bernard_korites

I have the F4s with the mb21 and I spent several days in Acadia just a few weeks ago. I have a spongy Nikon sling that I carry the F4 with, letting it rest against my back. I hardly notice it's there, even after long hikes over rocks, along the beach, etc. I also have an 8008, which is much lighter, but it seems to be more noticeable when I carry it, probably because of its shape. The F4 is nice and flat.

 

There's a lighthouse outside of Bass Harbor that's nice at sunset.

"Hardrive dilemna!"

 

Not that it really matters but I would like to point out that "dilemma" is spelled "dilemma", not "dilemna", a common failing of posters everywhere. The word comes from the Greek; the root "lemma" means something taken as true and is ubiquitous in the study of geometry. The prefix "di" means two. A dilemma is thus a choice between two thing each taken as true.

Mine may be a later model 'cause there's no little dark shape or shadow that I can see, unless I'm going blind.

I just looked through the viewfinder of my F4s with 50/1.4 lens and I do not see a dark shape anywhere.

I think they should go back into the Hermes stores. Having a Leica displayed next to a $975 beach towel says it all.

I would probably take early retirement.

I shoot Astia chromes through my recently acquired mint Nikon F4 because I have yet to see anything that beats a chrome projected on a wall through my Colorplan lens in a dark room. My Sony digital only gets used when I need something to put on the web quickly.

The FM10 is a sweet little camera, very much underated.

Jungle, scenic, outdoors....you want reliability and simplicity so there's no question, get a film camera. Nikon FM10=$250, upgrade kit lens to a 50/1.8=$110, 10 rolls of Velvia=$50. If scanning costs are too much, buy a used scanner when you get back.

Edward, you wrote - "Oddly, an HD television is an excellent way to display images in lieu of a slide projector, and actually looks sharper than projected slides."

 

Have you actually verified that? I would be interested to hear if a slide, projected through a Colorplan to the same size as an affordable HD TV screen is not as sharp.

 

You also wrote - "I've come to the realization that projected slides were never actually that good, and that their current appeal is based on a romantic recollection of "the day" rather an objective observation."

 

My experience is the problem with slides is they are often scratched or dusty and that degrades the viewing experience. They also buckle under the heat of the lamp and maintaining sharp focus across the slide is almost impossible. However, that problem can be alleviated by mounting the slides in glass mounts although I admit that can be a hassle.

 

I think what you are comparing is (1) a digital flow starting with a digital camera and ending with a digital display with (2) an analog flow starting with a film slide and ending with an analog projection. While the first may give cleaner, more sharply focussed results, it comes at a cost, several thousand dollars I would guess. On the other hand, my Colorplan lens cost $170 new.

Just to add to my comments above, when viewing slides on a light table, a hand held viewer or a rear projection screen, the light is transmitted through the slide directly onto your eyeballs so you get the full strength of the light. On the other hand, when slides are projected onto a wall, or digital or slide images are printed on paper, the light is reflective and you don't get the same brightness or trueness of color.

If you like chromes on a light table, try viewing them through a Colorplan onto a rear projection screen! It's works like a big light table.

When I need immediate results, I use my digital. When digital can produce the same quality image I get by projecting Astia slides through my Leica Colorplan onto a flat white wall in a darkened room, I'll do everything digital.

I like my 50/1.4 but I find my 45/2.8 has better color and contrast.

I would stay in either manual or aperture priority mode. If you use a program mode you won't have control over the F stop which controls your depth of field which is probably the most important parameter in landscape photography.

 

I find the thing that gives a heightened sense of depth or distance in a landscape is having foreground objects in sharp focus. If you're focusing on a distant object the only way to do this is to have a large depth of field which means stopping the lens down. But when you do this you have to consider that most lenses are not at their sharpest when stopped all the way down to say f22 so you might want to use f16 or f11. Stopping the lens way down means that your exposure time will increase but that won't matter much if you're using a tripod.

 

If you want to draw attention to a foreground object you will want to do the opposite with depth of field. Focusing on the foreground object and opening the lens by using a small f stop will reduce the depth of field and blur the background.

 

It's really quite simple; just decide how you want your image to look then adjust aperture accordingly.

 

I find getting the exposure right is more difficult. In a landscape this typically means deciding if you want to expose for a bright sky or a dark landscape. You can't get both right at the same time. I usually take one shot at the average then bracket exposure up and down one or two stops.

Or you could just put a few "must see" destinations on your itinerary and spend the rest of the time driving around and sampling the local culture. I took a cross country motorcycle trip a few years ago and one of my favorite shots is of a truck stop outside of Kansas City.

 

Pictures of rocks and trees and pretty scenery can get boring and repetitious after a while. I spent some time in Switzerland this spring and took the usual obligatory pictures of mountains and valleys but it's the more offbeat ones taken in the town and villages that I find most interesting.

I would go to New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming and Montana. Don't miss the Grand Canyon. Arrange a mule trip to the bottom if you can. As far as renting a motorhome, I would just Google it or contact Winnebago for suggestions.

I think it has to do with the focal length of the lens used for shooting the image. For example, if you want an image to look like what is normally seen by the human eye you would use a "normal" 50mm lens on your camera. A 50mm lens has a view angle of 46 degrees. So, it seems to me you would want to sit at a distance where the angle subtended from one side of the projected image to the other is about 46 degrees. It turns out, if I did my tangents correctly, for an image taken with a 50mm lens you should sit a distance of 2.3 times the projected image's horizontal width. For example, if the image is 4 feet from side to side, sit about 9 feet from the screen. If the image was taken with a lens of different focal length I would adjust the distance accordingly; if the image is taken with a wider angle lens, get closer, for a long focal length lens, sit further back. I always use either a 50 or 45 mm lens and I find sitting about 9 feet back for a 4 foot width projected image is about right.

If you buy a used camera and your pics aren't coming out right you won't know if it's you or the camera. I also wouldn't get a highly complex camera like the Nikon f100 and waste a lot of time figuring out how to use it. I would get a new, simple, easy to use camera. If you don't want to spend a lot on money, that leaves only one option; the Nikon FM10. I have taken some of my best pictures with it and I presently use a Nikon F4, 8008 and a Sony 717.

Get the P150 and put a Colorplan in it.

Start with the lens, it should be of at least the same quality as your camera lens. Then look for a projector that will accept it.

I bought an F4s recently too and I love it. I worried about it being too heavy to carry around but you get used to it. I keep it on my desk. I just like looking at it.

 

Regarding the manual, I downloaded one that wasn't very good quality so I ordered a cleaner copy from Nikon. I think it was $6.95.

Unless you're sure you will need the scans again I wouldn't bother saving them. The beauty of slides is you always have the slides and can rescan them if necessary.

To rub more salt into this wound, the projector, which has now cost me about $350US including shipping and the exchange rate differential plus whatever the customs fees end up being, is now being sold by Adorama for $249.99!

 

Fortunately, it does appear to be a good projector even though I'm feeling a bit ripped off at this point.

 

I do thank all of you for your input, it has been very educational. This importing thing sounds like a real mess. Best to buy locally whenever possible.

The projector was sent by mail. My credit card was charged the agreed amount plus 5% which I assume is due to the currency differential.

 

Now they say there is an extra $92 customs duty fee they want me to pay. That's 30% of the original price. If you checked this link http://dataweb.usitc.gov/scripts/tariff2001.asp and enter "slide projector" in the search box it appears the duty is only 7%.

 

My understanding is NAFTA (zero duty between the US and Canada) only applies to good manufactured in Canada or the US. This projector was originally made in Germany so I guess an import duty was paid when it entered Canada from Germany, then another would be expected when it goes from Canada to the US, but 30% seems rediculous.

 

Also, why would a Canadian shipper pay a US customs duty?