jv1

Actually, my nice little 28mm f/3.5 focuses to one feet. It's a great lens.

I know there have been a lot of threads about Kodak HIE infrared

film, but none of the ones I found clearly answered my questions, so

apologies for asking it again!

 

I am wondering what ISO to set my camera (going to use a Nikkormat

FT3, FG-20, Canon EE17 or Minolta Hi-Matic 7s for this, load and

unload in the darkroom, no worries about film fogging) at when

shooting Kodak HIE through a red #25 B+W filter, and also without a

filter.

 

I would prefer metering though the filter. From what I've read, ISO

400 will generally do it with the filter mounted (800 if there's lots

of foliage, 125 with tungsten light indoors? Will 400 do it for all

weather conditions outdoors?), but I am confused by the ISO 50 that

Kodak recommends, or is that metering without the filter mounted? If

so, that would also answer my second question,

 

What ISO setting to use for HIE without the red filter? (I am aware

this will take away the 'IR effect', but I want to try it anyway)

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated. I know I'll have to bracket a

lot, but having a starting point that is most likely close to being

correct, would help a lot. :) I'm probably going to shoot my first

test-roll tomorrow, I was thinking of using the Canon EE17, as the 72

half-frame shots I can get on a roll of HIE would be ideal for

testing the (expensive) film.

 

Thanks a lot in advance.

I wasn't aware there was that much difference between the old and the new version! Thanks for the info. I guess I'll try Delta 3200 again; now I remember that the last time I used it, I didn't develop myself (in rodinal) but I had the lab do it, so that explains the relatively fine grain I guess.

 

Gonna try that now, although I'll have to look for a nice and small rangefinder where I can set my ISO value up to 3200 :-)

 

Thanks! Any other suggestions would be welcome as well.

And no, I did not mean for that to rhyme. :)

 

I'm after obvious grain and contrast in my prints, for a

special 'project' I'm working on. Never tried this before, I have

always been an FP4-lover (fine grain, and prettier than that of Tmax

or Delta, in my opinion). I got a lot of information from the

photo.net archives already, but I need more. I'm after that fifties

unflinching in-your-face-style type of look (think William Klein,

the Daily News, ...).

 

Here's what I've done. I used a Canon EE17 (instead of going by

the 'shoot loose, crop tight' advise, which is against all my

habits, I just bought this small half-frame camera which should give

the same result as cropping half the image) and Tri-X pushed to

1600, with a lot of agitation during development in Rodinal (I chose

1+50 rather than 1+25 because I read that a longer development time

would increase grain).

 

The results would please a lot of people, as the grain was

surprisingly small and unnoticeable... Unfortunately not the effect

I was after.

 

What are other suggestions to increase grain? Ideally I would use

Tri-X (the grain looks nicer than Tmax or so) exposed at 400 or 800,

and developed in Rodinal (because that's what I always use), but any

suggestions would be more than welcome. I was thinking of trying

Delta 3200 or Tmax 3200 rated at 800, but I'm afraid the negative

would look rather flat, plus, the grain of those films is still not

spectacular, even at 3200 ISO.

 

If all else fails, I guess I'll have to use a grey-filter and expose

tri-x at 6400 or so, but I would rather not do that since I cannot

set that shutter speed on my rangefinder cameras, and I would like

to use aperture-priority for this...

 

Any help would be enormously appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Lex, thank you for your thoughts on the 82 f/2 and 105 f/2.5. I'm in the market for a so-called 'portrait lens' myself. I often use my 75-150 f/3.5, or even wide-angles, but I was specifically looking for something that would give me a very small depth of field.

 

And Regina, consider buying a 75-150 f/3.5 - it's optical quality is excellent, it's a small and lightweight lens (ideal for other purposes such as travel, which I mainly use it for), and it's a zoom, which has the advantage that it would help you settle on your personal favorite 'standard' focal length for portrait. 85mm and 135mm is quite a big difference -- who knows what you'll like best? You might want to know that before spending big bucks on an AF DC 135mm f/2...

 

Best of all: I picked up my 75-150 for 19 euros (!).

I like the first image the most. Nate is a really cute kid, the smile, the eyes, and the fluffy hair definitely made me smile!

On second thought, not if it was purchased before the first of january 2005, which it is, I realise now. Anyway I guess you are in the US so it doesn't matter all that much.

 

Good luck!

You don't happen to be in Europe right?

If you are, the one-year warranty is false, you have in fact a warranty period of two years.

Hello there,

 

I'm looking to pick up a manual Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 lens (not f/3.5 or

f/2). I'm not sure which version to pick however... Information on

the net is not always straightforward. I believe there are three

versions... AI, AI-s and Series E (excluding the non-AI ones, I

don't want these).

 

I need this lens to travel light - I have an 18-35 which I really

like, but it's heavy and I worry too much about it's build quality -

normally I don't care, but backpacking in Asia looks to be something

different. I'd prefer a solid, light lens.

 

I heard the best things about the AI-s. Question: how can I

recognise one, and tell it apart from the AI (is there even a 28mm

AI?)? If the '22' is orange, it's an AI-s? And what about the

quality of the Series E type? Generally I've been surprised by the

optics of Series E (I have a 100mm, and 75-150mm), much better then

they're made out to be.

 

 

Sorry for all the questions. Thanks in advance!

 

ps. What does 'ADR' mean? I come across this quite often on websites

describing lenses.

I did a lot of googling, which confused me more than it helped me :) No really, I read a lot of specs, but after the initial research, I always love to read feedback from actual users.

 

Thanks for the answers so far. It does not have to be Nikon, I was looking at the Stylus Epic right after I posted this. Thanks for the links!

Hello,

 

I'd be gratefull if anyone could help me find a fast (f/2.8), wide

(preferably 28mm -- I'd settle for 35mm if necessary), AF if

possible.

 

A fixed lens would be fine. I don't need longer focal lengths for

this, and it would only cost me speed (f/4-f/5.6) and money. I

believe Nikon currently manufactures a 28mm compact, but it's f/5.6 -

- come on!

 

A sharp lens is also important - vignetting is not such a problem.

 

Right now I'm looking at the L35AF, it seems to be the best

(although I'd like it wider), but it's fast and sharp enough. Only

worries are that I doubt it's still commonly available, plus it's

age.

 

 

Any advised models, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks!

Look up a recent thread called 'Scotland', plenty of suggestions there! It's really worth it...

I really need the autofocus for some things, but I am also taking a Nikkormat FT3. Minus the meter, fully mechanical and one hell of a beauty.

 

I realise the combined weight of both bodies will be a lot, but not too much for me to handle - I won't be taking a LOT of lenses, just a few primes, and I have a very light but sturdy tripod, and I have carefully selected my other (non-photographic) gear.

I sincerely hope they do NOT stop producing 126 film! That would mean the end of the Instamatics :)

Thanks for all the answers. I knew it would be a difficult comparison, but all I needed was an indication that would at least help me out a little bit.

 

The reason I find battery-life important is not expense; but I plan to go backpacking for weeks, several times, in very lone, far-away regions in Asia and the Middle East. I have my doubts about finding fresh AA batteries there, and I probably won't have a chance to recharge mine every so often due to lack of electricity in most of the places I am bound to visit.

 

Battery life is definitely not the only factor, but if the difference had been HUGE, it might have been a decisive factor - take, for example, a D1, I have heard it's batteries last 2 or 3 days at most if you use it a lot! That would most certainly get me into trouble on my trips...

 

The reason I am looking at an F4(s) rather than the F5 or F100, are very specific for what I am planning to use the camera for. I thought about it for quite some time - I am very much aware that most, if not all, people will consider the F5 and F100 better cameras than the F4 - for my purposes, however, the F4 is ideal.

 

Thanks a lot for all the usefull, and helpfull answers!

Good day,

 

I always thought of the F100 and F5 as battery-eating monsters,

that's part of the reason why I am on the lookout for a used F4. Now

I have come across a website that says the F100 gets 70 rolls on a

charge, and the F4 only 30 -- this I find very worrying!

 

I was wondering if anyone could confirm me how many rolls I could

shoot on average with an F4 (all 3 versions, if possible), or, if

that's easier, comparing it's battery life to that of an F100 or F5.

 

Thanks a lot in advance.

The D70s is a fantastic little camera, no doubt about that.

 

That said, get the D1x, it's a no-brainer. Especially since you are used to an F5, you will know how to appreciate the professional functions, build quality, and control lay-out of the D1x. Don't waste time worrying about 4 vs 6 megapixels. Unless you want to make really big fine-art enlargements, but then you should not be looking at either camera.

 

Go for the D1x, you will not regret it, it's the real deal. Being able to pick one up as new for very little money is something you don't want to miss out on.

Thanks everyone for the answers so far. Although, you're not exactly making my choice any easier, because my previous preference for the F4 is being put to the test, and I feel very attracted to the F100 all of a sudden :-)

 

Could someone clearly outline what the F100 and the F5 have to offer over the F4, apart from a) faster autofocus b) 5-zone auto-focus c) more advanced matrix metering? I'd be very gratefull...

Correction; I could get a good F4 for 550 euros (not 400-500). Despite this, I am more and more leaning towards the F4. It really seems to be what I am looking for.

 

Still, comments would be appreciated!

 

Thanks in advance,

cheers

Good day,

 

I have been using an F70 (N70 for the Americans) for quite a while.

It was my first serious camera, and I always enjoyed using it,

despite it's quirks. Now, however, I feel as it is time for an

improvement - my main worries about the F70 are build quality (it's

quite tough, but not as tough as I'd like it to be), having to hold

down the camera everytime to look at the LCD (really necessary

because of the F70's awkward interface), no backlit LCD (impossible

to read in the dark), and 'slow': no particular slow autofocus

action, but slow to change functions etc. Also quite a bit of

shutterlag.

 

I want my next camera to be 'the real thing', so that I don't have

to upgrade again in two years... There's four possibilities I am

considering. Any advice on any of them would be very, very

appreciated. I will be using the camera for a variety of things,

including photojournalism (but not sports or daily press, rather

something like travel, foreign countries, etc for magazines),

landscape (in the long run I plan to get something like a Speed

Graphic for this, but for now I'd want to use it for landscape as

well (it went well with my F70).)

 

All these cameras I'm looking at I would buy second hand. Notice

that all the prices look rather high, but I am buying them from a

shop that I know and trust, they give a one-year-garantee on all

secondhand items, plus if I buy it there they'll buy my F70 for a

good price.

 

1) An F90x (N90s). Dislikes: 'amateur'-camera, still somewhat

plasticy, no bracketing without the databack, pretty old already

(especially if you date it back to the regular F90/N90)

I could get this one for about 450 euros in good to excellent

condition.

 

2) An F100. I have read nothing but good reviews. I like the

professional features such as dof-preview (alas, in modern cameras

this seems to have become a 'professional' feature, unlike in the

old SLR's), tracking, quality AF, ... Things that worry me; no good

dust sealing, no mirror lockup, the price (more expensive than an

F4, only a bit cheaper than an F5 second hand)

I could get this one for about 600-800 euros depending on the

condition.

 

3) An F4. I like that it is a professional camera built like a rock.

I like it's lens compatibility, mirror lockup, dof-preview, and

price... I worry about it's age, autofocus, and perhaps slow

handling?

I could get this one for 400-500 euros.

 

4) an F5. The 'ideal' camera, I guess? Not sure what I would

dislike, perhaps that it eats batteries (just like the F100?). I

don't mind the weight, this beauty feels excellent in my hands (just

like the F4).

But the cost would still be around 800-900 euros.

 

 

 

 

 

Could anyone give me any pointers, or their opinions, general

informations, good sites to compare these cameras?

 

Right now I'm leaning towards the F4, a professional camera for a

very low price is definitely tempting...

 

Thanks in advance.

I don't think he meant Kodak will disappear, but rather that Kodak will stop producing b&w film. I can see Ilford surviving, actually, especially if companies like Kodak bail out on b&w film... Don't be mistaken, there still IS a pretty large market for that film, just not as large as ten years ago. Once companies have adapted to that, film production will become a lot more stable... Look at Ilford, who definitely seem to be heading in the good direction after their recent problems.

 

 

 

Oh, and there are definitely still newsphotogs shooting b&w film.

Have a look at one of my favorite photojournalists;

www.timdirven.com

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CazJ

 

Long live the Lubbie.

If speed doesn't matter that much, do have a look at the now discontinued 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Nikkor. I have one, it's a great (allbeit slow) push-pull-zoomlens, made with metal innards (compared to the 70-300's plastic) and Ken Rockwell rates it better than the 70-300 in every aspect.

What -- I cannot believe how stupid I am.

 

I could have sworn I was reading the Nikon forum! Apologies for the confusion, I know nothing about Leicas :-(

 

Sorry once again.

Don't have any pics online, filter size is 52mm.

 

Uhm... What can I say. This is possible THE sharpest lens ever made by Nikon, only rivaled by some versions of the 50mm f/1.8 (not the AI-S or E series).

 

Sharp, fast, cheap, standard filtersize... Buy it.

 

Only reasons for not being it that I can think of are

a) you don't like 50mm

b) you want AF

c) you want to pay a lot more money for the f/1.4 version.

 

Nothing but love for my f/2 though.