kivivuori

<p>In my opinion Kodak Retina IIIC has much better viewfinder. <br /><br />Br<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p><div></div>

<p>Hi again,<br /><br />Some of my Rolleiflex pics can also be seen here:<br /><br />https://www.flickr.com/photos/esakivivuori/with/5568618629/<br /><br /><br>

(Rolleiflex 2.8F, Fujichrome Provia 100F) From up to bottom:<br /><br />- Sakasti Tapiolan kirkko www<br />- 06 Tapiola church<br />- 05 Tapiola church<br />- 04 Tapiola church<br />- 03 Tapiola church<br />- 02 Tapiola church<br /><br />BR <br /><br />Esa</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi<br /><br />After 40+ years and seven Rolleiflex-cameras I think Rolleiflex 3.5F and 2.8F were the best ones I´v had.<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori ARPS<br /> Finland</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />Based on the photo of your negative strip I believe that your Tri-X is simply underexposed at least 2 f-stops. It`s extremyly difficult to scan even some details from that kind of negatives unless you are working with high end scanners such as Imagon or drum scanners. <br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori ARPS<br />Finland</p>

<p>Few weeks ago I sold my DeVere 203 6"x 9" enlarger with two lamphouses (Cathomag cold cathode lamphouse & Varicon lamphouse with two condenser lenses). It was and is a nice, well built and heavy machine. <br /><br />I needed a slightly smaller one and found a mint Durst M670 diffuser enlarger with colour head. It is not a true professional machine, but it works fine and since 99% of my b&W negatives are 35mm....6x6/6x7, it is large enough for me. It is also easy to transform as a copy stand.<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p><div></div>

<p>M4 + 2/35 Summicron IV or asph. <br /><br />2nd hand M4 was my first M-camera in 1972 and after that I´ve had 6 other models. After all those I still prefer M4.<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>

<p><img src=" alt="" />I liked very much my M3 DS with Elmar 50 mm f/2.8, but after having 7 M-Leicas during 40 years my vote still goes to original M4 with Summicron 2/35 mm (IV) or asph.<br /><br /><br /></p><div></div>

<p>My vote goes to 2/50 AI. (I also have Nikkor 2/50 H, H.C and 1.4/50 S-Auto)<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>If I were you I´d choose this:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1107/11071115nikkor40mmmacro.asp</p>

<p>BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Hyvinkää, Finland</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the pixel pitch is more important factor than the number of pixels. If we take into account the effect of diffraction and true limits of resolution (incl. AA-filters) I believe it should be somewhere between 5 - 6 µm. For instance full frame Nikon D3X (24 Mpix) has 5,9 µm pixel pitch. The only think which would make some improvement would be removing the AA-filter.</p>

<p>For instace the pixel amount (12 Mpix) and the pixel pitch in Nikon D90 (5.5 µm) equals 91 lp/mm but AA-filter decreases this figure about -20% which still left us > 70 lp/mm which is far more than we can assume to reach somewhere else than in lab - especially if 50% MTF is somekind of a limit. (Please note, that D90 has a 23.6 x 15.8 mm CMOS sensor - crop factor 1.5).</p>

<p>Everyone of my old manual Nikkors 2/28 AIS, 2/50 AI & 2,5/105 AI outperfom D90 (around f/5.6 - f/6.3) but they cannot reach D7000 and when I shoot hand held most of the time I´m not even near the limits of D90.<br>

BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>See: http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>I think you must have Novoflex LEMCAN adapter instead of LEICAN.<br>

BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>We pronounce "nee-kawn" in Finland. Very short and solid almost hard word.</p>

<p>BR.</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori</p>

<p>According to Imatest results, the maximum resolution of the Nikon D90 sensor is 81 lp/mm.<br>

See: http://www.photozone.de/dslr_reviews/409_nikon_d90?start=2<br>

I belive you may notice the difference when using of these prime lenses like: AI/AIS 28/2, 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 50/1.8, 55/2.8 micro, 50/1.4, 105/2.5, 105/2.8 micro etc. Latest 50 mm version - AF-S 50mm/1.4G - is said to be extremely sharp between f/5.6 and f/8 but I can´t confirm that.<br>

BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I´m doing the same thing that you are doing now. My decision was to trade one zoom (16-85) to a AF-S 50 mm f/1.4G.<br>

BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Hyvinkää<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Two versions (type 4 BCO 04 413-1 and type 5 BCO 04 413-02) has smallest aperture f/32. The first serial number is 500001 (spring 1973). The fifth version came in May 1975 and serial numbers started from 673 101.<br>

The sixth version (f/22) which came in 1977 started from 740001</p>

<p>BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well, If Rahul is seriously considering something like 24-70 and/or 10-24 I believe he is really paying attention to this subject. I didn`t mean to start amateur/pro debate. It`s useless. I was trying to give my advice remembering this:<br>

"(....)I am looking to approach cost as a long term proposition and to that end would rather make more expensive decisions now rather than keep changing equipment frequently. (....)" Rahul S<br>

BR<br>

Esa</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi again,<br>

(a new try, I lost text somewhere...)<br>

Anyway, my vote still goes to AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED. Extremely verastile, very useful FOV when using it with D90. FX lens so you can use with your film cameras and FX cameras in the future. If you use your camera in vertical postion and stich two or three photos, you`ll get more realistic wide-angle photos than using - let`s say - 10 mm lens.<br>

Leave all your heavy equipment home. You can`t use flash units, monopods or tripods in most of the churches and museums etc. Take a versatile tabletop tripd with small high quality ball head instead (Leitz or Gitzo). No one cares if you use them the church...<br>

With that kind of a lens you can shoot almost everywhere using f/2 - f/4 and ISO 800 and still maintain high quality.<br>

BR.<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Keep it simple. I used low end EOS 350 D with EF 18-55 lens + Metz 32 Z-2 flash (small but versatile unit with<br>

tilting head). ISO 400, 1/30, f/8. Manual settings were the same in all pictures.</p>

<p>BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Hyvinkää, Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/</p><div></div>

<p>These old films can be very valuable. Are you going to have it restored ?</p>

<p>BR</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>My vote goes for LEICA 90mm f/2.8 TELE-ELMARIT-M (if you can find one somewhere). Light, small, excellent performance.<br>

If the money is not issue, and you like to use it with M9 and you are ready to carry heavy but outstanding lens - then I would choose: Apo-Summicron-M 90mm f/2 asph.</p>

<p>BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/<br>

http://sites.google.com/site/esakivivuori/kivivuoriphotography</p>

 

<p>35 mm f/1,4 L</p>

<p>BR.</p>

<p>Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/</p>

<p>To me it`s very important. Back in 1968 I had a classmate - a son of of a famous finnish pressphotographer - who was dreaming of Leica M4 meanwhile I was dreaming of Nikon F. We both had brochures with us and compared eagerly those legendary cameras (without any deeper knowledge, of course).<br>

Two years later I started my working career in one of the largest chains of true camera shops in Finland. there I was surrounded by Nikons, Leicas, Hasselblads etc. Unfortunately I couldn`t afford my dream camera Nikon Photomic FTn so I bought Nikkormat instead and became a Nikon user.<br>

BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

See also:<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/<br>

http://www.rps.org/portfolio/511--Kivivuori,-Esa-ARPS</p>

<p>Her you test yourself by using diffraction limit calculator.<br>

(....) The form below calculates the size of the airy disk and assesses whether the system has become diffraction limited. Sections in dark grey are optional and have the ability to define a custom circle of confusion (CoC). (....)<br>

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm</p>

<p>BR.<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland</p>

<p>Try different film holders and make also some scans without holders. I´ve found that holders that come with the flatbedscanners are sometimes too thick. 0,2 mm can make a huge difference in results.</p>

<p>BR<br>

Esa Kivivuori<br>

Finland<br>

http://esakivivuoriphotography.ning.com/</p>