jsbc

I still think that a MF plus a good quality PnS rocks. In your case, it depends whether you want any portraits, telephoto shots or whatever. The 43mm seems to be a bit restrictive, even if you crop. The GR 1 is also a wide angle.

 

My personal favourite would be a D70 and a Mamiya 7 (which is light). However, since you are using a bike, I would drop the D70, and bring the GR1 plus a 80mm.

yes, but what is your shutter speed? This is critical when you want to compare a 300 zoom (non-VR) with a 28-105 or even 50mm.

There are probably enough testimonials,but I bought something from D Colucci. Short and abrupt emails, but nothing rude or insulting. I only bought a small item - in fact, because of the lack of communication, I actually forgot about the transaction until the parcel arrived.

 

But hey, it's the goods that count. When I buy a slurpee at 7-11, I don't exactly blame the cashier for not being amicable.

By the way, David, re-reading your original post, it seems that you are complaining the the Nikon images when printed looks closer to the image on screen than equivalent MF ones. Is this a color space issue?

I have a D70 and I scan my MF using a Epson 3200. I also scan 135 with a Nikon LS-V.

 

In terms of vibrancy etc the images from D70 actually beat the scanned images. Some of the shortcomings is no doubt due to the operator, but there is still a lot to be desired in the software programs. Somehow, despite claims of 24-bit or whatever, the colors are deficient.

 

With more work in photoshop, I can actually provide pretty decent 35mm scans, at least they are sharp and contrasty when printed on a Frontier, such that you cannot really tell them apart.The 120 film actually doesn't fare that much better, because of the crummy resolution.

 

To be honest, neither digital capture or scans are completely satisfactory. For scans, the colors can be slightly off, or require more work, but it is hard to faithfully capture the color renditions in the original slide/negative. On the otherhand, for digitals, sometimes the highlight areas still look odd.

 

But if your main complaint is punch of the photos, rather than resolutions etc, I suggest you should try different scanning software. For my 135, I use Nikon capture software because of ICE and also GEM (very necessary).

 

I don't have grain-aliasing problems with the Epson 3200, but I find that Lasersoft is better for B&W, Vuescan better for slides, and Epson Scan better for NPH (Vuescan better for some other films).

Do you take photos with you camera phone now that you have sold your D70 and you are still waiting for youD70s. I hang out to my D70 because I want to take phots TODAY.

I like the portrait format. If only the sky had occupied 1/3 of the frame....

I believe with extremely strong conviction that sales of low-end consumer digicams will plummet.

 

Equally film will die.

 

Handset with CCDs are the preferred tools for amateur photographers.

Frederic:

 

The Rolleiflex viewing lens is F2.8.

The F screens are bright. The Maxwell screens that I have are even brighter.

 

I also have both split prism and non-split prism ones. Personally, I thought the split prism version would offer greater accuracy, but it turned out the split prism is not that user friendly since the centre circle is really small.

 

I would get one. Makes life much easier.

 

I have a question of my own: the Hasselblad with a 80 F2.8 (acute matte screen) is 2 F-stops brighter than my Maxwell screens. Why? (The mirror on my Rolleiflex seems pretty clean).

I have owned a G1, the T2 and T3 for a long long time. i though long and hard on the 645 before deciding to buy a Pentax. I bought the SLRs a week before Contax went into a tailspin. My only regret is that I did not buy it earlier.

 

I own all the major camera systems - Canon, Nikon, Pentax. I think Contax are good deal when you take product designs , build quality and image quality into account. The build quality is certainly not inferior to any other company, particularly the lenses. (2nd rate engineering? Has that person even used Contax.

I use a decrepit D30, one of the early adopters. I got the G1 for 1 week and by that time I realized the future is digital. It is quite funny to see this question because a 20D user recently accosted me and said that I must have been a very dedicated photographer if I were one of the original D30 users, when the machine still cost a bundle. That being the case, why shouldn't I upgrade to a newer machine?

 

Well, I can easily get a newer dSLR, but the one that I want to get, a 1DS,really cost a bundle, and it is heavy. If I get a 20D, it would be more of the same thing - better performance at high ISO, better AF, better ergonomics. What's the point. These things do no matter because I primarily use my dSLR to take photos of my daughter, monitoring her growth. The D30 performs completely up to specs.(I also own a D70 and another set of Nikon lenses and I don't really prefer one over the other).

 

I don't know about the older Kodak SLRs, but I think even a D30 is a lot of camera for any person. Better spend the money on lenses.

I have a FE 10 which is about the same in terms of quality of construction. Of course, it has AE too.

 

I like my machine. Otoh, I can see the reasons for going for a used Nikon, such as a FM, FE etc. However, before you spring for a F80, F65 or whatever it is, think first. Do you want something that will enable you to focus manually? Do you want compatibility with AIS primes? If so, maybe the FM10 is better than a F50/65/80

My FE10 X-syncs at 1/60th. However, looking at the small photo, it seems the camera does not have AE function, so maybe it utilizes the shutter from FM10.

 

The looks is also reminiscient of the T90, or even Leica R9. The feelwill be different of course. It will be cheap and plasticiky, but this is not a problem for me. I like my FE10 just fine. It is my third camera - I now have more than 30, and I treat my cameras quite roughtly, but the FE10 is still works fine. So I don't think its being plasticky precludes usage.

 

That said, I also have a Bessaflex. It is the black version, I got mine one day before Cosina announced the Topcon version. I would have bought the silver version otherwise. Is it cheap? at US$280, it is not. But then again, it is not much more expensive than the Rebel kit or the FE10 kit that I bought. Of course, the kit comes with a zoom lens, but the lens are unusable compared to primes.

 

Going back, of course I have better cameras now, but I do not regret my decisions to get the Bessaflex and FE10. You may find better deals in the used market, for instance, it is possible to pick up some Contax or M42 items at really low prices, but I wouldn't complain about the Bessaflex or its pricing.

Lighting is crucial.

 

The good thing about digital is that it allows you to experiment with lighting, cheaply.

 

Second, even if you are very budget conscious, the fact that digital aloows white balance adjstment means you can dispense with a lot of gels, filters etc.

I recently got a Marumi filter for mine. With a filter that has flat and more robust glass coating, I can make do with an ordinary no-name larger lenscap .

Roger:

 

What a coincidence. I went into a bookstore yesterday and there was a Chinese version of your book Roger. Costs US$12. The printing is not bad.

 

Just want you to be aware of this and the Chinese publishers are giving you royalties.

Most people resent having a 70-200mm pointed at their faces.

Somehow, even the most antagonistic neighbourhood acquiesces when I use a Rolleiflex to take photos. Even if you are using a Leica, a Rolleiflex would be a good prop.

 

I was in Paris this time last year with a Leica M7 - I did not encounter any prolems. The only negative experience was a warning from a streetside artist in Montmartre who thought I was taking photo of his works of art.

get a good strap, use proper techniques, and you can handhold a Rollie to 1/30 second.

 

If you use ISO400 B/W film with lotsa latitude, you can use the camera in almost any outdoor scene. I also like the Fuji slide for their latitude.

 

Btw, the interesting thing is that, even if most Parisian dislike having their photos taken, their attitude would soften upon seeing you wielding a Rollie.

Trevor: Thanks for doing this.

 

Is there EV compensation on the camera? It does not have to be complicated. The Leica C1 I have has just a +2 EV button, and I find that it suffices for negative film.

 

Btw, I congratulate you on your efforts to explore the bokeh of a 24mm lens. Unlike SLRs, I have always find that viewfinder AF systems are hit-and-miss. This applies to my Contax G1 too. So I think you are doing extremely well. Did the flash fire all the time and can it be turned off?

 

I guess I am asking a lot, but an image of the camera's back and top end would solve a lot of these inane questions ;o)

I think the additional of the extra lens will raise the maximum aperture to F8.

David:

 

The file and workspace shoudl be in sRGB, and the softproof can be one fo the Dry Creek profiles. Notice that there are variations between different Frontier machines. You can also get the machine specific icc profile from your Frontier operator.

 

Yes, I have to toy with each image - contrast (using levels) and saturation are usually muted. I think Scott Eaton in the past has said he worded better with a dim monitor. Anyway, the translation is never 100% - for instance my blue skies have a habit of turning magneta on Frontier prints. So I have to deliberate increase the cyan in the skies. I have talked about this in one of my earlier threads.

 

Nevertheless, it is possible to obtain a reasonably contrasty and brilliant prints. OK, it is not as nice as the scan as displayed on the monitor, which in turn lacks the subtleties of the slide. But without these comparisons, my colleagues believe they are quite nice prints. So for most purpose, it is a satisfactory route (I still prefer film when it comes to flesh tones, but landscapes are OK).

BY THE WAY, the whole point of Softproofing is not just to see how the image would look on paper. You should adjust the softproof by tweaking contrast, saturation, hues etc so that the softproof looks good and no longer muddy.

 

You should do this on a file designated for printing instead of the original file that is saved for archival purpose.

Yes, the color is dull - After this is the purpose of soft-proofing, making the image on screen as close as it would be on a reflective medium. If your monitor is a super-contrasty LCD and you are viewing it in a dark place, the difference is even more dramatic.

 

However, note that the file itself should be in sRGB, rather than Adobe RGB, or any of the wider gamut. A wrong profile would have account for this.

I have a SONY at home and it is a pain. YMMV.I have also forgotten the model number.

 

All the reviews talk about looking at, contrast ratios, response times etc.

 

Well, there's something extra to consider.

 

First, I think if anything, my monitor is too contrasty. I have calibrated it, however, when it comes to softproofing, it is too contrasty to simulate reflective prints.

 

Second, maybe the monitor is optimsed for 16:9 or whatever, but the pixels I think are rectangular. as a result, instead of a 640x480 displaying a 4:3 format, visually, all the images are stretched longitudinally, ie a long face becomes a very long face.

 

Considering that we condemn zooms because they distort images, this monitor can ruin your perception of images taken by expensive primes.

 

I am thinking of getting a new monitor.

 

My biggest prob