douglas_cummings

What MF projector has a 500 watt bulb? Even 6x7 Goetchmann's

use 400 watt bulbs. (My 110-160 zooms work very well).

There has yet to be a good comparison between MF and digital

published on line (a 4x5 was compared here

http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/Canon_1DS/4

5_film_1ds.html but talk about apples to oranges! ) A problem

with the Eos 1Ds may be wide angle color fringing

(http://www.fredmiranda.com/1Ds_review/index_noise2.html). If

you are doing wideangle work perhaps you would pause before

going to the digital cameras- already their problem with those

available having lens multiplication factors of 1.3 to 1.6. This

problem may not be noticable to you or will likely be solved soon.

Then again, one would think digital backs will eventually be

affordable, full frame and therefore make MF probably again

superior in image quality. If you are just starting, I'd probably go

with the 14n or D1s. Remember that "obsolete" is Exactly what

these companies want you to say, so you'll be in that never

ending hamster wheel of feeling behind so as to cough up more

dough. I'll bet a 1ds will last quite some time, and WILL NOT be

obsolete in a year or two. This is a more difficult decision for

those who already own MF gear and don't have a high volumn of

work: Do we get out now or wait for a cheaper back?

Pentax 645N or NII. 33-55 AF or 45-85 AF and Polarizer. 75 2.8

AF (interior). 200 AF and adapted Nikon 5T. 2 inserts. Flash (off

camera). Either push Provia or 160VC. Use pack-table-rocks as

tripod. There- all better. High quality fast reliable street machine

A used Pentax 6x7 w/ a135mm macro. I'll bet you don't do so

many as to have a digital back pay for itself. Put the money into a

high quality scanner instead or pay for each scan. Cheapo

scanners- rated at 1200 or 2400 dpi- will give cheapo results.

Your original negs will be top notch with either the Pentax or the

more expensive RB-RZ.

Extremely unlikely. Simple slave flashes are enough trouble UW,

let alone an infrared signal. Its cool to pursue different methods

UW but you'll probably have to house the 550 and hardwire it to

the camera unless the distance to the flash is really close. Try it

in a pool.

The Nikon is slightly-maybe ever so slightly- sharper than the

Minolta in my tests BUT the banding issue makes scanning in

"super fine mode" necessary and therefore completely

impractical (one hour scans). I feel for the money the Polaroid

120 is the best value (having tested all of them), though its main

weakness is the lack of Digital Ice.

I'm not sure as to the experience of the previous poster but "any

lens that changes focal length...is a bad choice" is simply

incorrect. AF in macro can be limited by low light levels but in a

practical sense the lenses function much as they do above

water. Quite a few UW photogs do not use AF in macro due to

precise depth of field issues, not because of theorectical

concerns. The Nikon 105 non AF and its newer sister have been

workhorses of housed UW macro systems for years: check out

any "how to" book on UW photography. Also, macro is in fact

EASIER than any other type of UW photography (and of course

requires flash). It is true that minimum focus distances don't

mean much- what matters more is the size of the subject matter

you want to shoot and if a particular macro lens will handle that

magnification. Working distance to the subject w/ the 105 is a

good compromise between room for flashes and water column

that might obscure your subject. Longer macros help with shy

subjects just as they do above water but cloudy water will give

you flatter results. The 60 is loved by many but can crowd small

subjects and at high magnification it can be difficult to get a flash

lined up between port and subject. I suggest finding the classic

"Under a Rainbowed Sea" by Chris Newbert wherein each shot

is referenced to the lens used (Canon 50mm vs 100mm

macros).

A 60mm will also do good animal portraiture but the best to start

is the 105. They make a zoom and a 200, and you could start w/

those too.

Can anyone check their flash to see if you can set the HSS mode

"manually" w/o attaching it to the camera? The Nikon SB 28

requires you to attach it to a dedicated camera to set it to FP

mode(same as Metz's HSS) I of course understand that only

certain cameras can be used with HSS.

THANK YOU

I personally prefer the 5 pt system seen on the F100 as it is

much less cluttered than the higher end Canons. The points are

very useful outside the center though not always used. I have

always tried to do anything with my MF cameras that can be done

w/ 35mm including action now that AF is available. But come on-

do we have to lag behind 35mm again?! At these prices?

Does either camera have multiple autofocus points or just one in

the middle? Or are both kinda like a Minolta Maxxum circa 1988?

When is it ? Is it dead? Wasn't this about the time for entries last

year?

I've had roller pins on my inserts loosen and fall off but that leads

only to "late" final wind. Sounds like you have a short: maybe you

need to send it to Colorado. Make sure you put NEW batteries in

it, put a lens on wide open and try a shot with and w/o the insert

out in the sunlight.

Ken Ruth @ Bald Mtn: 831-423-446

He "enjoys a challenge"

http://www.homestead.com/infrared/

This film IS HIE and does not require complete darkness to load.

The data doesn't fog the edge.

http://www.homestead.com/infrared/

I've used the film- its great: real Kodak HSIR and you don't need

to load it in absolute darkness.

If used as an exposure meter I'd set it at 100 iso w/o

compensation. Overexposure is always better than

underexposure w/ print films. Some would argue that these 160

films are really more like 125 or 100 speed anyway. In other

words, error towards over-exposure: if the coolpix looks good (@

100), the NPS will too.

I love that "Howdy" was the preface.... I called Mamiya in New

York and they sent entrance pupil + other info on wide angles

some years back.

I think the Fuji GA 645Zi

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00184

)autofocus rangefinder-like vertical format

camera is the only readily available camera that'll fit your

needs(sync up to 1/700) There is a new Rollei 6008 AF

(http://www.sl66.com/slx/6008af.htm) with @ least a 180mm 2.8

and 60-140mm 4.6 but I "shutter" to think of its cost.... it will

accept 645 backs.

If you have large black areas do @ least a 4x multiscan. As you

said, you can see for yourself. Don't waste time w/ 16 bit color.

I'd scan @ 3200in/300out for a master file. Finally, I found that

slides were too dirty w/o ICE. Same slides scanned much

cleaner in the Polaroid 120 & the Nikon 8000 so I don't know if

the Minolta somehow picked up its own dust. No obvious winner

in this contest: Minolta best color, Nikon sharpest by a hair,

Polaroid "cleanest." Difficult to time, but banding w/o "superfine"

mode ruled out the Nikon for me d/t LONNGG scan times.

Check my other projection responses. Wess glassless are fine

if the film chip isn't warped. Also, they make a mount with only

one piece of glass, reducing 2 surface cleanings but holding the

film flatter.

This reminds me of the mid-late 80's when people discussed

whether anything (Vevia) could ever overtake Kodachrome...

clearly a matter of timing. MF exists because it generally gives

superior results compared to 35mm. If smaller cameras deliver

better results than heavier MF gear and deliver me from the ball

and chain of two round trips for processing and another one or

two for scanning (or a $3000 scanner) and the cost of $20 a roll:

SIGN ME UP. For now though I have just invested in another MF

body and lens. It won't be till late 2003 when our beloved rollfilm

is surpassed and then I may resent the built in obsolesence of

the Dcamera and the fact that I no longer have any format

advantage so I will just have to make good pictures.

That's really the jist of it- coudn't we just combine the strong

points. The Minolta scans were so dirty it must of been the

scanner and not the slide. ICE was NEEDED on every scan.

Maybe that's why it wasn't as sharp as the Nikon. But if you had

to scan everything in "Superfine" mode to get rid of the banding

on the Nikon:forget it! ~1 hour per MF scan! I'll be testing a new

UMAX flatbed ($4000) next...

Just tested both at Samy's. Could be individual samples but...

Nikon slightly nicer @ highest res BUT GROSS BANDING. I've

heard of this before- do you have to send it back or is it a

firmware problem?