roger krueger

The various Konica Hexar AFs have a sweet 35/2 and the EI goes up to 12k. Active IR autofocus that beats the snot out of

my 1dsII AF in low light. User-acessible AF adjust too, a decade or more before Canon thought it was such a big deal. And

built-in AF correction for focus shift, something no DSLR has to this day! Also has two preset AF tweaks for different

wavelengths of IR film. Silent mode that's genuinely silent.

Lock to the center point, use 2.8 or faster glass, find contrasty bits to pick up focus from. Lens choice matters too. For my

1dsII in ISO 3200–1/60-f1.4 small-club darkness my 24/1.4 is kind of usable on the center point, my 50/1.4 a little less so,

but even in 3-4 stops better light it's a real struggle to make my 135/2 give a lock.

<br><br>

Haven't used a 1ds3 myself, but what I've heard from others is that while it is more likely to lock in darkness it's also more

likely to give a false lock.

<br><br>

It's not implausible you got some crud on your AF unit (at the bottom of the mirror box). I brush mine off whenever I'm

cleaning my sensor.

I've found my big goofy Mamiya Universal really defuses people, while my papparazzi-looking 1dsII brings out the worst.

<br><br>

Believe in what you're doing, your body language really does telegraph this. If I'm doing reception candids on a wedding gig

I'm absolutely fearless because I know I'm supposed to be doing it, and no one complains. I've found that on a given evening

shooting street once one person gives me hell and rattles me a little, suddenly it seems like everyone complains. I'm not

projecting the confidence I need to make it work.

<br><br>

Have a PREPARED ANSWER for "Why are you taking my picture?". Stumbling around your words just reinforces people's

idea that you're lying to them and preparing to sell the souls you just stole.

<br><br>

I'm happy to abide by someone's request that I not shoot them, yet I refuse to accept the responsibility to be psychic given

that most people don't object. I'll delete pics for people who ask politely; people who call me names or do the angry

demanding thing I'm not doing squat for.

<br><br>

Still... consider a subject's potential to do more than complain. Guys 20-40 especially; I'd rather hear 100 women call me

names than have one musclebound asshole take a swing at me.

<a href=" title="Del Mar 2009 #1 by Roger_Krueger, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2454/3893212788_bdf43692b0_b.jpg" width="700" height="700" alt="Del Mar

2009 #1" /></a>

If we were really sensitive to copyright law we'd understand that this is clearly fair use. But it's a lot cheaper to have a hard-

and-fast rule than it is to hire a bunch of lawyers to check every post. Or even to hire someone to respond to irate emails

from folks who don't understand fair use.

FF is a waste for a lot of people, but for low-light performance it's absolutely the way to go. But only do it if

you'll have enough cash left over to get another lens or two, a D90 + (20/1.8 or 30/1.4) + 50/1.4 + 135/2 is a better solution for

most situations than a D700 with just a 50/1.4.

<i>The reason for buying the zoom lens was more of convenience (not having to use 2 bodies).</i><br>

If I can change lenses with people bouncing off me at punk shows you should certainly be able to change lenses at more

polite performances.

<br><br>

<i>I do not know the D40 and its pros and cons, but ordinarily, the money is best spent upgrading the lenses.</i><br>

In general I'd agree, but the D40's lack of an AF motor eliminates nearly all of the fast primes you'd want for really low light.

Upgrade to a camera with an AF motor and suddenly the 28/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/2 are on the menu.

My only guess might be flare via spray from a droplet that had splashed against your lens an instant before the flash. I have

trouble imagining the path required to make a drop burst back upwards like that, but maybe it's possible on a lens that

curved, especially if you were shooting into the wind.

<br><br>

It would help if you could post a link to a higher-res version, the splash theory would probably produce very softly focused

lines (although I suppose if the water produced a clean refraction/reflection of the flash rather than being a diffuse source it

might be sharp).

<br><br>

There seem to be some related lines in the black tree area, too close to the radial arrangement to be coincidence.

<br><br>

I also think there are two distinct sources at work here--the streaks to the left of the leftmost spire all intersect at one point,

the streaks to the right are brighter and intersect at a different point.

I'd underwrite the production of an FF Digital Hexar. Doesn't seem much tougher than the 1-off 6x6 1700/4 from a year or two

ago.

<br><br>

And maybe a Schneider 550/11, gotta have a good wide-angle :-) Even lottery money might be streched buying film for it

though.

Sorry, I was looking at an old list, the D40-friendly 50/1.4 was new last fall.

<br><br>

But yeah, that's exactly what you want, leave the zoom home. It's a little long for small clubs, but there's just not anything I

know of besides the Sigma 20/1.8 that's fast, wide, and does AF on your camera.

<br><br>

If you want to throw money at it a full-frame Canon with a 24/1.4 is absolute sweetness up close in a small club.

<br>

<center><a href=" title="Nicky D of the Whiskey Dicks by Roger Krueger,

on Flickr"><img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1329/1472892956_92049a349e_b.jpg" width="700" height="553"

alt="Nicky D of the Whiskey Dicks" /></a><br>

24/1.4 wide open. Nicky D of the Whiskey Dicks.</center>

<a href=" title="Between sets by Roger_Krueger, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3192/2545053229_2f8957a83d_b.jpg" width="700" height="649" alt="Between sets" /></a>

<a href=" title="Gaslamp Quarter #3 by Roger_Krueger, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3094/2705117113_1d6b79f321_b.jpg" width="700" height="700"

alt="Gaslamp Quarter #3" /></a>

The first problem is the slow zoom, that's absolutely not going to cut it at no-flash shows. Even pro-quality 2.8 zooms are

bad news in dim clubs.

<br><Br>

The second problem is that the 50 and 85 recommended above won't AF on your body. Nor will any other Nikon primes except the monster telephotos. And manual focus in the dark is a nightmare even on cameras with far better finders.

<br><br>

The Sigma primes should work though. The main drawback is their DIY approach to quality control. Gotta be willing to test

and return. If you're just getting one the 30/1.4 probably makes the most sense; if you're getting two the 20/1.8 and 50/1.4

might make a better team.

<i>The way I seee it the first and biggest drawback isthe viewfinder and interchangeable lenes. The viewfinder always needs

an adaptor for each different lens</i>

<br>

"M" Leicas automatically bring up the correct framelines for a pretty decent range of lenses (varies by model).

<br><br>

<i>and never gives you a completely accurate view. Parralex is always off.</i>

<br>

Huh? All modern rangefinders (yeah, yeah, except the Bessa T) have accurate parralax-correcting framelines. By the time you're wide enough to need an (uncorrected or at best manually correctible) accessory finder you're wide enough that a couple of inches of parralax is trivial.

<br><br>

<i>I always thought that the viewfinder was a guide and not really accurate. </i>

<br>

Plausible on your Vitessa. Not true on any modern rangefinder.

<br><br>

<i>Using adaptors and external viewfinders does't lead to zoom lenses only primes.</i>

<br>

It certainly is doable, the Contax G series had a zooming finder. But a zoom seems to not really fit with the rangefinder

style.

<br><br>

<i>and without the mirror, is there thru the lens metering?</i>

<br>

Yup. Some are off-the-film, some have a little meter-cell flag that rises just before the shot.

<br><br>

<i>In my mind, their one lens cameras (normal, prime)</i>

<br>

You can think it all you want, doesn't make it true.

<br><br>

<i>, and not as vertisile as SLRs.</i>

<br>

They're not. But versatility isn't the only worthwhile goal.

<br><br>

<i>What am I missing here? I just don't see any advantage with them.</i>

<br>

It's mostly about user experience. For certain kinds of shooting a rangefinder just feels more natural. There's also the appeal

of a top-notch camera that you can pocket (O.K., a big pocket, but still, try it with a 5d2).

<br><br>

Then there's build quality. Not just that Leica has generally been ahead on this on comparable items, but the huge difference

is MF vs. AF. AF lenses have to be built as light as possible for fast AF. They're never going to be as solid as an MF Zorki,

let alone an MF Leica.

<br><br>

Another advantage that's manual-focus specific rather than rangefinder specific is good distance/DOF scales. The scales on

AF lenses vary from comical to merely useless because good AF speed demands a short focusing throw.

I think just the opposite will happen. Labs were once the inspection point. But in a labless world of digital cameras and home

printing no one passes judgement on your pictures without your approval or a warrant. Labs were also an expense that kept

most parents from accumulating umpty-gazillion pics of their kids.

<br><br>

That said, the anti-archival nature of most people's interaction with their digital assets means in most cases the booty will be

gone long before the first opportunity to humiliate the kid in front of a potential spouse arises.

<br><br>

Kids will continue to be shot in public, by art-only street photographers and by twisted perverts. The public aversion may

continue to advance but so will the opportunities for stealth. Like in so many things, security/paranoia will be very effective

at inconveniencing the innocent and clueless, but toothless against those who put thought into avoiding it.

<br><br>

And folks like John will continue to see candid photography as an evil that justifies violence. He's useful as reminder that

there really are people like that out there.

I love the idea of the X-1... getting closer and closer to a decent big-sensor compact... but why the slow lens? The whole

premise of a big sensor is better low-light performance. I can't imagine going to f2 would've made it that huge.

Until you know what you want from this more specialized lens you're wasting your money.

<br><br>

Only replace/upgrade stuff when it pisses you off, or when you want to go places it won't go.

<br><br>

That's said, if I were a Nikon shooter the lens I'd save my nickels for is the 14-24.

Sure, crank up your camera's contrast and use your in-camera jpg. Seems kinda silly to rope yourself into zero lattitude by

having your post done up front, but whatever floats your boat.

<br><br>

Just because some of the noise hits 0 doesn't mean you've got a pleasing black point set. And sometimes crushing a little

shadow detail ends up making the picture as a whole pop better.

<br><br>

A camera that I couldn't get "fog" from is a camera I'd take back. The more decisions I can shift from exposure time to post

time the more brain cells I get to use on things that can't be fixed.

A center filter is to cure falloff, not vignetting. The plots of "how many stops darker" vs. "how many degrees off center" look

very, very different for these two phenomena. That said, falloff is just going to make the vignetting look worse, and a center

ND is always a good idea for something this wide.

<br><br>

Every center ND I've ever seen is designed so as to not add vignetting, at least when used on the lens it's designed for.

<br><br>

Schneider and Fuji may be roughly comparable within similar generations, but there are some really ancient SA's out there;

the eldest Fuji's are considerably younger. It's fairly likely that a recent Fuji will beat a 50's SA (and vice versa).

Yeah, at least it's a cheap fix. I've killed my 50 three times (I shoot punk shows, shit happens). But restoring the AF on my

24/1.4 cost $250 (I'm assuming because the floating element makes it a PITA to take apart.)

<br><br>

The problem is that the front moves during focusing. So any blow to the front is a blow directly to the

focusing mechanism. The lens-specific Canon hood attaches to the non-moving part of the lens and provides protection.

<i>In the USA, only the bands wishes of photographic rules would be permitted</i>

<br><br>

Unfortunately that's not how it really works. First there's the issue that most public venues are leased to a private promoter

for concerts. As long as they enforce their rules with their security mere public ownership of the property isn't enough "state

action" to invoke the 1st Amendment... or 4th for that matter.

<br><br>

More importantly, the 1st is very good at protecting the publication of pictures, but very seldom protects TAKING them. The

one time I can find where it was litigated regarding concerts the court decided taking pictures was mere conduct, and unprotected.

<br><br>

I wrote a really long post on this the other day in a thread at "Photography is Not a Crime" on flickr, complete with links to

cases. If you have an hour to waste reading... http://www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/discuss/72157622018769711/

Samuel: yeah, the 5dII->1dsIII jump is all about AF, processor speed, buffer depth and build quality, not remotely about

image quality.

<br><br>

Speaking of AF, $27,000 and you only get ONE AF point?!? The nine AF points on the 5dII are a complete deal-killer for me,

one is just inconceivable.

+1 on "use a DSLR as a meter". Playback + histogram is more reliable than any meter. Although takes a bit of practice to correlate what you see on the screen to what's a good exposure for the film. Don't get fooled by histogram spikes from in-scene lights, for instance.

<br><br>

You really can get an early DSLR (say a d30 or 300d) for $150ish plus another $70 for a 50/1.8. Not wonderful picture-takers, but great as meters.

<br><br>

It's certainly plausible there's a digital P&S out there that could do the job as well, but I'm not really familiar with their specs,

Manual settings, long exposures and histograms don't seem to be a given. An Oly E-10 would work, but that's much bigger

than a Rebel+50. Cheaper, though.

<br><br>

Re: reciprocity failure, there are films like TMX and Acros that have minimal failure and thus only a couple of correction

points rather than the long annoying curve of more traditional emulsions.

Yeah, fixed prime/no flash is pretty uncommon these days, the only ones I can think of are the Sigma DP-1/DP-2 and Ricoh

GR I/II/III.

<br><br>

But with older cameras there are some interesting options. A 6x9 Fuji GSW690 would be within their rules :-)

<br><br>

Doesn't surprise me though, MM's had their head up their rear for a long time now. This is exactly the clarity of thinking that

landed them in chapter 11.