john_graham3

I don't know if these are the lowest prices around but I've dealt with this

outfit before and they've been upfront and reliable. V700 @ $475 and V750 @ $688

w. mfr 1 yr warranty. They had "open box" 700's for $359 but those have just a

2-week warranty. They have the CS2 upgrade for $144 also. newegg.com

I don't know if these are the lowest prices around but I've dealt with this

outfit before and they've been upfront and reliable. V700 @ $475 and V750 @

$688 w. mfr 1 yr warranty. They had "open box" 700's for $359 but those have

just a 2-week warranty. They have the CS2 upgrade for $144 also. newegg.com

Glad Mr. Keppler woke up from his nap. That story surfaced several years ago, and was noted on the internet.

Here's a HU: one of my buds has a Leica IIIa and he got the Geiss kit marked "3a" at a camera flea mkt. He followed the instructions packed with it but the little beak on the speed dial overlay didn't hit the trigger on the shoe squarely, it was too long and too low. We filed it down, then it triggered the flash ok but the sync was off. We had to take the lens off and keep flashing and moving the speed dial part around until we found the spot where when the flash went off the whole shutter was open. Then he made a little tick mark on the camera dial for later. What we concluded was the Geiss "3a" must be for the Leica IIIc.

"I really could not ethically turn around and sell the DRM and R8 and apply the money to a Digilux plus computer/printer stuff."

 

Huh? Well OK, then why not post it F/S here for your friend so someone who wants an R8+DMR could get one at a good price, then your friend gives you the $4500 for whatever that antique of yours he wants. Win-Win.

Hey Matt. Are you taking those photos for you for or for them? If it's for you, then take it all, you're not talking that much gear. If it's for them, just bring your digital. They'll be happy with the results, won't think you're a weirdo for still shooting film, and you can burn them a CD on their computer before you leave and it won't cost you a nickel.

"You'd think that the camera would communicate with the flash and ask for more light in situations like this but I guess there's a limit to what it (the flash) can do."

 

Well, duh. That's why they call it a "40" as in G/N 40 with ISO 100. It might be possible to make a flash that fit in the shoe and had unlimited power, but the problem would be where to park the 18-wheeler hauling the batteries :*)

Again, I'm not an R8 user but I seem to recall something that if you use aperture-priority mode, when you turn on the TTL flash the camera sets the shutter speed to 1/250 only, i.e. it's not set up like Canon and Nikon to do daylight fill in that mode. There's as I recall a clumsy workaround but I forget what it is. You shouldn't be having the problem in manual mode though. I know for a fact the R5 sets the shutter to the X-speed alone whenever a TTL flash is on, there's no way to do TTL variable ratio fill, you have to use the external auto on the flash and force the ISO so the flash underexposes.

Never had an R8 or either of those oldtime lenses you mention but I did have the same flash (used to use with EOS and Hasselblad till I sold latter and foremer won't work TTL since digital). Either in the flash or on the module (depending on the camera system)there's a way to set the flash so it overrides the TTL by 1/3 steps. I'm just guessing you're meaning to use those lenses outdoors and the flash for fill? Standard practice is -1 2/3 steps but vary accoring to taste. One nice thingy to have is a frensell magnifying lens in front of the flash. One I have is called a Walt Anderson Better Beamer but I think a couple of the nature photographer specialty places sells a version too. What it does is focus all the flash power into the narrow angle of a long tele. I never used on on the MZ3 though. Tacking things to the front of those are a little weird cause of how the front tilts. The other thing is that they sit down low to the camera vs other types of flash, so redeye can be a problem without an extension arm to raise the flash.

I use a belt made to hold shotgun shells. Holds six rolls of film on one side, 4 finders on the other, and 2 rounds of 00 Buck, just incase someone calls me a dork for wearing film and finders on a belt :*)

Hey Jerry, I'm going to take the minority view here and recommend that you buy it. For the short term you will be able to have some great sport posting 3000-word rants of blind rage dissing Canon and everyone that uses it :*) Then when you get tired, you could probably e-Bay each item separately and make enough profit to buy yourself that new computer, and mabye the Panasonic twin of that D.Lux2 to boot :*)

The shins are a piece of cake, it's the damn bikinni line, I hate it if it's not straight :*)

"Hello John, Thanks for your response which is very helpful. Just to be sure - did you write about two 3V lithium ?"

 

Nope, I want no part of lithium. I love the manic highs too much :*)

 

Dude, if the "bc" lights up but the camera still works for a long time, then the "bc" is screwed up. If it lights up at 4 rolls and the camera actually stops working shortly thereafter, then the camera is screwed up. Either way "bc" stands for "bring cash" :*)

All the 12585's I've ever seen have a reverse-taper hood section with vents from behind. That one looks like someone cobbled the front end of an older hood onto the clip part of a 12585. Should still work tho. Did you use it when you got flare? If the sun or another brite lite is in certain positions even a hood can't block it, and those older lenses will flare up.

" Dear forum members, pls. is there somebody who knows what's the approximate batteries voltage at the moment when M7 displays "bc""

 

1.41v in the top battery and 1.37v in the lower battery. You're welcome.

Amazing! Nobody's come around yet to brag how their ASPH is so much better :*)

That time of the month Kris? Reminds me of my ex wife (shivver!):*)

I have no doubt there are people who will lay claim to being able to frame without a viewfinder, especially on internet forums where it's another chance to metaphoricly assert theirs is bigger. I always use the viewfinder. I know that blind guys can shave themselves, and yet I've never seen any reason for me to prove something by turning the lights off when I shave.

Two words for you my boy: LENS HOOD.

"You could get run over by a bus tomorrow."

 

Not likely, unless the bus route runs through his computer room :*)

 

70-200 and variants (70-210, 80-200)were the first zooms to gain popularity with professionals because they run from just wider than "portrait" to just longer than "medium tele". Since pros are mostly shooting full-frame digitals (well, Canon pros anyway)and Canon's version has the latest form of IS and is known as being one of the sharpest zooms known, I doubt that replacing it is high on their to-do list. What surprises me is that Nikon hasn't designed a 55-135/2.8 with VR, since they seem committed to the 1.5 crop.

"Canon flubbed one here, they named their new midrange camera the 30D. This was a brilliant one, as now it is easily confused with the old D30 or the 300D Rebel"

 

Yes, Canon clearly has shot themselves in the foot in terms of maintaining marketshare among dyslexics and those with IQ's <100 :*)

I guess that would be what I'd do also, given that I was of a like mind as William. OTOH I wouldn't keep a Nikon AF setup for film and a Canon setup for digital. It'd be a lot cheaper to sell all that Nikon stuff and stick with one system. Can pick up any one of a selection of great Canon film bodys for a song now.

" Range...ignored"

 

The only reason the 17-85 even exists is range. It's so you can get the same equivalent as the 28-135 when using a 1.6x body. I don't mean to tell you what your concerns should be, but if it were me I'd be asking myself if I plan to also get a wider zoom like the 10-22 or not. If so, then the 28-135 would give you more total range, with very little interruption in coverage. OTOH if it's to be your only lens then the 17-85 is the clear choice because it's an all-rounder. I wouldn't be concerned with the possibility of one day getting a full-frame body, because though the 17-85 won't fit, from my experience with 5D and 1DSII the 28-135 (and any consumer lens)will truly disappoint. Even the L-lenses are stretched to their limits.

Muchos gracias amigos.

"Palm reading is one stop brighter than my incident meter."

 

Well, my Tarot cards are brighter than your palm reading :*)