mark_scheuern

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>JPEG file size scales roughly as the number of pixels...</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>I should add that that's assuming the same amount of compression, but I believe the "Fine" settings are pretty much equivalent across the different bodies.</P>

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>It's only good enough until the next model comes out.</BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>I couldn't disagree more. If a camera takes pictures good enough for publication today it's not going to be suddenly rendered incapable of doing that with the introduction of a new model. Pick up a magazine and you'll see pictures taken with the D2H and D2X so, clearly, they are good enough.</P>

<P>After working with a D2H for a while I have to say that I'm very impressed. Definitely don't think in terms of a 4 MP p&s digital. It is capable of producing excellent, magazine-worthy results. Obviously, it's no substitute for a medium format camera for some purposes but it's an excellent camera and is well-suited to magazine work.</P>

JPEG file size scales roughly as the number of pixels, though, as you've found out, the exact size of JPEG files depends on the contents of the picture. So, for a D2H, JPEG file size will be about 2/3 what you have with the D70.</P>

 

IMO, to really use these cameras properly, you pretty much have to "play around" in post-processing with some curves and levels work and shooting NEF is well worth it, when possible. CF cards have gotten pretty cheap. You certainly can afford a big CF card if you can afford a D2H or D1X.

 

It's not quite clear from what you say but are you shooting at something less than JPEG Fine at full resolution? If so, stop doing that! Definitely consider shooting NEF, too. You don't say what size prints you're making but you should be able to get excellent 8x10s with the D70 at the very minimum. From what you say, you're far from pushing the D70 to its limits and I'd work on that before dropping a bundle on a new camera.

This happens because what matters in diffraction is the physical aperture size, not the f-number. The diameter of the aperture is the focal length multliplied by the f-number. Since digital sensors on p&s digitals are much smaller than a 35 mm film frame, for a given angle of view the focal length has to be a lot smaller, so, for a given f-number (f/8, say), the physical aperture size is much smaller than with 35 mm and so diffraction becomes a problem sooner. That's why digital p&s cameras usually don't go much smaller than f/8. It's less of a problem with digital SLRs since the sensors are bigger, albeit still smaller than 35 mm film, full-frame digitals excepted. It's also why large-format guys can get away with shooting at f/64 and such.

 

Mark

I recently had a roll of color print film processed that had to be at least 25 years old. I found it while going through some boxes and, while time clearly took its toll, the pictures were clearly visible. I'm glad I did it because the roll had some pictures of my mom and dad. I lost my dad some years ago and my mom last year and it was nice to see some "new" pictures of them. I also got a roll of film that was in my mom's camera developed. It was probably two years old and didn't look bad at all and, again, it was nice to see the pictures.

 

As for myself, I forget from time to time that I have a roll of film in one of my little-used cameras, though usually not for much more than a month or two. Just enough time for me to forget what I had shot.

He's not local to you but I can highly recommend Don Goldberg. He did a beautiful job of replacing my IIIf BD shutter and definitely knows his way around Leicas. His fee was very reasonable, especially considering the quality of his work. Hard to say what yours will cost but I'm sure he can give you an estimate. http://www.dagcamera.com/

 

I also have a Bessa R. It works well and has a very nice, bright viewfinder. Loading it is a bit less fussy, though the IIIf loading isn't at all bad once you get used to it. You might also want to consider the R2, which is better constructed and takes M-series lenses as well as LTM lenses with an adaptor. You should also know that some collapsible lenses shouldn't be used on the Bessa because there can be interference when collapsed. You'll want to confirm that yours will work okay before you buy the Bessa.

 

Mark

No, if anything, the D100 tends to underexpose a bit to prevent blown highlights. What metering mode were you using? Were you shooting JPEGs or NEFs? Using a flash?

I have a IIIf and a Bessa R and like them both. The viewfinder on the IIIf is tiny but an accessory viewfinder will solve that and, as you say, you'll need one anyway for the 35 mm. If you go with the IIIf, make very sure it's in good operating condition and that all it needs is a CLA. Mine needed a new shutter (it had the original and the cloth was very cracked and leaky) and, while it works great now, it was an additional expense. I love the the IIIf but I think the safer bet would be the Voigtlander or perhaps to stay with the Rollei.

I've used them for some quickie C-41 stuff but, as you say, it varies hugely from store to store and even from lab person to lab person at a particular store and that obviously makes it risky. Unless you've already worked with someone there you know you can trust, I wouldn't do it.

I've found the work of Photobition to be, unfortunately, quite variable. Sometimes great, sometimes quite sloppy. When I'm not in a big hurry I send my stuff out to A&I Labs or, for a lot of my digital, Printroom.com. I've heard that Camera Mart in Pontiac good but I haven't personally tried them, yet. I'll be interested in reading what others have to say about Detroit-area labs.

Right, the 3232 (I'm not sure about the 3229) just tilts on one axis. Since I normally use the monopod with long lenses that have a tripod collar that allows for rotation I use that to flip for verticals and still have the head's tilt function for that axis. You're right that, if you attach the monopod to the camera, you have a choice of flopping it on its side or tilting but not both since there's only one free axis.

You can crank it up so that the camera is higher than it would be if it was directly on the platform at the top of the legs. The main reason for taking it out (or not getting one in the first place, like I did on my Gitzo) is that you lose some steadiness when you have it cranked way up. You can of course keep the center post but just not crank the camera up on it unless you absolutely need the extra height, though you probably lose a bit of steadiness even then.

Are you going to be disallowing HTML posts completely or just those with JavaScript?

Ah, but you're probably saying that it would be about that given both the exchange rate and the differences in lens prices in Europe and the US. That would help some but I imagine it'll still be more than $3000.

Unfortunately, 4500 Euros is more like $5500 (one dollar = 0.815 Euros.) Looks like quite a lens.

White foam core works well. I got a big sheet of it for a few bucks at Home Depot in the insulation section (on one of the windiest days of the year, unfortunately: I must have been quite a sight trying to get the thing, which makes a very efficient sail, out to my car ). It's easy to cut to whatever sizes and shapes you want.

<P><EM><BLOCKQUOTE>

Contrast should be the same, in theory, although, since the digital camera is wasting some of the image circle of this lens that's designed for 35mm, if the light baffling behind the mirror and in front of the shutter is inferior, you might be getting some image flare. </BLOCKQUOTE></EM></P>

<P>I've seen reports that the greater reflectivity of the CCD surface (really the antialiasing filter that covers it) over film can cause increased internal reflections, which seems possible.</P>

It's almost certainly the filter. I've seen exactly the same sort of thing myself, including two days ago when I was shooting into lights at night and forgot that I had left a filter on. I realized it, took it off, and the flare was gone. That was with a good, clean, multi-coated filter, too.

<p>You're not going be able to make a 6x10 without cropping because the CCD produces a 1:1.5 ratio image size (the same as 35 mm), which means you'll end up with a 6.7x10 with the aspect ration contrained and no cropping.</p>

 

You can go to a bigger print size by going to <EM>Image->Image size</EM>, making sure that <EM>Resample Image</EM> is <B>not</B> checked, and typing in a new width or height. Note that the resolution figure will change when you do this because, since you're not resampling, you're not really changing anything in the image except some numbers to tell the printer what size to print. You still have the same number of pixels in each dimension and the printer is just spreading them out farther, hence fewer pixels/inch.</P>

<P>Hope that helps!</P>

Probably just a difference between the viewfinder and focusing screen designs. I have an F100 and a D100 and the view through the D100 viewfinder, aside from the obvious size difference since it's digital, looks a bit different to me as well. Personally, since I like to manually focus a good deal of the time, I prefer a more contrasty, "grainy" appearance even if it's a bit darker.

None other than the warranty.

Stephen,

 

Outdoors in the shade should work well, as you've seen. Direct flash will produce rather unflattering lighting with harsh shadows and, very often with dogs, green-eye. When you get your 550EX you'll be able to bounce your flash off the ceiling, walls, reflectors, etc., and you should get much more pleasing results. Window light can produce excellent results, too--it's like a big softbox. The attached is a shot of one of our cats lit with just window light.<div></div>

Cropping and changing focal length is <EM>exactly</EM> the same thing. Both force you to back up a bit and the result is a better-looking portrait. You're absolutely right that it's still a 50 mm lens, but the effective crop gives you the angle of view of an 80 mm (or 75 or whatever) and that's what matters. Remember that changing focal length (or, equivalently, cropping) doesn't change perspective, only moving does, and you have to shoot from farther back to get the same subject size with a 50 mm lens on a DSLR with a "crop factor" than you would with the same lens on a 35 mm camera.

I have the Schneider 6X Aspherical loupe which, for me at least, works wonderfully well with 35 mm slides though it may not be the thing for 6x7.

Hmmm, I'll try this again since my first attempt hasn't shown up. The answer is see the manual. It's described in the "Custom Settings" section of my SB-80DX manual and I imagine it's done in a similar way and described in a similar place in the SB-800DX manual.