dhbebb

<p>Nitrogen is fairly inert, while CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid, so the answer to your question as far as I (retired pro photographer) am concerned is NO!</p>

<p>I had the GW690, an excellent camera but not all that quiet due (I think) to the double-exposure prevention device. You have stated the arguments against the G690 yourself, I've never seen one, I would say it's rather rare and the lenses for it even more so. </p>

<p>It seems respondents, sometimes writing at great length ;-), have done everything except answer the OP's question! Her problem is that she is dealing with printers who have no idea what they're talking about and bleat "300 DPI" without any idea what this means. "DPI" stands for "dots per inch" and is a measure of the detail which a PRINTER delivers. It has nothing repeat nothing to do with camera resolution. I have an Epson 3880 printer which always prints at 1440 DPI in its highest-quality mode, no matter what kind of file is involved.<br /> The first question I would ask myself as the OP is "How committed am I to working with these printers?" If she is committed in this way, and if these "experts" have decided that her original camera files are good enough for 24 x 24" prints, she should produce versions of these files interpolated by 50% and ask her printers to produce test proofs at the 38 x 38 inch size she requires. These should look fine. The 300 PPI requirement applies to reproduction in books, et cetera, which are viewed from a close distance. If, however, additional "quality" is required for any reason, the easiest and cheapest way would be, as mentioned above, to photograph her artwork in sections and stitch these together – not difficult, as long as you can keep the camera squared up to the artwork while you make four exposures of the four quarters of this. Easier and probably not all that expensive would be to have the works photographed by a professional lab which is able to produce a 200 or 300 MB file. I would probably in any case think about changing labs at sometime in the future :-).</p>

<p><em>They have to be earning a nice living from camera repair otherwise there is no point doing this. </em><br> Luis, you'd be surprised. As I said, I was shocked by how little my brass-instrument tech was charging, my guitar tech charges me market prices but confesses that he takes too much work from friends at "mates' rates". I've been a freelance of one kind or another for 40 years, it is very surprising how few self-employed people grasp the principle of the "1,000 billable hours", this being the number of hours which a creative can work each year without burning out, and apply this to individual billing. Many can also not do accurate costing, with allowance for paid holiday, sickness insurance, replacement of worn-out equipment, rent for business premises, etc. and as a result cannot tell you whether they are actually making a profit or not.</p>

<p>Purely a question of fashion - everybody has an image of their father or grandfather walking around with one of these cameras round their neck in a immaculate leather ever-ready case. The cameras are not all that practical - a meter may not work, models with rangefinders are rare, but in terms of image quality per $, these cameras are unbeatable!</p>

<p>I must say I am surprised to hear of problems like this with a printer costing as much as the 4900. I have an Epson 3880 for high-quality photo printing and also two cheap HP Deskjets for text. I try to run the 3880 at regular intervals even if I don't need photo printing but realised this morning I hadn't done this for eight months. Nonetheless, the 3880 fired up just fine, there was of course the usual extended priming, but the first document I printed was a full-colour brochure and all colours were working 100%. Why Epson can't make the jets on the 4900 equally resistant to clogging, I really don't know!</p>

<p><em>In my next life I want to come back as a camera repair tech because there clearly is plenty of work and money to be made, certainly more than as a photographer.</em><br /> Funny you should say that :-). On one level, camera techs seem to be strangers to any concept of business efficiency, even if this effectively reduces their earnings level, secondly they seem utterly unable to understand photogs who say "I need my camera back to earn money, can you tell me reasonably accurately when this will be?"<br /> Secondly, and more understandably, camera techs don't like dismantling lens groups, because this may involve the application of heat to loosen cement, and too much can quite easily crack lens glass. This is probably the explanation for Carol Miller saying she doesn't do Fujinon - if you have seen this done a couple of times and know how much heat to apply and where, OK, if not you can easily screw up.<br /> In other fields, surprises can be of a more pleasant nature - I have a brass instrument tech who took a cornet from battered and evil to shiny and fully playable for £25! I couldn't bear to pay this - I gave him £10 more and still felt guilty. Back with cameras, the craziest tech I ever knew was one of the few in GB who would re-coat lenses. This involved a sputter chamber, which the tech would slowly fill with dismantled lens elements - he would however only run the process when the chamber was full, NO MATTER HOW LONG THIS TOOK (not infrequently years). This made perfect sense to him but of course not to customers, he went bankrupt many moons ago.</p>

<p>Just one final thought - almost all Newman & Sinclair movie cameras which I've ever seen resemble a cornflake packet made out of duralumin. This camera looks totally different. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say this camera is an American design produced by N & S under licence, possibly as part of a government contract, during World War II. It looks very much like the kind of camera issued to military newsreel photographers.</p>

<p>Don't know, but there's one in stock apparently here for £1640:<br> http://www.leica-storemayfair.co.uk/collections/m-lenses</p>

<p>Names of products need to be self-explanatory as far as possible and also make the products concerned sound attractive. Hence a camera that takes 35mm film and has an 18x24mm format should logically be a 35mm half-frame camera. Virtually no one who might want to buy a camera of this kind would know or care that 18x24mm is the size of a standard 35mm motion picture frame, so a name like "motion-picture-size camera" would not boost sales at all! By the same token, "35mm panoramic camera" is a both accurate and attractive name for a 35mm camera that makes 24 x 65mm exposures.<br> Similarly "miniature" - before WWII, a "miniature" camera was essentially one which deliberately traded compact size and portability against ultimate technical quality. In practical terms, this meant that anything smaller than quarter-plate (3 1/4 x 4 1/4 inches) was considered a miniature. After WWII, particularly in view of the very high technical quality available with rollfilm cameras such as the Hasselblad, the term "medium format" came in to describe this, suggesting "as good as a large camera for most purposes and more compact". Also, the term "large format" began to be used - earlier, 4x5 and 5x7 cameras weren't large, they were normal! <br> One other term from before WWII which fell out of favour simply because it sounded unattractive was "substandard" meaning movie film (8, 9.5 or 16mm) which was smaller than "standard" 35mm. Getting people to want to buy "substandard" cameras and film was never going to be easy!</p>

<p>The list will give you dimensions to check - Arriflex and Mitchell are of course popular pro movie cameras.</p>

<p>If you want to save on film, it's going to cost you! :-)<br> http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Leitz/Leica-72-(Wetzlar).html<br> Seriously, it just shows that condition and rarity are what make Leicas expensive (plus, on occasion, provenance) - nothing to do with their usefulness as picture-taking instruments!</p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_3_6?url=search-alias%3Dphoto&field-keywords=oben+qr-10+quick+release+plate&sprefix=oben+q%2Cundefined%2C224&rh=i%3Aphoto%2Ck%3Aoben+qr-10+quick+release+plate</p>

<p>I cannot quite see the dial at the bottom on the right hand side - does this have numbers like 16, 24, 32, 64, 128? This is a relatively simple camera but with a sophisticated (reflex) viewfinder. I suspect it is for some kind of special purpose cinematography, maybe slow motion (if it has speeds like 64 or 128 fps as mentioned above). Over 50 years ago I visited the Sinclair shop at the corner of Charing Cross Road and Whitehall in London - a true Aladdin's cave!</p>

<p>I have no direct knowledge of the SB-700, but I find it has a guide number of 28 (metric). In practical terms, this means you are likely to be working at a distance of about 5 m with an aperture of f5.6 with an ISO setting of 100. You could of course raise the ISO a bit, but beware of noise in people's faces, particularly as these will be scrutinised closely in a group picture.The clear lens choice is your 18-55 F3.5-5.6. A very simple way of making group pictures more interesting is to use a high viewpoint and look down on the group (stand on a step ladder, desk, et cetera, photograph in a stairwell, et cetera). This has the additional benefit of reducing the effective difference in distance between the front and back of the group. The power of your flash will not allow you to use a smaller aperture than f5.6, but you need to shoot at at least this aperture to be sure of good edge sharpness with a wide-angle zoom.</p>

<p>Basic exposure and focusing are childishly simple. Learning to see lighting effects is no easier than it was 100 years ago, although the lighting equipment is lighter and easier to manipulate. Composition is also no easier. Portability is vastly better these days (i-phones, etc.). Vastly more difficult is making a living as a professional photographer - photography today is essentially "just" another app, to make a living you need skills in stills AND video AND graphic design AND website authoring, and programming skills won't hurt either! Notwithstanding this, it is positive that photography has been democratised and is now accessible to so many people. Making a personal statement (in itself a good thing) is easier than ever before, getting someone to look at it was never harder!</p>

<p>As others have said, a padded top loader is a good idea:<br> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lowepro-Toploader-Zoom-Camera-Bag/dp/B00K7DV2AW/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1469538350&sr=1-3&keywords=lowepro+aw+camera+bags<br> You will take a lot more pictures if your camera is at your hip and NOT in your backpack. Do not buy any bag with an exposed zip at the top - it will let the rain in! Lowepro bags with AW in the name (All-Weather) have a built in rain cover which lives in a little pocket at the base of the bag and can be pulled up to give protection against water splashes and persistent rain, which will otherwise get into any bag. Only a gasketed plastic case (Pelican or similar) will be totally waterproof to the degree that it will survive being dropped into water.</p>

<p>....<em>if</em> <em>one wishes to be in business, one can't discriminate</em>.<br> Absolutely not true. As a translator/technical journalist, I have for some years not advertised at all, but when I did at least have an entry in professional directories, I would ask prospective customers what their work was about and refuse anything to do with, for example, armaments or the nuclear industry. Similarly, when I was listed in a professional photography directory (BIPP), I turned down plenty of customers who did not interest me (after a short while, I changed my listing to "Does not accept commissions"). Aside from this, any creative is bound to have areas in which he/she is stronger and weaker - I cannot imagine any photographer accepting all types of work without discrimination.<br> <em>Wedding photographs will always stir emotion in the viewer.</em><br> I stand by my earlier statement - no wedding photographs are of any interest to anyone who does not know the subject (either because they are family or friends OR because they are a celebrity).</p>

<p>You will certainly need to hold the lens/shutter in place while you fit and tighten the retaining ring. Using a lens wrench<br> http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_odkw=slot-ring+wrench&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR4.TRC2.A0.H0.Xlens+wrench.TRS0&_nkw=lens+wrench&_sacat=0<br> to do this will make life a little easier.</p>

<p>I believe the OP is not planning to use a Leica for equestrian photography, just for fun. A IIIf has a squinty viewfinder, the design brief was obviously a camera that would fit easily into a pocket, but it does have the advantage over an M2/M3 of a built-in variable diopter correction for the RF. The frame lines of an M2/M3 make for quicker working, but this is not really the point of a fun camera - a supplementary multifocal finder does the job very well. What makes any film Leica up to and including the M3 very slow is the film rewind - some PJs would change films after shooting 24 frames as a precaution against running out of film - but you have to go to an M4 to get the faster rewind crank. Even a Leica Ic/If (I have a If) is a practical proposition - you have to use a supplementary rangefinder and viewfinder, it's a bit slower but if you're not actually covering a fast-breaking news story, who cares?</p>

<p>I am afraid Jochen's long reply will have thoroughly confused the OP, although some parts of it are accurate.<br> First, the OP's actual question - is a Leica IIIf a good choice? Yes - it has good features such as flash sync and a focusing rangefinder eyepiece and is "only" 65 or so years old. Unlike any other brand, Leicas were made of superior materials and very often used by amateurs on an occasional basis. You will very rarely find, even today, a Leica with worn-out parts. On the other hand, it is CERTAIN repeat CERTAIN to need a CLA, which must be factored into price considerations.<br> Secondly, let me say this - when I was a student, I had a Leica IIIa, at that time just a cheap old camera. With this I used a 28mm Orion 6, 35mm Jupiter 12 and 135mm Jupiter 11. Never a problem. I think the idea of the Soviets building LTM cameras to the Zeiss Contax standard is a myth - at least in the West, Russian camera were sold to match with Leica components. This is not to deny that some Russian lenses were sloppily assembled - I have two 50mm Jupiter 3s, these went for cleaning and collimation and worked great on Leica bodies ever since.<br> Thirdly, as an experiment I went to my collection and picked out a Leica M2, a Fed 2, a Leitz separate rangefinder (recently cleaned and calibrated), a Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5, a genuine pre-war Leica Elmar 50mm f3.5, a Canon Serenar 50mm f1.9 and an 50mm Industar 26 50mm f2.8. I spent a little time focusing numerous combinations on a target close to my desk - every combination gave a distance reading of 1.6 m. The only incompatibility was that it turns out that a genuine LTM body has a slightly thinner body and a slightly thicker throat ring (same effective register) - as a result I could not push the infinity lock of the 50mm Elmar in far enough to release it when the lens was on a non-Leica body.<br> Finding a technician - yes, some have retired. I send my Leicas to Newton Ellis & Co of Liverpool and recommend this company highly - the Leica man is called Ian Pettman. One good CLA followed by light camera use will probably last the rest of anyone's life.<br> Nitpicking time - Jochen talks about a Jupiter 9 - this is an 85mm, he probably means a Jupiter 8 (50mm). I don't know what "RM" means. The bargain lens option is an Industar 61-LD 55mm f2.8 - not at all bad, there seem to be thousands about so they sell for peanuts!</p>

<p>I have to say that as an old-school photographer I tend to use old-school methods: the most reliable method of syncing several studio strobes from an electrical point of view is without doubt cables. The downside of this is that very long cables will be needed - to link two strobes 5 meters apart, for example, will require a cable at least 10 meters long - and that cables in the studio are a trip hazard. Almost as good if you are working indoors and no one else is using flash is photocell triggering - even cheap cells seem to be quite reliable. I find the use of wireless triggers an unnecessary complication in a small or medium-sized indoor studio - they are of course invaluable for covering large distances, other than that I am wary of adding to the electromagnetic smog around us, notwithstanding that wireless triggers are available cheaply today and seem to work well.</p>

<p>I personally don't know about the trigger voltage, the 3rd contributor on this page<br> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2986642<br> seems to think it is OK!</p>

<p>Cheap answer - a 1/4" jack splitter:<br> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/6-35mm-MONO-Jack-Y-Splitter-Adaptor-Connector-Plug-to-2-x-Socket-6-3mm-1-4-/350841809935?hash=item51afcd2c0f:g:vJgAAOSwPe1UCdCa<br> Plug the splitter into one monolite, plug the camera lead into one side of the splitter and plug a jack-to-jack lead into the other side and the second monolite.</p>

<p>In my collector's guide this camera is called a Rolleicord II Type 4. I have owned a couple of Rolleicords over the years and also several Rolleiflexes, AFAIK none of them had a counter reset button, the counter reset automatically when the back was opened. Sounds like something is stuck!</p>