lobalobo

<p>Thanks to all. And Pete S. has convinced me to go cheaper and without teaching my sister TTL. Just an entry level DSLR and a kit lens (plus maybe a macro), a slave strobe with power adjustment (or two), and an umbrella (and maybe a small-product tent). We can work on manual settings and placement of the strobes, record them, then have her go on auto-pilot from there. Again, much appreciated.</p>

<blockquote> <p>TTL is tricky for this.</p> </blockquote> <p>Point taken, but it shouldn't be too hard, I hope, manually to adjust exposure, or flash intensity, starting with the TTL reading.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Also: if you're using the pop-up on the D7000 to command and off-camera Nikon flash, get the cheap SG-3IR, which places an IR-pass filter in front of the pop-up.</p> </blockquote> <p>That concerns me. Why would that be necessary? My purpose in focusing on the Nikon D7000, rather than a newer entry-level model, is that the D7000 has built-in Speedlight Commander, which would make firing an optical flash from the camera unnecessary. Do I have this wrong?</p>

<p>Thanks, Craig. Her company does hire professionals for many shots, but she has the need from time to time to supplement quickly between sessions with a pro and can't afford to hire a professional in every instance. What she wants to do now is fill the gaps better than she's been doing so far. As for a light tent and a macro lens, this would be right if the product were always small, a single piece of chocolate, e.g. But she often needs to photograph a larger display, say boxes of candy side-by-side, some laying flat others standing up. That said, I appreciate your comment and I'll discuss the tent option with her.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I think you have given her good advice. It is simple, straightforward, cost effective and gets the job done. It also allows her to expand if she wants do do so later. Probably what I would have reccomended.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Thanks, Rick.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You don't say what the products are--lighting for clothing is quite different from what you would use for jewelry, for example. The camera and lens you mention should do the job, but you might want different lighting depending on what she is photographing.</p> </blockquote> <p>Good point; thanks. The products are chocolate and candy.</p>

<p>My sister runs a small business that uses product images on its website. She's been using a cheap compact camera but wants to upgrade. The issue is that she has neither the money for a sophisticated setup nor the time to learn lighting technique. She asked me for advice on what equipment to buy, but I'm not expert on this, thus this post.<br> My current thoughts are to suggest she get a Nikon D7000 with kit 18mm-55mm kit lens, a Nikon SB-500-AF Speedlight (and stand), and an 8x12" softbox modifier for the Speedlight. My thoughts are that D7000 is relatively cheap, being a generation or so old but with flash Commander feature that will operate the Speedlight in TTL without the need to fire the camera's flash (which could alter the exposure in undesirable ways); and the single light with softbox will be easy to operate and experiment with.<br> If anyone has a better suggestion, though, I'd welcome the advice. The upgrade needed is from a point-and-shoot, so professional quality is not expected. And the images will be used only (or primarily) on a website. But of course, if better quality can be achieved easily and at low cost that would be welcome. Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Seen a number of references to Leaf Credo 60 as an ideal back for technical cameras. Is this right? Is the reason that it lacks micro lenses (allowing movements with wide-angle lenses)? Just curious. Thanks.</p>

<p>Interesting response and makes sense, Brian. Guess what you're buying with Phase One is a service contract along with a back.</p>

<p>Apologies if this has been addressed before, but I couldn't find a thread on it: the Phase one CMOS back (IQ250) seems to sell for twice the price (literally) of the Hasselblad version (CFV-50c); that's a $15,000 difference for the same chip. Yes I understand that there are differences including in the CFA, which I understand is important (particularly in a CMOS sensor, which often compromises purity of color for ISO capability), but still <em>twice</em> the price? I get it that Pentax is cheaper still than the Hasselblad, but that doesn't surprise me to the same extent as that chip is built into a camera system that will not appeal to all users. Any thoughts are welcome. (For what it's worth, I'm not in the market, but am curious.)</p>

<p>Interesting. Thanks so much.</p>

<p>Thanks, Edward. This all makes sense, and I appreciate your taking the time to educate me on this. One, final, simpler question, and perhaps a stupid one (though I'll risk it). Lenses specially designed for medium format digital seem to go no wider than about 35mm, which is about 20mm in 35mm equivalents against a full frame 645 sensor. (There are exceptions, but these seem to be devoted to smaller-than-full-frame sensors and so are no wider.) There are, however, wider lenses (including non-fish-eye) for smaller sensor cameras. So, e.g., Panasonic makes a 7mm lens (14mm in 35mm equiv.) for a micro 4/3 camera. If I'm right, I wonder why it is harder to go wider on larger sensors than smaller ones. Perhaps it's that for small sensors, the image circle need not accommodate movements, and I notice that large format lenses similarly don't offer a wider image against 4x5 film, but I'm not sure I have the geometry right (and why this may be a stupid question). </p>

<blockquote> <p>Light fall-off is not a big problem for MF reflex lenses. The lenses have a long back focus to accommodate the mirror, hence the light does not impinge on the sensor at such an oblique angle. Technical cameras, on the other hand, are better served using lenses designed for that purpose. </p> </blockquote> <p>Right, but this was the point of my post. The Digaron lens I mentioned <em>is specially designed to be used on a technical camera with a full-format sensor</em>--using a retrofocus design not for a mirror but to allow movements and to straighten the light--but seems not to do a particularly good job if the lens can't be shot wide open without vignetting. This is what I found surprising.<br> <br> All this said, I've heard it suggested that the best new CCD sensors, though using microlenses, are much more amenable to angled light and so for those spending the money on top of the line equipment, there is a solution there even among new, full frame sensors. The question will be whether as CMOS sensors replace CCD sensors the technology for the required microlenses will continue to allow movements on wide-angle lenses for technical cameras.</p>

<p>Recently, I've become fascinated with issue of light fall-off on medium format sensors, particularly, as I understand it, that caused by micro-lens sensors. Having received interesting responses on an earlier, related post, I thought I'd see if I can learn more with this one.</p> <p>The ad information about the Rodenstock 32mm f/4 HR Digaron-W Lens, designed for full format sensors, says that vignetting is eliminated at f/8. I find this remarkable if it suggests that this lens, which sells new for about $8,000, would vignette wide open, presumably even without tilt or swing, on a sensor that costs about $40,000. That is, I would find it remarkable if the best and most expensive technology available didn't support fast, wide angle photography, such as would be demanded by professional landscape and architecture photographers. And, I suppose, that movements on a technical camera would make the matter worse, perhaps yielding cross-talk even with a retro-focus lens such as the Digaron (which I had previously understood to be the solution for angle-of-incidence problems on large or micro-lens sensors).</p> <p>As the technology of large sensor photography advances, is wide-angle being left behind to film, older sensors (those without micro-lenses, such as the 48 x 36 Phase One P45+), or smaller sensors (such as the new 44 x 33 CMOS models)?</p>

<p>Thanks. In response to Joe, what you propose is a chart based on GN, and one is provided. What I was suggesting was something that could be done more quickly when there is concern that the subject is too far away properly to expose. In such a case, I'd open my lens as wide as possible and maximize the flash's power and it would be helpful if a quick guide told me how far I can expose with that flash at various maximum apertures. But you are right that I could use the GN info to create such a chart. I was just curious why the flash manufacturer didn't include one, more useful, it seems to me on such a small and weak flash than info on variable auto power settings. That said, yes, I agree with Jochen that this tiny flash provides plenty of info for its size; just questioning what info.</p>

<p>To go along with a small compact camera (with a weak flash), I bought a cheap, equally compact, slave flash that is easy to pocket and take with me on travel or to parties. Some months ago, I received useful advice on how to use this little flash, but in working with it discovered an oddity. In auto mode (not TTL) there are three power settings.</p> <p>A guide on the back of the flash offers ISO/f-stop combinations for each power setting. So, e.g., on A3 (the highest setting), there is an ISO 200/f7 combination. In one respect, these combinations make sense, I suppose, even without a distance measure, in that so long as your subject is within the slave's range, the meter will set the flash duration at any given power setting under the assumption that the camera is set at the designated ISO/f-stop combination. But it occurs to me that the table is insufficiently informative in that it offers no sense of available range at wider openings than indicated on the chart. Wouldn't it be helpful to have a chart assuming highest power and, say, ISO 400, with maximum distance at various aperture settings? That would be faster tan a GN calculation. Just a thought.</p>

<blockquote> <p>An easy way to check the accuracy of a Weston meter is to point it at something that gives a full deflection on the low-light range. If the same reading isn't consistently got on the high range, then the cell is degraded.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, but not sure what this means. My process is this: not owning a true light meter, I've tested both in outdoor and indoor light the metering of two different Panasonic compact cameras and a light meter app on my Android phone. Set at ISO 100, all three devices agree exactly and these agree with the Weston set to emulsion 32. So the Weston does seem reliable, but it is a curiosity that it is reading as if it is oversensitive. As I mentioned, the posts above suggest that this isn't possible, but I'm telling you that it is happening. Perhaps the answer is that the mechanical dial slipped sometime in the last 3/4 century. Don't know.</p>

<p>Interesting, at least to me, that my Weston meter seems now to be well calibrated at emulsion 32 for ISO 100--which is almost two stops fast (or a bit less if Weston 100 is equal to ISO 80 as one poster suggested). Most of the posts suggested that these old meters would become insensitive. Curious as to how mine spent the last 75 years becoming <em>more</em> sensitive.</p>

<p>Thanks to all. Had a chance to test this morning and the errors do seem linear. I shoot almost exclusively Provia 100 in the Crown Graphic, and I find that from bright to moderate light (in a bluish-gray sky and reflected from a bluish gray poster indoors) the Weston set to emulsion speed of 32 matches the reading from the compact camera (I tested two actually) set at ISO 100. Not sure the linearity will hold in dim light, but I don't have a fast enough lens for the Crown Graphic to shoot in dim light anyway.<br> <br /> Thus, I have rescued my Weston meter, I believe, though, having done so it has occurred to me that the good compact digital camera I already have, set to manual, with spot meter and whole-sensor meter (along with histogram) available, will do a quicker better job. May have to give up on the nostalgia (sigh).</p>

<p>When I purchased a Crown Graphic it came with Weston Master Universal Light Meter, Model 715, manufactured in 1939, I've learned. I've used it with the Crown Graphic, but too infrequently to tell whether missed exposure was my error or the meter's. This afternoon, I pulled out a compact point-and-shoot, set it to manual and compared the compact's (spot) reading with the Weston's. If the compact's reading is correct, the Weston would underexpose by almost 2 stops in the test I ran. If it's consistently off by 2 stops, that's easy to fix, of course, as I'll just quarter the ISO setting. But I wonder whether there might be something I'm missing, or whether the meter is just not working. Anyone else use an old meter such as this and notice a tendency to underexpose? Hope I can get it to work; a lot of fun to use old meter with an old camera. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote> <p>And yet strangely, there are Tilt/Shift lenses as short as 17mm working perfectly acceptably on Full-frame DSLRs with CMOS sensors. How far do you want to shift? Even on film an extreme shift wasn't sharp.</p> </blockquote> <p>Maybe that's the difference between Ray and Joe, a difference in degree, not kind.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Lobalobo, which dealer or manufacturer? If you go back tomorrow ask at Capture Integration (and say hello to Dave Gallagher for me.</p> </blockquote> <p>Not sure I should identify the rep, who may have been off message (from his principal's perspective). Sorry I didn't make it back the next day.</p>

<p>So, Ray, is it your view that for technical cameras, for tilt and shift, it will continue to be the case that a sensor with no micro-lenses will be required? Would this also mean that tilt-shift will not work well with (at least large) CMOS sensors, which, as I understand, have a problem with angled light even in the absence of micro-lenses? If this is right, then I wonder what the progress of the MF back industry will be. Based on the Phase One, Hasselblad, and Pentax ads for the new Sony sensor, it seems that CCD sensors are destined for the dust bin of history. The market will determine this, I suppose, but I hope there are enough technical camera users to induce some solution to the tilt-shift problem. I'm not a pro--just a hobbyist, currently shooting 4x5 film on a Crown Graphic but with fantasies of buying a technical camera and a medium format back instead of a sports car as a mid-life crisis purchase; hate for the fantasy to die in the name of progress.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Decentered micro lenses in the format corner to 6x7cm FMF size once such sensors can be made.</p> </blockquote> <p>Exactly the suggestion the rep made, though they'd need to do it, which they might not if they figure that few buyers would use the backs on technical cameras where, I take it, the physics alleviate the issue.</p>