timothy_breihan1

I like the FM2, but I can't really recomend a zoom for you, as I don't own any. As for film, Kodachrome 64, exposed at ISO 80, is sharp, fairly saturated, and renders all tones rather nicely (i.e. without a perceptible color bias). It has the most pleasing palette of color that I have ever seen in photographic film.

A big difference in the two lenses has to do with the color rendition. I have found that the Nikkor 105/2.5 AIS has a slightly pastel cast to it, much like the 28/2.8 AIS, while the Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 is slightly hotter in terms of color. There is also a slight differnce in the way the depth-of-field behaves between the two. In my experience, the 105/2.5 has a fairly short range in which objects are in sharp focus. In other words, within the range of distance that one would consider "in focus," there is a secondary range which is noticably sharper than rest. A Nikon veteran at a local camera store said he experienced the same thing and assumed that it was due to the specific optical formaula of that lens. The Micro-Nikkor, on the other hand, has a more conventional depth-of-field and is one of the sharpest lenses that I have ever seen. I would suggest that you try both out first, as you will find that there is more to these two lenses than their minimum focusing distance.

The biggest problem with the SRT, though it is a wonderful camera, is the fact that the meters tend to fail. This is due to the manner in which the metering cells are attached to the pentaprism. Minolta used a type of epoxy to glue the cells on that, with age, turns yellow or brown and therefore impedes the ability of the meter to correctly ascertain the light coming in through the lens. The other problem with the Minoltas is the fact that few long lenses were available for these systems when new, so finding them on the used market is virtually impossible. Try a Nikon F2 Photomic (cheap, though the meters are again unreliable, non-AI only) or perhaps an FM or FE (getting more expensive). There are also the Canon F1s, which have fallen considerable in price and are excellent, reliable cameras with a great selection of telephotos.

The belt systems are great, not only for their comfort, but also due to the fact that, being modular, they can adapt to a wide variety situations. I use LowePro when doing photojouranlism work. Looking at what equipment you are planning on taking, probably a pair of topload camera/lens cases to carry your bodies, each with a lens attached, as well as a lens pouch for the third and some sort of utility case for film, filters, tools, etc. I would assume that you will also have a pack to which the tripod can be lahshed. This setup should be fairly comfortable and afford the freedom of movement for climbing and whatnot.

How about The National Geographic? A perfect example of a publication that (rightly) chooses an aesthetic picture over a technically perfect one.

If you are feeling limited by your system, it may be time to switch. However, you don't need to have a Nikon/Canon/Leica/Contax/etc. to be a good photographer. When I was stupid and less experienced (I still would not consider myself "experienced") I used to obsess over equipment as well. Then I realized that all of this effort did not improve my skills as a photographer in the least. Do you want to obsess over something? Obsess over getting good at estimating exposure times or holding a 400mm steady without a tripod. Nobody really cares what kind of camera you have (save for perhaps those dickless yuppies that Phil writes about.) Its all in the pictures anyway.

Mr. Pananont,

 

I have just performed a "field experiment." 300 on tripod, I aimed out of my window at a distant building. Focus was near 70m (close to infinity). I viewed the frame at f/4.5, noticing that tree branches falleing between me and the building, approximately 10-20m away, were out of focus. At f/8, these tree branches had sharpened a bit, but the difference was hardly noticable. At f/32, however, the branches were in reasonably sharp focus. Therefore, a considerable depth-of-field (100-120m) was gained. As for sharpness at this aperture, I don't know, as I never shoot that slow.

 

If you are shooting distant mountain peaks, close to infinity, I would reiterate Mr. Atkins comment that stopping down below f/8 or so would be somewhat pointless. However, depth-of-field with more near/far compositions would be greatly extended.

 

It is also necessary to remember that zoom lenses tend to perform their worst at tiny apertures at the end of their focal length, meaning that any unsharpness caused by an f/22 of f/32 would probabbly be exacerbated.

 

Hope that the info is helpful.

To ask Mr. Pananont a question; what shooting situations did you have in mind when formulating your question? I have personally obtained more desireble results using focus to dictate depth-of-field instead of aperture. An example is this; on a recent trip to Chicago, I photographed a woman walking along the west facade of Union Station. I wanted to examplify the stacked look of the columns on the facade, so I stood some distance away and shot with a Nikkor 300/4.5 at f/5.6 or f/8 (I don't recall which). Now for a 300, this doesn't provide an enormous depth-of-field, but the lens was focused somewhere between 70m and infinity, so most of the receding facade was in sharp focus.

 

A 300mm lens does not make a good near/far landscape lens, stopped down to f/32 or not. It does make a good landscape lens with good, or at least adequate depth-of-field, when focused near infinity, which is probably what you will be doing if you are trying to isolate and coompress a distant view or subject. Therefore, I don't really think that there is much benefit to stoppong the lens minimum aperture.

Again, if you want low contrast, use Portra 160 VC. If you want high contrast, use Royal Gold 100. If you want to be a little more artistic and a little less commercial, shoot some B&W with Ilford Delta 100 and a red filter. Oh, and a polarizer is nice for the color shots.

I like Kodachrome 64 best for everything, mainly because it doesn't impart any color cast to the images like many films do. However, snow exposures are tricky and Kodachrome is notoriously unforgiving in terms of exposure error, so plan on wasting some film. Velvia is good, as is Astia, but again, these are transparency films and Ilfochromes are expensive.

 

For negative film, Portra 160 VC is wonderful for scenics, but, bear in mind that this is portrait film and is therefore relatively low contrast, not high contrast. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but something to keep in mind. If you want contrast, try Royal Gold 100 or 400, which are really just about as good as Kodak's professional stuff, but a few dollars cheaper per roll. Royal Gold 100 is very sharp and facilitates huge enlargements.

If you've ever shot a Division I football game, or at least observed the photpgraphers on the sidelines, you will see many of them with enormous lenses, typically 400/2.8 or bigger, mounted on monopods. Monopods can certainly take the weight of very large lenses, so your lens/converter combo is not really an issue.

 

However, what sort of film will you be using? I would assume ISO 50-100 transparency film of some sort. In this case, your shutter speeds will likely be in the range of 1/8-1/30 of a second or so. Monopods are not really designed for shutter speeds down to 1/8, and unless you can hold 600mm steady, you may be a bit disappointed with your results. I think that a good tripod/ballhead would be a better choice.

 

If you decide to go the monopod route, though, get a full-size, three segment one, though, and not a four segment compact. You don't need a head, as the 'pod can simply be tilted, and while quick-release is nice, it is not so necessary with a large lens, as I would assume you will have the lens out of its suitcase for the trip, and especially in the field. However, a QR never hurts, and a decent Manfrotto one is inexpensive and will serveyou adequately. Get the biggest base and plate that you can find (probably a hexagonal one) and just screw the plate onto the monopod's 3/16" bolt. This is what I do when shooting college football for my university's newspaper.

Dust is really inconsequential, and the amount of time that a lens can truly remain dust free after manufacture is extremely limited. Dirt works its way in through the helicoids, and there is really no way to prevent it. That being said, a lens with only five spots is exceptional. I had a Minolta MD 135/3.5 with my previous system that had quite a bit of dust in it, and it is probably the sharpest and most brilliant lens that I have ever owned. The condition of the exposed elements is far more critical.

I played with one of these in a local shop and thnk that it is probably fairly specialized. It does seem quite sturdy, though I don't particularly like that fact that your lens is way up on top of a relatively slender handle, but the positive and instantaneous locking of the ball is great. I found it a bit fussy to adjust however, and, being a manual-focus user, also took issue with the fact that you would need three hands if you wanted to pan, focus and shoot.

Have you tried a replacement focusing screen with gridlines? These are designed for doing architectural photography with tilt-shift lenses. I know that both Nikon and Canon offer them, and I would assume that Minolta does as well. Beattie also makes their Intenscreens with gridlines, I believe. This would seem to be the most reliable method for aligning your frame with the horizon.

An adendum to my previous post. I have since added a Nikon SB-16A flash as a replacement for my Vivitar 283, bringing my investment to a bit over $1000. I plan on accquiring either a 300/4.5 or a 105/2.8 Micro in the near future.

I've never heard of the stacked lens technique that you described, though it certainly sounds intriguing! However, a method that I employ, due to the fact that I am currently without a macro lens, is to use extension tubes and a reversal ring. The extension tubes provide that magnification, while the reversal ring, basically a bayonet with male threads on the other side, allows me to mount a standard or wide-angle lens back to front. This helps correct for the corner-sharpness issues related to photomacrography with extension tubes, and results in photos that exhibit better sharpness edge-to-edge. Furthermore, you can do some extremely high magnification this way. I don't know if cost is an issue to you (you apparently own an 80-200/2.8) but this route is somewhat cheaper than buying a dedicated macro lens. You do lose meter coupling, but the results are probably sharper and of higher contrast than what you would get with the zoom method, as ther is less glass involved. If quality is of utmost concern, however, purchase a Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 and have fun.