joseph_albert

<p>Keep in mind that the weight listed for a Slik Pro 700DX includes the 2+ lb pan head that comes with it. The tripod legset only weighs 4.85 lbs. Because of the use of magnesium in the alloy, it is lighter weight than an all-aluminum tripod of similar size and sturdiness. Slik has a marketing gimmick calling it AMT because there is a very small amount of titanium in the alloy to give it binding strength, but it is the use of magnesium that sheds the weight. This alloy is what is used for welding aluminum. <br>

Although not quite carbon fiber, this tripod probably has the best sturdiness to weight tradeoff of any metal tripod. Thus, it is a mistake to dismiss this tripod as too heavy. It is as sturdy as the original bogen 3021 sold back in the day, but 1 lb lighter (although the original bogen had a better mounting platform).<br>

My only complaint with this tripod is the platform on the center column has a little bit smaller diameter than is ideal. The effect is that some ball heads seed nicely and give a sturdy combination, but some don't match well with the tripod. Actually, it is true of any tripod that the head must be selected to give a good balance to the whole system, so this is not a huge limitation. I also wish there were a set screw on the mounting platform. Skip the short center column (which is $23 and not quite short enough) and use a hacksaw or take the column to a milling shop who can saw it cleanly for you.<br>

I use this with a Giotto MH-1000 where I've removed the head platform, screwed in a double-threaded stud, and attached a Wimberly arca-style clamp and it works quite well. If you can still find this tripod sold without the head included at B&H for $85 it is a great deal, even $139 with the throw-away pan head that comes with it is a reasonable prices.</p>

 

<p>Because this neighborhood seems to be off the tourist radar screen, and taking pics of a more or less ordinary older church building is not so common, the officer was just doing due diligence to be sure you lacked malicious intent. This is part of an officer's job.<br>

Seems to me the policeman took "Because it's a nice church." as a passive aggressive response. When he asked why you were photographinc the chuch, he was asking for information about you, eg why you were interested in photographing this church, and you gave him no information about you. He was essentially asking you to reassure him you had no malicious intent. Had you said that you were an architectural photographer and found the church to be an interesting subject, he probably would have moved on. But you didn't offer the policeman that level of reassurance. Saying only "Because it's a nice church" is what someone might say when they want to say "I don't have to tell you" without saying it that way. <br>

I consider the policeman's response to be essentially saying, "Ok, you are probably here without malicious intent and just taking pictures of this church, but since you aren't going to play ball and reassure me of that, then I'm going to play your game too, just to be on the safe side. </p>

 

<p>The 55/4.5 Mamiya TLR lens is a retrofocus design but is well corrected for distortion. there is definitely a mirror in the way, it's just in the way of the viewing lens. But the whole TLR design requires the two lenses to have the same length optical path to the ground glass and film so the taking lenses is the same distance, both mounted to the same front standard. Thus, the TLR design does not free you have needing retrofocus wide angles.<br>

The 65mm lens is long enough to clear and not require a retrofocus design.</p>

<p>Some people love TLRs, others are not fond of them. In terms of weight though, Mamiya C220 and C220F TLRs with 2 or 3 lenses as a whole package is lighter than a comparable package from any other interchangeable lens medium format system other than the Mamiya and Bronica rangefinders. A C220 with WLF and 55mm and 105mm lenses weighs about 4 lbs total. Mamiya TLR bodies are heavier than their SLR counterparts, but the lenses are much lighter at any given focal length.<br>

These are great cameras for portraiture, and many a professional wedding or portrait photographer got their start with these moderately priced, reliable workhorses. TLRs make great portrait cameras.<br>

In these days of digital imaging, it probably doesn't matter that the system has been discontinued. <br>

I use these cameras for nature and travel photography, which puts me in the minority. I think some folks would be put off by not having a lens wider than 55mm (equiv. to 30mm in 35mm format). This is fine with me as in 35mm format a 28mm lens is wide enough for my purposes, and once you crop 35mm format to a 4:5 aspect ratio, a 28mm lens is like having a 31mm or 32mm lens. I think many nature photographers would prefer a Pentax 645 or Mamiya 645 for this reason. Also if you like to use graduated ND filters, an SLR is more convenient. Heliopan polarizers with scales solve the problem of using a polarizer on a TLR. One thing I like about a low vibration square format camera is I can get away with a much lighter weight tripod. Again, it is all preference. A Mamiya 7 would be preferred, and if would probably own one if not for concern about having to switch to digital someday.<br>

KEH is a fine place to buy, or get a cheap one and just plan to send to Mamiya USA for a complete overhaul. They will replace all worn parts and the leatherette on the outside. Same goes for the lenses, but be sure to get a late black lens (chrome seikosha shutters and early black seiko shutters are not repairable presently on account of parts availability). The late black shutters are distinguished from the early ones by click stops on the aperture ring that are lacking on the early ones. I haven't checked with Mamiya Usa lately if the bodies and late lenses are still repairable. 3rd party repair people can still do a shutter overhaul as long as parts are not needed.</p>

<p>Ahh, the joys of digital photography, where amateurs who don't shoot the image volume required to justify a super-rugged, high-end pro-spec body, not only give up the pro-level ruggedness when they compromise on camera price, but they also give up some in image quality.<br>

This is in contrast to film cameras where you can load pro-spec film into a low-end camera, mount a high quality lens and voila, you can produce images that match the pro-spec camera in image quality. There were even some cameras targeted to amateurs that were more popular with pro photographers than the pro-oriented cameras (eg Nikon FE2)</p>

<p>

<em></em>

<br>

 

<p><em>I totally agree that capturing is different from recording and all this debate should be about the capacity of photographs to really capture a single moment and the difficulties we, as human beings limited by our senses, have in understand such peculiarities.</em><br>

 

<p>Hmm, try taking some images of a hummingbird to clarify that you are recording an interval of time in a single image.</p>

</p>

</p>

There are now competing products from other manufacturers with fine-grained geared controls. the bogen/manfrotto is by far the cheapest and still a great value. Currently, I'm finding that the best way to utilized the focusing plate is with an L-bracket with arca-swiss style clamps or the elbow bracket from bogen (that is a hex plate QR accessory).

The correct formula for a lens being in focus is:

<p>

1/f = 1/s + 1/d

<p>

where f is focal length, s is distance from front nodal point of lens to subject and d is distance from rear nodal point to film. when focused at infinity, the equation is invalid but if you take 1/s to be 0 then it works fine.

<p>

By the geometry of similar triangles, magnification M is given by:

<p>

M = d/s

<p>

From those two equations, you can compute focusing distance at a given magnification or magnification at a given focusing distance.

<p>

Light loss to bellows extension leads to an effective aperture that is smaller than the normal aperture on the lens. If the setting aperture/f-stop is S, and Se is the effective one, then:

<p>

Se = S * (1 + M)

<p>

If your magnification is 3x ie 3, 1 + M = 4 and you do indeed lose 4 stops, but this example is a bit misleading. You only lose 1+M stops when M = 1 (ie 1x magnification) or M = 3 (3x magnification). For instance, if M = 0.4, that is 1:2.5, then 1+M = 1.4, but you only lost 1 stop as multiplying an fstop by 1.4 loses 1 stop.

<p>

Light loss to bellows factor is not just an issue for macro lenses. In fact, the aperture set on a lens only really applies to infinity focus. Multiplying by 1+M at other points still applies, but if magnification is say 1/10 or less, it is negligible (Se = 1.1 * S at 1:10). For extremely critical work, you might take it into account at 1:10.

Lots of good recommendations. If you want a fairly inexpensive tripod that is solid and not too heavy, take a look at the Slik Pro 700 DX. They are lighter than regular aluminum by using an aluminum/magnesium alloy-- they are in between normal aluminum and carbon fiber in weight for the level of stability. Witbout head, the 700DX weighs 4.85 lbs. and can get a low position with an optional short center column. It is not as robust as the Bogen 3051, but still quite sturdy, enough for a 70-200/2.8 and SLR body certainly. I'd rate it a little better than the original Bogen 3021 (which was sturdier than today's 3021 models).

<p>

This tripod is 70 inches without head, which, after putting a head on the legset, will put your viewfinder up at eye level. Either try to buy it without the panhead that comes with it, or plan to replace it with a better head. Actually, it's not terrible and you might find it useful while you decide what head to get, but I'm pretty sure you'd be happier with something different on top of the legset.

For the type of work I do, I much prefer a panhead. but there is a dearth of solid panheads that are under 2 lbs., so I tend to use ballheads anyway. I do have hopes for the new Velbon PHD-51Q head, but I've not handled one yet. A Bogen 3047 that weighed 2 lbs would be what I'd ideally want.

in europe, slik is more forthcoming about the alloy used in the 500dx and 700dx. it is in fact only 0.15% titanium, but they call it tri-titanium as it sounds good in marketing-speak.

<p>

in fact, the alloy is AL/JIS 5183, which is mostly aluminum, around 6% mangesium and 1% manganese, with small amounts of other metals. this is in fact standard welding wire filler used for hi-strength welds of aluminum alloys and was invented in 1957 according to the standard.

<p>

still, it is a good choice as it does have a better strenght/weight ratio than the aluminum used in bogen and gitzo metal tripods. the lack of titanium is good news as well as it means there is no problem taking a hacksaw to the center column.

I have owned two bogen 3221's (original version) and I currently own a slik 700dx. I have also owned a Gitzo G1227. The slik is the most table of these three and it is the tallest. You can buy one mail-order from B&H without head for $85, and that is the recommended wayto get it as the panhead that comes with the tripod should be replaced anyway. it will work well with a 3047, although the 3047 may be alot heavier than you want.

the 500 dx is a smaller version of the 700 dx with the aluminum/magnesium alloy that has better strength/weight characteristics than the plain aluminum in the 300DX. I have the 700 DX and think it is an excellent tripod, so I'd expect the 500 dx should be quite good as well, but I've not ever seen one. they are not common in the US as slik mainly markets them in europe and asia (not sure why).

i've had a giotto MH-1000 for about 7 years. it still works as well as when new. locks down solidly. my main complaint is that the friction control is too grippy. If I were buying today, I would not buy this head-- by the time you add a decent quick release adapter to it, it is only another $100 for a Kirk BH-3 or acratech and plate, but these were not available 7 years ago.

these seem like the polar opposites of each other. the 410 head would be splendid for your rollei 6008 for the type of work you do, but for 35mm, bogen doesn't make anti-rotation plates for the RC4 system. I just sold the 410 I have-- I shoot 6x6 and 35mm and found the 410 was only being used for 6x6. it weighs about 2.75 lbs also.

I wouldn't touch a ball head with RC2 with a 10 foot pole if I were you. The newer design that is in all currently offered bogen ball heads with RC2 and also the RC2 quick release adapter has a little bit of wiggle in the plate after it is mounted most of the time. RC0, the hex plates don't have this problem, but I would not pay $300 for a bogen ballhead when the kirk BH-3 or acratech are no more expensive.

You can of course use the quick release system of your choice, although in my opinion, only three quick release systems are worth talking about for a camera that has to be rotated for vertical framing-- arca-swiss style clamps and plates, bogen hex plates with the anti-rotation plates, and Velbon QRA-635B and QRA-67B which also have anti-rotation provisions. The Bogen RC2 system has anti-rotation plates available, but the quick release adapter sold separately (and the one built-in to most of their newer heads) is poorly designed and allows a little wiggle/play in the plate after mounting. This didn't use to be the case, and for instance, the Bogen 3030 panhead still has it designed properly, but if you want a ball head with RC2 you are out of luck.

The Slik Pro 700 DX weighs 4.85 lbs without head and is more than capable of supporting a 6x6 camera. It uses an Aluminum-Magnesium-Manganese alloy (AL/JIS 5813) that enables the tubes to be thinner than conventional Aluminum with the same strength rating. The Slik marketing emphasizes the titanium in it, but it is in fact just about 0.15% titanium. Still a great choice as it is only a little bit heavier than carbon fiber tripods of similar strength. I would rate it sturdier than Gitzo series 2 tripods and less sturdy than gitzo series 3 which is great for a tripod under 5 lbs.

<p>

I sold a Gitzo G1227 carbon fiber and replaced it with this tripod. the Slik is about 1.5 lbs heavier, but it is also taller and sturdier, so the extra weight gives you more than extra cash in your wallet.

<p>

Best of all it only costs $85. It is probably the best value in a tripod available today. Add an acratech head and you are under 6 lbs, and only a little over $300 total.

I'd consider Kodak 400UC to be a stop to stop and a half faster than good slide film since I'd never expose an ISO 400 color negative film at ISO 400, but would rate it at 280 or even 200 for improved shadow detail, especially a contrasty one like kodak 400UC that probably has a short toe.

<i>

It sounds like KISS at work.

</i>

But the EVF's are so bad-- we're talking about a camera that should rival a DSLR in quality and price.

<p>

Albert Einstein once said that things should be "as simple as possible, but no simpler.". I'm afraid EVF's violate this by being too simple, and thus not solving the problem at hand, which is being able to compose an image.

Gitzo carbon fiber tripods are excellent, yet I no longer own one. I had a G1227 and liked it alot. But its folded length was a bit long for packing, so I picked up a Velbon Carmagne 640 as this has a shorter folded length than the G1228. Because I'm not very tall, the VC 640 is fine for me, but a 6-footer probably would prefer the G1228. The original Velbon Carmagne 640 and 630 were pretty close to the Gitzo counterparts in quality, and commensurately close in price. Since then, the Gitzo's have improved a little and the Velbon's have degraded a little, and the somewhat larger price gap reflects this difference as well. You get what you pay for. I would most likely purchase a G1228 MK2 over the current offerings from Velbon.

<p>

I don't think the Slik or Manfrotto carbon fiber tripods are all that great. If you can't afford or are unwilling to cough up the dough for a Gitzo, go with Velbon, which, despite being slightly downgraded in quality is still well ahead of manfrotto or slik for carbon fiber.

<p>

Why did I sell the G1227 I had? when I need packability, the Velbon 640 is what I use. I was using the G1227 for macro work but I found that with a heavier head and heavier gear that I use for this type of work, it was a too top-heavy, and I had to be careful that a gust of wind didn't cause it to take a spill with equipment on top. I also found that the Gitzo CF tripods, while incredibly rigid, are not as good as damping high frequency vibrations as metal ones in the same load class. I know that the reputation of carbon fiber is that it is better than metal at damping vibrations, but I've taken actual measurements and observed just the opposite.

<p>

There is no such thing as a 1-size-fits-all tripod. I sold the G1227 and replaced it with a Slik Pro 700DX that works better for heavier duty cycle applications. I'd probably need a Gitzo 1325 or similar to use carbon fiber in this situation, but the Slik with use of a mangesium and titanium as alloying agents with the aluminum is lighter weight than regular aluminum tripods (about 4.8 lbs without head) and I'd only be giving up about 5 oz. for my extra $450, although the G1325 would be slightly more rigid.

Times are changing, yes. But cinematic image capture is still with C-41 film for the large movie companies. 35mm film is the same thing just cut shorter and put into 135 film cartridges.

<p>

It is hard to predict how the future of photochemical film processes will unfold-- its demise could be slower or could be faster than folks "in the know" expect.

<i>

There's a rumour floating around they are closing all traditional factories by 2007, which means no more film.

</i>

<p>

Someone better pass that rumor on to the Chief Technology Officer of Kodak, as he seems to have missed it, based on what he had to say about the future of film in

<a href = "http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/v2/v2futureOfFilm.jhtml"> this inteview.</a>

<i>

Use Kodak 400UC (negative film) and send it to Dale Labs

</i>

<p>

I would avoid this option unless what you want are wall prints and slides used for proofing the negatives. If you want a slide as the highest quality, archival form of the image in your workflow, you need to expose E-6 film in the camera. What Dale Labs does is produce a contact print of the negatives on a large format (presumably 8x10) piece of reversal film that lacks the orangish mask of conventional negatives, rather than on conventional paper. This limits them to a single color balance correction for the entire sheet, and a single exposure for the entire sheet. This is fine if you want the slides as proofs of the negatives instead of contact sheets or small prints, but that's about all the slides will be good for.

<p>

If you have images with different lighting and requiring different color balance correction, some of all of them will not be color balanced correctly and if you have an image of a contrasty scene that utilizes the long tonal scale of the negative, the slide contact exposure will be like printing on a high contrast grade of paper and you will lose detail. Of course had you exposed the original scene on a slide in the camera you would lose detail, but you would be able to pick the exposure that retained detail in a 5-stop range of your choosing, instead of dictated by the single contact sheet exposure of all the slides.

<p>

It is possible to use the clear base reversal film to produce a good image of a slide from a negative, but you would have to do each image as a separate exposure, with its own custom color balance and exposure level, and this could not be offered by dale labs or anyone else at a price comparable to Dale Labs's pricing.

Why not just an optical viewfinder like a rangefinder, but that zooms with the lens? the LCD could be used when precise framing w/o parallax is needed.