I have used are manual cameras (the SRT-101 and the XG-M), none of which of course had an auto winding capablity (without an additional autowinder of course). So alot of this stuff is new to me. I have only used one roll of film with the new Maxxum 5, mainly because I let my father take it to Europe, and so I can't say for sure if the exposures will line up properly. Will they?

By living in a "noisy neigborhood" I assume you are talking about all the noise I got in the shaddows on my negative scans. It looks pretty darn ugly to me.

I did go and look at some photos that were taken with Konica Centuria 400 at PhotoSIG, and they looked great, well the ones that were scanned properly of course. I really liked the color a whole lot better than Fuji, or even Kodak. Everything was well saturated.

I also took a look at Konica Impressa 50. That looks to be a fantastic film. They claim that it has the finest grain and highest sharpness of any color negative film. The colors were great too. Now, if I could just change midroll without wasting exposures, I'd be in luck!

Thanks Guys,

Dan O.

Hey all. I was just on the Popular Photography website and found this

comparison of 84 films:

http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/7222003125937.pdf

Anyway, I had been using Fuji Superia Xtra when I needed to use

available indoor light. (either window light or tungsten, every now

and then flourescent). The thing is, as a low-budget hobbiest I often

don't go through enough film to change film for every occasion. So, I

might be in my mother's garden shooting the budding Lupine, but the

next day my nephews and nieces might be over so I'll take candid shots

of them. Then, before you know it I'm shooting landscapes at a state

park. I think you get my point.

So, I need one film that will be good (I know I can't get one that

will be great) in all areas, macro, landscapes, portraits, as well as

indoor lighting. I have settled upon a 400 ISO because I can almost

always shoot with available indoor light with 400 ISO if I use my

Minolta 50mm f/1.7.

So, the next obvious question is which 400 speed film to shoot with?

I have tried Fuji NPH, and can honestly say that stuff is a pain in

the dairy air to scan. The color base is almost pink and there is no

Vuescan profile for it, so I'm left finding areas that are supposed to

be a shade or grey. Of couse, what on earth do I do with Macro? When

I shoot a Rose in my father's garden, and scanned it a few days later.

I spent a fair amount of time trying to get the color right. I

targeted the leaves on the rose bush to a foliage color. Then I found

a pic that I had taken with my father's digicam, and it was then that

I realized I had used the wrong green as the target!

Anyway, that's another big plus in my book, the ease of scanning.

So, here are the 3 major contenders in my book:

1. Stick with Fuji Superia Xtra 400.

2. Go with Kodax Max for the added resolution, along with little added

contrast. (I don't really prefer a lot of contrast though)

3. Try out Konica Centuria 400 for a granualarity in the same league

as 50 and 100 ISO films, as well as a much higher sharpness, and the

abiltiy to work well in mixed light.

It may seem like option #3 is the way to go, but I have never used any

films other than Fuji and Kodak. I haven't really heard good things

about Kodak's color films though. One thing that I have heard and

believe to be true is the garbage in the shaddows. I have used one

roll of some stuff I bought when my mother used the last of my Fuji in

Eurorpe. The colors are excellent, I prefer the color to Fuji, but

that garbage in the shaddows kind of turns me off. Primarily, I have

used Kodak for BW, as most people on these forums do, and kept using

Fuji for color.

I guess I shouldn't feel this way, but I somehow just can't trust a

film that is made by such a small company, and that I know so little

about, other than it was recenty merged with Minolta.

Can someone reassure me on Konica? I guess one of my problems is that

I'm looking at stats, not pictures. I have a big problem going out

and testing films. That is of course, becuase I use so little film

that testing out several films would take me many weeks, and I might

wind up with a lot of mixed results in my photographs while doing it.

Is Konica Centuria 400 as good as the stats say it is? Should I just

stick with Fuji Superia Xtra 400? Should I give Kodak another go?

Thanks all,

Dan O'Connell

Well, it seems that my father decided not to take the 50mm with him.

Looking at the mount, I can see no abnomalities, such as warping, bending, or abrasions that would indicate abnormal wear.

One thing I do not understand is this small phillps srew with a cylindrical head that sits in the groove of the mount pointing towards the glass. It doesn't seem to do anything, and I would think that it would get in the way while you were trying to mount the lens.

I'm really curious as to what that screw is supposed to do. It looks like a set screw, but as to what it would set I havn't a clue, it just goes straight into the mount without joining anything.

I don't see anything like it on my MF lenses, and I have no AF lens for copmparison.

Any idea what that screw does?

Thanks,

Dan O.

Thanks Micheal.

So far I have been scanning the negatives with a Minolta Scan Dual (the original). I haven't seen any problems yet with the lens, but my use of the lens has mainly been limited to f/5.6 macro work at 100mm. My father had the lens along with my Maxxum/Dynax 5 in Europe as of right now. He's on vacation with my mother, one of my sisters, and my brother. I'm sure that when he comes back I'll get to see alot of photos where the lens used smaller apertures and shorter focal lengths, and both at the same time. Unfortunatley, I will not have a clue what was used where (I highly doubt my father will remember this info).

I think you are right about something though, I bought what I could afford. I can always buy a new one later, most likely much later, or possibly a used lens, which I could buy sooner.

Would you think that any of the problems with kit lens such as the 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 would be detectable with a Minolta Scan Dual? If the answer is "no" then I imagine I may never replace the lens. I mean, I just sent out a picture I scanned off a neg to be printed at 12x18. Granted, the Scan Dual may not be the best scanner for that size of an enlargement, but I have no doubt that it will come out fine. There was sharpness down to the single pixel in that photo. It of course was taken with my Minolta Rokkor 50mm f/1.7. I always wound up with beautiful photos with that lens, which is why I purchased an AF model.

Anyway, I didn't take a very good look at the mount, but there was type of an insect sack on it in a few places. I took an old toothbrush to it, and it seemed to clean up just fine. Unfortunatley, it's still a tight fit.

If I were to give a rating to the way the lenses fit the bodies, 1 as the worst, 10 as the best, I'd say that the 28-100 is a 9 or 10, the Rokkor 50mm f/1.7 on the XG-M is a 6 or 7, and the 50mm f/1.7 AF on the Maxxum 5 is a 4 or 5, but possibly a 3, I haven't tested it in a while since my father has taken my Maxxum 5 to Europe.

Thanks again,

Dan O.

Hey all. I bought the 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 lens as part of a kit from

B&H. What I knew at he time was that the other kit, the one with the

35-80mm, had a dog of a lens. What I did not know is that that was

because it was a kit lens, just like my 28-100mm.

This is actually the first time I've purchased new equipment. I

bought most of my other manual focus lenses for my father's old

SRT-101 on eBay. I got some great pics, but alot had softness on the

side of the photo, namely my Beston 28mm f/2.8.

Anyway, long story short, I got the lens because I thought I was

getting a good deal. Did I get a good deal, or did I get a dog? I

realize this was discussed a while back, but I couldn't find any

agreement between people.

Anyway, I have one more question. The 28-100mm fits my brand new

Maxxum/Dynax 5 like a glove. It slides onto the mount nearly

effortlessly. I just got a used 50mm f/1.7 in the mail from Adorama.

They had given it an "E" (for excellent) condition rating. What I

found was that the lens is very difficult to mount. I kind of have to

really twist that thing on there, and I can feel metal rubbing against

metal. Is this normal? It almost seems worse than my father's 50mm

f/1.7 Rokkor on the SRT 101, or maybe I just got used to the brand new

28-100, I'm not sure. Either way, there is a huge difference between

the way the new and the used lenses fit my Maxxum 5 mount.

Is it okay if the mount is a tight fit? Can I dammage the mount on

the Maxxum 5?

Thanks in advance,

Sorry if I asked two questions in one post,

Dan O.

"Go back to shooting film."

Lol. I've been shooting film for the better part of two years now. I have to say that having real negatives is nice for safe archieving. I do scan in RAW though. I started doing that as soon as I upgraded Vuescan to the pro version. So, I now have over 14gb in about 400 RAW files. Add to that all the standard tiff versions, and you have close to 30gb in images.

I have already purchased an 8x DVD+/-RW drive for $80 USD on Newegg.com (lite-on) and a 25pk of DVDs. So far, I have backed up all my RAW files with no problem. Unfortuntley, I was running out of space on one of my drives. So, somewhere in the process of moving all my RAW files to another hard drive, about 20 images from my 2003 trip to Europe were lost. This was before I had backed up all my RAW files.

Of course, all I had to do was open up my binder full of negs and pull them out ;).

The reason I have all my negs as RAW files and backed up on DVD's is simple. It takes me about 3 minutes to do proper scan with my Minolta Scan Dual. I spent about 3 or 4 hours scanning my 109 negatives from Europe alone. I really prefer the 10 second scan that I can do from a RAW file, or even a batch scan to going and taking out all my precious negs and exposing them to the elements, then spending 3 minutes scanning.

Also, when I first started scanning I had no idea what I was doing. So, last week I did a batch scan on all the remaining 90 RAW files from my trip to Europe with settings I had learned. I walked away from the computer and ate breakfast. When I came back, I had all 90 images rescanned and waiting for editing.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that negatives are the ultimate archiving media, but if you have scanned your negatives you better be sure to back that up.

Dan O.

Hey all. I just got my new Maxxum/Dynax 5 off B&H with the 28-100mm

f/3.5-5.6 as a kit lens.

I was going to see if I could shoot the stars last night, but I

realized that I had a problem. The first thing I realized was that I

would have to use manual focus. So, I needed to know which direction

to turn the focusing ring to shoot at infinity. So, I looked to the

moon, started turning the focusing ring, and it became sharper. Then

something strange happened. Just as soon as it was in focus, it went

out of focus. I had turned the focusing ring too much!

I have used about 6 different manually focusing lenses on an SRT-101

and an XG-M, and on all of them when you turned the lens as far as it

would go it would focus on infinity. Now with this auto focus lens,

It focuses beyond infinity!

What gives?

Thanks in advance,

Dan O.

"Your problem can be solved with a neutral density filter."

Thanks Neal. That's probably what I'll do. Somehow that simple solution slipped my mind.

This is really the first flash I have used on an SLR. My other two cameras, an SRT 101 and an XG-M (both Minoltas of course :-) ) weren't too good with a flash as they lacked any ttl flash metering, and had a synch speed of 1/60.

Now I've got a new Maxxum/Dynax 5 and I really want to take advantage of the flash. I'm really curious as to how the pics will come out.

I did do some metering this afternoon. I put the camera at 1/125 and metered around. The camera read f/16 in most directions about an hour from sunset. The problem of course is that the flash only has a range of 14ft at ISO 400 with an aperture of f/5.6. It did not say what the range was at anything higher.

Well, I'll have to check out what ND filters are going for on B&H and Adorama. B&H gave me a good deal on the camera and lens. I got both plus some batteries for only $220. I'm going to need one heck of an ND filter to get down to f/5.6 in broad daylight though. Lets see, I'll need to go from f/32 roughly down to f/5.6, that should be 5 stops? That might get expensive.

Well thanks again,

Dan O.

Okay, I think I understand now.

The main reason for this question is that the built in flash on the Maxxum 5 has a synch speed of 1/125. I shoot in all sorts of conditions. Sometimes I shoot indoor shots of my family where I prefer available light. In those situations I use a 400 speed film. The problem is that I also like to take outdoor shots of my family, often in contrasty light. I would like to use the fill flash, but following the sunny 16 rule I would need at an aperture of about f/27 to shoot at 1/125 sec at ISO 400 in bright daylight.

I was really hoping that that would be possible, and I guess it is, just not favorable.

I really don't want to switch to a slower film because I like my indoor portraits with available light, however the contrasy sulight is starting to bother me.

Thanks again,

Dan O.

Okay, so should I even use the lens beyond f/16?

Thanks,

Dan O.

I don't think I would want a 5400ppi medium format scanner.

Imagine the file sizes on those images! How would you edit them? Currently, I scan medium format on an Espon 2450 at 2400 PPI. This often results in a 125+ mb file for 6x6cm. I have fairly up to date machine (1.3ghz, 512mb PC2100) but it takes a lot of extra time to work with the files. If my guestimations are right, a 5400ppi scanner would yeild file sizes over 500mb in 6x6cm (2x width times 2x height).

What exactly do you need a 5400ppi medium format scanner for anyay? Do you have a way to print 10'x10' prints?

Dan O.

Hey all.

I was playing around with my new Minolta 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 lens, and

I realized that the aperture at 100mm goes all the way down to f/38.

Now, of course I have heard that the 35mm sweet spot is between f/8

and f/11, but what I want to know is if that applies to all focal

lengths, or is it based on a normal lens?

Consider this, from what I learned in physics class, diffraction is

caused by the the the bending of light at the edge of a surface, such

as an aperture blade. If the only thing that matters how big the

aperture is in milimeters, then a longer focal lenght lens would have

a different "sweet spot" from a normal or a wide angle, wouldn't it?

For exapmle, when I set the lens to f/22 on wide angle, the lens has a

1.2727... milimeter aperture. (28/22). Now, when I set it to 100mm

and f/38, I now have a 2.6313mm aperture, that's over twice the

diameter of the aperture at 28mm!

So, how does diffraction work in a lens? Is it strictly based on

f/stop, thus the sweet spot for all lenses is f/8-f/11, or is it based

on the diameter of the aperture in milimeters?

Now of course this does get a little more complicated, I read in an

earlier thead that in some lenses the diameter of the opening in the

aperture blades does not always compute that easily, but lets keep it

simple for once!

Thanks in advance,

Dan O.

Anyone know about the bokeh on Minolta's 28-100mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom? I just got it to go with my new Maxxum 5. B&H stated that the lens has a circular aperture, wich is supposed to give the best out of focus highlights.

I was wondering just how effective this circular aperture was, and how well the 28-100mm performed because of it. If zooms are supposed to have worse bokeh than fixed focals, just how bad is the bokeh going to be on this lens?

Thanks in advance,

Dan O.

PS, I did buy a 50mm f/1.7 fixed focal which I will use a lot, especially indoors.

I would never use a flatbed scanner for 35mm work, especially when you expect to print on 11x14.

I use a Minolta Scan Dual (the original) for my 35mm work. Granted, it's a little outdated, but it makes beautiful 2400ppi scans on 35mm.

I also own the Epson 2450, and have run a few comparisons between the two. The Epson is nowhere near sharp enough to print an 8x10 off of 35mm. You can make great 8x10s, and possibly 11x14s though off of 120 film (6x6cm)

You should use the right tool for the job. The lens on a flatbed must cover the entire bed, thus is nowhere near sharp enough on just a 24x36mm negative. A Minolta dedicated film scanner on the other hand has a lens that covers just the right size for 35mm film.

Use a flabed for medium, large format, and prints. Use a dedicated film scanner for 35mm work.

Dan O.

I tried the bundled Silverfast that came with my Epson 2450. It didn't really compare to Vuescan, which I had already purchased.

Vuescan is probably the best scanning software out there. I use the pro version ($80 USD) and I make RAW files for all my scans. The RAW files have been a big help. When I first started scanning I was very green. However, I scanned everything in RAW and TIFF. The TIFFs all look terribble to me now, but any time I want I can open the RAW file in Vuescan and rescan it, without having to handle the negative.

There are so many options with Vuescan it's unreal. The best part is that Ed Hamrick updates the software constantly, and with the pro version, you get all upgrades free for life. I try to check the website as often as I can. Sometimes upgrades are almost weekly.

Check out Vuescan at www.hamrick.com

Dan O.

Personnally, I would reccomend the Epson 2450 or higher for a flatbed.

I own the Epson 2450 myself, it was $200 refurbished, straight from Epson, and included all the original materials. I have done some 120 (6x6cm) work on it, but primarily I got it for making copies and prints of about 400 prints and 80 negatives that my mother's family has had since the late 1800s through today. Most of the negatives date back to the early 1900's, and are in an 8x14cm format.

So far, I have had wonderfull results with it. The only thing I am unsure of is what the dimensions are for 4x5, unless it's 4x5 inches. The light above the glass is 9x4 inches, I believe, so if 4x5 is 4x5 inches, then it should work just fine. I think it actualy has a film holder for something about that size.

I did own a Microtek before, and can say that there was no comparison to an Epson 2450. The biggest advantage, IMO, is the abilitiy to use Vuescan with the 2450. I had already invested $80 in that software for use with my Minolta Scan Dual, and I can say that there is no software that can compete. Without Vuescan, you will be most likely be left with some inferior proprietary scanning software, most likely twain.

Look up Vuescan at www.hamrick.com

I know I didn't really answer your question, but I hope I led you in a better direction,

Dan O.