oleg_novikov

<p>Hi Ray,</p>

<p>Thanks very much for the kind words. I had the Leica lens on loan from a friend and it was already converted when he gave it to me. I have no idea how it was done but can confirm that it was done in a neat way and you can focus to infinity without problems.</p>

<p>I have never been to Yuyao but visited Ningbo a few times. If you have time, you might want to visit Mount Putuo, which is not far from where you will be and a great photographic destination.</p>

<p>

<p>You might also be interested in a comparison of AF Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D, Carl Zeiss Distagon 2/28 ZF and Leica Elmarit–R 2.8/28—have a look <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/nikkor_zeiss_leica_28mm/nikkor_zeiss_leica_28mm.shtml">here</a>. Leica lenses <em>are</em> superb.</p>

</p>

<p>For what it is worth, have a look at my review of the CFV-39 <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/hasselblad_cfv_39/hasselblad_cfv_39_01.shtml">here</a> (http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/hasselblad_cfv_39/hasselblad_cfv_39_01.shtml). I hope that this helps.</p>

<p>I would certainly advise against Lowepro CompuTrekker AW bagpack – the zipper sucks a big way and will break down on you when you need it to work most, as it did on me. Look at ThinkTank products instead.</p>

 

<p>On a recent trip to Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's far East I shot five 120 rolls of Ektar 100 (it was not my primary emulsion) and I agree that the film has a very unique look. The funny thing about it, though, is that the colours very often do seem somewhat odd, and (most of the time) it is not scanning or post-processing – when they look strange and you try to correct them in, say, Photoshop they only start looking even more wacky. The question, then, is weather one likes colour reproduction characteristic of this emulsion, which, naturally, is a matter of personal taste. At first I was very attracted to the film; now, however, I am not so certain that this immediate attraction (infatuation?) will grow into a long-term relationship. For one thing, I am not even sure that I will be taking Ektar 100 on my next photo expedition in early October. Below is yet another example photograph shot with the film.<br>

<img src="http://www.olegnovikov.com/gallery/kamchatka/kamchatka10.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p><!--StartFragment-->I have compared 6X6 slides shot with a Hasselblad V system and scanned with an Imacon 848 at 3200 ppi with digital files from my Nikon D700 and, in terms of resolution, MF slides are clearly superior (in both prints and pixel-peeping at 100% magnification on screen). If you are interested, details can be found <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/nikond700/nikon_d700_resolution.shtml">here</a>.<!--EndFragment--></p>

For what it is worth, here is <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/filmvsdigital/filmvsdigital.shtml">my take on the film vs. digital issue</a>.

Sorry, the links should be as follows:

 

http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4880/epson4880swap_inks.shtml

YES - the 4880 still requires that you swap photo and matte black inks to print on glossy and matte papers respectively. A lot of ink is wasted in the process - please see my findings <a href=? http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4880/epson4880swap_inks.shtml?> here</a>. I hope that this helps.

Tim, with respect to the 150 vs. 180 question, you might be interested in reading my

comparison here:

 

<a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/cfi150vscfe180/cfi150vscfe180.shtml">CFi

4/150 vs. CFE 4/180</a>

You might be interested in reading my review of the lens:

 

http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/18200vr/18200vr.shtml

 

Hope that this helps.

Teleconverters are gone, too...

Paul, quite the opposite - one of the points I tried to make is that the difference between the

lenses' performance is less significant than many lead you to believe it to be!

I did not mean strictly sharpness - I meant handling, overall optical performance, etc. To

quote Hasselblad, �The CFi designation stands for "CF version improved" indicating that these

lenses optically originate from the CF lens program, but have been further refined and

improved to provide even higher image-quality, long-lasting reliability, and ease of use.�

... and thought that it would be useful and nice to have as much relevant info in one place as

possible � your opinion on the matter or further comments will be appreciated.

I have just posted a <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/cb160vscfe180/

cb160vscfe180.shtml">Tessar CB 4.8/160 vs. Sonnar CFE 4/180 comparison</a>

A new CFi 4/50 should come with a bay 70 to bay 60 step-down ring, a bay 60 cap AND a

bay 70 cap. It comes without a lens shade, though. In my opinion the step-down ring is not

really necessary as I personally prefer the bay 70 to 77mm filter adapter which allows me

using standard 77mm Nikon or B+W filters.

I am most gladly joining in!

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>.

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>.

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>. I would go for a dedicated film scanner - paying a bit more might turn out to be a cheaper option in the long run.

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>.

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>.

I find that the realistic maximum resolution of the Epson 4990 is 1200dpi. Beyond that the scanner does not extract any real detail and is ridiculously slow. See my <a href="http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/epson4990/epson4990.shtml">comprehensive tests</a>.

Thanks very much for your reply, David. I have decided to wait for another opportunity - although the price is quite reasonable it still is a lot of money and I do not feel entirely comfortable spending it knowing in advance that there is a problem and technical assistance might be needed.