trw

<p><a href="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Photography/Picture-of-the-Week/5608070_kcZVH#720615486_nAzMj"><img src="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Photography/Picture-of-the-Week/IMGP2110/720615486_nAzMj-L.jpg" alt="" /></a><br>

K10D, FA50/1.4, lit with one Flaspoint BF160 through a 4'x8' diffuser panel.<br>

Model is <a href="http://sherstone.com/">Sean Sherstone</a></p>

<p>FA 50/1.4 and Tamrom 90mm f2.8 macro. Sometimes the FA35/2 as well.</p>

<p>It is a very good lens... Very sharp and good Bokeh... A joy to use... But also very common and slower than others of it's type... I'd expect to pay about $20 for it.</p>

<p>Took my lighting kit to a friend's Halloween party last night and set up a studio in the basement... <br /><br /> <img src="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Events/Eileen-and-Marks-Halloween/IMGP2013/699614938_SMMpt-L.jpg" alt="" /><br /> K10d, FA50/1.4, 2x bare flashpoint BF160 crosslit<br /> <a href="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Events/Eileen-and-Marks-Halloween/">More images here</a><br /> I Just realized that I've wrapped my filenames sometime this summer and I'm now at ~12000 shutter activations on my K10d.</p>

<p>Vivitar is still making K-Mount 35mm film bodies.</p>

<p>First a picture of my new lights...<br>

<img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2754/4020133035_08bcd43789.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Now a picture shot with my new lights:</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2474/4020149589_32d9a27b6f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="334" /><br>

More (but not much) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/26831130@N04/">here</a></p>

<p>All shots K10D + Flashpoint BF160 in a shoot-through camera left, reflector camera right </p>

<p>First shot with FA50/1.4, second with Tamron 90/2.8 Di macro</p>

<p>If your scanner reduces resolution for larger film, try VueScan. It works for me at full resolution any size (4x5@4800dpi is crazy slow though and I haven't tried 8x10 film) even though the CanoScan 9950f is not supposed to do this. It may seem silly to scan at such a high resolution since the lens may not resolve so fine a detail and film flatness is likely iffy. It does help to reduce apparent grain if you scan at full rez and down-sample in Vuescan.</p>

<p>The 540 needs to be in manual slave (S2) mode, not wireless mode, otherwise it's pre-flash will trigger the 283 a split second before the shutter opens.</p>

<p>You can not reliably mix P-TTL flashes (the 540 on camera or in wireless mode) with manual flashes (your 283, 540 in slave (S2) mode, monoblocs, etc).</p>

<p>The slide film goes over the lens of the cheap flash (I used to use a Canon Speedlite 133a), not the camera lens. This way the flash emits only infrared, which triggers the slave flashes (540 and 283 in your case), but does not effect the image.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Optical trigger on the 283, 540 in slave flash mode, really cheap flash with a couple layers of unexposed but developed slide film over the lens on camera as a trigger, or use cheap radio slaves, both flashes in manual mode. I use Yongnuo YN-16's on my sunpak flashes, but that model is discontinued. </p>

<p>Strobist <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html">Lighting 101</a> is a good series of articles to get you started.</p>

<p>Somanna, I have many pictures of kittens, but never a photo taken with kittens on my camera. How does that work? </p>

<p><img src="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/photos/677179550_EWTi3-M.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Tanya Streeter-Wilson, owner of Artzi Stuff Boutique.<br /> K10d, DA 18-55, 18mm, F8, 1/125, 400iso, Sunpak 383 with 43" shoot-through camera right.<br /> slightly cropped.</p>

<p>A review of the Nikon mount version of the Zeiss is <a href="http://photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/256-zeiss-planar-zf-t-85mm-f14-review--test-report">here</a>. Photozone cautions the results don't neccessarily translate across systems.</p>

<p>Also fortunately, their spawning grounds tend to be under the forest canopy, which reduces the glare.</p>

<p><img src="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/photos/353779175_amwpm-M.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Kokanee spawning at Kokanee Creek, 2007 <br />Trent Whaley. K10D, SMC FA 50/1.4. F2.0, 1/90s, 400iso, circular polarizer<br>

It works for me. Try a different angle. The places kokanee spawn tend to be <a href="http://trentwhaley.smugmug.com/Pets/Wild-Feral-or-Semi-Tame/5729996_xN5Jz#353774139_Aukti">shallow</a>.</p>

<p>I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. You are not forced to upgrade just because a new model came out. If the new model does not do significantly more that's important to you, keep using your old model. </p>

<p>This lens is one of the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/pentax/123-pentax-smc-fa-35mm-f2-al-photozone-review--test-report?start=2">"highly recommended" on photozone.de.</a> I concur. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am not a camera designer but a body with an EVF could be much smaller than a DSLR.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely. By having a much shorter Flange-sensor distance, just like the rangefinders do, which also has advantages in designing wide-angle lenses. That means not being able to mount SLR lenses without an adapter. Unless EVFs suddenly get cheaper than a mirror and prism mechanism designed in the 1950's there is little advantage to a K-mount evf digicam.</p>

<p>If it can use K mount lenses without an adapter, it must have the same flange-focal distance, so it would take up the same space as the mirror box anyways. </p>

<p>Just make it PDF or a link to your current pricelist on your website.. A slide show can't be printed. </p>

<p>DVDs are designed for <em>motion </em>pictures. They do not do manually advanced slide shows. You could try setting a <em>really</em> long delay and making each page a "chapter" (I don't know how to do this in your software), but then it will take up a huge amount of space on the DVD.</p>

<p>The first wedding I shot was in 2005, with FD and Med-format gear including AE-1P, Canon EF (manual body, not mount), nFD 50/1.4, nFD 85/1.8, Mamiya C220, and Minolta SDIV and CanoScan 9950F scanners. I think I did alright, and quite a bit better than some of the first wedding critique posts I've seen on the wedding forum here. I do have these Caveats though:</p>

<p>1) ALL of my gear was in known good working condition and I was thoroughly familiar with it's use in a variety of lighting and action situations. <br /> 2) I had scouted the location and knew what the layout and lighting was like. I had even gotten myself invited to a dance at the same hall a week before the wedding so I could practice (It turned out the wedding reception had better lighting)<br /> 3) I used a hand held meter and manual exposure for all shots ( the hall had consistent soft lighting throughout, so I only had to meter once for the ceremony, once for the formals, and once for the reception).<br /> 4) Don't send all your film to the same lab. If the lab is dusty that day, it takes forever to clone out.<br /> 5) It takes WAY longer to scan a few pro-packs of film than you think it does. Months longer if you're doing it around a day job. In contrast, I delivered images from a wedding I did last summer with Pentax digital <em>the next day.</em> Having a better computer and software now I might be able to do it faster, but handling all that film is still the bottleneck.</p>

<p>Joseph... imagine it at 800iso or higher, with the ambient as the key and the flash just opening the shadows, not providing the main illumination. </p>

<p>I use a CT-orange gel on mine.</p>

<p>Nothing says they can't make a bigger than 24x36 sensor camera sized correctly for their sensor and ship it with an adapter for pentax 645 lenses. That would be the best of both worlds. Although any bigger than 24x36 sensor camera that costs under $8000 and has decent low light characteristics would shake things up a bit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>old 645 lenses will work (with a crop factor) on the 645D. Personally, I think that's a bad thing,<br /> Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it means there's a bigger mirror box than there needs to be for that size sensor, which makes the whole camera bigger and makes wide angle lenses more difficult. Look at how the Leica S system is significantly smaller than the Haselblad and Mamiya digital systems... of course it's also way more expensive than Mamiya</p>

<p>I had a similar experience taking my FA50/14 in to test with a couple months ago and have this to report:</p>

<p>1) No balance issue for me with FA50/1.4<br>

2) Ergonomics OK, even with my wonky hand (low grip strength, arthritis, limited range of motion in wrist)<br>

3) I took the images home to pixel peep on my calibrated monitor. Jpegs very nice in a brightly lit store with daylight fluorescents. Raw format not supported (as of a few months ago, maybe it is now) by Aperture 2.<br>

4) Videos very nice and manual focus manageable when re-composing at wide aperture. CCD wiggle pronounced when panning rapidly (I understand this is common to all the video-dSLRs).</p>

<p>5) Not enough sound captured to make any statement on the built in microphone, but I suggest if you're using it for mixed-media journalism you probably want an external microphone.</p>