elias_roustom

<p>Can't find the right forum for this one... maybe someone here will be able to help.<br>

I have a Contax T VSII p&s that does not seem to focus properly.<br>

I've checked the manual focus distance and it seems to be off. Has anybody ever worked on these?<br>

Any advice? Any reputable repair shops to recommend?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Elias</p>

<p>Well I answered my own question with some help from Google: Bright Light is one that gives an EV of 15 (ISO 100), meter set at 1/500 and f8. I hung a normal 60 Watt bulb up in my darkroom and pointed it at the 50mm lens of the camera from a distance that filled the view finder. A tripod that uses mounting shoes served me well here as I was able to mount the A1 and the FTb in the same exact way to compare them. Low light was a piece of off white card stock hung in front of the light that gave a reading of 1/15 at f4 (EV 8). I set the two pots on the FTb to match high and low readings from the A1. Now both cameras read the same way, +/- 1/3 stop, the A1 seems to defer to the wider aperture when the reading is too close to call. The FTb is not that sophisticated, and in low light the needle takes its time drifting into final position.<br>

For those who are interested, look at this: http://books.google.com/books?id=FG4Kas5kO5wC&source=gbs_navlinks_s</p>

<p>Thank you so much for putting this invaluable post up! I just got my FTb back from the repair shop after an expensive overhaul of the shutter speeds and meter was all messed up. I took it back, he said something had slipped, and said it was fixed, and it wasn't. Maybe he should read this post. I lost confidence in him and decided to take matters in my own hands, and the information here (and your other post on Classic Camera Repair) is just what I needed.<br>

I'm guessing my through the actual work, but what comprises Medium Light as opposed to Bright Light? and what's the third pot for? While I can get the reading from the FTb to match my A1 in some situation, I can't get it to match in another. Is tweaking the two pots back in and forth the way to go? Or is there some better system?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I own better Canon bodies, but aside from some quirky features the T70 is a great camera in my opinion. I don't think I could part with mine. I mostly shoot in Manual or Partial AE Program modes - so I never got to see the weird safety feature of Tv Mode. Whose saftey, and why would Canon care, what's wrong with letting us decide? Very funny. Thanks for the responses. At least I know it's not the camera starting to go. A T90 would be nice...</p>

<p>My T70 in "Tv Mode" or Aperture Priority acts just like it was in Program Mode if it feels my choice is out of acceptable EV range.<br>

In other words I'm free to choose the Shutter speed, and it will choose the fStop, only if I'm in the range its computer would have chosen if it were in Program.<br>

Is this a bug or a feature? I've never noticed this before.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback Greg.</p>

<p>I started there too. I found my "zeroed" raw files are dead flat, usually with plugged up shadows.<br>

I found I was making pretty much the same adjustments all the time, so I saved them a dev preset.<br>

Either there's something wrong with the exposure, or the way Lightroom reads Oly Raw files is just like that.<br>

If I can't relate what I capture to what I see on-screen when I grab the shot, it pretty much defeats the purpose of the preview don't you think? How do you deal with it?<br>

The raw files as I modify them are similar to the JPEGs but they have much more information in them. And oddly enough, even though I tried for a very long time, I could not manage to maintain the dynamic range of one my JPEGs in its RAW version. I had to choose between my shadow and midtone detail. There's some magic in how the E-620 makes its JPEGs, and yet there's a roughness to them that the RAW files doesn't have.</p>

<p>I went about this task in two ways. I compared the JPEG files that I recorded with my RAW images, and I also inspected the camera's screen. Then I adjust a bit more to my liking, and what I thought was natural. I did this because when I shoot, I depend on the screen to tell me how to adjust exposure and white balance. I'm curious what other E-620 users think about this. </p>

<p>last one</p><div></div>

<p>no. 3</p><div></div>

<p>hard to post more than one image...</p><div></div>

<p>more of the settings</p>

<p>Spent some time finding a preset for lightroom so my raw images match what I see on the camera's screen - as a starting point.<br /> I'm sure this will be different for each of you, but I thought I'd share, and maybe it'll help someone.</p><div></div>

<p>Read this thread I started here:<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00UWlT</p>

<p>Anybody else with this combination of camera & software?</p>

<p>Ok this is definitely a 2.5 upgrade problem. <br>

Made the same type of images, imported to 2.5, got the purple fringes around the highlights.<br>

Took 2.5 off, reinstalled 2.3. Problem gone. Although you can see these purple edges in 2.3 on the highlights as the image is "loading" in the Develop module, but once the image is loaded they disappear, and exported JPG files don't have them. In 2.5, once they appear they don't go away, and they get incorporated into the image, such that you can clean them away with the band-aid tool, or you can copy them with same tool.</p>

<p>WEIRD. Adobe what have you done!?</p>

<p>That's an export from LR, and looks just like what the LR shows.<br>

I brought the camera to work and tried to import it into LR 2.3 but it won't recognize the file - and won't import it.<br>

Olympus import software does just fine. Brings the RAW image in as B&W as it was shot, does not convert to color as LR does.<br>

Maybe there's something wrong with the file on the camera's card. I formatted the card, and I'll have to see if this happens again.</p>

<p>Lightroom 2.5, import of ORF files from E-620, and I'm getting these very strange outlines around my highlights.<br>

Anyone have a clue what could be causing this - I don't think I was getting these until I upgraded from 2.4.</p><div></div>

<p>Interesting stuff to delve into. This like testing for your film's true speed - maybe more work, except much of it is done sitting down. I worked on a couple of shots after "Zeroing" the settings, and what I got was leaps and bounds better than the default, more detail, especially in the highlights, better color, realistic contrast.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot. Very helpful references.</p>

<p>I bring in Olympu Raw Files from my E-620 to Lightroom 2.<br>

When I go to "Develop" the images I see some settings have already been given values - like Blacks has a 5, Brightness has +50, Contrast has +25... etc. Where did those settings come from? Is that what I shot? I don't want the camera or the software to do any thinking for me, I want the RAW file just as the sensor got it so I can know if I'm metering properly.<br>

Once I set those sliders back to zero I get more of what I thought I was shooting... in some cases a lot less. <br>

I went through preferences, and I don't see anything checked that would be applying any adjustments. Would my E-620 be applying adjustments to RAW files?</p>

<p>Thanks to anyone who can help.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka and Ken, you give me two good options to think about.<br>

I've considered the 2.8/25, and think it very desirable, but it gets such poor reviews...</p>

<p>I have a lot of FD lenses (24 through 100 and couple of zooms), and several bodies. I do most of my B&W shooting with an FTb body. I also happen to have an EOS Elan which cost me $40, and a couple of EF primes (24 by Sigma and the ubiquitous Canon 50 1.8). There's always the occasion to use auto focus, and the myriad of features on the EOS bodies. It won't hurt to have a little of both. If you're going to sell anything for money, the F1 will get you the most money - the FD lenses will get you next to nothing. It's not worth selling away what will always be a viable option. I doubt a 1N will get as much money as a good F1.</p>

<p>I'm happy enough with the kit lens that came with my E-620. I'd like to have a little more light, and less distortion.<br /> Will upgrading to the 14-54 do that for me? What are the prospects of selling my 14-42 to help offset the cost of the upgrade?</p>

<p>Thanks for any advice.</p>

<p>Elias</p>

<p>To answer the question above, what I don't like about LR is the very tight work space - maybe I need a bigger screen, and learn how to toggle menus on and off. But thanks for the encouragement and feedback. I'm on the edge between the 85% and the 15% groups in terms of my photos, but I'm pretty demanding about my tools. I'll give LR another go. </p>

<p>I understand the iPhoto upgrade (iLife) with the latest Mac OS X 10.5 can handle RAW. Coupled with Iridient's Raw Developer, this should be all anyone needs for archiving, and editing... or is it? I've tested Light Room, and I can't say I'm impressed with the display & controls - not compared with how fast and easy Raw Developer seems to be - too bad it didn't also organize. I have not tested Aperture. I also scan a good deal of slides and negatives. Any helpful comments for a digital newbie, favorites, pros & cons, etc.<br>

Thanks,<br>

Elias</p>