robert_ades1

http://www.pbase.com/robertades/camera_gear

Here's what I've got: The serial number on the back of the camera body begins with "UH." It is a model 500C with both 120 and 220 backs plus a Polaroid back. I also have a Hasselbald Silver Service card with a 1984 date, as well as an 80mm F/2.8 Planar lens in silver. In black, we also have a 150 f/4.0 Sonnar in apparently top condition. All equipment was checked out and serviced a few weeks ago.

I wondered if you had any chances to compare the scan quality with the Canon FS400 (which I own). I'm thinking of trading up, but I'm hoping for better shadow detail, and better handling of 400 speed negatives.

Emre: I know, that's why I'm asking here. I'm wondering about the Minolta in particular, what actual users have to say about shadow detail. That is the one thing that could be improved over the Canon.

I'm thinking about upgrading from the Canon FS4000 to the Nikon

LS5000, but I've been unable to find any direct comparisons of image

quality. Although I fully understand the differences in

specifications and features, there are two things I'd like to know:

 

1. Will the new Nikon two a substantially better job pulling shadow

detail out of slides?

 

2. Does the new Nikon do a better job scanning films like Tri-X? By

this, I'm referring to grain and tonality management, not ICE or

similar features.

 

Thanks,

Robert Ades

Nikon history doesn't suggest a replacement that soon, although some posters have indicated that they might introduce more models at PMA.

 

Nikon is very good at keeping trade secrets.

The viewfinder's framelines are adjustable to 28/35/50mm, right? Is the 28mm FOV adjusted for the 1.5x crop? That is, will it work with an 18mm lens?

Apparently, there's something called a Hasselblad "Silver Service Card" with a 1984 date on it. I don't know if that's the date originally purchased, or exactly what that card means. Also, the main body has a serial number beginning with A24-351XXXX.

 

-Robert A

I have been asked to sell some Hasselblad equipment for a friend

who's mother passed away recently. I'm not too knowledgable about

this gear, but this is what she left: A 500C body, 2 backs, plus

possibly a Polariod back, and 80mm and 150mm lenses.

 

The equipment is going to checked out to make sure it's in good

working order before I post it online for sale. AFAIK, the equipment

is in really good condition, although it has been sitting around

collecting dust (in a case however) for a number of years.

 

I have no idea what a 500C is. Where can I get some history on what

I've got here?

 

Thanks,

Robert Ades

If I want my flash to mimmic the color temperature of midday sun, would I want to apply a slight warming filter?

If I want to simulate the color temperature of direct sunlight on

a "standard day" (Washington DC, 12 noon, June 21st), what would be

the color temperature? I understand that to be 5400k, but I'm

thinking it might be a lower figure, since broad daylight also

includes reflected light from the sky above.

<<Put your lens alternately on a film camera with some fine grained film and your digital>>

 

John:

 

Actually, check out these shots taken on my FE2, at 18mm, f/8.0, Gold 200 (it's all I had), scanned at 2000 dpi, 14-bit/channel.

 

http://www.pbase.com/image/30217093

http://www.pbase.com/image/30217094

 

and remember this one on the D70 shown above:

http://www.pbase.com/image/30076493

Can someone give me a simple answer to my question, please?

John, are you suggesting that diffraction in the sensor would be the same regardless of lens focal length, too?

Thanks for the suggestions, but the 17-35 weighs too much. And the 20mm isn't wide enough.

Grepmat and Eric, I certainly hope you're both right. I have a replacement 18-35mm on order to see if that's the cause. If not, then I'll be bummed because I really need a lens that gets down to 28mm equivalent. Meanwhile, I'm going to do some test shots on film with the lens today.

Please see the attached link, and notice the purple/yellow color

fringing in various parts of the image. This was taken with a D70, EI

200, f/8.0, 18mm, using an 18-35mm Nikkor. This problem goes away at

35mm.

Is this something that can be solved with a better lens (remember,

this was shot at f/8.0), or is this an inherent problem with digital

sensors when used in conjunction with wide angle lenses?

 

http://www.pbase.com/robertades/test_shots

I'm in the same camp, and the following lenses are worthy of mention: The 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 AFS (chepaer, lighter and sharper than the f/2.8 version described above), the 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 (sharp and free of distortion), and the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5.

I'd avoid the 18-70. It looks sexy on the D70 but the chromatic abberation and the wavy line distortion are noticeable at 18mm. Consider instead the 18-35, and maybe a 50mm f1.8 combo.

A Nikon rep told me that the D100 has been discontinued in favor of the D70. If you look at the specs, they're very similar, and neither camera body is built like an F100. The D70 benefits from some of the newer computer technology, such as FAT 32, etc.

 

My suggestion: buy the D70 now, and trade up when Nikon introduces an update to the D100.

I have a Pen F, and IMO the D70 is much brighter. It's actually very bright, just small, though.

To �[� Z: I assume it'd be fair to say that pros use cameras that utilize APS film too, right?

I think this is a very legitimate question. While the D70/D100/D10/dRebel are all within the same generation, I suspect that their pro-level counterparts are going to render a more natural, film-like image than these cameras. I'm a new owner of a D70 and I'm still on the learning curve at trying to get the images up to the quality of my scanned film shots. I hope to get there, but I'm not completely sure that I will.

J&R. It's faster if you can take the body w/o the lens.

Try SML camera repair on Lincoln Blvd just north of Washington. He's great with older Nikon bodies (he's fixed me FE many times).