andrew l. booth

David, Do you live in London? If so, have a walk around the shops on

the road just opposite the British Museum. There are a couple of

classic/vintage camera shops there - I'm sure they would be able to

give you the name of someone who could repair your meter. If you pick

up a copy of Amateur Photographer you should find some adverts for

repairs in the back.

Mekissa,

<p>

There's an extremely good <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Nature%20Photograph

y">nature forum</a> run by Bob Atkins which you may be interested in.

<p>

They've been discussing this question fairly recently. See <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000G1P">

Medium format for nature work - AF or not?</a>

I do use filters on my lenses but:

<p>

1/ I usually take them off if the camera is on a tripod, especially

for nighttime/high flare shots. I've had ghost images of point sources

of light even with good filters.

<p>

2/ If you're using filters to protect your lens, don't be tempted to

get a cheap 'throwaway' one. Get as good a coating as you can. If you

end up scratching an expensive filter that's too bad - but it could

have been your lens.

<p>

3/ The best protection for an expensive lens is a good insurance

policy.

Nicole, we really need more information from you. What Pentax are you

talking about? A 50mm lens an 35mm is a different prospect to a 50mm

lens on a 67 (and the main photo.net site would be a better place to

ask a 35mm question). Are you sure they want negatives anyway?

There's a very informative thread on Usenet at present covering this

topic. Try searching dejanews for 'digitizing MF' (this <a

href="http://www.dejanews.com/dnquery.xp?QRY=digitizing+MF">link</a>

may work).

The unfortunate thing about the internet is that no one can see you

smile when you say something. I didn't think that Trace was out of

line with his post, however I read it as a light hearted message, not

a repremand. I often use too much sarcasm (it's an English thing) and

I'm aware that it can be misread. If I think that a posting is too

critical I will delete it, but I wouldn't want to discourage people

from saying what they feel!

<p>

I agree with your main point about helping novices, John - that is an

important use for this forum.

Ryszard, there's been a previous thread on <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000F7D">

Tiffen ultra-contrast filters</a> (and this thread contains links to

several other threads). These filters actually introduce flare so as

to cut down contrast. This may be what you want.

I notice that Microtek have recently brought out the 'scanmaker 4'.

This has a second tray for transparencies (I think it's a glassless

mount) and it has a Dmax of 3.2 which is better than a flatbed. Price

< $1000. Has anyone tried this? Unfortunately Minolta have used a

1pound = 1dollar exchange rate for their scanner in the UK, which

means we get to pay about $4000 for it.

<p>

The Microtek is only 600dpi which is really too low. Unfortunately

David the Minolta has limited (1400dpi?) resolution when it switches

to medium format (it manages double this for 35mm).

What on earth makes you 'not sure about the optics available with

[6x7] systems'? If you want to read the opinions of MFD posters, there

is an entire <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic=Medium

%20Format%20Digest&category=Formats">Formats</a> section. Thousands of

professionals use 6x7 camera systems, and there's a wide variety

available - check out Mamiya, Bronica and Fuji. If you want a 6x7, get

one - don't be suckered by some marketing 'Aura'. If you don't want to

shoot square, 6x7 gives you a good increase in film area.

<p>

That said (changes hat) Hasselblad do make great 6x6 cameras. If

you're setting up a Hasselblad kit, you're going to end up spending a

lot of money, so do yourself a favour and buy Ernst Wildi's

'Hasselblad Manual' now. I own it myself (although I'm not a Hassy

owner) and it contains all the information you need.

Welcome to medium format Eric.

<p>

A quick answer to your question is: try a light table - medium format

trannies are large enough to see without a loupe (although you will

need one to assess a slide critically). Slide projectors do exist -

most commonly for the 6x6 format, although you can get larger format

ones (Mamiya market a 6x7 projector for instance). I haven't used one

myself.

<p>

You might want to read the thread <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0002YK">

Is it worthwhile to buy a medium format projector?</a> which expands

on this subject.

The tubes add extension, therefore they increase the minimum focussing

extension (this prevents you from focussing at infinity and brings the

maximum focussing distance closer), and they also increase the maximum

extension (allowing you to focus closer than you could before). If you

move something closer it gets bigger on the film.

<p>

The <a

href="http://www.mamiya.com/Section2/RB67/RBaccessories/RBa-extubes.ht

ml#anchor596999">Mamiya table</a> shows the maximum focussing distance

with a given lens, the minimum distance and the size of object which

will fill the viewfinder at this point. If you're going for the #2

tube, the largest object that you can photograph with the 90mm lens

will be 2.4x3.0 inches. Is your rose this size?

<p>

I have the #2 for the RZ and the manual shows exposure corrections.

I'll try and locate it, and post some details.

As a non-Kiev owner (and MFD maintainer) I have heard comments before

about quality control problems with Kiev - however I have probably

heard at least as many Hasselblad complaints! (and other makes of

camera are not without their problems). It's easy for horror stories

to get repeated - and I'd encourange posters to try and be as

objective as possible. The MFD has <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-one-category.tcl?topic=Medium

%20Format%20Digest&category=Kiev">a large Kiev section</a> containing

a lot of first hand information, which may answer Julio's question.

<p>

ps: My apologies to Julio for my mistaken renaming of the thread (I

thought you'd already bought the Kiev).

That's true Tom.

<p>

This thread has strayed far from the original topic. If anyone has

something helpful to add then please do, otherwise please exercise

some self restraint!

Sheldon,

<p>

Mamiya has an <a href="http://www.mamiya.com/">excellent homepage</a>

- and you should really start here if you have Mamiya questions. They

also have a <a

href="http://www.mamiya.com/Section1/Digital/digital.html">page

describing digital backs</a> which you will find helpful. If you're

buying, I would reccomend an RZ for digital use.

I started off with an RZII which I think is a great camera. As you

say, it's a little bit big to carry around when you're travelling. I

bought a Fuji rangefinder (GW670III) which has a fixed 90mm lens and

is a great camera. I find that just the normal lens is fine for most

situations.

<p>

Are you planning to keep the RZ? If not I don't think I could live

with just a rangefinder (and there is a problem with portraits on the

M7 due to lack of really close focus) - so look at the 645. If this is

a second MF camera, the M7 or Fuji would be at the top of my list.

Bob, I was thinking that it might be nice to go wider than my current

widest MF lens (50mm on 6x7) and I'd considered a few of the points

you've just asked. There seem to be few MF systems that go really

wide without going to panoramic (6x17 or whatever). Horseman goes down

to 35mm on 6x12, but I think that that is with standard LF lenses. If

you're building around an LF lens you would of course have to figure

out focussing - although you could make a fixed focus/DOF design.

<p>

Looking at the LF pages (from the photo.net main page) there's <a

href="http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/lenses-table4

x5.html">a good table comparing modern LF lenses</a>. The 35mm

Rodenstock doesn't actually cover 4x5, but it would do 6x7. Whether

you would pick up a used one for $500 is another question.

<p>

If you really want wide though, 35mm may still not be wide enough when

coupled with a 6x7 back. There's no beating a 47mm Super-Angulon on

4x5 for angle of view. Keeping within 6x9 on MF or 4x5 formats is

something that I'd want to do, as it means pro-PhotoCd scans can be

made.

I just wanted to add a few comments to Herman's last post.

<p>

Firstly, it is possible to pay less than $275 a day, if you want to

organise more stuff yourself. You can stay at Ruaha for $50 per day,

and park fees are probably another $25 per day. If you take a

driver you can get accomodation/food for them for less. Most parks

actually have camp sites where you can go with a tent. It is possible

to access parks by road, although flying is easier. I was in Ruaha

last year (the month after Herman) - and drove from Dar Es Salaam,

although this took a day. The road wasn't too bad - tarmac to Iringa

(where we stayed overnight) then sand to the park for the last 100km.

<p>

The southern parks can be really good. Ruaha is great, and Rufiji is

also very good. Mikumi is quite a good park 3 hours drive from Dar Es

Salaam, but the accomodation there is low quality. I haven't been to

Selous.

<p>

My other comment is to be careful when booking in Tanzania. The rain

has been extreme this year, and I think one of the tented camps in

Ruaha has been destroyed. Lake Manyara should also be avoided, since

the water level has increased and covered most of the tracks in the

park. The up side of this is that the vegetation was still quite green

during the dry season and there seemed to be plenty of animals around.

This time of year we're getting into the rainy season, and the weather

is generally hot and humid.

I was in Tanzania last month (Moshi, Arusha, Tarangere, Ngorongoro,

Kilimanjaro). Since I have family in Dar Es Salaam, we always

self-drive. Arusha is a good base - within 250km of Arusha you can see

Kilimanjaro, Moshi, Ngorongoro, Tarangere, Lake Manyara, Arusha Nat.

Park and the Serengeti.

<p>

I think self driving is the best way to do Tanzania - but you must

have a realistic appreciation of the problems and dangers involved.

You need to have a 4x4, although the roads in Northern Tanzania are

now very good. From Dar to Moshi, Arusha and then half way to

Ngorongoro is high quality tarmac. The last 100k towards the crater is

rocky but graded - I drove it at 80kph but found it pretty bumpy. You

definately need two spares. Language isn't too much of a problem since

English is widely understood, although when dealing with petrol

stations etc. you need to be assertive and aware. I'm not aware of any

restrictions on self-driving in the parks - certainly we drove around

Ngorongoro with no problems. Tracks are mostly well signed in parks

and it's difficult to get lost. Handheld GPS is cheap now, you may

want to buy one. If you're not confident, or you think you'd have

problems getting out to change a flat 1/2 a mile from a Lion sighting

then you may not want to self drive. It is possible to hire drivers,

and also guides either through tour operators in Arusha or at the

parks.

<p>

The big advantage of driving yourself is NOT having a guy with a radio

swapping sightings with others. If you're out at the right time near

waterholes, or long Lion grass you will see animals. The last thing

you want is for your driver to call in all the other tourists - that

way you end up with a circle of cars, a cloud of dust, and your

photographic opportunity disappears.

<p>

I've hacked together a <a href="http://abooth.com/tanzania/">quick web

page</a> with some scans from my last trip.

The Hasselblad/Fuji is an interesting beast, but I think it has

limited application. Having got a roll of mixed panoramic/non

panoramic shots where will you get them developed/printed (or contact

sheets)? The 35mm convenience doesn't extend to using a high street

lab - since they'll probably make a mess of cutting your film into

strips.

<p>

Once developed, where will you get printing/scanning done? Are the

printing masks available? Are there masks available for PhotoCD

scanning?

<p>

In one of the reviews of this camera (British Journal of Photography I

think) the reviewer compared the X-pan to a Pentax 67, and came up

with the interesting point that cropping from 6x7 gives you a limited

shift capability (which made a useful difference in the architectural

examples they printed).

<p>

Having said this, it's a great concept. I may be sent to Japan early

next year - and I may come back with a Fuji!

Well, Ernst Wildi is a consultant to Hasselblad and author of the

great 'The Hasselblad Manual' book. He says:

<p>

'To start with the last point, lenses are the most expensive

components in the Hasselblad camera system. They are also the

components that are the most easily damaged and are probably

the most expensive to repair. The simple way to protect the front

element is with an optically plain piece of glass, which is easy to

clean and relatively cheap to replace. The logical choice is a

skylight, UV or haze filter. These do not change the colours or gray

tones to any noticable degree and, by reducing the UV rays, they may

often slightly improve or warm up outdoor images...'

<p>

Henry, just make sure that you use very good filters (super

multicoated or whatever) if you're going to leave them on all the

time. Poor coating causes nasty effects such as ghost images in harsh

lighting conditions. I use protective filters, but often remove them

for critical tripod based work. Filters protect lenses from dust and

reduce coating wear due to cleaning, but at the end of the day the

best protection for camera lenses is a good insurance policy.

There's a <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000I1o">

thread on the photo.net forum</a> on this subject at present,

describing a practical method of judging the lens centre and hence

minimising distortion. This may help.

(I answered the question on the wrong forum! didn't realise you'd

'crossposted' Erick!)

<p>

If anyone's interested there's more discussion about this on <a

href="http://db.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000HC8">

photo.net</a>

Before I bought any MF kit I used to have a Benbo Trekker, which I used with a Nikon. The Trekker is smaller and more lightweight than the Benbo 1, and I found it was way too light for an RZ. I replaced it with a Manfrotto with telescopic centre column. My impressions are as follows:

<p>

The Benbo is impressive technology - clever and flexable. For a given weight I don't believe the Benbo designs are as stable as a regular tripod, but they allow you to do things that regular tripods won't. It would be the ideal tripod for a nature photographer, or a good second tripod (it's easy to configure it as a copy stand for example).

<p>

The Benbo was not as quick to set up as a regular tripod. If you extend the leg segments of a regular tripod on a level surface, you will end up with a stable, level tripod. The Benbo legs are free to move independantly, and it takes time to level them. Once they're level, the stability of the tripod depends on the tightness of the central bolt. With a regular tripod it's stable by default. Loosen the bolt, and the tripod collapses.

<p>

If you want speed and reliability I don't think the Benbo is going to work for you. Have you considered getting one of the bigger Manfrottos with the handle to raise and lower the centre column? Manfrotto also make a monopod which fits into the centre column - which may be more stable than a short telescoping column. Whatever tripod you end up with, it's always going to be more stable to increase the leg length than adjust height with the centre column.