douglas_cummings

email me I have a few Rolleis and dissolve equipment

dougorama@pol.net

Try here for leads:

http://www.profotos.com/education/referencedesk/proclabs/index.shtml

I appreciate you've asked about prints, but there is no better way to view your

work and lots of it than project the chromes (or Scala) on a huge 8 FOOT

screen. A digital projector won't come close, and a 16x20= puny.

Some big 35mm cameras feel like a brick in your hands. I feel the P645 is the

best balanced 645 because the handle is set to the rear, whereas the

removable back cameras like the Mamiya and Contax lurge forward.

Shooting skim borders @ the beach today with the 200mm AF. (Its AF is also

easily the quickest.)

I'd bet you'd miss the wide end more than the "long" end: The

45-85 is a great lens. Just get a cheap 150 or 200 to go w/ it.

Multiply the ETRs lens by 5/8ths to get the (approximate) 35mm

equivalent.

Do you have a wide angle and how does it handle flare?

Do you have anything to compare its autofocus speed to?

Tons of inexpensive barely used stuff for the Pentax on Ebay. I

switched from Mamiya some years ago. Interesting is how

different they feel in your hands. The Mamiya 's grip is more

forward- I prefer the Pentax's balance. But you're stuck if you want

to have different backs.

"While I cannot reveal all the findings because the other

photographer is writing a review for a on-line publication,..."

Where will it be published?

The 200mm f4 with the Nikon 6T using a step down adapter

doesn't vignette and is very sharp 11-22. Handheld with flash is

a good combo (off camera). I'd add a 1.4 not a 2x.

Comparing large same size color prints (at any distance you

want) of the same scene (landscape, model etc) is absolutely

NOT like comparing a jet to a car! I wouldn't call monitor

comparisons meaningless, but I did suggest a blinded test of

30x40 prints. I personally feel that prints from scanned film are

superior to optical prints and in fact make for a fairer

comparison, but you could do it with optical prints. Why would

anyone on this forum use MF in the first place if they didn't

compare it to other formats?

Meryl: I don't get it: Why can't someone compare final image

quality between different capture media? Cause you say so?

(Just how does one compare a digital image to a film image?

Looking at two prints I'd imagine). I chose MF because it was

clearly superior to 35mm. What: I can't compare those? I can't

compare chromes to negative films? Did you check the site I

suggested? Sorry about the spacing. Are the images too

dissimilar? They are MEANINGLESS?

Stephen: Too bad about that "old" scanner. Same goes for a lot

of computer gear. But pro digital cameras- which ones can't you

download now? An 8 yr old VX 1000 will plug into my firewire

port right now.

I guarantee you'll be able to download your photos from a 1Ds or

D1x (albeit through an adapter?) in 10 yrs. The cameras will be

better then but a 1Ds won't be useless.

Here is a page with an excellent side by side using an M7 vs a

1Ds.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/Eos1Ds/build/buildin

g.htm

Optics are important but since you can't in a practical sense use

the same lens on different bodies all that matters is the final

output if your goal is "best" image quality. Remember digital

cameras are only obsolete if you think so. If your 1Ds lasts 10 yrs

it'll still make darned good images. Certainly camera makers

must be jealous of expected computer obsolesence and will

never stop "improving" their digital wares from now on.

It would be great if somebody made a full frame competitvely

priced digital insert or back. Until then it is reasonable to

compare say a 1Ds with a 500CM if (blinded) you or your client

can't tell the difference between 30x40 prints made with the two

cameras.

Depth of field is a huge issue and why I chose 645 (35mm 3.5)

for best compromise. Long exposures clearly require some sort

of tripod if you want a more traditional "landscape". Use the flash

meter to get distances correct, but flashes work like any other

system. Clearly you could use the digital camera as a kind of

Polaroid in manual mode and bracket around those exposures. I

guess you'll be stuck with the camera to hold the shutter open

more than 8 seconds. There really isn't any fundamental

difference except you'll wrangle with a 50mm focal length rather

than a 25mm. Look into using the fisheye- remember UW they

really don't look so strange d/t the general lack of straight lines.

Also, shallow DOF can be a creative tool just as well.

No question is dumb. Why do responders have to make some

value judgement about this inquiry? One might guess Mr.

Hwang would like to get a Fuji but has no access to one for

testing- so he asks if its optics might be clearly inferior to what

he considers a more established brand. He didn't ask about any

"rules" pertaining to RF vs System cameras. (My experience with

the Fuji GS645S (645 not 6x9) is that it is slightly inferior to the

645 SLRs in terms of sharpness and contrast.)

Very little. Shoulda had 5 multi focus points and 1/125 flash sync.

ML only useful for 600mm. Maybe we'll see a digital insert for

PMA. Still the best deal for those who don't "need" a back

system. Both stupidly did away with the great shutter Up Down

buttons that didn't require you to use two fingers thereby leaving

your eye where its supposed to be- at the eyepiece.

It will not work in TTL unless you modify the pin location using a

cord. Quench with both Nikon and Pentax is pretty simple.

Anyone try to adapt 39mm filters to the Noblex 120? I know

there's a magnetic system, but could you somehow modify it for

a GLASS filter?

Note this software:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/imagealign.shtml

It could be applied to any "superwide'" not just fisheyes.

I got a letter from them several months ago hinting they were out

of business

I bought it but found it slightly wanting compared to the 35 AF

which I really like. For me the close focus wasn't close enough,

but they were about as sharp as one another.

You could get step up rings for the smaller sizes and several

82mm lens caps, and leave the step ups on your smaller

lenses. I used a 67-77 step up today.