DWScott

<blockquote> <p>I also understand that Fuji makes ridiculously well-built and traditional-feeling cameras at reasonable prices - they're also probably the best looking mass-market camera out there.</p> </blockquote> <p>That pretty well sums it up. People chat on the internet about the things they like. Some people like Fuji cameras, me included.<br> <br />Cameras are a luxury. I only "need" one camera, and any old 35mm SLR or camera phone would probably work. But I choose to have nicer cameras, so my choices are going to be emotional.</p> <p>I actually wanted to like the Sony products. But in person, the A6000 felt like an old cellphone. The A7 looked cool, and full frame mirrorless sounds like a dream for adapted lenses. But the camera didn't feel good in my hands, and didn't have the traditional controls of the Fuji.</p> <p>As for sharpness, I'm not sure what you mean. The xTrans seems very sharp, every pixel is usable (good thing with only 16mp.) It also yields nice color JPEGs and makes great B&W conversions. But I'm not surprised, I've really liked Fuji output since the S2 Pro.</p>

<p>The Fuji Superia 400 is the closest thing I've found for a reasonably-priced all-arounder. If you don't like the Fuji, quickly shoot a test roll of the comparable Kodak and see if you like it. Fuji and Kodak definitely have different colour palettes. There is no substitute for trying out a film, so order up some of that Agfa and give it a whirl!<br> <br />If you are being choosier about your subject/film matching, I highly recommend:</p> <p>- For portraits and people - Portra 160. I know it's expensive. It's worth it. This is 100+ years of experience making people look great, distilled into a roll of film. There is no better. I like it for landscapes too -- in post you can always add contrast and saturation.</p> <p>- For bright colours and landscapes - Ektar 100. This film is amazingly cheap for what it is. Grainless, sharp and lots of pop to the colours. It does work best with a lab who knows how to process it.</p>

<p>I used them religiously, until I tested the image quality of filter vs. no filter on a number of subjects, back to back. Yuck. It was immediately apparent (and no they weren't cheapy filters.) Took the filters off and threw them in a drawer. They might come back out if I was going to be shooting a food fight....</p> <p>Best lens protection I use is a hood. A big hood will protect lenses from most bangs and wayward fingers (as well as improving contrast and reducing flare.)</p>

<p>I much prefered the Kodak BW400CN.<br> To me, the Ilford XP2 quickly blocks up the blacks and the whites, and mid tones don't have a lot of separation. I find it un-flattering for portraits.<br> The BW400CN was smooth, grain free, excellent separation in mid tones, and lots of detail in the highlights. The colour sensitivity made it seem like you were using a yellow filter, with nice skies and clouds.<br> <br />I have looked for a replacement for the look of BW400CN since it's demise (especially in medium format.) The closest I can find is Fuji Acros 100.</p>

<p>Hi Bill,<br> <br />Not sure where you are from.</p> <p>For folks in Southern Ontario, Canada, I can easily recommend Camtech Photographic in Hamilton, Ontario. I have had them repair and CLA a number of cameras (Yashica and Rolleiflex TLRs, Fuji medium format rangefinder, Pentax MZ-S 35mm.) The work has always been excellent, with very reasonable prices. Here's a link:<br> http://camtechphoto.com/<br> I have no connection to Camtech, just a happy customer. (And hoping they stay busy, and in business, so that I can take more cameras to them.)</p>

<p>When I went mirrorless with my Fuji X-E1, I liked it so much that I assumed the Fuji would displace my Pentax DSLR gear entirely. Over the course of a year, my position moderated. The Fuji is great for some stuff, but my Pentax K5 gets the call when I need speedy AF, low light, high frame rate, and long lenses. It's a losing battle to try and shoot an airshow (or worse, model airplanes) with the Fuji. That really needs to be the K5 with a 400mm lens. And, as much as I love the compact size of the X-E1, it's not REALLY that much smaller than my K5.</p>

<p>Not being 100% familiar with Lightroom, I probably haven't been as clear as I should be.</p> <p>Editing my work in the cloud is probably more of a novelty. For personal work, being able to do quick edits on the iPad might be OK. The more useful part would be doing rating/making selects on the iPad. But it sounds like this is not as easy or seamless as I imagined.</p> <p>The more important part of these cloud features is being able to easily share Client galleries, and have their comments and selections make the round-trip back into Lightroom.</p> <p>I do really like Aperture -- I chose it over Lightroom after doing extensive testing of both solutions a few years ago. So perhaps the right solution is to sit tight with Aperture, and see what happens with the Aperture replacement and the iCloud photo integration. Currently I'm only hosting about 4 GB on Zenfolio (I am not a full time shooter) so I probably have some flexibility in what I choose.</p>

<p>Is anyone using the Lightroom 5.7 web collaboration features to provide online client proofing and portfolio hosting? I am impressed by what I read about Lightroom's features that provide mobile + web integration. Is it enough to replace other photo hosting services like SmugMug or Zenfolio?</p> <p>I currently use Aperture for cataloging and editing my photos. I subscribe to Zenfolio to host my portfolio and provide client proofing. Obviously, the demise of Aperture is a concern. I have been willing to wait and see what Apple does with Photos, but am exploring my other options at the same time.</p> <p>The cost of subscribing to Adobe's photography plan (Lightroom + Photoshop + mobile/web) would be less than subscribing to my current Zenfolio plan.</p> <p>Any thoughts?</p>

It looks underexposed. Not a big surprise considering the expanse of sky in that shot. To reliably and predictably shoot film I heartily recommend purchasing an "incident" light meter (the kind with a white dome.) An incident meter measures the light falling on your subject, as opposed to measuring the light reflected into the camera by everything in your frame. It is much easier to get a workable exposure with tricky frames like this one. In general, I like 35mm film, and I think NCPS does a good job. But 35mm will show grain, especially when under exposed. Work WITH the medium, embrace its character, and don't sweat it when it doesn't look like digital.

I updated my Mac to Yosemite and Aperture to 3.6. It seems to work just as well as ever. I might be wrong but it looks like the interface got a bit of a refresh, so I don't think it was only an update to make it compatible with Yosemite. I am hopeful that the new Photos app will preserve much of the functionality. Shame about the title though, Photos is essentially ungoogleable and unmarketable.

<p>Welcome Anand! You should find the crowd here pretty welcoming :-)<br> <br />I'm also from Toronto, and concur on the Sigma 30mm/1.4. Great lens. I am happy to use it alongside my Pentax Limiteds, it delivers great IQ.</p>

<p>Bob, I agree it could get tricky. But I think C41 is quite a bit different than Kodachrome. No-one ever had a home processing line for Kodachrome, but C41 is regularly touted as "do-able" at home. Chemicals may get harder to source, but someone, somewhere, can probably run little C41 in four years time. Kodachrome had a hard limit hanging over it.</p>

<p>The availability of Kodak's colour materials in ANY format in four years would give me pause for a long-term project. There is reason to believe that under Kodak Alaris, the committment to colour negative is strong. But if I had a four year project relying on that product, I would be inclined to purchase plenty of film at the beginning, as an insurance policy. This applies whether it's 4x5 or roll-film.</p> <p>The bigger question is whether 4x5 is viable for <strong>you</strong> on a long term project. I say this because I shoot plenty of 35mm and 120 film. I have also put together a nice Graflex Graphic View II kit: clean body, new groundglass, a stack of film holders, a 120 rollfilm back, a 3x4 Polaroid back, a couple of decent lenses. I intended to shoot the Graphic View on those days when I can enjoy myself, dedicated 100% to photography. But to date, I have not shot a single frame with the Graphic View. I always end up taking a medium format kit or 35mm kit. Because shooting 4x5 requires a level of conscious preparation (i.e. loading sheet film holders) and thoroughness that I don't need to shoot 120 or 35mm. I have grand intentions to shoot with the Graphic View; in fact I opted to not sell it when I had the opportunity recently. But as a tool for a long-term project, I would need to consider how possible using 4x5 would be for me.</p> <p>I will also add, having shot with the big Fuji rangefinders, they are a joy to shoot with. I have had good luck using them for environmental portraiture, and would not hesitate to use them for a long project. Those 6x9 negatives are big and sharp.</p>

<p>If you don't require a super fast lens, the Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 35mm f/3.5 is a very highly regarded lens.<br> I found it made focusing on the already-dim Spotmatic bodies too difficult, and so avoided it for many years. But this lens has new life adapted to my Fuji X-E1. The lens itself is tiny and well made. The images are detailed with superb contrast. Seems like a perfect companion for your Nex.</p> <p><img src="http://www.fujix-forum.com/uploads/gallery/album_1540/gallery_19920_1540_44782.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="960" /></p>

<p>Those photos are similar to cleanly scanned film prior to additional contrast being added. Similarly, "ungraded" video or cinema files have this look.<br> Normally this look is considered a bit flat. One would apply a gentle s-curve to the contrast, and in the levels nudge the black point and white point closer in. This yields a more "normal" rendering.<br> But the look of ungraded files can be quite appealing -- not what is normally expected, but appealing. I would not be surprised to find people shooting and/or processing specifically to achieve that look.</p>

<p>This is totally subjective, but on my *ist DL the highest ISO I would use was 800. On my K20D the highest I would use was 1600. On my K5 the highest I would use is 6400. The K5 is the first digital camera I have used that is obviously more sensitive to light than my own eyes.</p>

<p>Mike, I generally had NO luck using alkalines in my *ist DL. Rechargeables were ok, but I rarely got more than 150 shots from a set. So I switched to Lithiums completely.<br> <br />The Lithiums are great and really lasted a long time. The only "gotcha" was when putting a fresh set into the camera. I don't know what was happening exactly, but it seemed like the Lithiums needed to be used a bit to "start them up." When first put in, they would often show low-battery. But shooting five or ten frames with flash, and waiting a bit, the Lithiums would "power up" and be good to go for the long term.</p>

<p>Replacing a Super A, I would recommend a Pentax P3n.</p> <p>These are super cheap, but still sturdy. A P3n won't feel as nice in the hands as an LX, but it will deliver all the functionality or more. The P3n has a real shutter speed knob (not the push buttons of the A series.) It offers full Program mode shooting, like your Super A, and works perfectly with your Pentax A and M lenses. It has an actual Exposure Lock button (a feature that is missing on too many Pentax bodies.) It has a higher flash sync speed than the LX. The only "gotcha" is no manual ISO setting -- you will need to use commercial film with DX coding, or get some DX code stickers for your hand-rolled film.</p> <p>I speak from the experience of having:<br> - an LX (sold, I found it required service too often, was too expensive to carry around and use heavily, and didn't add any features that were important to me)<br> - a Program Plus (sold, it was nice but I disliked the button interface)<br> - a P3n (keeping it)<br> - an MX and a KX (keeping one or both as fully-manual cameras.)</p>

<p>My best friend has a K5ii, and I have a K5. Image quality is essentially identical between our two cameras -- which is to say very good. But it is not razor sharp like you can get from a camera with weaker AA filter (K-01 is VERY sharp) or no AA filter. I do find the K5 and K5ii files benefit from post-production sharpening.<br> The real question is about the risk of moire -- and on that topic, I can't offer any advice.</p>

<p>That's hilarious, and I totally relate.</p> <p>My first Pentax DSLR was an *ist DL in.... 2007? Right before I bought my *ist DL, I saw a husband and wife team shooting a pair of original *ist D's with full kits - battery grips, 70-200 2.8s etc. They were shooting in Kensington Market in Toronto.</p> <p>Since then, I've seen a couple of K100D's (one at Medieval Times, one at the Canadian National Exhibition), a storm-trooper K-x on the street, and a Japanese girl in New York City with a K-01.<br> <br />So that's six...</p>

I loved, and mourned the loss of, this film in 120 format. Grain free, perfect contrast, it subtly darkened blue skies and made clouds pop, and it had the best skin tones I have ever seen. I started shooting it in 35mm but knew the clock was ticking on this emulsion. I just can't get along with the Ilford XP2-- too much contrast in the darks and highlights.

<p>Good choice, I used a Yashica 12 with great results (until it fell out of my backpack and met the floor.)<br> I have also had a Yashica-Mat LM and a Rollei 2.8F. I preferred the look from the Yashinon lens, so I now only have the LM!</p>

<p>Stephen Lewis, can you tell me more about this fine tune adjustment for the speed grip? I use a speed grip about half the time, but never noticed that there was any adjustment. I just slap it on the camera (and have been lucky I guess.)</p>

<p>I have used an ETRs and an ETRsi kit for portraits since 2009. I have found them completely reliable. I have also never heard any reports of ETR's having any electronic problems.</p> <p>To my way of thinking, the electronic shutter in the ETR lenses is probably simpler and more reliable with less need of adjustment than a purely mechanical camera (thinking Hasselblad here...)</p> <p>Because I don't rely on the ETR's for paying work, I decided to not keep two bodies. I sold the backup ETRs and kept the ETRsi. I guess that's my personal faith that the ETRsi will be reliable!</p>

<p>I don't like using Ilford XP2 Super for exactly that problem -- I find that the contrast is too high, the blacks block up and the whites blow out, and there's not enough tone left in the middle.</p> <p>I much prefer Kodak BW400CN. In fact, it's my favourite black & white film. It handles extreme contrast very well, and the results on skin are very pleasing -- lots of luminous detail. I only wish they still made this film in 120 size. Oh well, I keep shooting it in 35mm and it looks so good in bright light that it almost looks like 120.</p>