jpursley

After several years of use, the scans from my 5400 (first generation) are

getting darker and darker. I can sort of adjust by turning up the master

exposure value, but things are still generally dark and each scan takes far

longer than it should.

 

I understand that Sony is servicing some Minolta products, but apparently not

the scanners. Sony's Direct Accessories and Parts Center says,

specifically: "We are sorry, but the item you requested is no longer

available."

 

Before I open up the box to see if I can figure out the bulb's specs, has

anyone here recently found a replacement source for this part?

 

Thanks!

Assuming your 70-300mm lens is Minolta, it should work fine on a Maxxum 9.

 

Not that you asked...but unless you need specific features offered by the 9, some faster and sharper lenses might serve you better for the same amount of money.

Hmmm...a few more questions that might help identify the problem:<br /><br />

 

1) Does the 3600HSD fire when mounted on the camera?<br />

2) The 3500xi will not fire in wireless mode above something like 1/60 seconds. Are you sure you're not exceeding the maximum sync speed of the camera or flash when in wireless?<br />

3) Does the on-camera flash illuminate when the body is in WL mode?<br />

4) Have you tried this inside, in a reasonably small room with light walls, as a best-case test?<br />

<i>i get a blueish cast along with more saturation and more contrast than what i get in my PS set up</i>

<br /><br />

Sounds like the files saved with AdobeRGB. Most programs (including Picture/Fax Viewer and IE) ignore the profile information, which results in odd casts and saturation changes.

<br /><br />

Try this: Make a duplicate of your original, convert it to sRGB, then save and view the image in those programs - it should look very close to how it appears in Photoshop.

I don't have direct experience with the 3600HSD, but the 3500xi is suprisingly responsive in wireless mode - even around corners and whoatnot while indoors.

 

Does the 3600HSD have a "I'm in wireless mode" indicator? The 3500xi flashes a red led every few seconds to indicate it's ready for signals from the camera's flash. Also, does your body indicate "WL" after you detach the flash unit?

For a nice list of all Maxxum lenses see <a href="http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php" target="_blank">http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php</a>.

<br /><br />

I doubt you'll see all that much in quality difference between your current 28-80mm lens and the similar mid-range zooms you're considering, with the exception of the 2.8...but it's pricey and heavy.

<br /><br />

For an experience completely different from the zooms you're considering, you may want to try a 24/28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 100mm 2.0, or 135mm 2.8. Not too expensive, fairly light, and all pretty fast.

<br /><br />

Sorry to not really address your specific questions, but IMHO you might be more satisfied by trying an entirely new kind of lens instead of a slightly better version of what you already have.

Without direct experience with the 9, I can only address one of your later questions:

 

The 7's mirror and winding noise is much quieter and also much, much faster than the 500si-series...both by maybe a factor of four...or thereabouts.

<i>I would be much more grateful for suggestions of forums to consolidate or eliminate.</i><br />

Photo.net needs some kind of Sony forum. Didn't they claim to already have something like 25% of the DSLR market in Japan?<br /><br />

 

Perhaps rename the Minolta forum "Sony / Minolta", since there will be a lot of overlap anyway.

Comparing the Minolta flashes many years ago, it seemed like the 3xxx-series was a much better deal in a GN-to-dollars way. I really miss the flexiblity of the swivel head, though, and would choose the 5xxx-series flash knowing what I now know.

 

If you're working indoors with a fair amount of flash as the primary light source, spending the extra money might give you a lot more bounce and directional light options.

 

Is it really worth the expense? That depends on your photography and budget.

<div></div>

<div></div>

This seems like a great idea, Peter - thanks for brining it up here.

 

I would guess there are other members in my shoes: local and interested, but with zero gallery experience. As such, I have no idea what sort of time and financial commitment is required.

 

If you're looking for more participants, maybe the members who have done shows in the past could hammer out some general specifics - the approximate number of images per participant, about how long they'll be displayed, the quality/subject criteria for entry, the level of promotion needed, etc.

 

In short, I'm interested but unsure of:

a) what sort of work you're looking for (street only?) and

b) what does participating really require?

Short answer: not all pixels are created equal.

 

The Search feature will give you thousands of threads addressing the long answer to this question.

As you might expect, the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6 is pretty soft and makes for a dark viewfinder. When used at 300mm, there's obvious color seperation and flare on 8x10 prints.<br /><br />

 

That said, I think it's a decent value and is certainly an inexpensive and light way to get those long focal lengths. I still use the one that I bought back in the 90s. Some examples of the softness at 300mm - notice in particular the lack of detail in the trees in the first sample:<br /><br />

 

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3765263>Yosemite Outcrop and Rising Moon, Winter (3)</a><br />

<a href=http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3765370>Giant Forest and Great Western Divide at Dusk (1)</a>

<div></div>

Something to keep in mind: many rental contacts specify that the vehicle is to be driven on paved roads only.

I've taken the liberty of creating quick test using Justin's advice and posted it below. To get this image I set the black point at 20, added some brightness with curves, took out some green with curves, adjusted the Hue a few points, and upped the saturation just a bit to come closer to the very-saturated old scan.<div></div>

I can't directly compare the two, but a used 100/2.0 might fit the bill for $200-$300.

I wrote a program that uses Photoshop to transfer 5400dpi TIFF scans into several different sizes of JPEG, each with appropriate profile conversions, watermarking, and sharpening. Unfortunately with Photoshop CS's scripting engine, using <i>Save for the Web</i> is not an option...this means I got the error message from photo.net when trying to create a portfolio here.

<br /><br />

To get around this, I now use a program called <i>jhead</i> to strip all non-image information from the jpeg files. As an added bonue, this non-image information used a significant amount of file space. So if you don't use the metadata anyway, it's a nice method to make your images (especially thumbnails) quite a bit smaller.<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Dh7U">Here's an old post with more detail</a>.

<div></div>

Thanks, Tom - I pretty much always use "focus and recompose" with the center AR sensor, so I'll be sure to take the multiple segments into account.

Thanks for the input, everyone - each post here has been informative and it's good to hear I'm on the right track. If there's enough time I'll try both shooting modes mentioned above, then also try some faster film and ditching the flash (or maybe turn it down 1-2 stops?).

 

One last question: with this kind of ambient light, do you like to adjust flash compensation? If so, how do you decide which setting to use?

I'd like to rid myself of the title of <i>World's Worst People and

Event Photographer</i>, and the upcoming holidays seem like a

good chance to learn about people/event/low light photography.

Rather than buy new equipment, I'd rather learn to use my existing

setup to its fullest: Maxxum 7, 3500xi flash (w/Omnibounce), 24mm

2.8, 50mm 1.7, 100mm 2.0, and usually NPH.

<br><br>

The main problem seems to be in low- and very-low-light situations.

I shot an event in a very dark and large space last week, and

everyone looks like they're in a black cave. There seem to be two

major options to handle this:

<br><br>

<b>1) A Mode with Slow Sync</b> - Select an appropriate aperture,

and let the camera balance the ambient and flash exposures. Ensures

decent ambient exposure, but could lead to camera shake in very low

light.

<br><br>

<b>2) M Mode</b> - Meter ambient and adjust shutter and aperture as

appropriate (maybe a stop under?), keeping shutter in 1/60-1/15s

range. Generally controls camera shake, but in very low light

background could still go black.

<br><br>

Perhaps A Mode would be best in moderate- and low-light situations

and areas where bounce is appropriate, while M Mode would handle

very-low-light and large spaces where bounce won't work. I'm

interested in hearing how <i>you</i> determine indoor/dark event

exposures, and would be thrilled if you're willing to share some

examples.

As noted above, neither scanner clearly performs better than the other.

 

In your shoes I'd buy whichever is cheaper and spend the money saved on resources/books to get the most out of it. Scans from my 5400 have improved by several orders of magnitude over the years as I've learned to use its full potential. Buying some books/guides/targets/etc to speed up that learning would be well worth the expense.

<div></div>