tom_thurston

I have an Epson 2450, and spent some time with a 3200 at the local camera shop. A couple of points to consider:

 

1. Both the 2450 and the 3200 are significantly slower scanning negatives than positives (transparencies). The differences seems to be between 3 and 4 times slower. Thus, a slide scan is done in about a minute on the 3200, but a negative takes almost four minutes.

 

2. I thought my 2450 was doing a pretty good job. But the scans didn't look nearly as good as the slides did on a light table. So, I set up my EOS 10D and 100mm macro lens on a mini-tripod above the light table, took a full-frame picture of the slide, and the results were FAR superior to a scan from the 2450 - much more detail and accurate color. This is even though the 10D only gives me about 2000 dpi at full frame. Thus it seems that a good digital camera with macro lens, a light box, and a small tripod are better than using the scanner like the 2450 (and I assume the 3200). I haven't tried, but I'm guessing that I could even take multiple images of a slide or medium-format transparency, and stitch them together to get a better image yet. Of course, the 10D costs more than the scanners you're considering, but a G3 and macro add-on lens costs about the same. It would be interesting to hear if someone has tried this option.

The 420Ex was introduced with the EOS 30 or Elan 7e. It's autofocus light was designed to support all 7 focus points of that camera. Since the 10D has the same autofocus points as the EOS 30, it seems to me that the 420 autofocus light should work well with it.

I have both the 200 f2.8 and the 70-200 f4. They are both great lenses. However, I find that I use them in very different contexts. I now use the 200 only when I need the speed. I used to use it quite a bit with either the 1.4x or 2.0x tele-converters, but don't anymore, now that I have the 300 f4. I really like the 70-200 for its flexibility. I spent a couple of days last summer photographing a local folk festival, and shot almost all my daytime shots with the 70-200 f4, and my night shots (story-tellers on a stage with spot lights) with the 200 f2.8. Actually, one night I used the 200 f2.8 and the next I used the 300 f4.

 

For the daytime stuff, I used the 70-200 handheld. For the nighttime stuff I used a monopod with the 200 f2.8 or the 300 f4.

 

But as I said before, I get great pictures with both lenses.

On my last trip to Europe, I shot about half my good pictures with a 35 f/2.0 lens. I liked having a lens that's a bit wide, a bit fast, and still small and light. About half of the remaining shots were with my 50 f/2.5 macro (still small and light, and hand-holdable for macro stuff with ISO 400 film). The remaining stuff was mostly with a 70-200 zoom, with a few shots with a 24 f/2.8. The 35mm lens is a mighty nice lens for just wandering around and shooting what looks interesting. But I suspect that's just because of the way I see things.

I have this lens and am very happy with it. It's very hard to use with the in-camera meter, though. So I use it with an external handheld meter. You're supposed to stop-down when metering with the in-camera meter, but for me it's been tricky, and I often don't get it right.

 

The light fall-off seems very pronounced as you shift while viewing throught the lens. This makes one think that you need to compensate quite a bit. However, I find that I can usually just use the normal meter reading - regardless of how far I've shifted. But I sometimes bracket, and shoot another frame with a bit more light, just in case. This is a lens that takes a bit of getting used to, because it is so much different from the other lenses one uses.

 

I don't have the lens with me at this minute, but it seems like the amount you can shift is about 19mm with the lens in a landscape orientation, and less than that, maybe 14 or 15mm in a portrait orientation. There are colored markings on the lens barrel that tell you how far it's okay to shift in each orientation.

 

I've not noticed any loss in sharpness when shifting, and have been very happy with the sharpness of this lens.

I have both the 45 f/2.8 and the shift 50 f/4. The shift lens is not nearly as convenient to use, since you have to stop-down to meter (so I use an external meter), but I use it much more than the 45.

I just returned from visiting Zion and Bryce. The drive from Zion to Bryce follows the Sevier river valley. I was very impresed with the deep yellow and full foliage of the cottonwoods along the river. I'm not sure how they'll be near Moab. I think the elevation in the Moab area tends to be a bit lower (so they may not have turned color as much yet), and they haven't had quite as much water this year as the Zion/Bryce area.

I have had some success using the 300 f/4 with the 2x converter. Since I do not have an EOS 3 or 1v, though, I'm forced to use manual focus. However, if I do manage to focus okay, the results are comparable to the results I used to get with 200 f/2.8 with the 2x converter -- that is, pretty sharp, but not as good as using only the 1.4x or no converter at all.

I just checked my Canon extension tubes. The 12mm tube seems to be about a 35mm inner diameter. The 25mm tube is about 35mm at one side (the side nearer the lens), and about 37 or 38mm on the other (the side nearer the camera body). It widens a bit. This is somewhat strange to me, although I suppose it's related to the light path expanding as it moves from the end of the lens to the film plane. I've never noticed a problem with vignetting.

 

I also notice that my 12mm tube only has 8 electrical contacts on both sides (camera body and lens). The 25mm tube has 11 contacts on the lens side, but only 7 or 8 on the body side. The reason I say 7 or 8 is that two of the eight contact positions are merged together with a single, double wide contact point. I've never had any problems, but I'm not using any particularly new lenses. I wonder whether there might be problems with some of the newest lenses.

I've been very pleased with my 300/4. I also use it with either the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters (although the quality isn't as good with the 2x). One point to consider is that when the light is good, having that extra speed of an f/4 lens is nice. You won't get f/4 with either the 100-400, the 400/5.6, or the 100-300 you currently have.

I have both the Elan II and the Elan 7, and both have this "problem".

It bugs me also, but I've gotten some wonderfully sharp pictures with

both cameras. Becuase my pictures are so sharp, I agree that it

probably dones not affect the film plane.

I also have seen very few grebes this year. I spent one morning at Bear River Refuge, and didn't see any any. I've seen only a couple at Utah Lake. I've hardly seen any of the smaller grebes either. Since it was a couple of weeks ago that I was at the Bear River Refuge, I wondered whether they had arrived there since I was last there. I appreciate your message. I hope you'll let us know when you do see them.

 

However, I was encouraged this morning in seeing quite a few varieties of other water fowl in the marshes and along the river near Utah lake - just no grebes.

The Mamiya 105-210 f/4.5 lens is by far my most used lens with my Mamiya 645. It's quite sharp, it focuses relatively closer than any of the other (non Macro) lenses, and it's not too heavy or too dark (for good focusing, etc). It is expensive, but it's a fine lens.

 

--Tom Thurston

The Stock Solution sells cardboard 645 mounts. At least, last time I bought 645 mounts that's where I got them. I assume they're still available. I've found them to be fairly good, and they're much less expensive than the Gepe and Wess mounts. The address is:

 

http://www.tssphoto.com/

 

--Tom Thurston

I've used the Mamiya 645 Pro extensively for about four years, and am quite happy with it. I use it primarily in the field, as mostly I'm a nature photographer. I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned yet, but one nice thing about the M645 is the two nicely matched zoom lenses, the 55-110 and the 105-210. I have the longer zoom, and although I mostly use it in the field, it really works very nicely as a portrait lens. Plus, with the addition of a Canon 500D closeup lens, it becomes a fairly good macro lens. For macro work it's not as sharp as the Mamiya 120 macro (which is incredibly sharp), but I've gotten some nice closeups with it.

 

Good luck on your decision.

 

--Tom Thurston

I've enountered a wild mountain lion only once. It was in a remote part of Zion National Park, but less than a half mile from a road. I was walking through scattered scrub oaks, and it was in a meadow about 60 or 70 yards away. I didn't have a very long lens with me, so I decided to get closer for a better shot. Bad plan; by the time I had come about 20 or 30 yards closer and gotten around the trees so I could see the meadow again, I saw that the lion was also coming closer to me. It was now only 30 yards or so away; far too close for comfort. My immediate reaction was panic. The lion bounded out of the meadow, into the oaks to the side (neither away from nor towards me). I immediately headed back to my car, all the time considering the best way to use my tripod and other equipment as defensive weapons.

 

I have no desire to encounter a lion like that again when I'm off by myself. It may be that my immagination got carried away, and the lion really wasn't after me, but I'd rather not find out the hard way.

 

Interestingly, when I reported this to the park rangers, it rather excited them. It seems that mountain lion encounters in Zion are quite rare. They did say, though, that tracks had been regularly seen in the area where I saw the lion.

 

One winter in fresh snow, I tracked a lion (backwards, to where he'd come from) for three hours or so. It was great fun until I got to the partly eaten beaver that looked like it was cached for another meal. I then realized that I was probably just as vulnerable as that beaver, and probably less prepared to escape to a safe place while I was out in the wild. Needless to say, it was quite some time before I felt comfortable back in that area.

Since John Shaw has been cited a couple of times, I think it would be useful to quote from his latest book, "John Shaw's Nature Photography Field Guide". On page 133, in the chapter on closeup flash, he says:

 

"You can use any shutter speed you want up to the flash synchronization speed, which on most modern camers is 1/250 sec. ... However, you don't have to use this top sync speed. In fact I would urge you to slow it down a stop or two, depending on the film you're using. First of all, it should be obvious that you're not going to use fast film in this situation. Suppose you want to shoot an ISO 400 speed film. Proper bright sunlight exposure is 1/400 sec. at f/16. But you can't use 1/400 shutter speed as the camera's top sync speed is 1/250 sec. Change to 1/250 sec. and f/22, mostly likely the smallest f-stop on your lens, and you're still at bright sunlight exposure. You'll end up recording ghost images, both an ambient light image and a flash image. Go to slow-speed film and the problem is solved. Let's say you an ISO 50 film. If that camera is set at f/16 and 1/250 sec. shutter speed, you're already two stops away from recording a bright daylight image. Even in blazing sunlight, the flash still functions as the primary light source, exactly what you want to happen. Now when you slow the shutter speed a stop [to 1/125], you'll let some daylight record on the film."

 

It appears that he recommends using 1/125 sync for macro flash even if 1/250 is available.

I shoot both 35mm and 645. I generally buy my film from B&H and shoot most Sensia II for 35mm and Provia 100 for 645. I do all my developing at a local pro lab.

 

35mm film costs me about $3.00 per roll and about $6.00 to develop and mount. Thus, my cost is about $9.00 per roll or about $9.00 divided by 36; 28 cents per slide.

 

120 film costs about $4.00 per roll and again about $6.00 to develop. I get 15 frames for each 120 roll of film. Thus, my cost is about $10.00 divided by 15; 67 cents per transparency.

 

It's interesting to me that the ratio of costs (67/28 = 2.4) is very close to the ratio of areas of the transparency; 645 is usually quoted as about 2.7 times the area of 35mm. I expect that the ratios would be closer if I shot pro rather than consumer film for 35mm.

 

In addition, I've been generally quite pleased with the quality of my Mamiya 645 system. The one drawback is that it is not quite as weather-proof as I would like for some of my nature stuff. It doesn't like the very cold or the very wet. Part of the problem is the linkages between the finder electronics and the body (problems with moisture), or mechanical links between the back and the body (seems to be affected by extreme cold). For this reason I wonder if the new Mamiya 645E might not be worth considering. The non-removable finder and back might avoid the foul-weather problems that I have occasionally had. Plus, it costs less. I just received a catalogue from B&H that listed a demo 645E system with 55, 80, and 150 lens for about $1800. That looks like a good deal to me.

I have had good experience with the Canon 500D. I have not tried the 500. I think that if you're currently used to the top-end quality of the Canon L lenses, you might be disappointed with if you try a closeup lens that is of lesser quality. Therefore, I suggest you stick with the Canon 500D.

I have the 105-210, and it is by far my favorite lens. At 210 it does quite nicely for head shots. It's quite sharp, although not as sharp as the 120 macro.

I only heard part of the news reports last night, but I was so angry at what I heard that I had a hard time sleeping. I had planned a trip to Arches for this week. Now I don't know whether to go or not.

 

I strongly believe that all nature photography should leave the environment in its natural condition. And I believe that it's best to portray nature in its natural condition. Fires on the slickrock around Delicate Arch are not natural.

 

Last night as I was trying to sleep, I kept imagining similar stupid things photographers might do. For example, a shot of a wildfire in a natural forest would be impressive. How about starting one that I hope to control, but oops, it gets out of control and burns down the forest. (Kind of like what happened in New Mexico and Grand Canyon earlier this year; I also had planned a trip to Grand Canyon the week that fire started.)

 

Or, there are just too many trees blocking the perfect view of the landscape I want to take, so how about taking out my chain saw and clearing out a few trees. After all, the park service clears trees from the scenic spots it chooses. Why shouldn�t I be able to create my own scenic spot as well? And besides, the trees I�m cutting weren�t this big 50 years ago when Ansel Adams shot from this same location. I�m just returning the my viewpoint to the way it was 50 years ago before these trees grew this big.

 

Or, I�d really like a photograph from the summit of this mountain, but it�s so hard to get there. How about I just plow up the mountainside in my jeep. After all, it�s an off-road vehicle. That means I shouldn�t need to follow the roads to get to where I�d like to go.

 

I also wonder about other less damaging, but perhaps more contrived things a photographer might do. For example, I�ve seen a shot of Delicate Arch illuminated at dusk, not with fires, but with artificial lighting. It�s impressive, but far from natural. Would I do this? I might, but I've never tried. It�s not natural, but it leaves the environment in a natural state. Just last week I watched a photographer drop and carefully arrange a bunch of maple leaves in a small eddy of a stream, creating a situation that could have been natural, but wasn�t. It didn�t hurt anything. At the time I remember thinking that it was something I had never done, but it didn�t look like an interesting shot, so I headed up stream and discovered a spot that seemed far better without any manipulation.

 

Or, I�d really like a good photo of a wild predator, but they�re so hard to find. So I�ll just provide some bait (a live animal tied up, or a carcass � whatever works) and hide in my blind until my subject shows up. Then I�ll blast away and get some good photos. And of course I�ll use my flash extender so that I get the light I want. No harm done � right? Except now one particular subject has learned that some food might be easier to get from humans � and maybe learns the food is associated with flashing lights.

 

I guess I�m rambling. It helps me to think about what I consider to be good nature photography.

 

Regarding what should happen with Fatali�s blunder, I'm not sure. My knee jerk reaction is that Fatali should be permanently banned from all park service lands (all public lands if possible). Of course, that may be impractical to implement, but I just can't imagine any just punishment for such an irresponsible act. How can one provide a just compensation for the value he�s taken from me, or from other photographers? I�ve been traveling to Delicate Arch for years, trying different seasons, different viewpoints, different weather, etc. It�s not so much that I�ve been trying for the perfect photograph, it�s more that I�ve been trying to explore and as much of the character and personality of Delicate Arch as I can. I suppose I can still continue this quest, only recognizing that my subject now has blemishes that weren�t there before.

I started with a 35mm Canon system, and faced this same question several years ago. I ended up keeping my 35mm system, and adding a Mamiya 645 system. I still use both of them extensively. I use the 35mm primarily for birds, animals, snapshots, travel, and for some of my macro work. The 35mm system is very convenient, especially for birds and animals. My lenses range from 24 f/2.8 to 300 f/4 with 1.4 and 2x teleconverters. I use the 645 system primarily for landscape and architectural photos, but find that I also use it quite a bit for macro work. The Mamiya 120 mm macro lens is very sharp and is nice to use. I just finished a show where two of the photos that sold were macro shots taken with the 645 system -- one of a grasshopper, and the other of a large beetle. My 645 lenses range from 45mm f/2.8 to 300 f/5.6.

 

One issue you may want to consider regarding format is what happens to depth of field for close shots as you increase the format size. I find that it is often quite hard to get all the depth of field I need when shooting with the 645 system and I want to include both near and farther objects. It's not just a problem when shooting things like foreground flowers with distant peaks. It's a problem with things like a stream cascading over rocks as it flows towards me, or shooting at sand dunes where I want to show both the texture of the near sand as well as the flow of the dunes into the distance.

 

A subject that fills the frame with 50mm lens on a 35mm system requires about an 80mm lens on 645, and 100 or so (90 or 105) on a 6x7 system. My Canon 50mm lens stops down to f/22, but so does my Mamiya 80mm lens. But f/22 gives a shallower depth of field for a 80mm lens than for a 50mm lens. Thus, the larger format tends to give less depth of field than the smaller.

 

Anyway, my point is that I don't worry much about depth of field with my 35mm system. I worry quite a bit with my 645 system, and find that there a few subjects I'm never satisfied with -- for a given view it's impossible to get enough depth of field to have everything in focus that I want. But I've come to understand this problem and alter my shooting style accordingly. I've not used a larger format than 645, but it seems to me that it would be more of a problem with 6x7 or larger.

 

Anyway, the result of all this is that I'm still interested in a camera with movements to give me more control over the plane of focus (a field camera of some sort). However, I realize that I'd still have problems with subjects where the items I want in focus do not all lie within a single plane. So I'm tempted by a large format system. But one worry I have for a large format system is that I tend to use longer focal lengths much more of the time (hence my depth of field problems). My most used 645 lens is the Mamiya 105 to 210 zoom. To get the equivalent field of view the 645's 210mm on a 4x5 system, I think I'd need about a 400mm lens. That's a pretty long lens for a 4x5 field camera. However, if I stick a 6x7 back on a field camera, I only need a 300mm lens or so to get that field of view. A 300mm lens is seems to be much more workable for a field camera than a 400.

 

So maybe I'd be happy with a field camera with a 6x7 back. But then I'd have problems with wide angles. To get the equivalent field of view of my 645's 45mm lens, I'd problably need a 65 or so on the field camera. But a field camera that extends enough to work with a 300mm lens may have problems with a lens as wide as 65mm, without using a recessed lens board, suffering restricted movements, or being able to switch bellows or something.

 

Then there is the issue of the weight and size of a system. I looked very seriously at the complete weight of comparable 6x7 and 645 systems when I was considering which larger format to move to. The Mamiya 645 system looked okay. I was worried that the Pentax 6x7 would not be. I was sure that a Mamiya 6x7 would be too large and heavy.

 

I've rambled a long time in this discussion. The point is that any system one chooses involves all kinds of compromise. I've personally tried to understand some of these issues of compromise, and have learned to work fairly effectively with a 35mm system and 645 system. I'm tempted by 6x7 and 4x5, but so far when I look at the tradeoffs for these formats, they've not compelled me to make that move yet. I'm mostly happy with the tradeoffs of my 35mm and 645 systems.

 

I've hiked out from Delicate Arch several times after dark. It's not too bad to follow the cairns in the dark, but a small flashlight makes it much easier. I've never bothered to try any significant hikes in the dark before sunrise because most of the my favorite sunrise locations are so close to parking -- on the order of 1/4 mile or less.

 

In any case, I've had good experiences staying the night in Moab, and either driving out before dawn, or back after sunset. It's less than a half hour drive.

One other comment: at infinity, the lens is still very sharp, but it vignettes unless stopped down to f/16 or so.

I agree that the 105-210 is excellent.