mike_earussi1

<p>If they were interchangeable Mamiya couldn't have made as much money selling just one lens set instead of two. :) Only Pentax was that thoughtful.</p>

<p>Completely different formats. Even if the mounts were interchangeable (which they're not) the 6 lenses would vignette severely on the 6x7 format.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. With the improvement in AF accuracy I guess this was inevitable.</p>

<p>Film died some years ago (Walgreens is merely responding to the inevitable). Only its ghost still lingers amongst those aficionados who value its unique characteristics. Basic B&W processing is very easy, I started at 16 with a small kit from a local photo store. You should have no trouble yourself. Color is a different matter--much more complicated and expensive. Stick to B&W, if doing it yourself, and send out color.</p>

<p>Excellent lens.</p>

<p>The best/easiest MF camera to use is the Pentax 645 slr because it's totally automatic as to film advance and exposure (the last ones even had autofocus) and so would have the least learning curve for you. They're also not very expensive.<br> But if you have your heart set on 6x7 then the cheapest (in price, not in quality) would be the Koni-Omega. A body with 90mm lens can be bought on eBay for around $250 depending on the model and condition. But it is a rangefinder and so you would have to get used to an entirely different way of focusing, composing and exposing (no built-in light meter). The models M and 200 even have interchangeable backs so you could load up multiple film stocks for experimentation. And they were designed specifically for hand holding.</p>

<p>Depends on who you buy it from. I've noticed a recent trend on eBay for some third party importers to provide their own 1-3 year warranties. This takes a lot of the risk out of buying gray market.</p>

<p>You get what you pay for. I guess we'll see if kids with iPhones produce images as good as seasoned professionals. We'll also see how long SI lasts as a magazine.</p>

<p>Do you mean a resolution chart for the lenses?</p>

<p>Focus stacking is the only way to really achieve this. It is very easy to do with the correct software, of which there are many (just type in Focus Stacking on the web).</p> <p>Stopping down only helps dof to a very limited extent and comes at the expense of a drastic lowering in resolution and contrast.</p> <p>Also, any good macro lens will work, but the longer the focal length the more room you'll have for lighting. <br> For my macro work I use a manual focus 90mm Tamron from the 1980s with the Adaptall 2 mount because it's both very sharp and very inexpensive compared to modern AF lenses. For software I just use the one built in to Photoshop. </p>

<p>Unfortunately that's the problem with metal prints, they're so expensive to purchase that you have to put a high price on them when you resell them. I considered them for some of my images but decided against it, not only because of their high price, but also because I just like printing my own work myself.</p> <p>I decided to go with metallic paper instead. I tested the four major brands, Moab, Mitsubishi, Kodak, and Breathing Color, and went with the Breathing Color because it has the strongest metallic look. You might try it for some of your images and see how well it works:<br> http://www.breathingcolor.com/action/bc_shop/223/</p>

<p>The original negatives from the 1840's were all made on paper because clear film hadn't been invented yet and no one had yet figured out a way to coat glass with a photographic emulsion. But as others have pointed out the exposure times are very long. And because film is much thinner than paper, Paul's suggestion of using single weight paper will work best.</p>

<p>Are you using Epson's profile or your own? I've found a lot of bad manufacture's profiles so often that now I only rely on my own.</p> <p>You also don't say which printer you're using.</p> <p>I also assume you're using matte black ink as glossy ink will look really washed out. And matte paper does look much more washed out than glossy even when matte black ink is used, which took me some time to get used too when I first decided to move beyond the standard glossy and luster finishes. </p> <p>And the poor dmax and desaturated colors all matte papers have in comparison to glossy is why so many professionals have moved away from fine art matte to the semi-gloss Barytas. </p>

<p>Most lenses today are sharp in the center. What differentiates between them is how sharp they can get on the edges. If you're shooting primarily people or other subjects who are in the center of the frame then any of the lenses you mentioned would work fine. But if you shoot landscapes or any other subject where corner sharpness is important then you have to choose your lens more carefully.</p> <p>There are many test sites you can check to see the fine details between the various lenses available. Here are a few:<br> http://www.lenstip.com/<br> http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/overview<br> http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/index.php<br> http://www.photoreview.com.au/reviews/lenses/aps-c</p>

<p>What's your definition of IQ, and under what circumstances? Are you just wanting a general purpose camera that will produce a "decent" image under widely varying conditions? Or are you wanting the camera that will produce the very best IQ under very specific and narrow conditions, such as bright light on a tripod for landscapes or studio work, or handheld shooting black cats in a coal mine at night?<br> Answering these questions will go a long way towards helping narrow down your search.</p>

<p>If you do decide to copy with a camera there is an appreciable difference between the various Nikon models regarding DR and tonal range (the ability of a camera to separate close tones to limit banding, i.e. the more tones the smoother the color transitions are).<br> For instance the 5300 has very poor DR and tonal range compared to Nikon's higher end models:<br> 5300:<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/259.8-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D5300_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html</p> <p>610:<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/254.8-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D610_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html</p> <p>with the new 750 being the best:<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/284.8-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D750_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html</p> <p>and you can always rent before buying. </p>

<p>Just be aware that when you move from Nikon to Sony you loose about 2 stops of DR (depending on which Nikon model you have).<br> For example:<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/273.8-Test_aparatu-Sony_A6000_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/263.8-Test_aparatu-Sony_A7_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html<br> http://www.optyczne.pl/284.8-Test_aparatu-Nikon_D750_Zakres_i_dynamika_tonalna.html</p>

<p>A 720 cutoff filter still will allow a lot of red light to pass through. Buy a 820nm or higher IR filter and you'll see more of the white grass and leaf look.<br> Just be aware that your exposure times will also increase. </p>

<p>Film compared to digital:<br> http://diglloyd.com/articles/GrabBag/photographic-film-was-not-much-of-a-performer.html</p>

<p>Any decent 24mp+ body with good lenses will come close to equaling the Mamiya 7 (I assume that's what you have as I'm not aware of a Mamiya 67, unless you mean an RB/RZ) unless you're willing to pay for a high resolution drum scan (as Steve mentioned). I did my own comparison test using a Fuji 69 with 90mm lens using Velvia 50 scanned on an Epson 700 flat bed (realistic for my pocketbook) vs a Sigma SD1 and found the SD1 equal in resolution and much superior in grain:<br> http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771283<br> http://www.pbase.com/mikeearussi/image/145771284</p>

<p>The pano stitching function in CS5 is very poor compared to Microsoft ICE, which is much faster and a free download: http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/ice/</p> <p>but it only works for Windows based computers.</p> <p>As for your original question, the distortion you mention is primarily caused by the camera not being level with the horizon and the software trying to compensate (perfect parallax alignment is only important for things close up, at infinity perfection is unnecessary).</p> <p>For my panos I use two different levels, one on the tripod and one in the camera's hot shoe. Once balanced as best as I can I then test it by swinging the camera through it's entire horizontal arc and observing the bubble level in the hot shoe. If the bubble doesn't move from its center position then the camera is accurately aligned. </p>

<p>There is a very large difference in the video abilities between most cameras. Always thoroughly check out the spects and online reviews before purchasing.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Lenses usually have flare not flair.</p> </blockquote> <p>Depends on the lens. :)</p>

<p>The new Sigma OS is a good lens optically, much better than the older version, but it also has much more flair:<br> http://www.lenstip.com/318.9-Lens_review-Sigma_105_mm_f_2.8_EX_DG_OS_HSM_Macro_Ghosting__flares_and_transmission.html</p>

<p>Why not just get some printed at the next size larger and then just cut them down?</p>