rayn

I know that a Pentax repair center can change some of the functions on

a Pentax 645N. The one I am interested in is setting shutter speed in

half stops (new, the camera only allows this in full stops). Once this

custom function is activated, how are the half stops set? My 645N's

shutter dial only has click stops in full stops on the shutter dial, so

I'm wondering how the half stops are set. Thanks!!

I don't want to use step-up rings because I'd have to buy and carry a second set of 81A and Polarizer filters to fit the new close-up lens. My lens hood also wouldn't fit over the 72mm step up, and stepping down can vignette. I didn't mean to insult the single element lens users out there. I only ask this question because I've never heard of the Pentax one and I don't want any "surprises" after paying $100 for it.

I'm trying to find a high quality close up diopter for my Pentax 645 FA

150/2.8 lens. This lens has a 67mm filter thread and there are few

diopters to be found at this size (Canon's closest is 72mm, Nikon's

closest is 62mm). I know Pentax makes some 67mm close-up diopters for

their 67 system, but have heard very little about them. B&H sells

three powers at about $100 each. Will they work with my 645 lens? Are

they high quality, two element diopters? (B+W, Hoya, etc. are cheap one

element). I'd rather not use step-up or step-down rings. Thanks.

I like Wess DGA 002 (AN Glass mounts). A search on B&H is the best way to locate these. Try typing "dga" in the search field. They are $16.75 for 20 mounts.

I wonder if those specs are accurate. They increased the filter diameter from 77mm to 82mm without changing the maximum aperture (mistake on Pentax's part IMO, it's the only 645 lens that takes those huge filters). The minimum aperture went down to f/32 (which will be nice if it can keep decent image quality at that aperture).

 

Also, isn't this lens closer to a 21mm in 35mm format? I might be wrong, but I seem to remember the old one being equivalent to a 21mm (new specs say it's 23mm).

 

I also have been waiting for this lens, and am a little disappointed they didn't make it a f/2.8, like they did with the 150mm. At least then I could justify buying those 82mm filters.

How did John Netherton die?

Does anyone know if/when Pentax is planning to release more auto focus

versions of their 645 manual focus lenses? Particularly, I'm hoping

for a 55/2.8. I know they released the 150/2.8 recently, but they sure

do seem to be taking their time on the other ones. They didn't give up

did they? I mean, are sales of the 645N down or is the competition

from Contax making them reconsider? Does anyone know if they'll make

anymore zooms for 645N?

I am considering getting a Pentax 645 and 45-85/4.5 lens for landscapes

and am wondering how much depth-of-field I can get with this lens at

45mm and f/32. The calculator says at an object distance of 4 feet,

everything from 1.89 feet to infinity will be in focus. The calculator

can be located at:

 

http://ue3.ee.nus.edu.sg/DOF.html

 

But that seems a little too good to be true. I am wondering what the

practical DOF is at 45mm f/32 based on user's experience. I know that

opinions about this can vary, so give me your opinion for prints up to

11x14. Unless I am mistaken, this is the only 645 lens in the 45mm

range that goes to f/32.

I'm glad about the ban. Things were really getting out of hand, especially in Yellowstone. But it's too bad snowmobile makers couldn't make a more quiet, fuel efficient machine. Snowmobiles can be useful at times when carrying a lot of gear, and they are FUN. But they are also loud and stink. According to the NPCA, 1000 snowmobiles emit the smae level of pollutants as 1.7 million automobiles! The way things are right now, they should certainly be banned. But if they ever came out with a more quiet and clean machine, I think limiting the number allowed at one time would be alright. Maybe also allowing them in only certain areas of a givien park, so some people can enjoy the quiet.

FYI, the cost of that Goetschmann 8585AV is around $7000 for the projector alone. It also weighs 48 pounds. Projecting 6x7 is not cheap unless you do it manually (Mamiya Pro Cabin). Projecting 6x6 or 645 with automation is a little more reasonable.

Interesting. My Tiffen Circular Polarizer greatly underexposes shots on my Elan II, about 1 to 2 stops. Exposure is fine without the filter. Now I meter manually and add +2 for the polarizer, works every time. I don't know why the polarizer fools the meter. It will be interesting to find out if anyone knows.

How many people are going with you? If the weight of the stove, tent and water can be shouldered by someone else, you can bring a tripod and a couple of lenses, otherwise you just can't bring that much gear and have a good time. On trips with just me and my wife, I must keep things very simple because she cannot carry much. Canon Elan II, 28-135 IS, 25mm extension tube, and some filters is the most I bring now. It is very limiting, but the backpacking part is much more fun (and she loves me for that). I can still do some macro and occasionally some wildlife, but the IS is only good down to about 1/20 or so. I thought about a only bringing a Fuji 645 point & shoot and light tripod, but havn't tried it yet.

 

For excursions from camp, I have had success converting the backpack hood to a fanny pack in the field (most good backpacks do this). You could make some compartments to hold your gear in your hood, then it would convert nicely to a waist pack with compartments once in the field. I have tried to carry lots of gear many times, and IMO there really is no substitute to simply reducing what you bring, at least when you will be carrying the tent, food, stove, sleeping bag, water filter, etc. Try it out at home with whatever you know you must carry, and then add the photo gear until the load is maximized.

 

It also depends if you are going for fun or for photography. If you are going for fun, your friends may not appreciate all the photo stops you want to make (it takes time to unpack your gear and set up the tripod) and they may resent having to carry most of the gear. But if the goal is photography and the others in the group are more like assistants, then making them carry everything is ok. For me, I now do all "serious" photography before or after the trip (put everything in the trunk and leave to inside of the car EMPTY, disable the switch that opens the trunk from the inside of car, no problems yet...). I've found that most good spots can be reached on a day hike if you get up early enough and then I can bring all my gear. Happy hiking!

FWIW, I am someone who does not own the Canon 17-35/2.8 because it does not focus close enough. I have to use the 20-35/3.5-4.5 until Canon makes a f/2.8 version that focuses closer than 1.4 feet. Apparently, this new Nikon lens does just that. According to B&H website it focuses to .9 feet. This has me considering a switch to Nikon just for that option. Just thought I should mention that some people do use wide angle lenses up close (Franz Lanting, et al). When I worked for the park service, the shots that always got oohs and ahhs from the photo editor were the ones I shot up close with a wide angle lens. There's no better way to show small wildlife up close along with all the biologists gathered around it.

 

This lens really excels as a photojournalist-type lens. I don't know that it is for "largely outdoor scenics" as one poster suggested. Someone serious about scenics probably wants something bigger than 35mm anyway. My .02

Lee filters are plastic. Unless you really need BIG filters, stick with glass.

I like what Don said about the famous nature photographers. Most of them lead photo tours or write for magazines. I doubt they do this for fun so the pay for even a famous nature photorapher probably isn't that great. I've also always wondered how much money those "nature photogaphers" inherited from their parents... it's hard to believe they could afford 25 grand in gear along with their house and SUVs by only selling reproduction rights to chromes. Some probably can do it, but it must be very rare. For what it's worth, here's a related link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000IhG

 

Hey, Ryan, I got degrees in Biology and Philosophy too (U of O), trust me, they don't pay the bills. Get the PhD or go to med. school. 8-) Then you can put up the money to publish some books and posters and everyone will think you're a successful nature photographer (don't tell them you paid for it). ;-)

John Shaw does a good job of describing this technique in his book "Close-Ups In Nature". He only devotes a page or two to it, but you'll learn more about it there than you could here. Have fun.

Bruce, if the sand is not too bad, you might be able to just leave it, especially if you do this kind of shooting a lot.

 

I have a Gitzo 320 and have taken it apart several times. I carefully washed every collar and leg thread, relubricated it, dried it out and put it back together. A few weeks later, some more dirt would get down it the collars somewhere.

 

It is annoying to hear that grinding sound everytime you loosen or tighen a collar, but I gave up with trying to keep them spotless. I figured that with the time I spent cleaning the thing, I could make enough money to buy a new tripod if necessary. My .02

Dan, I am no expert here but if you are going to be purchasing an entire underwater outfit, you might consider a Nikonus system. Yes you can shoot digital in a housing (I think), but the quality of a 35mm digital SLR is not as good as 35mm slide film.

 

I have done research photography as well (though not underwater), and unless I am mistaken, slides are the normal medium for this. If you need them in digital form, you can just scan them and you will still have a master copy on film. Having your original on film is useful, because digital technology is changing all the time. If it does change, you can just rescan it. If you need a larger digital print, you can just do a larger scan, etc.

 

To get digital prints larger than a desktop printer, you have a digital lab print them. But the file sizes needed for this will get quite big, probably more than your digital camera is capable of producing. Again, slide film is the answer for large digital prints (in 35mm anyway), because they can be scanned for a large file size. Others might have more experience with this than I do, this is just how I would approach it. Good luck.

I live a half an hour from the gorge. The colors usually come about late September to late October, it changes each year. I'll e-mail you when the colors start to change if you want. By the way, are you the same Charles Campbell that wrote The Backpackers Guide to Photography? I loved that book!

I think what Cowan meant was that to get the same working distance with MF as with 35mm, you'll need a longer focal length. The longer focal length will have less depth of field, so in practical use MF has less depth of field tham 35mm. But if you are not shooting insects, working distance is usually not a problem so MF would suffice.

For mountain goats in Rainier, try Mt. Fremont Lookout. If I remember right, it's an hour or so walk from the Sunrise parking area. Ask a ranger first for the specs.

 

For bears, you'll only find black bears in either park and they are likely to be anywhere that sloppy people are with a lot of food. Again, ask a ranger for the specs and don't feed them.

Lionel, I'm not positive that these animals are endangered, you might want to check on that (although if they were reintroduced they are probably at least threatened). I was just commenting on endangered animals in general. There are some things that people should know before approaching an animal which is why I suggested talking to local biologists. For example, approaching or picking up a desert tortoise (threatened species) could make it void water as a defense. This depletes it of vital reserves which could kill it later.

 

Local biologists will know these things and may even let you tag along or suggest how to best view the wolves without doing any harm. I didn't mean to discourage you, photographing wild animals can be very rewarding, especially the rare ones. But the best way to do this is to do it the right way. Good luck and have fun.

Lionel,

 

Keep in mind that it is illegal to approach an endangered animal. You can even get in trouble for damaging the food that it eats. Speak with local wildlife officials before doing this. They are a great source of information and will tell you how and where to find the animals as well as what you should not do.

I am wondering if Kodak 4x5 Readyloads will work in a Fuji Quickload Holder. I know the Kodak holder is inferior to the Fuji and would like to only carry one holder.

Has anyone had a chance to fiddle with the new Toyo 45CX? I am thinking of getting either this camera or the Calumet Cadet and wonder how they differ. I like that the Toyo has interchangeable parts, but is it as rigid as the Cadet?