Gary Naka

Yes, especially if you are printing small. I used to have to put a box under my easel, to get the easel closer to the 50mm lens, to make the small image. But the real hassle was that the enlarger head was so close to the easel, that I had difficulty opening the easel to put a piece of enlarging paper into and removing it from the easel. And if I moved the easel, the framing was likely wrong. So I had to get another easel, just for making smaller prints with the head down that low. Then I got a 75mm lens, and both problems went away. So unless you only print 8x10 and larger, IMHO, it is worth having a 75 or 80mm enlarging lens for printing 35mm film. I knew someone who used a 75mm as his standard lens for printing 35mm film. He switched to the 50 only when he raised the enlarger head above a certain height, so that he did not have to stand on a stool, to focus the lens. I heard that the 63mm El Nikkor was designed for the turret on the Omega D series enlargers. True or not, I have no idea. But the 63 does work on the turret, where the 50/2.8 won't.

When I shot my nephew's wedding, it was RAW + RAW. Less serious would be RAW + JPG. But normally I shoot with just one card, either RAW or JPG. I "try" to manage my card load, so that I don't run out of space, so I don't bother with 2nd card for "overflow."

As @AJG said prices are and have been depressed. A couple years back, I replaced ALL my mediocre old lenses with better quality El Nikkor, and Componon-S lenses. And I did it at a crazy low price that I could not have back in the days of film and enlarging. IOW, the prices of used tier-2 lenses were so low that, to me, it did not make sense to buy tier-3 and lower lenses. I just had to be patient and shop. As for tier-1 lenses, that is the uber expensive APO and similar lenses, which were still WAY above my budget.

I would get one of the multi-function Sekonic meters. Then you can experiment with spot, averaging and incident. For a LONG time I used incident. I forget how I got into it, but incident metering became and still is my SOP. I did not get a spot meter until I got my 4x5 view camera. Although I did understand the zone system way before that, I just did not apply it to roll film.

As was mentioned, "blacktop" has MANY different shades, from very faded light grey to BLACK. Age, the other "stuff" in the blacktop, and the amount of visible asphalt affect how light or dark it is. What shade of grey/black is YOUR blacktop?

Since you are in the US, either Beseler or Omega are my two choices. Durst while good (I have and use one), has two problems. #1, they are out of the enlarger business, #2, they were in Italy. What #1 means is, for spare parts, you have to search the used market. What #2 means is that spare parts are harder to find (and more expensive) in the US than in Europe. If you have no intention of printing color, I would go with a simple B&W condenser enlarger. That eliminates any hassles with the color head and power supply. KISS. The B&W enlargers with a built in VC head are nice. While they are like a color head, they are newer, so probably easier to maintain.

My 70-200/4 went in to Nikon for a VR repair. $500 later it works, but that was $500, just for the VR.:( From that, you can make a guess on your repair. If you shoot in LOW light, the f/2.8 is better than the f/4. I shoot high school sports, and the f/4 is barely adequate for my high school field. I went to another high school, and it SUCKED. Their field was 1 to 1-1/2 stops dimmer.:eek: I really could have used the f/2.8 lens there. I'm not going back to shoot at that school, at night. But as was said, the f/2.8 lens has a weight penalty for that extra speed, over the lighter f/4 lens. In my older age, I decided that I did not want to lug the extra weight for 5 hours, so went with the half lighter 70-200/4.

That was my first Nikon lens, and I loved it. Maybe ignorance is bliss, but to me it was a GREAT lens. The only time it sucked was shooting gym games. f/3.5 STUNK, compared to f/1.4 when you only have film, with a pushed MAX ASA/ISO of 1200. I did replace it with the version 2, but I still have my original version 1 lens. For me, for convenience, the only thing better than the 43-80 was the 35-105.

On film, as long as I had the space, the 105/2.5. If I did not have the space, it would be whatever worked in that space. I have not done portraits since moving to APS-C/DX.

Battery chemistry is not an issue for recycle time with a HV pack. My gel cell and NiCd HV packs are close enough to instant recycle for me. And as I recall my Strobonar 800 with the rechargeable NiCd pack would recycle as fast as I could crank the film advance lever. Li would cut the weight, but the charging is more tricky than NiMH.

I have a klugy work-around. Put/tape a diverter on the front of the pop up flash. The diverter is a U shaped piece of opaque material. Lay the diverter on it's side. so the opening of the U is over the flash. The light from the flash hits the diverter, then goes to the side, not the front. If you put an optical slave/trigger on the side, it will detect the diverted light. The optical trigger would either 1) be wired to the studio flash, or 2) connected to a RF trigger that would then trigger the studio flash. Then reduce the output on the pop-up to where it will reliably trigger the optical slave.

If you are going to build a pack, you can choose whatever battery voltage you want, then do the voltage multiplication in the HV circuitry. Example, my Quantum Turbo uses an 8v gel cell, my Lumedyne packs uses (I think) 9 sub-C NiCds, for 10.8v. That reminds me, the cells in the Honeywell pack were NiCd, so the pack voltage will be a multiple of 1.2v. I suggest you design for NiMh cells. LOT more capacity than NiCd, and easier/safer charging than Li batteries. I don't know what the final output voltage to the flash is. Although, the pack was used in place of the 510v flash battery, so I "think" the output voltage would be around the same.

Just did this screen capture off the Canon web site. It shows the standard center contact. BUT . . . The T8i hot shoe below, shows a dark grey pad where the center contact pad is/should be. Could that be the plastic plug you are talking about. BUT BUT . . . I just found this posting confirming what you said, about Canon removing the center pin from the hot shoe. Canon Removes the Universal Hot Shoe Pin on Its Latest Release Maybe that adapter that I linked to won't work with a camera without a center pin.

I think it is less than 12v. But it has been a LONG time since I had the pack open, when I had the pack recelled. What are you trying to do?

Now you made me curious about what I remember. It will be next week before I can look at a T7i, and report back. Ah, could it be a T7 vs. the T7i. I remember a teacher asking about getting the cheaper T7 instead of the more expensive T7i. In that case, the answer was NO, because the T7 had a lower high ISO capability than the T7i, making it poor for sports photography under lights or in the gym.

I put a simple center pin flash on the hot shoe of a T7i, and it worked. I also used an off-brand hot shoe extender, like what @Ed_Ingold linked to, and it also worked with a simple center pin flash. If you want an adapter. Someone makes an adapter to go from a T7i hot shoe to a PC jack. This one looks like it might do the job. https://www.amazon.com/Pixel-Flash-Adapter-Extra-Flashguns/dp/B00554PCDG/ref=asc_df_B00554PCDG?tag=bingshoppinga-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=80882875798371&hvnetw=o&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=&hvtargid=pla-4584482455452431&psc=1 I don't know if the shoe on top of the adapter has the standard center pin or not.

Agree on the horizontal field of view. If I am trying to fit an image into a frame, it is usually the horizontal axis (and sometimes the vertical) that I am concerned with. For me, the diagonal of the image frame is not a practical measurement. I have yet to have a need to do a diagonal. For me, in practice, just looking at a scene, magnification difference is hard to tell beyond about 8x. My eye can't visualize a slice that small and see what is in that slice. If I'm looking through a normal lens, I simply divide the image in the viewfinder into quarters, and take one of the quarters as a 2x magnification over whatever lens I am using. That is easy. The next step is a quarter of a quarter screen for 4x The next step is harder, a quarter of a quarter of a quarter, 8x. That is a small portion of the screen. Beyond 8x, is too hard for my eyes.

While I grew up on 35mm film, I shoot in different formats, both film and digital. My current digital are m4/3 and APS-C. So I don't like the "equivalent focal length," referencing FF, since I no longer use 35mm film much. For me, if you do "equivalent focal length," it should be a relevant focal length. A format that you use and know. There is more than a generation of photographers who have no idea what you are talking about, when you say "FF equivalent." They have never use a 35mm film or FF camera, so they have no reference point. It is like saying the speed limit is 40 knots. :confused: Because I shoot in multiple format, for me it is MUCH easier to think in magnification, based off the normal lens for that format. As @Ed_Ingold said, I think in whatever format I am using, and my reference is the normal lens for that format. Focal length of the lens / normal lens = magnification. on 4x5, 1000mm / 150mm = 6.7x on 6x6, 1000mm / 80mm = 12.5x on FF, 1000mm / 50mm = 20x on APS-C, 1000mm / 35mm = 29x on m4/3, 1000mm / 25mm = 40x As you can see 1000mm is 1000mm, regardless of format. What is different is the magnification, based on the normal lens for that format.

I did not realize the RF 70-200/2.8 was that light. :) What bugs me about the RF 70-200/2.8 is that it is an extending design. When you zoom, the lens extends. In my experience, that generally makes the zoom ring stiffer to turn, because you have to move all that extending mass, rather than the small internal mass of an internal zoom. Couple that with a 90 degree or less throw of the zoom ring, where you are fighting leverage. But I would like to actually try it in my hands, to see how good a job the Canon engineers did on the zoom mechanism.

The mfg are taking this opportunity to redesign the lenses, so the weight can go up or down. I have not done a table comparison, but I think some are and some are not. So presuming the SAME optical formula, they would be longer, simply because of the thinner mirrorless body. The reduced flange to sensor distance is now added to the length of the lens.

There is a hidden weight and hassle factor when you switch to mirrorless. That is the battery. On my dSLR (Nikon D7200), I can shoot all weekend on a SINGLE charge. I have NEVER needed to use my spare battery, and I my shutter count is over 100,000. On my mirrorless (Olympus EM1-mk2), I can shoot no longer than 4 hours (power continuously ON). This means two things; 1) I have to carry FOUR batteries, to get me though a FULL day of shooting, and 2) I have to plan my battery change, so that I don't lose power in the middle of an action/event. Plus, I need a 2nd charger, and have to charge in two shifts. If I want to charge in one shift, I would need FOUR chargers. My experience is that battery life on a mirrorless seems to be directly related to the power ON time, not the number of shots taken (as it is with a dSLR). I don't know the run time of the Nikon Z, Canon R, or Sony cameras. Yes, one of the problems with mirrorless, is that the FF lenses are generally no smaller than those for a FF dSLR. And the lens is a significant percentage of the total weight. The standard problem with going from FF down to APS-C is the lens. The APS-C lens landscape for GOOD lenses has historically been POOR. So you are back to using FF lenses, that don't quite match the sensor format. Example, if you want an APS-C equivalent of the classic FF 70-200/2.8, there is none by Nikon, Canon and the 3rd party lens makers. Currently, the closest is the Tamron 35-150/2.8-4. The Sigma 50-150/2.8 is long out of production, and a HEAVY lens. I use a Nikon 70-200/4 on my APS-C, D7200. The Tamron 35-150/2.8-4 was not available at the time. If you go to a smaller sensor, the key is to, NOT cripple the migration. IOW, use GOOD/PRO grade lenses, not the lower quality consumer grade lenses.

Sports is similar to the people and kids at a party. People get between you and your subject, and "closest subject" AF fails. Been there, done that. Having said that, I would not willingly go back to manual focus, except on the old film cameras. AF is so much faster, and as my eyes get older, I can't manually focus as fast and easily as I used to. But knowing how to manually focus, lets me do it when I need to.

Actually it is not crazy. If you really want to control the exposure, you have to go manual. The camera's meter can only go so far, and there will always be lighting situations that the camera can't handle. I have had situations where the background is very DARK or BRIGHT, and the cameras meter could not deal with it. The subject was over or under exposed. So, your brain has to step in and make the exposure decision. What is nice about the mirrorless, is that you can see the exposure issue before you press the shutter button, so you can adjust in real time. Also, when the lighting is constant (like a cloudless sky, or in the gym), I will often shoot manual, so that the exposure is not affected by the different reflectance of the scene. That is also why I rarely use "face detect AF." In many situations, it will focus on the WRONG faces, or a face when I want it to focus on an object. As much as I like AF, sometimes it makes me upset. Shooting football, and the ref run in front of me, and the AF changes focus from the player to the ref. Then I have to reacquire AF on the player. "Trying" to shoot volleyball through the net. That is an easy task with a manual focus lens, but the AF usually focuses on the net itself. Everything has to be used as appropriate to the scene.

This is the issue with any system change, when the target system is still being built out. As I see it, one of the issue is lenses which are NOT yet available in the RF mount. You are FORCED to get the EF lenses. You have no choice. But if later a similar RF lens comes out, then what? Do you then buy the RF lens and replace the EF lens, or just keep using the EF lens? Another is you are talking about a mixed RF/EF camera system. So you are using and supporting TWO systems, EF (5D) and RF (R5). To minimize duplication and incompatibility, I would drop the EF camera (as soon as you can) and replace it with a RF camera. Then you are using ONE system, RF. I would do a blend, call it 1.5. Switch to the R5, buying new RF lenses. But for the lenses which are not available in RF, buy the EF lens (you have no choice). But hold off on these as long as possible, hoping that a similar RF lens is released. You need to study the lens roadmap. The unknown is if/when the 3rd party lens companies (Sigma, Tamron, etc) will release RF lenses. As for a backup, I really see two options. 1) Get a 2nd RF camera, and sell the 5D. Then you are on ONE system, and eliminate the limitation of the 5D and RF lenses. 1.5) Plan to get a 2nd RF camera, soon, but use the 5D until then. This is a stop gap option, and my choice. 2) Use the 5D as a backup camera, fully knowing that the lenses for that camera is limited to the EF lenses you have, and have to get because the RF lens in not yet available. IOW, it cannot backup with the RF lenses, because you can't put a RF lens on the 5D. Tied up in this is the question of WHEN to start selling the EF gear (to fund more RF gear)? Example, when you sell the 24-70, you no longer have that lens as a backup option with the 5D.

You don't NEED the PTC circuit to charge the battery. Chargers have the logic to detect a full charge. Most 3rd party charger with only 2 contacts are doing this. But . . . when the charger FAILS to detect full charge, and keeps charging . . . you have an overcharge situation. That is when PTC comes into play. There is another implementation of PTC, that does not need a 3rd contact. Here the PTC circuit in INSIDE the battery case. When the temp exceeds a certain point, the circuit opens, and no current can flow into the battery, stopping the charge.