greg_heil1

i just got a setup...

<br>* Minolta 5600 HSD flash

<br>* Omnibounce diffuser

<br>* Lumiquest 80-20 softbox & Metallic Inserts

<br>* Minolta 3200i automatic flash

<br>* Minolta OC-1100 off-camera flash cable/extender

<br>...as part of a deal. If anyone is interested i would be interested in passing it on for a reasonable price. It could go towards the 7E fund i am building;-) Minolta will make a 7 level EVF camera, soon, right?!?

 

<p><p>Anyway my question is about the 80-20 system. Seems the Velcro they used has glue that seeps out:( Sticky sticky. i put some paper in to staunch the flow. All quite useable but a nuisance. i am thinking maybe i should send it back to Lumiquest, surely they must have gotten that bug fixed by now. Or if there is an easy fix? Any good solvents?

Ok Ok, i'll try not to be an idiot!-)

 

Has anyone made a cheat sheet?

 

Big menus w/o much feedback sounds difficult...

A like new Maxxum 5 for $30 sounds very tempting, especially after

this glowing <a

href="http://www.virtualtraveller.org/dynax5review.htm">praise</a>. i

have a heap of 7000's accumulated while buying vintage lenses, but

short of paying real money for a 600si, 800si, 7 or 9 where would i

get a film body where i could excersize those lenses, and keep for

wide angle shots when i go digital (mostly holding out for an

interchangeable lens EVF)?

 

<p>One thing is it has no manual, and Pauls review strongly hints it

would be pretty cryptic to use w/o some kind of cheat sheet. Has

anyone put one together. Maybe i could plasticize it and keep it with

the camera - while studying the pdf at home. Is the camera fully

useable without an eidetic memory?

 

<p>Is this body a good test for lens compatibility, eg older Sigmas?

Stacey

 

As i mentioned in the other thread a great way to use an A1 in low light is to use shutter priority mode. Just set it to barely fast enough to freeze the subject to the desired degree, maybe 1/20S and fire away at ISO 100. Of course you may not be able to see the scene in the viewfinder;-) So you may want to increase the ISO a bit to the point that you can compose, but not so much that you have to constantly adjust it. It would really be nice if they added an auto ISO mode;-) The other important thing is that auto focusing is pretty darn iffy in low light, but you do have great depth of field, so rough cut manual focus is pretty effective. Likely you could put it to the nearest meter easy enough just by eyeballing it. Oh, and use raw mode so you can recover those underexposed shots!

<p/>i think it is safe to talk about it here;) i have a Ricoh Teleconverter TC-200M that doubles the FL. It is vignette free down to about 100mm so it gives you a zoom range of ~200-400. Actually i have used the vignette to effect a couple times too. Works well as a lighter stronger cheaper alternative to the Minolta. i have not had a chance to compare it but it seems quite sharp. i have found it harder to locate a WA converter. i have a .8x which gives a small corner vignette at 28mm. And that is all the stronger the Minolta offering is also. There are some .67x's out there but i have not found one yet. Check out <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/151930/thread/1128277855">Cliffords page</a>. Those two converters and the A1 are in the same fanny pack as my wallet, hence go everywhere with me. Along with a few filters and achromatic diopter macros.

 

<p/>If you want to go really whole hog on the tele end you can jimmy up your own TC. Basically two lenses back to back: a long telephoto, with a fast normal reversed in back as an eyepiece. To avoid vignette the eyepiece should be f1.4 or better. 500mm mirrors make nice light objectives.

 

<p/>As to durability ... i am somewhere north of 30K exposures now. The flash cover and the rubber EVF cover are long gone, but it trucks on quite well.

 

<p/>i shoot almost exclusively people indoors in poorly lit venues. Shy of a dSLR i think the A1 is still unmatched for that use. my basic trick is to set it to S priority with a speed of ~1/20. That is just fast enough to stop normal human movements. Essentially i am letting the camera choose the ISO. i take the raw output and up the brightness as required. i can even shoot at 400mm at that speed, by resting it in my lap. i crop several shots to ensure i get one w/o motion blur.

Dave Redmann wrote:

 

> Tell you what: find a single-tone, evenly lit surface, set aperture priority to f/1.4, and meter it through the 50mm f/1.4. Now put on that front lens, and meter it again without changing anything else. Yes, I know the camera will still say the lens can open up to f/1.4, but I bet you will find that at "f/1.4", the meter says you need a slower shutter speed with the accessory lens on. That would tell you that your effective aperture is not f/1.4.

 

On my yellow wall they both say f1.4/15 on my 7000. There is a slight darkening (vignette) of the corners so there is no doubt a larger objective would be an improvement for the corners of a full frame camera. Also getting a good 2X which covers such a lens is relatively rare. A 1.7X is much more common, and less expensive, and will give one the 85f1.4 the OP was seeking, likely w/o vignette at all.

 

> Next try shooting something with straight lines near the edges, fine detail, etc., using a tripod and the 2 s timer so you get MLU. I bet you find that the front lens causes significant quality loss.

 

Sorry my 7000 does not have MLU, don't have time to get film developed for your experiment, and i don't own a tripod (not interested in the kind of photography which requires toting one around). However, looking through the viewfinder at the graph paper i have stuck on my wall i cannot detect any more edge curvature than is in the, admittedly old and warped, paper. You will probably have to go to someone else to do that level of performance testing, perhaps someone who owns, rather than borrows a dSLR?

 

> I'm not sure what he means by "front mounted", but I doubt it really affects the analysis.

 

> I know about the front-mounting adapters that effectively give you longer or wider lenses. It's just that I was surprised

 

Not sure which of the above statements you are standing by. What i am standing by is that for the cost of a cheap standard lens and a quality front mounted TC you can get specifications in the range of 85f1.4. i have gotten pleasing results on my A1 and my experiments with a 7D have been encouraging. i think it is an avenue others may like to pursue as well. If from your personal experience you have something useful to add to that, i am open to hearing it. But i am not interested in knee jerk reactions which IMO detract seriously from the quality of our inquiry. Nor is it useful to the discourse to call information "bad" which in fact is correct.

 

But i suspect you are now sure of what i mean, as you now indicate knowledge of the subject, and hence likely do now doubt that your analysis is affected. So in sum there you have it, free doubts, and advice freely dispensed, none of it worth the electrons transmitted with. But hey, a little different perspective, color, or sharpness can add interest to a picture, for what that's worth;)

Joe

 

<p/>If your Quantaray 75-200f2.8-3.5 is a push pull zoom with 67 mm filter then chances are good it is the same as my Sigma. A great fast lens! See

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DiPK">photonet</a>,

<a href="http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=510&PN=1&TPN=1">dyxum</a>

 

<p/>i would be very interested in any experiences you have getting it to work with the 5D ... especially with using TC's. So far i have found a Promaster Spectrum 7 2X enables full functionality, while the 1.7X does not. Mostly i am hoping for something like a 1.4x which would bring it more into a useful range.

Chad

 

> According to your math, a 50mm f1.4 with a 2x converter is equal to a 100mm f1.4, meaning that the largest aperture measurement is 70mm, (100/1.4) which also means that the front element must be at least 70mm in diameter

 

That is about the ball park. i put a micrometer on it and the clear lens diameter of the front element is 62mm. That doubler, a Ricoh Teleconverter TC-200M, is not that much bigger than the 50f1.4 that it complements. So it is pretty handy;-) And durn cheap. It has 52mm threads, so i step down to 49mm to get it on my old 50f1.4. Probably Minoltas 1.7X is better though more expensive and not as strong. With a front mounted TC you don't lose any aperture, at least not until it starts vignetting because the clear lens diameter is too small.

 

You will have to excuse my putting in this trick that folks who use fixed lens cameras and video cameras are all too familiar with... but they do work. What i am really trying to get is a solution that goes in the other direction. So far i have only got a .8X. It works fine on a 28f2.8 ... but hardly worth the effort, a 24f2.8. Still i leave it on, being not that large, because it helps a little in combating that 1.5X crop factor. i have a monster negative diopter achromat which i think will do a good job, but i need to get some strong achromatic diopters behind it that will bring infinity into focus. That should give me a real WA.

 

We really need a WA that protrudes deeply into the mirror box, as the current WAs are just too expen$ive, too BIG, and too Slooow! Frustrating that flapping mirror;-}

Dave Redmann wrote:

 

> greg heil wrote:

 

> > i have a 50f1.4 with a front mounted 2X converter giving me ~100f1.4.

 

> If you put a 2x TC on a 50mm f/1.4, you get a lower-quality 100mm f/2.8; you have to multiply the aperture number too. I'm not sure what he means by "front mounted", but I doubt it really affects the analysis.

 

Gotta love someone who dis's your experience w/o the faintest understanding of what you said;)

 

> So just beware that free advice isn't always worth what you're paying for it!

 

Tch.

For portrait work you do not need infinity focus ... so a lensless adaptor and an MC/D 85f1.7 would fit the slot. An adapter with a lens would take you to about 100f2. Also there is a 100f2.8 soft, a 100f2 and a 135f2.8 SFT. i have a 50f1.4 with a front mounted 2X converter giving me ~100f1.4. Minoltas 1.7X is very good and would hit 85mm pretty squarely.

 

i have heard the theory that long lenses are better for portraiture, as they flatten features. i saw a pic of a photog talking by walky talky to his crew with umbrellas, lights, and the model ... while he had an enormous rig mounted a block away down the boardwalk. So you might also consider walking back and a longer lens. i like the "candidness" of portraiture from across the room.

Bill

i have never heard of anyone disappointed with a "bargain" KEH. A very skeptical friend just got two such and was more than pleased.

 

THK only seems to talk about a single TC: "AF 2x Teleplus MC7". KEH lists quite a few Kenko Teleplus's. The two that say "Pro" are 3X's there are some MC7's that are 2X's and some SHQ's and MC4's. i presume MC4 means 4 elements and i should avoid them. But beyond that i am lost. i presume for tele i do not worry at all about mechanical fitment (no rear element to clash).

 

Also i _may_ have a 2X Sigma APO Tele EX available ... but don't know about it either. It would be nice to get a good mate, preferably something with good digital coating on the rear element now that i spent so much on my Tokina 80-200f2.8. The Kenko 3X's sounds tempting at KEH, Eagle hunting season is late this month here in Washington Salmon country. O/w it is my Tamron mirror.

100-300 F4 Sigma APO D EX $429 (Bargain) up at KEH now and here is one of those "dubious" Tamron 200-400f5.6 LD's for $250:

<a href="http://boise.craigslist.org/ele/119270124.html">Craigslist Boise</a>

 

<p>AFAICT all the Kenko's are called Teleplus, at least at KEH. i presume some are better than others? Would be nice if someone constructed a good matrix widget for TC's vs lenses;-)

i have a Tokina ATX Pro 80-200f2.8 which, with a Promaster 2X, seems to AF quite well on my 7000 bodies. Close focus about 8' at 200 and with doubler. Hoping to try it out on a dSLR sometime this year. Or maybe a dIL, if the rumours hold up! Any suggestions for an optimal TC? Would like both 2X and smaller. A 1.7X would perfectly mate it with my 28-135f4-4.5, but unfortunately the cheap Promaster 1.7X i picked up does not focus so well with it, needs more light.

Someone else has the exact problem: <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/_W0QQitemZ7574928806">(eBay end tommorrow)</a> wonder if a 50 works for you too? Getting a good "click" registration? Some off brand lenses have different tolerances on the screw drive holes.

i have a HiMatic E which is completely in pieces in plastic bags, and minus the lens. Should have most of the screws. May be the right vintage if someone has a manual set. Be happy to send it on to whoever could use it. Cost of postage?

 

BTW i am thinking of buying one of the 2 CD sets of all the manuals. i presume $10 is well worth it?

 

Also, dunno if they make them that small, but there are screw remover bits... Very hard steel that bites right into the head.

my-spot over on DPReview is doing alpha level work on PC software that does do dark image subtraction directly on the MRW format data. It is very effective at removing the Majenta cast which results from differential heating of the sensor in long exposures - and to which KM machines seem unusually prone to. See some results in

<a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=16256393"> this thread</a>

Clinton

 

i understand the size of sensel issue. Which is why i have long pointed out that for my kind of work the A1 is a considerably better machine than the A2 or A200. However it is also interesting that, as Joe W recently pointed out, the issue is not so much sensel size as the product of sensel size and illumination. Faster lenses are mandatory on smaller sensors. i don't know what the future will bring in materials wrt to the DR of sensels and thus how much silicon should really be devoted to one in the future. So i cannot say really that driving a stake down at 4/3" is good or bad. Not really my argument at all. But it is for certain that 4/3 at any point in time will be better DR wise than 2/3, presuming equal technology.

PS i am just a bit pissed off at Minolta at the moment because i had to pay $50 at an auction to get a converter MD->MAF which of necessity had optical elements and results in a 23% TC effect. Why on earth did they have to make the MAF mount a mm longer??! And then only make a boutiquey converter? i guess i really can't fault them, the 7000 was one of the all time successes in photography. So i guess they were ready with the glass.

 

i do kinda hope, if they make a DSL, that they won't pull that stunt again. They are not really in a position to carry it off, IMNHO. </gripeoff>

Clinton

 

8x10 is even squarer than 3x4, is it not a common format? i actually find less problems cropping the 4/3 ratio, which is now vastly more common than the 2/3, which is mostly relegated to dSLRs, which few people can afford. Ever try to buy a frame for any 2x3 format other than 4x6"?

 

There are a lot of contributors, signatories who can be expected to make contributions in the next wave eg Panasonic, not to mention Kodak who is already making sensors. Why on earth would you expect the folk you mentioned to contribute to the demise of their own mounts? Of course not.

 

Peter

 

i absolutely agree that Oly was in a hole with no AF mount. But that also meant they could design a mount which did everything right from the ground up: 1) shorter registration distance so it could be a universal recipient 2) fly by wire focus and zoom 3) bidirectional communication for eg firmware upgrade and closed loop communication.

 

Minolta deliberately put themselves in the same position of having no compatible glass with the MD->MAF transition. Why on earth they did so is beyond me. But with a lot of glass makers out there lacking a mount they are dedicated to, i see no reason why, presuming a bandwagon starts rolling, they would not jump aboard an Oly train.

 

i know i am not rich enough to own tech which commands such a premium, by its very scarceness, but i will applaud if they break the logjam. Eventually success will result in prices affordable by the unwashed.

 

The MAF mount could be used in a DSL as well. Short focal lengths could be designed to go right inside right up to the sensor plane. Who would care if the lenses could not be used on older MAF bodies? DSL's would benefit from better options, but still have standard old glass. Best of both worlds for those of us accumulating MAF glass.

Peter

 

<p/><i>I want a cross between the Sony DSC-R1, Samsung DigiMax Pro 815, and the entire Minolta DiMage 7/A/Z-series -- all in one: an APS sensor with 24-200mm f/2.8 lens or better, with ISO 100-1600 CLEAN, plus RAW of course. Anything 5 megapixels or more is fine for me, so a 6 MP APS system might be quite affordable!</i>

 

<p/>Exactly what i want. And highly doable, with interchangeable lenses. And i hope KM is busy ... <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1024&message=16328492">others are</a>.

 

<p/><i>Also, I LIKE the EVF Electronic View Finder and the resulting SIMPLE camera, so a DSLR is NOT as important for me so long as there are improvements on high ISO cleanliness in an EVF camera system.</i>

 

<p/>i simply cannot do the work i do w/o the quiet and maneuverability of an EVF.

 

<p/>i am discouraged though, as i have been building up MAF glass in the hopes KM would pull through. But the 4/3 mount is much more modern and there are a lot of members in its consortium. We could easily get bombed out any day. A Foveon sensor and the option of Panasonic OIS glass or Zuiko fast glass would be almost as good as a body stabilized with MAF glass. i think Oly has body based image stabilization patents too.

> How are full frame sensors hard on lenses? Is it that they are so accurate that the limitations of the lenses at the edges of the frame can be more easily seen?

 

Partially. 35mm film is worth something in the range of 6-12MP depending on the film, how well it was exposed, and the transfer characteristics of its optics. FF chips are mostly well beyond that. ipso facto they are more demanding. But also note that silicon is more 3D than film, hence you have parallax issues at the sensels, particularly at the corners where the angle of incidence is most deviant from perpendicular. Kodak in some of their earliest FF sensors, the 660 and 760, reduced a lot of this problem by eliminating the micro lenses and reducing the Bayer mask and AA filter. That also got it the all time best DR: pretty useable ISO 6400! But no manufacturer these days seems interested in optimizing FF cameras to take ordinary lenses. Mostly they are still in the mode of pushing more MP's.

 

But back to the OP's topic: KMSEA also reneged on his prediction that there would be an A3. BooHooHOO! That is the real disappointment. EVF's are the future, and it would appear the majors are planning on holding off that future as long as they can sucker profits out of us from these stupid mirror flapping monstrosities. The R1, without AS and useable raw, is just a tease.

i am too poor to have anything but leftovers in the eBay parts bin. However i have been doing ok with a borrowed 7D over the last week. The owner bought a Tamron 28-300f3.5-6.3 which is basically useless for events like that indoors. But i have two primes, with oily irises that won't stop down: 28f2.8 and 50f.14. i also have a doubler and a kyocera front mounted .8x, and a Ricoh TC-200m front mounted 2X. All of these mix and match keeping me under 2.8 from 22mm->200mm in jagged steps. Mostly i manage to keep under ISO 800 while shooting 1/25th or so. Good enough to freeze enough shots that if i take a bunch i get one. So it can be done for virtually nothing... in candlelight. While primes are a rich mans game, they can also work for a poor man, just forget about the 35f1.4 and 85f1.4's etc.

 

my own cam is an A1, and i get by by putting it in S mode for 1/20s shots. Basically it is forced to choose ISO and that is fast enough that with a crop of shots i get keepers. With the 7D i can't really do it that simple, because it thinks it can stop down the primes, which it can't - so it over exposes. Sure would make life a lot simpler if there were a way to just tell the 7D the lens cannot stop down. i guess turning the exposure knob is faster than menu jumping the ISO, but the jpe becomes useless then. i guess i need to abandon chimping, unless someone has a better idea. Sure would be nice to program ones own rules into the exposure computer!

Comes from a Hoary <a href="http://www.stereoscopy.com/3d-concepts/camera.html">tradition.</a> i would think the XD7 is the best camera put to that use yet though;)

i finally got the borrow of a 7D again ... plugged the Sigma 75-200f2.8-3.5 in an lo and behold it focused, fired everything. i thought this is strange! i am going to have to go back to all the nice folks at PhotoNet and eat Crow Pie;-). Well i looked again, and i had stored it with at Promaster 2X. Took the 2X off and it was again dead as a door knob.<p/>

 

So now i have a super tele ... nice, but not the workaday lens i really need. i don't suppose that anyone makes a focal reducer for Maxxum? i think Kodak is nastily sitting on that patent right:-((( But maybe there are some inexpensive 1.4X converters out there that won't run me into such an extreme range (210 -> 600 35mm equiv is rather over the top). i have <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=15477688">heard</a> there are lots of incompatibilities, especially with the newer Minolta converters and some <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1035&message=15531424">Kenko's</a>. Any suggestions for a low power TC? i get the impression that cheaper older TC's will have a much higher compatibility.<p/>

 

... or perhaps as i suggested earlier there might be a sneaky rechipping i could do: maybe i could grab the TC chip and put it in series with the Sigma chip and no one would be the wiser;-)

> Sigma 75-300 4.5-5.6 APO (sliding zoom)

 

Thanks for the report. The 75-300 i was interested in was not APO, so i don't know yet if it would have worked. The one Sigma i have that fails, and is a pity 'cause she is a beauty!, is the 75-200f2.8-3.5 this fails to register with the camera and pass focussing, aperture information etc. It can be used by

toggling the shutter lock / lens check, which loses aperture and AF control functionality. i still wonder if it might not be possible to transplant a chip from some otherwise dead lens might not fool the Minoltas into handshaking with such lenses...?