rjvb1

<p>Do you still have the old computer, or (access to) another computer running XP?<br>

If so:<br>

- Clone that computer to an external drive using Microsoft's disk2vhd utility. NB: this will give a single diskimage that contains everything on the source computer, so unmount unnecessary drives and do some diskcleaning beforehand. No need to clone your photo/video/music archives! And make sure the external is formatted as NTFS<br>

- Install VirtualBox on your new computer<br>

- In VirtualBox, create a virtual machine using the disk image you just created as the startup disk.<br>

Alternatively, if you don't have an XP computer, but you do have the XP installation media, you can try to create a new, virgin virtual machine with that.<br>

This is basically what Win7 Pro does in XP emulation mode: run a virtual machine. Either way, the virtual machine you created can have access to the host harddisk (shared folders) and can access USB devices (may take some fiddling if you want to 'give them' to the VM by default).</p>

<p>I think you're being a bit severe with the OP - I didn't read his post as a critique of/on eBay. Indeed, you get what you pay for, on eBay, Fleabay or elsewhere. Exceptions aside of course: I have a set of Nikon close-up filters (not at hand so references will have to wait) that are very high quality but cost relatively little (Cokin would have been at least as expensive and probably not as good).<br>

Does Cokin still have pro and amateur product ranges?<br>

James, there'd certainly be no shame in showing with/without filter pictures of a studio test scene!</p>

<p>Peter, thx. for the suggestion. I'd thought of that myself, but of course then I went ahead and flashed the camera at 1 in the morning just because the guidelines said to use a full battery and mine was at 38% (which in the end ought to have been largely sufficient...)<br>

So, how do you feel about any evolution in colour reproduction and/or exposure?<br>

NB: as I've mentioned elsewhere, I find out-of-camera quality very important. Most of the time I just do not want to have to spend a lot of time and energy to get every last bit out of RAW files. I guess I haven't yet shaken the habits from my Kodachrome days ;)<br>

Concerning cookies: they're normally browser-wide (let's exclude MSIE here). So even closing the window you had open on alphamountworld.com may not be enough as the required cookie may still persist. The best test is to open the window with your post in a different, freshly launched browser (say Opera if you're normally using Firefox). For that sort of testing, choose a browser that discards all cookies when you quit it.<br>

BTW: it's the remote server that requires the cookie, not your browser ;)</p>

<p>I like to use picasaweb for my online albums (love the associated map feature), but why not upload the pictures here, simply?</p>

<p>Re: the remote pic issue: sometimes too clever sites don't serve a picture directly even if you access direct url to a jpg file, but require some cookie(s) to be set, which you get if you load the page in which the picture(s) is/are shown normally. Not much to be done about that.<br>

Concerning the firmware itself: I discovered yesterday that the A700 I bought in the Netherlands last August still had a v1 firmware! I'd been somewhat disappointed with it, too often the out-of-the-camera photos looked really bleak while with my 'lowly' Powershot 720IS I'd get results that look much more appealing and like the results I used to get with my Nikon F3. Can I expect this to have improved with the v4 firmware?</p>

Not to forget that, used with taste and parsimony, the unique bokeh can give artistic effects that are quite pleasing.

I seem to recall the existence of a 300mm mirror tele, but can't remember which make — does one exist for the KM/Minolta system?

Somehow, I'd completely forgotten about this question (probably in part because I went on a trip with the camera just after posting

;) ), and I don't think I ever got notifications of your answers.

So thanks, first of all. The answers make sense. Of course it's best to use the best quality available — that's what I did with my

old 3 or 4 MP Powershot camera. I had some of those pictures printed on 15x18 (cm) paper, and was amazed how good they

looked. Of course media prices have gone down enough that they almost allow one to use CF cards like we used film rolls before.

But still. My photography is mostly for personal pleasure and souvenirs. The little Powershot A720IS I use most of the time when

on motorcycle trips is almost good enough for that, the sensor (resolution) is certainly not what limits it. So there are no

customers, I don't have big walls with lots of inviting white space ... and to be very honest, I'd rather spend time annotating

pictures than selecting the ones that merit not to be down-sized, and waiting until my computer finishes the rescaling. (on a 4y old

Powerbook G4, such things can take a while ;) )

What if put my question differently? What is worse, using the full 12MP native resolution but saving with standard jpg quality, or

using the 6.4MP setting with the fine jpg setting?

To hijack my own thread: I've been trying to compare different colour settings. The default settings are a bit too flat to my taste, so

I've done most of my shooting in the Vivid setting (somewhat attenuated), but the Adobe sRGB setting could well please me more

(seems to give a richer, more pastel-like palette). I haven't yet been able to make up my mind, so feedback would be appreciated.

As to sharing some photos - I'm going to be lazy and point to a number of picasaweb albums:

Our summertrip in the Netherlands: http://picasaweb.google.com/mgN12M6/SummerTrip2008

(almost exclusively shot with the Vivid setting, except those taken with my gf's Sony P&S camera ;) )

A comparison between the Vivid and AdobeRGB creative styles, in the Parc Montsouris in Paris:

http://picasaweb.google.com/mgN12M6/ParcMontsouris20080815#

just an ordinary weekend in Paris (AdobeRGB, and a couple of shots with the A720IS): http://picasaweb.google.com/mgN12M6/WeekendInParis200809134

Regards, René

Hello,

I fear this must have been discussed before, but can't begin to think of a search key that will not generate countless irrelevant hits...

I just acquired today a Sony A700 with the Sigma 17-70 DC lens, my first dSLR system. I'm quite excited to start exploring it, but

there's one thing I've wondered before, never finding an answer:

What is the optimum compromise (or else, the best way to find one's personal optimal compromise!) for the image resolution (the

native 12mpix or something less?) and the jpeg quality setting? I try to have my pictures "just right" straight out of the camera, so

most of the time I won't look to post-process them. Viewing is mostly done on a (big) computer monitor, not in print. In other words,

there's no hard reason I can see to have image files that are much larger than, say, 3-4Mb. I'm tempted to assume that it's better to

use the sensor's native resolution in pics, but save with a lower quality setting.

Is that more or less correct (and if so, what quality setting would you suggest)?

Thanks in advance,

René

Just a note about paper towels: I referring to the dust-free ones that we use with

microscopes (and as I used to use for my contact lenses when I still wore those).

I'm a bit amazed about your claim that the mirrors are made from aluminium. Aluminium

corrodes with air contact, covering itself with a thin layer which is both protective and not

quite brilliant. I (and others who posted here) were under the impression that silver is

being used instead?

Just for information: it appears that Leica advises a 50/50 mix of ether and ethanol to

clean microscope lenses, or else lighter fluid. I'm still a bit sceptic if it is a good idea to

apply either ether or a petrol-like compound in the vicinity of rubber (?) foams and other

components in the mirror house which could be attacked by them?

Hmmm, thanks again. Yes, those mirrors are built to withstand considerable stress, but

there is a difference between the shock it gets when flipping up and back, and the force

that is exerted on it when wiping it. In the first case, the frame takes most of the stress,

and the centre can move/flex freely. Wiping, and exterting a little too much pressure could

be more than it is designed to handle.

I wasn't really afraid of damaging the silver mechanically. Even if: a little scratch wouldn't

be a big deal (probably). I'm sure I did this on my old AE-1 (where the mirror is just and

only a mirror). But seeing the sort of residue made me fear some subtle layer might have

been altered chemically. It is probably just a residue of years of built up grease, which will

come off with some additional cleaning.

What is PEC-12? Some poly-ether compound? (Now that's something I wouldn't have

thought of using!)

I'm waiting for a reply email from Patrick Rouillard (not unknown here, I think), he'll

probably know where (or how) to get the foam replaced. After that, I'll give the mirror

some more attention, if necessary. There's a good chance I could get at high-grade

methanol, would that work better than ethanol (leave less traces, e.g.)?

In any case, thanks for the discussion!

BTW, Robert: I'd rather compare this to vasectomy. You can almost see what you're doing,

you can mess up considerably, but with a bit of luck, aiming and a steady hand, you can

do it yourself :)

Thanks for the suggestion, James.

No, perfect cleaning is not worth it, but a dirty mirror *may* have impact on metering and

probably even focussing. (In fact, a smear is more likely to affect focussing than

exposure.) I was going over my equipment just because I had some issues with a series of

recent shots that look mis-focussed. We'll see if I have made things worse in this aspect.

Tell me I have been stupid (or not)....

I must have had a lapsus this morning. Cleaning my F3, I noticed some dirt on the mirror.

It didn't come off with the blowbrush, or maybe it was even caused by the brush itself

(brush tips can take up grease, after all). Anyway, I got out a soft cotton tip, moistened it

with 70% ethanol, and wiped very gently, followed by a similarly gentle wiping with a soft

and dry paper towel.

Now there's some sort of sheen on it, that hasn't yet come off completely with the paper

towel. I stopped short when I realised what I was doing when I saw that the foam mirror

buffer was falling apart as well (of age, I suppose!).

I'm mildly reassured by reading elsewhere that one can use methanol to clean an F3's

mirror. It stands to reason that servicing to replace the foam will include mirror cleaning

(the bits gets everywhere, and are a real PITN!), no?

Any ideas on what sort of servicing costs I'd be looking at? Would the mirror have to be

replaced (and would they *check* if that is necessary)? Should I just look for another (used)

exemplar? Should I find a local Nikon repairshop, or can I do this through just about any

good photo shop?

Minor but important detail: I'm living in Paris, France.

Thanks in advance (for the lesson...?)

René

Thanks for the answers! How does it do at manual focussing - evidently, the only thing

digital in the F3's focussing are ... my fingers :)

Price (in France, where I live) is between 375? and >420?. Substantial differences, and of

course the most reliable places (photo shops) charge the higher prices.

I currently own and use a Tokina ATX 28-70 2.6/2.8 Pro transstandard zoom, on an F3

body. I like the build quality (though appreciate the weight a bit less!), the almost 'natural'

MF, and have shot quite a few very nice pictures with it. It does have problems with

softness, glare and ghosting, though, which are really beginning to annoy me. A

considerable number of shots on my latest trip to Spain are just horrible because of this,

with the bright parts (light stone buildings in brilliant sunshine) enshrined in a sort of

haze. In other words: they look out of focus. Knowing the lens's limitations, I shot as much

as possible from the shadows, staying around f8-f11. So either 1) there is something

wrong with the Hoya slim circular polariser I used, or 2) the film "bleeds" over-exposed

image parts or 3) the Tokina has worse glare problems than I thought, inevitable ones at

that.

I still have to check 1), 2) I find unlikely (2nd gen Portia 800 is supposed to be quite

tolerant, and I haven't seen the same problem with the Nikkor 105mm 2.5 I also used), so I

tend to believe 3).

So what would be a good similar zoom to replace the Tokina with? The Nikkor is way too

expensive for me. My SO has a current model 28-105 Tamron, and overall it performs

pretty well, except for having a tad too much distortion to my taste. So I'm eyeing the

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical [iF]. What do people here think? Would

that be a disappointment? I read quite a few positive reports, *and* this lens is supposed

to handle glare really well....

Thanks for any feedback!

PS: I know. 800iso in a Spanish summer sounds crazy. It isn't so much with a polariser (at

least 1.5 stops light loss), Spanish interiors aren't that much brighter than the ones in

other countries, and Spanish evenings extend to way after sunset :)