Jump to content

zenzanon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    111

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by zenzanon

    D300 and Zeiss 28/2 ZF

    in Nikon

    Posted

    What I want to do, soon, is go out and shoot a good comparison of the Zeiss vs Nikon thing.

     

    On a recent vacation, I took a D200 and the Nikon 35/2D. When I compare the images the D300 makes with the Zeiss lens, and those I made with the Nikon 35/2D, I have to say that much of the major difference seems to be the lens and not the sensor. It's sharper, but that could be the sensor...the area where Zeiss really blows the NIkon out of the water is color reproduction, microcontrast, and corner to corner performance on the DX sensor.

     

    I'll concede that the AF is useful, and that focusing a manual lens on the D300 is not 100% accurate all the time because the sensor gives a range instead of a perfect in-focus point, but I am glad i bought the Zeiss instead of the Nikon.

    D300 and Zeiss 28/2 ZF

    in Nikon

    Posted

    Go here, see the two sample shots (a sales counter at a local shop).

     

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/shutterflower/sets/72157603529332176/

     

    you will see that the Zeiss is visibly a better performer. Is it twice as good? Yes. I do believe that it's worth the 100% price increase over the Nikon option. You lose autofocus, but you gain optical performance, build quality, feel, and resale value...

     

    oh, and people will respect you more if you own a Zeiss lens.

    I am thinking of selling off the film gear. For good.

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    "I have access to a huge college darkroom"

     

    this is a key point. Without that, it is a true PITA to try film the traditional way. If I look at a really good example from my D200 and compare that with a great scan of a negative or a slide, there is a definite quality difference. The film is just better. WAY better. And bigger, too. Like 4 times bigger.

     

    However, at print sizes within my range (13x19 as the largest I EVER print), there is NO benefit to film over 10-12+ megapixel digital when working a hybrid workflow. Printing tradiationally, sure, there is a strong tonal, textural benefit to film. But scanning and printing the modern way, well, sorry. At that size and below, digital is just as good.

     

    This is what plagues me. I don't want a sub-FF sensor, but I know I don't need a FF. I'm not a pro. I don't shoot in rough conditions. I don't need 8fps. I just have illogical gearlust. This is the very thing that drives me to keep my RF645, 3.5f, scanner, etc. I've never once printed anything larger than 8x10, so why do I bother?

    Will the DX format last over time?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    now that Nikon has finally made the FF move, and Sony is planning to do the same, I think we have seen our first strong evidence that sensors WILL grow into FF marketwide. I doubt Nikon will produce another DX body after the D300. I doubt Canon will produce another sub-FF body after the 40D. We might see some consumer level DX sized sensors in D40-like bodies, but those don't count. As far as $1000+ bodies are concerned, full frame is the future.

    I am thinking of selling off the film gear. For good.

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    As much as I LOVE my cameras, I love taking pictures more. And money and time

    are getting tight enough that I don't have capacity for dealing with buying

    film, developing it, scanning it, editing dust, etc.

     

    I own an RF645 with 45/65 and a FLAWLESS Rollei 3.5F 12/24. My intent is to

    sell the Bronica setup and buy a Canon 40D/lens combo.

     

    I have a Konica Minolta DImage Scan MUlti Pro that would also go for sale. I

    figure the camera and scanner should produce about $2K to spend on something

    digital.

     

    Heresy, I know. But I think the time has come. And that knew 40D is a beautiful

    creature.

     

    I see no use in buying the 5D.

     

    Ideal end result: keep the ROllei, buy a 40D. Sell the scanner and the RF645

    setup.

     

    ANyone want to smack me around a bit?

    What Happened to Film Prices? - Got Ridiculously High!

    in Black & White Practice

    Posted

    it's foolish and shortsighted to allow high film prices to stop you buying it (if you want to continue seeing it). The prices you have been paying in the past were for high volume manufacturers. With far lower numbers these days, prices will rise.

     

    If you decide to stop buying based on higher prices, you will certainly see them rise yet higher, and eventually film will disappear altogether.

    Superia/Press 800 vs. 800z (old NPZ)?

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    I have not used Press 800 since...probably 5 years ago - and I didn't particularly like it. Too contrasty for me. Strangely. Could have been old film.

     

    NPZ800 is a fantastic film. A real wonder in low light, and it does very well in bright situations as well.

     

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=34937

     

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=55291

     

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=30988

     

    http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=28863

    Bronica RF close focus

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    I was unaware that any +1 diopter existed that would actually change the focal length of the lens.

     

    Closest I have gotten the RF645 to focus is .7 meters with the 100mm lens. With the 65mm, the line is pretty well at 1m.

     

    Good luck.

    Scanners for medium format

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    A little input a bit late:

     

    I have owned a series of Epson scanners and recently owned the Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro before losing my mind and selling it.

     

    The new Epson V700 scanner does a very impressive job and honestly shows about 2/3 the resolution of the Multi Pro and a significantly lower dynamic range. It is not able to produce grain sharp scans without considerable trouble (buying film holders and adjusting them for the particular scanner). I do notice that in certain areas of a scan, the V700 actually pulls detail together where the grain-effect of the Multi Pro obliterates it. The V700 produces smoother tones (but they appear artificial and lack the crispness and true-to-life range of the Multi Pro scans. The v700 is quieter. The Multi Pro is faster. The V700 can't compete with the Multi Pro for slides. The Multi Pro can't batch scan 120 frames (this is a BIG deal if you scan all your work). Being able to set the machine up so batch scan several frames instead of sitting around waiting for it to scan each frame individually can save alot of time. It is nice to set it up and walk away for a while.

     

    The V700 software is not as good as the Minolta Software.

     

    The Minolta is smaller on the desk.

     

    The V700 puts more glass between the negative and the sensor, which can only mean image quality sacrifice. Add the glass holder and you have 3+ layers.

     

    the Minolta has great holders that don't flex. The V700 holders are nightmarishly bad. So bad that Epson deserves a beating. Shame on you, Epson. Shame.

     

    I have to say that the grain magification that the Multi Pro does to certain B&W negs is really ugly and occasionally destroys smooth skies for me. The V700 is much better in this realm.

     

    Bottom line: buy the dedicated scanner. I know I'm going back to the Multi Pro after 6 months with the V700.

    80mm Lens - Mamiya 7II vs. Rolleiflex 2.8 fx

    in Medium Format

    Posted

    I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Rollei performs better than the Mamiya in the center, but that the Mamiya is better edge to edge resolution. If that is what you mean by "sharpness".

     

    I have used Mamiyas of all kinds (RZ series, 645e, 7II), seen pics from Fuji 645 cameras, worked with the Contax 645 (and its famous macro lens), Pentax 645nII, and now the Bronica RF645, and I have to say that the Bronica is truly the most spectacular lens system I have owned. Too bad Bronica only made three (four kind of) rangefinder lenses, because wow.

     

    I could never get used to the upside down image of a twin lens camera, so the Rollei would never work for me, but if you want images that look like they are going to jump off the print, it may be the best choice depending on how you shoot. If you shoot landscapes, no way. Buy the Mamiya 7II for that. If you shoot street, I would say the Bronica RF645. If you shoot portraits, the Rollei is great but I would actually buy a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II for sure.

    Considering Nikon D200 vs. Fuji S3 - Sensor quality?

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    Hi, Josh,

     

    I have been going through EXACTLY the same thing. I have been a 4x5 shooter, a 645

    shooter, and a little bit of a 35mm shooter for a long time. I have been in 645 for the

    longest, and it makes digital a tad difficult to get into.

     

    Recently, I have been lusting over the D200 because it just feels SO nice and handles so

    well, but, when I compare a full-res D200 RAW file to a 3200dpi scan of one of my negs

    from my Bronica RF645, there is really no way to say that the D200 is even in the same

    league. The D200 is a GREAT 35mm replacement, but it cannot be called anything more

    than that.

     

    I am, however, going to buy the D200 to bring on a long euro-trip because I think I don't

    want to worry about film, about moisture (D200 is well sealed), about loading film, ISO

    trouble, etc. I want to be able to shoot what i want, when I want, how I want...well, almost

    how. Digital will never make me 100% happy.

×
×
  • Create New...