graybrick

<div></div>

Try rolling it in the opposite direction, and place it in a warm spot for a while. I have done this with curled rolls before I cut them and it usually gives accepatble results.

"The shutter button on the Russian cameras has a threaded hole in the center for a cable release. The shutter button on a Leica is smooth and slighly rounded on the top with no threaded hole. "

 

According to this criterion for spotting a fake, it seems this $12,500 gem is not such a gem after all. Then again, there's always the possibility that someone might post something on the internet, even perhaps in a forum you too post in, that isn't necessarily true or doesn't apply to every situation (gasp!).

 

Bottom line, if you don't know what you're looking for or what you're looking at, do your homework before you buy off an auction website. Someone once said 'a fool and his money are soon parted...', and I think that really applies in these situations. As always, if a deal is too good to be true, then it's not true... and if you think it's a scam it probably is. Homework should consist of lots of searching and cross-referencing, and reading the original literature if available. There's information on the internet about just about anything you want to know, but there's also plenty of idiots out there who think they know and owe it to the world to profess... a load of crap.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LEICA-MP-BLACK-22-ORIGINAL-1956-CAMERA-BODY-RARE_W0QQitemZ260060840662QQihZ016QQcategoryZ30030QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

Fake?

I saw it land this July, but from a fishing pier in Titusville. They had the base locked down pretty tight, and some menacing dudes with automatic weapons turning traffic around on the road. They closed Canaveral National Seashore for the day, too... I don't know what you have to do to get on the runway, though I imagine you'll need some pretty spiffy credentials. Good luck.<div></div>

Stack of phone books, yeah...

If you're working in such an environment, I doubt that the cleaning system would really help all that much. I haven't actually seen it in action, but it seems to me that the cleaning system is good for everyday dust most of the time, but not really inteded to deal with heavy dust burdens such as in motorcycle races. You're still going to have to deal with the dust, though you might not have to clean as much off... It really seems like a bit of a gimmick to keep up with the competition in the gimmicky features department (see digital zoom, direct printing, green rectangle mode...) I think it also seems like yet another system that's bound to malfunction eventually... just my completely non-expert and uninformed thoughts.

I have used an HP Pavilion for most of my work for the past two years. It looks great. It's not the 'perfect' monitor, but I think most laptops these days will do what you're looking for, and well within your price range. Go look at a few at the store... oh, and I think 72 or 96 DPI is pretty much 'standard' resolution for most monitors. I'm not sure what kind of numbers HD gives you, but otherwise the resolution is going to be pretty standard across the board.

It's true, I have noticed that often people will pay more for a used item than the new item costs. Shopping for Canon L series lenses, the prices usually approach new prices from reputable dealers. Once you add on the often inflated shipping prices, you're paying the same thing for an out-of-warranty used piece when with a bit of homework you could get one with warranty and that minty new lens smell... it's silly, really, but people assume because they're buying used they're getting a better deal- and they just don't bother to do a basic search to find the lowest new price! Viva eBay!

The clicks are the latch mechanism. I had this problem and found that if you push quite gently (no prying) to one side or the other as the mechanism clicks that it generally will release. I'm not sure what's out of tolerance, but it's a common and simple problem. It still happens to me intermittently, but not always. It's not something I would bother sending for repair, as it's not actually broken exactly and I really don't use the on-camera flash except for focus-assist in the dark anyway.

Hmmm... looks like a really bad idea to me, but then again I once saw a Delorean body mounted on top of a jacked-up, 9' tall Bronco frame... so to each his own, I suppose. I tend to take less risks with my equipment, but then again I like having fully functional equipment.

Like Anne said, I would offer to apply the deposit to a future session. Personally I would consider refunding the first 'installment' but not the original deposit, though I do not rely on weddings for my mortgage either.

4X-8X the 'quality', Bob? LOL. How, pray tell, did you arrive at this figure? Do you mean that bigger is better? What if we're shooting 35mm and printing 8x10? I love how people just love to tack numbers on to express totally subjective opinions! MF is a pain to use compared to 35mm- you have to load giant film backs in the dark, carry several of them if you want to shoot a bunch in a day (heavy, time consuming, expensive), not to mention that the cameras are larger and fairly unwieldy compared to most 35mm SLRs. Lenses are slower for MF, too... yeah, the film's bigger, but the 'quality' is really a subjective determination, and the photographer has much more to do with that than the film format used. MF is certainly better suited to making wall-sized enlargements, but most things you print in your bathroom aren't nearly as demanding of high absolute resolutions because they're not going to be big enough to need it. I laugh when I see the MF mfs response to everything: "You'll never have high quality anything until you spend three grand for a basic Hasselblad system and take out a second mortgage to lease a drum scanner..."

As for the OP: if you just want to proof and use your scanned images from film on the internet, most of the scanners out there today will do that for you. There are flatbed options from $150 and up, to the more expensive film-only scanners, that will suit basic needs just fine. If you're still printing optically, this will be your best option. If you want to make decent prints from scanned files, I've heard the film scanners have a slight advantage, though professional scanning services might be your best bet for the best results in your final product, especially printing large.

 

I wouldn't expect to see a ff sensor for anywhere near the price of the film scanner anytime soon. Surely prices will drop eventually, but if you read Canon's white paper on full frame sensors, they basically say that you should expect to pay much more because making the sensors in that size uses a lot more resources and costs a lot more in the first place. The technology will improve in the future, but for now Canon has pioneered the process and they have no competition in the FF 35mm format digital market... you can move up to MF 'back' systems starting around $12-20K used, if you're ready to invest some serious cheese. Anyway, I like my 20D, but it sounds to me like you would rather stick with film, so that's what I suggest you do. Go, buy the film scanner, and be happy while you wait for that 72MP FF digital sensor for $2000 (coming in summer 2014). Don't forget to have a good time while you wait, and don't let the medium format guys convinnce you that you can't be a good photographer or get 'high quality' results without giant film... it's bollocks.

What exactly do you mean by manual correction? The digital camera has lots of options which can be set manually, including exposure time and aperture. Approximating the same exposure between your film shot and your digi shot would have given closer results. Then, when you say manual corrections, do you mean corrections during the processing of the film, or corrections during printing oin papaer, or corrections during scanning? The equivalent can be had with the digital file, too, though you can't hold it in your hand to process it manually, so you have to do it on the computer... yeah, we read what you said, but it was a weak argument. You suggest that scanning 'manually' to get a contrasty, dark, blue-masked image and correcting it is somehow superior to taking a digital image and correcting it. Then you support that assertion with scans and digicam shots that don't demonstrate your point at all. Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I did read what you said and while I somewhat agree with film's increased latitude, I disagree with your method to 'demonstrate' it, as you've introduced too many variables and assumptions into the equation to actually produce a valid test.

Thanks, guys, I'll keep my eye out for a good one...

It's really not a good example if you're trying to demonstrate the difference. The digicam shot looks like it's on vivid color and contrast boost, but those things can be switched off. The time of day is close, but I'd guess an hour different from the shadow shift. And, the digicam shot can be tweaked to bring out shadow detail that is not obvious due to the relatively darker exposure in the shot compared to the tweaked film shot. I'm not saying that film doesn't have a better range, mind you, but this series really doesn't prove much.

I've been pondering trying out MF for a while, and today it seems my fate is

set. I ordered some of the new Portra samples in 35mm, but I just now

recieved four rolls of 120 format... so I've been looking at Rolleicords for

a while, but have been a little put off by their limitations and practicality,

and I'm thinking I'd like to stick with an SLR format for now. I've seen

several Bronica ETRS packages available at KEH and eBay for what seem to be

very reasonable prices, and I was just wondering what I'm looking at and what

I'm looking for in one of these systems. I'd be interested to hear opinions

on prisms vs. waist level finders, lens options and quality, different film

backs, and the overall quality of the ETRS system. I'd like to go cheap, but

I know from my mechanic years that you usually get only what you pay for in

tools, so I'm wondering if the low low prices on this system are an indication

of low quality as well. Thanks!

 

GM

FWIW, I HATE those things. I've disabled autorun on both my systems because I get miffed every time I stick anything in my drive that suddenly takes over my computer... just my thoughts.

Thanks all for the replies. I am familiar with the difference in a rectilinear and a fisheye. Thanks for the link, though, I enjoyed the example shots- I've been looking for some good examples but they're not too easy to find without sifting through hundreds of web pages. I'm an amateur, so truth is I don't even need a camera, but I find it rewarding so I'm willing to sink some cheese into new equipment now and then. Anyway, I think I've got the info I need from this, thanks again guys.

That's an interesting link, thanks.

Listen to Frank and Ken, Mr. Smith... oh, and not every SLR had that 'T' feature you speak of, but most did have the 'B'ulb setting.

I am hoping to find some feedback from photographers who have used this lens

on its strengths and weaknesses, and if anybody knows what it's 'worth'

today. I know there are a limited number to be had and there is still a

healthy market in the supply v demand sense (judging by auction activities).

What I notice is that at retail the asking price is averaging close to the

retail for the newer EF 15mm, though no one seems to be biting at that price

point... not that it matters, as I can't use the EF lens on my A1 and there's

really not much sense in putting a fisheye on a 1.6 crop camera. At auction

there is only one sale listed in the 'completed' section (at $430 or so) and

one bid at $350 that didn't meet reserve. I realize this is a bit of a

nebulous question, but I'm just wondering what you think is a reasonable

price, advice on jumping vs waiting, and mostly from people who use/have used

this lens some feedback on just how much fun it really is to shoot with.

Thanks!

Funny thing with the software on this site- the shots are resized above a certain width or height, but I think it's the same number of pixels in either case... so if your shot is in portrait format, it will runn off the screen substantially before they resize it, whereas in horizontal orientation it will only take up most of the screen before it is downrezzed. I think it's just that way until the software is swapped out (heard a rumor this will happen sometime in the next few weeks to years, depending)...

Yeah, it's fisheye in the corners, and much more expensive... it'll be a nice toy soon, when I can afford to pick one up. I'm still trying to work the EF 70-200 f/2.8 into the budget for my 20D, though, so I'm going to be sitting on this one for a while unless I come across a fleabay miracle...

Has anyone used and/or compared this lens to the quality of the Canon 17mm

f/4? I'm looking for a reasonably sharp lens, and I really don't mind the

barrel distortion effect... would like to jump up to the 15mm Canon but the

$500 price tag is a bit out of budget for me right now, and they're a pretty

scarce commodity to boot. Anyway, any advice/experience with the Tokina lens

would be a big help, thanks.