bravin_neff

"PS, I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses on my RF mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS."

Funny. I now can use ALL my R, FL and FD lenses, AI, AIS and EF (yes, canon EF) on my Z mount cameras giving them new life and IS through IBIS.

 

<p>I tested a Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 12-24 DX side by side in a store once, with my D80. I did a series of shots at each full stop aperture from f4 to f11. I brought the camera home and compared the shots closely.<br>

The Nikkor was ever so slightly sharper in the corners, but everywhere else the two were essentially identical. I eventually bought the Nikkor, but I wouldn't have hesitated to use that Tokina at all. The color rendition looked the same.<br>

A couple years later I moved to FX, and it turned out the Nikkor worked acceptably well from 16mm onwards, and really well from 18mm onwards. I have heard the same thing about the Tokina.</p>

<p>I love my the F100, and feel it compliments my D700 well, except for one thing...<br>

The darn shutter and aperture dials on the F100 are WAY stiffer than the D700. That alone makes the two cameras feel a little alien to each other.<br>

But I do love that F100.</p>

<p>Clearly some AIs lenses were duds, but many of them also were serious winners. And there is also a gradation of in-between-ness throughout the range of lenses. Just as with most things.<br>

But to make the blanket statement that all those old optical formulas are easily surpassed by their modern counterparts? That is flatly contradicted by my experience, and countless others. My 105 f2.5 Ais is easily as sharp as my 300 F4 ED AFS, right from f2.5. Yeah, I'm sure someone can go out and find a dud. I've had some duds. But to then leap to the conclusion that all the old glass doesn't work well on FX is simply false. Quite a bit of it works great. Those m43 folks eat up the old glass like it's no tomorrow, with far higher pixel densities than any of the current FX cameras. And a lot of that glass is spectacular on digital. I know the Ais glass I've kept around is perfectly fine. The duds get sold off. But they don't represent all old lenses. </p>

<p>Because I like it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Anyone who believes they "need" a less efficient camera to "force" them to "slow down and be more methodical" has other issues to address, beyond the deliberate use of inefficient equipment as a "bit and bridle".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Your point is well taken, but I think the phenomenon is real albeit innocuous. That being the case, I find your list could simply have a film camera bulleted.</p>

<p>CO, definitely do a little experimenting with the 7/7ii to find "where the spot is." Greg said that his is slightly up and to the left of middle for him. On mine, the spot is slightly to the right and below the middle. This is easy to check by aiming the camera over and off a lightbulb as you watch the shutter indicator. The big jump in shutter speed will tell you where the meter is in relation to the viewfinder.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is a really interesting piece of equipment. I bought it new about 5 years ago and used it for 5 years and sold it for a price higher than what I paid for (not counting the drop in the $US value, of course).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I had a Coolscan LS-V ed. I bought it new for $550 in 2007, then sold it about 8 months later for $650.<br>

I thought I was the only with the weird appreciation thing!</p>

<p>That lens is outrageous. Awesome colors.</p>

<p>The 7's meter acts like a wide-ish spotmeter. So in a shot like the one you referenced, while a handheld meter is a good thing to have, the 7's meter could handle that situation easily as well. Either in AE or AEL mode, spot the different shades to get a sense of the overall scene's range. If that range fits in your film, then decide where you want the middle to be. Put the camera in AEL and meter of that area. Done.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As long as nobody will perform this comparison there won't be any conclusion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have stated that if one uses a drum scanner, even with 35mm, the film will be the winner hands down.</p>

<p>In other words, you have already established a conclusion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>My wish is that finally someone would perform a direct comparison under **identical** conditions:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From your text that followed, it seems like you what you want is a comparison very different from **identical**, unless that was what the asterisks were supposed to signify?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Of course you could use a drum scanner, but because this should be a fair comparison I would insist on the Nikon LS 9000. The use of a drum scanner would always make film a winner hands down, even with 35mm.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds like you are saying the film is better <em>until you add the scanner</em> in which case it might be a fair comparison except in the case of drum scanners, which merely reveals the fact the film was better all along. Why go through the comparison exercise when the conclusion is already built in?</p>

<p>"It's not really a film vs. digital test. It's more of a scanner vs. digital origination test."</p>

<p>I agree and have always wondered why more people don't take this point more seriously, though one should temper these remarks that good scanning *can get you close* to what is on the film. Going the other way, here's a comparison that everyone would object to:</p>

<p>1. Take a hunk of film and, using an enlarger, make an optical print using photoreactive paper. Say 16x20.<br>

2. Take a digital capture file of the same scene, using the same optics and so forth, and using digital projection, make an optical print. Say 16x20.</p>

<p>How would the two prints compare? Since current "off the shelf" digital projection is radically outclassed by optical enlarging, my guess is that the print originating from film would vastly outclass the digital one. But then, naturally, everyone would complain the comparison isn't fair, which it isn't...</p>

<p>You can make a realistic comparison. It's not a perfect comparison, and probably never will be, but as long as you understand the differences and variables involved, a comparison can be made.</p>

<p>Serge K, that's excellent.</p>

<p>You folks are making me salivate. When it comes to C41, I'm sort of married to 160 ProS and 160NC/VC, but I think I gotta try this now.</p>

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>I understand your problem. I don't have any solutions for you other than ones you have probably already contemplated... reinstall your windows, try the solution on a different computer, etc.</p>

<p>I will say this: the advantages that come with 64-bit computing make this worth it, if you scan frequently and/or have plans to. And obviously there are tons of other benefits outside scanning. My Nikon Scan software is smoother on the 64-bit OS and it never seems to crash now (it used to crash if I looked at it funny, under XP), plus it handles huge tiff files effortlessly now. I'm not trying to sell you on the 64-bit OS, but if these kinds of things are important to you, I would stick to it until you have success. Good luck!</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Bravin Neff</p>

<p>Mike, I'm using a Coolscan 8000 with Windows 7 64-bit. Even though my desktop computer has had Vista 64-bit on it for a while, I didn't attempt Steel Chn's method because I was having color management and other associated problems with Vista. Thus I have been using a dual boot system and ran my Coolscan and other photography stuff on the Windows XP drive via the dual boot method.<br>

<br />I have wanted to get away from XP for a while, and I really wanted Vista 64 to be the solution. But it wasn't. Then I recently upgraded the Vista 64 drive to a Windows 7 64 bit installation, and I think this may be the final solution. Once upgrading the drive (which amounted to a clean install, so keep this in mind if you are in this position), I immediately set out to attempt Steel Chn's solution. It was actually very simple and worked immediately.<br /><br />Regarding your problem with respect to having Nikon Scan not seeing your scanner. In Steve Chn's method, you don't even install drivers until AFTER you have installed Nikon Scan. He specifically mentions removing the drivers if they are already installed. So here is the sequence of events as I have understood them:<br /><br />1. Install Nikon Scan 4.03 on to your computer (note that a 64-bit version doesn't exist, so there is only one option here).<br /><br />2. Create the *.inf file that Steve Chn has supplied above. Literally copy his test into notepad and save it as "scanners.inf" to some convenient location on your computer. I used the desktop. Note that the part that you copy literally begins with the first semicolon and ends with the "end of scanners.inf" line, with all dashes.<br /><br />3. Copy the .dll file that Steven Chn mentioned, to the same exact folder location as your scanners.inf file. For me, this was also my desktop.<br /><br />4. Plug your scanner in and turn it on, so that Windows sees it and installs the drivers for it.<br /><br />5. Go into Control Panel -> System -> Device Manager and find your Coolscan. As Steve Chn mentions, right click on this and select "update driver."<br /><br />6. Windows will give you a choice as to how to update the driver. Point this to that folder that you saved the scanners.inf and .dll files. Windows will do the rest.<br /><br />If you have success, you will be done at this point. If you then launch Nikon Scan 4.0, it should see your scanner and you should be able to proceed as normal.<br /><br />Hope this helps.<br />Regards, Bravin Neff</p>

<p>These historical and psychological perspectives (no pun intended) on the subject matter are valuable and illuminating. I appreciate the comments and lessons.</p>

<p>I wanted to add another success story to Steel Chn's work. I followed Steel Chn's instructions and the whole thing worked for me on the first try. Thank you very much for your efforts and generosity.</p>

<p>That's impressive and cool at the same time. I can't help but wonder if there isn't a way to make a pinhole camera not so "stopped down." I mean, f250 to f350 and 13 minutes in daylight? Holy crap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Just for fun, pictured here is my first ever large format exposure. The camera was a home-made pinhole camera with a movable front standard and a sliding pinhole panel, permitting 20mm of shift.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could you explain how moving a pinhole replicates lens-shifts? By the way, I'm always surprised at how good pinholes can be. Do you recall your exposure time?</p>

<p>The question that's burning in my mind is: how in the heck did you scan the film on the Coolscan? To my knowledge (and I have an 8000), 84mm or so is the max for one frame. Sorry if this is off topic, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to know as well.</p>

<p>The hidden premise in Daniel Lee Taylor's remarks is that college or education is to be viewed only as a means to either a financial end or workforce end. To those that consider education useful for other things - like learning for the sake of learning, including learning abstract ideas, attaing a wider sense of historical perspective, etc. - the points about the irrelevance of RA-4 chemistry probably seem less useful than to those merely looking for entry into the workforce.<br>

I work with and know many degreed engineers. I don't know many of them that uses differential or integral calculus in their jobs, ever. Yet nearly all of them took at least 2 semesters of calculus before getting engineering degrees. If we adopt the only-useful-to-workforce-entry type of attitude, I suppose we could argue that schools ought to stop making engineers learn calculus.</p>

<p>Indrek, if I'm understanding you right, the idea of parallel verticals pre dates photography, but that once photography came around, it kind of picked up where painting (drawing, etc.) left off?<br>

<br />Are you also saying that the "look" of accepted architectural images (presumably including the parallel verticals thing) is acting as a hindrance to progress in architecture itself?</p>