doug andrews

The obvious answer to me is what others have already said, the bigger piece of film on the 690 and that most people who jump to medium format from 35mm probably go with a 645. I originally wanted the GW690 (for the larger film size), but the used ones I found were always more expensive than the GW670 and the counter number was higher than I would like. I finally found a used GW670 III with the counter at 21 and at a good price, so I jumped on it. After almost a year of use I really want the GSW690 now. Not so much for the extra 2cm of film, but because there are times when the wider angle lens on the GSW690 fits my shooting style (landscapes) better.

Sunrise: Moaraine Park, Sprague Lake, Bear Lake, Dream Lake, etc. Basically any of the lakes on the eastern side of the park.

 

Sunset: Anywhere along Trail Ridge Road above timberline

 

Wildflowers: In August your best bet is along Trail Ridge Road above timberline

 

Wildlife: Where ya find'em. The Elk will still be up high above timberline to escape the heat. Easy viewing along Trail Ridge Road. Marmots frequent the Rock Cut area. Moose can be found on the west side of the park in the willows along the Colorado River.

 

Hope this helps.

I only shoot slide film. It costs $6 for a roll of 36. That's dip and dunk processing with a 24-hr turnaround. Photocraft in Boulder, CO.

I own the this particular lens and have a Heliopan 81B and Circular Polarizer filter for it. Neither of these two filters are the slim style and I get no vignetting with either of them.

My Scan Dual IV installed with no problems whatsoever. About a month later it would display an error during either manual or autofocusing. Found out that Minolta's scanner software doesn't like to share a USB hub with other devices. Once I plugged it into a non-shared USB port, no problems. My computer is an older Dell Dimension 1.8 ghz Pentium 4, XP/SP2 (Professional), USB 1, 512 mb RAM. Slow, but still works great. Of course, YMMV.

I own a Scan Dual IV and am pleased with it. For the $285 I paid for mine, I have no regrets. The 3200 dpi has been sufficient for my needs upto 8x12. I use it with slides so I can't speak to negatives, old or new. I've had mine for a year now, and I've learned its quirks such that I can get a decent image from it without much in the way of corrections. It does not have digital ICE and for the most part this has not been a big issue for me. YMMV. Click on my name and view several of my image folders to get an idea of the results I get with it. Hope this helps.

I own the Scan Dual IV and use it the way you are planning. That is I didn't have a large archive of film to scan and the film (slides) I did have were stored in archival sheets. The Scan Dual IV does have the Auto Dust Brush feature. While not as effective as Digital ICE, I find it does a decent job on slides, especially those I've just had processed at my local lab (a pro lab). Still, I clean each slide with a staic free brush before scanning. Some report having to spend hours cleaning an image that was scanned without Digital ICE. Of all the slides I've scanned, I've never spent more than about 5-10 minutes cleaning it of dust and scratches. Also like you, I do a relatively small amount of shooting. In general, I feel the Scan Dual IV gives the best bang for the buck in a dedicated film scanner. I haven't regretted my decision to purchase one. YMMV.

Although Astia 100F isn't as saturated as Velvia 50 (what slide film is), it handles bright contrasty mid-day light extremely well. I personally think the color saturation in Astia 100F is fine and sometimes prefer it over Velvia. I love Velvia 50, but it has become more and more a limited situation film for me. I mostly shoot it in overcast low contrast lighting and at sunrise/sunset. I find Kodak E100GX to be a little too brown for my landscape work. I much preferred the warmth of the older emulsion (E100SW), which was more yellow to my eyes. Haven't tried Kodak E100G. I don't like Provia 100F either, it goes blue too quickly for me. IMHO, there is no other slide film that closely looks like Kodachrome 64.

Although August is a nice time to visit Yellowstone, its not the best time. The place will still be crowded in August. A better time would be late September. As to what to photo, Yellowstone is the Serengetti of North America. Large wildlife are abundant. However, in August a lot of the larger critters will have moved away from the roads and into the high country to avoid the summer heat. Waterfalls should be good in late August as the spring run-off has diminished the flow, making blurred water shots much better. Yellowstone is not the best place for mountains, sunrises, and sunsets. Unlike the Tetons to the south, you have to work a little bit to find good mountain, sunrise, and sunset compositions in Yellowstone. Of course there are always the geyser basins. Plenty of those to be photographed. The best way to get there depends on the individual. From Salt Lake City its a 6-hour drive to West Yellowstone. Yes there are plenty of lodging with shower/baths, but you better make reservations now if you wanna go in August. Also there is road construction currently going on this year. Yellowstone is a very big park that requires a bit of time to drive from one point to another. The road construction delays and closures will add to that. Be prepared.<div></div>

I own a Fuji GW670 III and I am so pleased with the results I get (RE: sharpness), that I don't care how the Mamiya 7 compares. However, having a built in meter on the Fuji like the Mamiya 7 sure would be nice.

Tony, just returned from a long weekend in the Teton area. Here's what I saw that I was able to positively identify. The Arrowleaf Basalmroot are peaking and quite abundant. Especially in the Antelope Flats area. Lupine, Larkspur, and Geraniums were starting to come along quite nicely. Still lots of Dandelions everywhere. Saw a small patch of Brown's Peony around Jenny Lake. Some Golden Pea, Glacier Lilly, and Buttercup were also seen here and there. In general, the yellow wildflowers were most predominant, followed by purple/blue wildflowers. Don't recall seeing any red wildflowers like Paintbrush. Hope this helps.

Tony, I will be up there this coming weekend. This thread will likely be gone by next week, so I'll try and post a Teton wildflower report on CNP as well.

The best way to check to see if its still good is to mount it on your camera and take some photos with it. If you like the results the lens delivers in terms of sharpness, contrast, and color, then its still good. Yes, things can "go bad" with lens. Such as scratches on the glass, fungus growing inside the lens, etc. A visual inspection of the lens will identify most of these potential defects. I also have a Sigma 24mm f2.8 lens. Its nearly 10 years old, had worked flawlessly and delivers excellent results. Wide angle lens like the 24mm are useful for photographing in tight spaces like interiors of buildings or on crowded/busy city streets scenes. Its also useful for landscapes as it does a good job depicting the wide open spaciousness of a place.

I own both B+W and Heliopan polarizers. Both are excellent quality, however I prefer Heliopan for two reasons. The Heliopan polarizers come with marks etched along the ring which aid in using it with non-TTL viewing cameras (rangefinders) and the multicoating on my B+W polarizer looks speckled/splotchy whereas the multicoating on my Heliopan is smooth and even. That being said the appearance of the B+W multicoating doesn't have any negative effect on the image that I can tell. YMMV.

All digital images, those captured by a DSLR or scanned with a film scanner, require some post capture/scan sharpening.

I shoot chromes only. I don't scan all my shots, only the ones I want to put out on the internet and/or have printed. If I want 8x10 prints or smaller, I scan them myself on my ScanDual IV and print them at home. For larger prints, its off to the lab for better scanning and printing.

I've used both and would recommend going with Provia 400F. As to Provia "going blue in the shadows", that refers to Provia 100F not 400F.

I've only been during sunrise and it was spectacular. Still I would imagine sunset would be nice too.<div></div>

"Except if they want to sell the pictures to anyone, which newspapers tend to do once in a while. Sell a 4mp picture? I'll give you 10$ for it... "

 

What rubbish. I've got a 4 megapixel Nikon Coolpix 4500 that produced images that have won photo contests and sold prints upto 11x14. I'm pretty sure the 4 megapixel, larger sensor D2H would do a fine job producing sellable prints.

 

"Ok. I'll get a D2X and use the 17-55/2.8 as a 34-110/2.8. Sounds like a great idea. Newspaper folk tend to use 16-35/2.8s but I'm sure 35mm is almost like 16..."

 

Good grief. And I'm sure most newspaper folk have heard of the 12-24mm/f4 DX lens.

Jeff, I mostly scan Velvia 50 and Kodak E100 GX. I have scanned only a few slides of Provia 400F but not enough to make more of an informed opinion other than it seems to scan OK. Sorry.

My experience with the Scan Dual IV mirror Matts. I've never tried printing larger than 8x10 with a full resolution scan, but I think you can get an 11x14 from it. I don't use Vuescan, just Minolta's scanning software, and Paint Shop Pro 9.

I find it extremely useful for photographs where I want a prominent foreground subject (like wildflowers) to be infocus along with distant subjects (snow capped mountain). A lot of zoom lenses don't have a distance scale on them that is of much use for setting the hyperfocal distance. Now if Nikon would just make a mid-level SLR that has both DOF preview and mirror lock-up.

I've got a Sigma 24mm f2.8 lens that's coming up on its 10th birthday. Never had any problems with it and it continues to produce excellent results. Since I bought the Nikon 18-35mm its been relegated to back-up duty on my FM2N.

I have the Scan Dual IV and think its a great scanner for the price. I scan only color slides and it does a great job. Unfortunately I can't comment on how it does with negs. Probably the most important tradeoff for the price is the lack of Digital ICE. Most people think Digital ICE is worth the extra $$$, but since the Dual Scan IV is the only scanner I've owned, I can't comment of the worth of Digital ICE. I get by fine without it.

The 50mm f1.8 is arguably the best bang for the buck Nikkor lens currently in production. It is by far the sharpest and nicest lens I own in regard to image quality. Its also become my most used lens.