gregory_king1

<p>Tom,</p>

<p>Interesting concept. Film to digital and back to film?</p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong, though...but don't digital printouts write directly to photo paper? Isn't it still "wet" in that sense? It's just how the light gets to the paper that is different?</p>

<p>Or are there papers you can use optically that aren't compatible with digital printing?</p>

<p>Don't forget that I said the two other benefits of the zoom are the more noticeably change of perspective and framing at the wide end with a zoom, and the fact that it happens to be just as fast as the primes in this range. Those are "non-image-quality" related factors that weigh on my decision. </p>

<p>In longer lenses, primes are generally faster, and the framing is less "sensitive" to distance.</p>

<p>Will,</p>

<p>Ha, no problem. As I said, I don't believe my conclusion much either. :-) And I may see what I want to see, and/or have different needs.</p>

<p>Perhaps this is a counterpoint. Photodo gives it a worse rating than many ZOOMS, and (more surprisingly) worse than the 28 2.8...which my gut would said it's likely better than.</p>

<p>Conversely, there is no MTF rating for the 17-35mm to compare, and it gets mediocre reviews.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photodo.com/lens/Minolta-AF-24mm-f28-713">http://www.photodo.com/lens/Minolta-AF-24mm-f28-713</a></p>

<p>I think it probably comes down to two things. One is performance at aperture as you noted. I wouldn't be surprised if the 24mm worked well at f/8...I seem to recall it (and the 20mm) being touted as sharp stopped down. The other (as noted for the 17-35) is that the edge distortion on the zoom is almost certainly much worse than the 24mm. But that gets cropped off on APS.</p>

<p>For FF, I'd be very very surprised if the 24mm wasn't the noticeably better performer overall.</p>

<p>I agree. I've confirmed mirror slap around 1/15 is murder on the RZ67. I can't replicate it on my DSLR.</p>

<p>I prefer focusing with the center spot on one eye, then recomposing. The focus will lock with a half-press. As I mentioned, it isn't necessarily as accurate, but for me it's simpler. Obviously, it won't work well on a tripod. ;-)<br>

That's part of the sucky part about AF cameras, and DSLR's specfically. The focus screen isn't designed for manual focus. You are forced to use (and trust) the focus indicators. Old manual cameras had focusing adds like split images and fresnel lenses and matte screens to make it MUCH more obvious what was in focus and what wasn't. Unfortunately, they "steal" light and make the viewfinder darker, so the AF cameras got more transparent (and more useless) screen designs.</p>

<p>There are nine or so focus points in the viewfinder. Any ONE of them will be selected to be "in focus". Everything else on that plane will be in focus, depending on your depth of field. Your issue sounds like you used too large an aperture, since putting the eyes in focus would have also made the nose go out of focus</p>

<p><br />"Wide" surveys all the focus points and selects the one that is the closest (I think) or possibly uses some other criteria.<br>

<br />"Spot" uses the center point. I use this one, since it's predictable. But focusing on what you want and recomposing can add error, or lead to problems with unsuspecting shooters who borrow the camera.</p>

<p>"Local" uses whichever you select (using the joystick).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To combine some of Brad's and Craig's comments...</p>

<p>The 1/f rule should help you in MF. However, if you are shooting at a higher resolution, and using it...you won't see any benefit. You'll need to be extra sharp to use that extra resolution, and your shutter speed on the MF may actually need to be the same or even faster.</p>

<p>For example, say a 40mp medium format shot at 80mm provides a similar image to a 21mp FF image at 50mm. Both have similar pixel sizes and are shot from the same distance, so camera shake at the pixel level would be comparable at the same shutter speed (1/50). Print at the same size, and it should be a wash.</p>

<p> But the MP camera puts twice as many sensors on target, so to take advantage of that extra resolution, you'll need to be that much more stable. So, 1/80 would still be the rule of thumb. Use a higher density sensor, and the shutter speed goes up accordingly.</p>

<p>Oye, that made my head hurt. Maybe I screwed up the math, but you get the point. Pixelpeeping may be getting you into trouble. </p>

<p>Well, ISO should be standardized...so no, ISO100 on any camera, film or digital, should be identical. Some digital cameras are a bit more optimistic, but I'd hope the MFDB would be accurately calibrated.</p>

<p>The physics of the larger sensor does actually gather more light, so technically, you should get slightly better noise performance from the larger sensor at ISO100 than the smaller sensor. But, there are too many other variables involved to compare directly, like sensor gain, resolution, noise reduction, etc.</p>

<p>On the flip side, the larger sensor will generally be shot at smaller apertures due to the design of the lenses, so that could be your problem. Your 35mm may have larger apertures available to it.</p>

 

<p>It means you are in bracketing mode. Check the ring selector beneath the right control wheel. Move it clockwise back to single shot mode (with the rectangle icon).</p>

<p>Robert,<br>

<br />It's not so much that the 24 isn't sharp, it's that the 17-35 is sharper wide open. Yes, I was surprised by the test, and it was against a nice 24mm RS. I also have tested an older original version 24mm against a $40 Sigma 24mm 2.8, and the Sigma was sharper. So I'm 0/2 in testing KM 24mm lenses. I've had the 20mm too, and it takes great shots. But it's not worth the $$$. </p>

<p>I'm a prime snob, and have nearly every other prime there is (that isn't white ;-). But the 17-35mm has saved me from needing the 20mm and 24mm. </p>

<p>Maybe because I don't do landscapes, the distortion and edge performance isn't a concern for me, so I don't notice it not being there. And I'm on a cropped camera, so that could say a lot, too.<br>

<br />Do you normally use ithe 24mm stopped down? The consensus seems to be that it does better there. <br>

But to me, that kills the advantage of primes. They should be smaller, faster, and sharper than zooms. In the 20-35mm range, the physics allows us to have zooms that are not significantly slower (in aperture), and by most accounts, on par in sharpness. And if you have to carry 2-3 lenses, what have you saved in size/weight? </p>

<p>It's like a "doldrums" for primes, if you will. Even the 20mm and its "mustache" distortion seems to be something you'd expect only on a zoom.</p>

<p>I agree the NEX-5 may be a good consideration. I'm waiting to see if a NEX-7 comes around with SSS. Not sure I could settle for using my MC/MD lenses without a good flash AND without image stabilization. :-)</p>

<p>2.8-4</p>

<p>I find that the 17-35 is actually better than all those lenses. In that range, it's either 2.8 or darn close, and the primes aren't good wide open. So, you don't lose much other than some size and weight (as you noted).</p>

<p>The 28 2.8 is average all the way around. The 28 2.0 is better, but expensive and rare.</p>

<p>The 24mm is also pretty weak wide open, although reportedly better than the 28mm. I tested the 17-35mm against it and the zoom was sharper wide open, at least in the center. Perhaps it's softer in the corners and has more distortion, but I didn't check. I don't worry about that too much. :-)</p>

<p>Lastly, the 20mm is generally regarded as worse than the 24mm, both in sharpness and distortion. Most people seem to stop it down to f/8, which doesn't do much for me. I can do that on my 17-35mm and get great results, too. Plus, the 20mm isn't small.</p>

<p>So, the 17-35mm replaces all three of those lenses, and has a free 35mm thrown in to boot. :-) At the wide end, I find the zoom much more useful. I have the 28 2.0 and 35 1.4 as well and use them when I need extra aperture and sharpness.</p>

<p>Well, the first thought is to contact the seller. You shouldn't be stuck with a bad camera.</p>

<p>Second thought...can you tell if the shutter is firing? It should be obvious.</p>

<p>Third thought...you can shoot emergency 1/400 mode without power. See if that works.</p>

<p>After that, I get confused. ;-) You seem to have found a cheap shutter, and I haven't heard of them going bad often, so I'm not sure I agree with the expensive/proprietary bit. Did he claim they are hard to replace, even if you brought him the parts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yep...and many people say it's not much more hassle. Me...I'm not too good at manual focus, and I'm not convinced the accuracy of the focus confirm light is good enough for shallow DOF work.</p>

<p>I think the last time I used my 35mm manual I had it on a tripod for seated groups with flash, so I had no focus or aperture issues to deal with. MUCH cheaper at <$200 than spending $500-600 on an AF version.</p>

<p>The alternate screen (about $80) helps with manual focusing. Otherwise, you're forced to use the focus confirmation indicator, because the focusing screen is optimized for light transmission and not focusing. There is no split image indicator or fresnel lensing, for example.</p>

<p>The other disadvantage is that you must use stop-down metering. So if you want to focus wide open, you have to roll the aperture back to the desired stop before shooting.</p>

<p>I just picked up a 1000s for less than the price of the focusing screen to try with my manual lenses (30 fish, 35, 45, 80 1.9, 110, 200, and 300) to see if it improved my ease of shooting. Plus, it'll let me grab a 70mm leaf to shoot at 1/500.</p>

<p>I tried replacing the focusing screen in my DSLR and got so much dust in there that I'm leery to do it on my 645AF.</p>

<p>Anthony,</p>

<p>Nope, not so. The needle starts at the bottom, when off or with a dead battery. When turned on (tested with two good batteries), the need goes to the top (overexposure).<br>

<br />Any other ideas?</p>

<p>I have the opposite problem. Just bought a 645 with a CdS prism, but the exposure needle pins to the top of the range and doesn't respond. The battery should be fine, since it moves to the top.</p>

<p>Nothing I can do will get the meter to respond. Any ideas?</p>

<p>Greg</p>

<p>I'm interested in this answer as well. I'd have expected the same result as you did...similar noise at similar resolution. But perhaps the binning algorithm on your display isn't properly "quieting" the noise. Hmmm...</p>

<p>I asked a similar question regarding the A850 and comparing it to a lower resolution digital back with the same sensor size. In that instance, the MFDB has no AA filter, so it's much sharper than the A700 when viewed at 100%. I would expect the A850, having the same size (but newer tech) 24x36 sensor with 2x the resolution to have better than 2x the "sharpness" of the A700 when viewed at 50%. </p>

<p>I don't think any of us expected the AF system to be that good. In fact, I'm surprised it's even classified as "better". </p>

<p>Then again, it's not mandatory to have faster AF just because you have faster FPS. You just get more blurry frames per second...but it's not any "worse" than shooting at 3fps. I'd say just spraying and praying at the faster rate means you're more likely to get SOMETHING in focus. </p>

<p>You don't always shoot with subjects coming at you, after all. There's a trick called "panning" you may have heard of. ;-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I've only shot a couple rolls, and never noticed it...but I've read that others have IIRC.</p>

<p>You didn't notice it before?</p>

<p>Ah, good point. I don't have one, so I can't be sure....but you're right, nothing shocks me with them. Glad they seem to have stopped the shenanigans with the A55. You can be certain IT has no mirror slap. ;-)</p>

<p>There's no "drawback". The only reason for 2 sec delay is to allow mirror vibrations to dampen out. If the mirror is up already, then yes, there is no vibration.</p>

<p>No, the only difference is the country of origin. Maxxum was a US term. Non-US cameras were marketed as Dynax, but I don't recall ever seeing a lens with "Dynax" written on it.<br>

<br />I have seen, however, lenses without "Maxxum" written on them. So perhaps lenses kitted with Dynax cameras had no "name" on them.</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>You are correct except for one thing. You could probably buy FIVE new ones for the price of a repair. ;-)</p>

<p>Best bet is probably to start over. What are you using the camera for?</p>

<p>I might have an xi camera lying around I can give you.</p>