gregory_logiodice1

<p>Thanks for the updates, Mark, and I appreciate any further you can provide as more information becomes available. I am very interested in seeing what Plustek comes forward with to support current and legacy medium format film users. </p>

<p>So presumably this scanner is now on display at CES? Has anyone seen it and can provide additional information? </p>

<p>Mark.. any idea when Plustek will be coming forward with specs, price, and availability? </p>

<p>Admittedly, this is one of the exceptions, and an extreme one at that. Tom Mangelsen, one of the finest landscape and wildlife photographers I know of, prints this 35mm original as large as 30"x40", on Ilfochrome.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.mangelsen.com/store/Limited_Editions_08___Landscapes___Flowers___Trees___Winds_of_Change___2846?Args">http://www.mangelsen.com/store/Limited_Editions_08___Landscapes___Flowers___Trees___Winds_of_Change___2846?Args</a>=</p>

<p>I have seen this image in person, at 30x40, in one of his galleries. It is stunning - even up close. </p>

 

<p >I agree that the OM’s system’s lack of a f2.8 70/80-200mm lens is a significant gap in the OM system line up. Konrad’s point about Olympus’ focus on development of compact, prime lenses, rather than big, fast lenses such as a 2.8 aperture 70/80-200mm zoom, is the best explanation I’ve heard for why this gap exists. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >To be sure, nothing else is a Zuiko, and I can only imagine the quality of the lens Olympus could have produced as a companion to the fantastic f2.8 35-80mm zoom in the 80-200mm range. That said, as Rob points out, I think you already own an outstanding alternative – the Sigma 70-210/2.8. While it does lack the build quality and “feel” of a Zuiko, optically it is an excellent performer. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And in terms of price, I am certain the Sigma is far more affordable than anything Olympus would have produced in that range. Leicaphiles may object to the comparison, but a good copy of the Leica 70–180mm f/2.8 Vario-APO-Elmarit-R zoom just sold for $4,000…. </p>

<p> </p>

<p >Well, it is a fantastic lens. Build quality, and optical quality, are both superb. No plastic…anywhere. Some of the images on the website referenced in the ad are mine (taken with my copy of this lens) and they look terrific enlarged to 16x20. Pretty sure Pop photo in 1995 rated this lens superior to all other lenses in its class. Clearly the best zoom to fit an OM camera, and fitted on another camera today, probably still among the best lenses in the world. I can’t speak to price as I haven’t been in the market for one or looking to sell mine, but I don’t think you’ll be disappointed if you do get it. </p>

<p>Didn't Pentax discontinue production of all 645AF lenses? I would love to see a 645D, but wondering how they could launch this camera with only one lens in the current catolog.</p>

<p>Photoworks (<a href="http://www.photoworkssf.com">www.photoworkssf.com</a>) is in SF. They will process your print film for $5.00 and give you 18MB Tiff scans (8x10 @300 dpi) for $8.00. Not sure about the contact sheet, but they provide 4x6 index prints with the CD. They also give your negs back in high-quality archive pages that are pre-punched for insertion into a binder--a nice touch. Also, although you're in the area, they offer pre-paid mailing labels.</p>

<p>I've used Coopers for both film processing and scanning. Quality was very good. </p>

<p>Anyone ever try this stuff? <a href="http://www.bugband.net">www.bugband.net</a>. It uses geraniol - a geranium oil concentrate - as the insect repellent. It comes in bands you can wear on your wrist or an oil you can spray on clothes. It has no deet, so contains no solvents. I bought a pair of wrist bands but have yet to try it out. Was wondering if anyone had any experience with this product.</p>

<p>I'll second Dick's remarks. I've printed and sold 16x20s of 645 images using the v750 which is a close relative of the v500. My subject matter is detailed landscapes. You may be able to print larger if fine detail is less important or less apparant for your subject matter (for example, portraits or Holga work). Wet-scan to get the absolute best quality.</p>

<p>I bought a fully functioning OM-10 Quartz for $10.... pretty cool.</p>

Modernage (www.modernage.com) in midtown can do anything including a drum scan, which is the highest resolution and overall best quality scan available. It seems that NCPS is combining a low cost, high resolution scan (about 4000 dpi??) with slide processing, $0.33 (scan) per frame. This is a fantastic idea, imo... don't know of anyone else that does this yet.

I have the Zuiko 200, 300 4.5, 1.4 TC; and the Tamron 180, 80-200, and 300. I recommend them all. The Zuiko 300 4.5 is an outstanding bargain now. If you want to go longer, I would try to find the Tamron 400... never owned it myself but it has an excellent reputation as others have said. With a 1.4TC you can get out past 500mm.

 

For wildlife, even the mega-fauna variety, 300mm is the minumum. For birds and other such critters, 400mm and up are table stakes.

 

Great thread. Makes me want to break out my OM stuff again and start shooting away. BTW... Skip... got the infinity focus repaired on my Tamron 180 just before Tamron got rid of the parts. Focus is incredibly smooth now and is really, really sharp...

I am interested in responses to this a well. Setting aside the superior construction, for shooting landscapes at relatively low ISO's, wouldn't the higher pixel count and live view, plus lower cost, make the A350 perhaps more attractive than the A700?

Woops... I meant Michael... :-)

Great test, Stephen. Thanks for your effort and for sharing.

Steve,

If you do go the Scanscience route, please do post your experiences here, and if possible, a comparison of wet-mounted scans vs standard holder.

Dan,

 

I have the V750 pro. I agree with Stephane's evaluation. If your technique is correct and you make use of Doug's superior holders and wet scan, the scanner is capable of up to 10x high quality scans.

 

If someone is only getting 3x enlargements then I think they have a bad machine. That is not typical, from what I have seen with mine and read of others' experiences.

 

If 10x meets your enlargement requirement and you also may want to get into larger formats the Nikon can't handle, then the Epson may be a better deal. In any event, though, an operating Nikon 8000 is probably worth more than $450 so if you got it fixed you would certainly get your money back on a sale.

Is the 645D really dead? I thought that was still unconfirmed...

Honestly, I think the Nikon will be overkill for Holga images. A V700/V750 will have more than enough rez to capture everything a Holga lens can put down. If dynamic range is of concern, wetmount.

Wow. Big mistake on my part. Pal is correct. The column header switched well down a long page from "date discontinued" to "date introduced". My apologies, all.

I just did a quick search to see if the lens is still being produced. According to the Pentax Canada website, the 100-300 was discontinued in March of 2003 and the 33-55 discontinued in April of 2002.

I also suggest eBay. That is where I purchased mine, from a dealer in Hong Kong. At the time, B&H listed it and had it in stock, but the price differential was about $200. B&H might get it back in stock, especially if Pentax follows through on its announcements to create a digital P645. But you will likely find it sooner, perhaps even lightly used, on eBay.

Wet mounting on the V750 may allow you higher magnification enlargements than the 7x Troy states above.

 

Mac Holbert from fine art printers Nasheditions says he gets "beautiful" prints up to 40x40 inches from 6x6 negatives by wetmounting on an epson 3200. That would be about a 15x enlargement.

 

I have the 750 and while I haven't gone that large - yet - my wet-mounted 645 transparencies look great at 16x20.

Try the v700/750 with a wet mounting kit from ScanScience. Should give you fine enlargements of 6x7 negs to 30x40.

 

Nasheditions (fine art photographic printers) claims gallery-quality prints from 6X6 originals up to 40 X 40 on an epson 3200. The 700/750 is significantly better than the 3200 so you should have no problem.

 

I have this system myself and it works great. I haven't printed quite that large but have 16x20 (from 645) that look great.

 

Needless to say, but you'll also save a bundle over the 9000.