erik

You need this:

http://www.sureshotelph.com/comparison/selectedcamera.html

 

Sadly it's APS. But it looks right for your needs if you are willing to live with that.

For optics, you might wish to look at some of the telescope sites (www.astromart.com

is my preferred one). There are a variety of manufacturers there who make American

stuff. Notably, there are also quite a few sources taht have arrangements with ex-

soviet optics labs in Asia, which seem to produce quality optics at significant

discount; most of them do custom work i hear though you may need a minimum

order. APM, for example, or TEC, might be a place to check--and see the other

Astromart links as well.

Three options:

 

1) Plan on going to a photo store daily and paying them to transfer your images to CDrom. Pain in the ass, but cheap.

 

2) Use the money that you were going to spend for a special CF rader/hard disk, and just buy some more CF cards. If you're going through 256 per day, you can make it for 4 more days with an additional gig, which costs $280 at adorama (512m cf=$140). somewhere mid trip you'll still have to find a photo place, or computer cafe, and burn to CD.

 

3) a cheap-but-functinoal used laptop PC can be had for

somewhere in the $300 range (or occasionally even cheaper), maybe a 400Mhz Celeron with a 3-4G hard drive. Don't stop reading yet, I'm not suggesting you keep your pictures on it. You won't want to trust it with your pictures, i assume...BUT for an additional $200 or so you can get a Firewire external 120GB hard disk drive. It's more useful than the card-reader versions, you get a PC to go with it (just for the hell of it you can always check your email or look at a picture full screen), etc etc. And though the PC is used and theoretically less trustworthy, you don't needto leave your images on it for long. When you get home the Firewire drive will hotplug into any modern PC.

Wow. I don't shoot LF and given these replies I probably never will--if I had a

company act like this I'd get my money back and run screaming, and many people

here seem to think this is normal/acceptable! jeez.

 

Not to be too agressive, but I can't resist making a suggestion here though some may

not like it:

 

you don't like the way he does business, but you want the company in existence. Ok.

Stop buying his cameras until he shapes up. Tell everyone else to stop buying his

cameras to do the same; make a big effort. Write letters to photo mags.

 

One of two things will happen: 1) he'll shape up (and everyone is happy), or 2) he'll go

out of business. If he does, THEN the entepreneurs can buy him for cheap and

reopen--as in #1, everyone's happy (except Wisner of course).

 

finally, I might point out: one thing I know is that just like money, a camera-in-6-

weeks is WORTH MORE than camera-in-6-months. When you pay for a 6-week

camera and get a 6-month camera with no additional 'late bonuses', you're all being

overcharged. not to mentin the interest.

 

Ok, I'll run back to the 35m forums now...

I think you guys are sending Ann on a walk down an unnecessarily complex road.

 

It all depends on what kind of advice she wants to get (ann, fill us in...?)

 

If you're looking for general advice on composition, depth of field, subject selection,

etc, then you CAN get that information out quickly and easily with a simple, unedited

scan. It won't look perfect, but if someone wants more detail, THEN she can scan and

tweak it a bit in Elements or the like--or send the odd snail mail print to someone

who wants a closer look.

 

The attached file, for example, is a 'quickie' completely unedited scan of an old print,

done on a scanner which I got, along with a printer, "free" for $25 shipping from

Earthlink a couple of years ago. it's VERY low end :) And it's not a good shot--

though I dearly love the subject. But it's a good enough scan for you to _recognize_

that it's not a good shot, and to give comments on it as a result. if that's all Ann

needs, a scanner with an email button should suit her just fine.<div></div>

you know, I *did* know that (as I own a few one touch lenses), just posted backwards

lol. I'm not sorry I sold my one touch 80-200 2.8 though as I would always

accidentally zoom as I focused.

Having been on a 2 week Alaskan rafting trip once, i'd agree not to take your SLR,

Sort of. You forgot a few good options:

 

1) buy (new/used) a submergeable water resistant P&S--not necessarily a cheap one.

they will often be able to be submerged up to 10-15 feet and will clearly be fine

rafting. It'll have better exposure control than a cheapo unit which you need for

shooting e-6

 

2) buy a better quality P&S that is weather resistat (basically, pretty splashproof). You

can get specialized plastic cases that reduce quality only slightly and make it

waterproof. Use the cases on rainy days and in whitewater; take it out when you're

just drifting along.

 

3) Rotz Camera used to offer a no-explanations warranty. Expensive? Yup. Worth it

for someone (like me) who wants to go odd and camera-unfriendly places with their

equipment? In a second. That lets you get a decent P&S--if it dies en route you'll get

a new one (though you run the risk of having it die at the beginning of your trip).

 

4) rent a fullblown UW SLR housing from a dive place (or buy one used and resell). I

believe they work above water and clearly won't let your stuff get wet--though they

are big and bulkier

 

Hmm. there are more options but I gotta go to sleep. good luck!

Hmm, i'm trying desperately to recall the link.... drat. Anyway, I'm pretty sure

(others, please help me on this?) taht the 3.4 DMAX claimed by Epson is actually a

theoretical DMAX, established simply by the x-bit scanning.

 

Hmm. never mind. I think I remembered taht the theoretical DMAX is log(2^(bit

depth)) which for a 48 bit machine (16 bits per channel) is 4.8. So if you ever see a

4.8 claimed dmax for a 48 bit baby you KNOW it's a lie in reality.

 

The 3.4 DMAX is about what you theoretically get for a 12 bit machine. I'm not sure

of the Epson bit depth but that may answer your question.

 

Erik

as far as I have ever known, one-touch and 2-touch refer to focusing and zoom

controls. if you have a single large collar which you push/pull to focus and _also_

turn to zoom, you have a 1 touch lens. if there are separate zoom and focus

controls, you have a 2 touch lens.

Go to your local Wal-Mart and buy a clear plastic clothes storage box large enough to

hold your scanner. Put the lid in storage. If you cut a U notch in the back (for your

cables) and leave it over the scanner, upside down on your desk, it will drastically

reduce dust....there's a lot more dust in the air than most people think, and a box like

taht will keep it off your scanner. If you're really anal--ahem, I mean 'careful'--you

could even replace it each time as you're scanning... if you're doing high res batch

scans of slides this might actually be worthwhile. the plastic box won't 'shed' dust

like a cardboard versino will; wipe the inside every few days. Oh yeah, it also

prevents you from putting your coffee on your scanner by mistake :)

Is Microphen a standard forum-moderator developer, and can it be used for non-

forum-moderator shots (in moderation, of course)?

Buy the cheapest flatbed scanner that'll fit your prints--that should cost you less than

$100. it won't scan LF negs but will do a great job for computer-displayed images off

prints. When and if you do a lot of scanning, or decide you want to scan negs as well

for sure, you can upgrade--but since scanners get cheaper/better every month,

there's no point in buying big right now. It's just a waste of money for a use like you

describe.

hmm. the film scanners you listed are twice the proce of the Canon 9900f; is your

range that wide?

 

I read taht review a couple of times. the only worry I have is that of all the things

where subjectivity comes into play, software analysis seems about the worst. So I'm

not sure that it would keep me from buying the unit. to be hones, i'd LOVE to buy

it--but my wife won't let me :)

 

Personally, if you're scanning pictures slides and negs, I'd take the 9900 and FARE

2.0--good dust reduction that'll even do Kodachrome film--over the better Epson

software any day. But neither can touch a film scanner. Why? Size, basically, and

transport issues, and cost--if you have $500 to buy a new portrait lens, you'll get a

better lens in 35mm than in MF. When you optimize design for a small area you can

get higher accuracy in both resoluton and color fidelity than when you have to try to

apply it to a larger area. you can design your lenses differently. You can use smaller

gearing in your transport. And so on.

 

Of course, Murphy's law applies: If you get a flatbed, you'll immediately get requests

for above-3200-dpi scans to make into posters, or you'll immediately realize that all

your archived slides have a crazy high DMAX and the flatbed won't do it. OTOH if you

get a film scanner, you'll immediately start wanting to scan prints, documents, and

medium format.

the epson 3200 only does 12 25mm negs? I think the Canon 9900f will do 24, if I'm

not mistaken, and it's about the same price and I'm sure it has the equivalent quality

(and also has FARE unlike the Epson). Check the Canon site. that would, obviously,

make things twoce as fast.

Hmm. I figued I'd weigh in as a comparatively inexperienced photog.

 

Imagine I rate a picture. I look at it and say 'well, truthfully I simply don't like it. It's

too (insert one: sharp, fuzzy, ugly, pornographic, boring, etc)'

 

then someone else, some photo professional, comes along and says 'ah, ugly subject

matter, but outstanding use of the PC lens combined with the XYZ developer;

technically gorgeous'

 

Now, if you want to wear the emporor's clothes, you could say my opinion is worse

less than theirs--or nothing, if you like. Reminds me of an art major defending a

Warhol print: when confronted with a viewer who found it childish and ugly, he

responded 'well, you just don't know art'.

 

but if you choose to do that, you might as well post a photo and say "can only be

appreciated/reviewed by those who 1) are pros, 2) share my standards of visual

appreciation, 3) see what i am trying to do, and 4) prove that they too are open to the

occasional bad review"

 

I have seen some stunning photos here and some truly hideous ones. Do you

honestly consider me (or anyone else in my position) unable to judge the difference

merely because I can't match the stunning ones?

 

and finally... catch me if I'm wrong, but nobody seems to complain when relatively

inexperienced people post GOOD reviews ;)

Call your present homeowner's insurance (or renter's insurance, whichever you have).

they should be able to provide you with an insurance rider as an ADDITION TO your

policy-not a separate one.

Unless you plan to be doing much backup while travelling, you're better off getting a

cd-rw drive and saving the money for an external dvd burner. you can get one as

fast as the Superdrive for about the difference between the CD and superdrive. And

they get cheaper (and faster) weekly, it seems. An external unit obviously can also be

handy if you have more than one computer, or owe a friend some favors.

 

Remember, the Apple internal drives are indeed outstanding engineering--crazy thin

and front loading--but they're just not as fast as the full size models you can get in

removeable drives.

 

Oh yeah--and when/if you want to copy any cds or dvds, it's a hell of a lot faster to

have 2 drives; the combo drive can READ dvds even though it doesn't burn them, and

firewire can easily keep up with the input.

Powerbook will definitely be faster than ibook--not only is the g4 an improvement, but there's backside cache issues as well. there are also differences in video RAM, which affect not only display on the built in screen but also external screens. a Powerbook is a lot smaller, too.

 

smalldog.com has older versions; you can still sometimes get a new or refurbished older model (either power- or i-book) for significant savings.

 

For example, a refurbished 15" PowerBook G4/667 256/30gb/Combo Titanium 32mb VRAM runs $1799 and comes with a full Apple warranty. It's a nice machine (actually i have that exact version; paid a lot more for mine though).

 

It's a nice machine, BUT but to tell the truth, for the same price you can get this:

 

$1030: iBook G3/600 12in 128/20gb/Combo refurbished full Apple warranty

 

$ 245: LaCie 120gb 7200RPM FireWire new d2 Case

 

$ 150: Kingston 512mb PC133 SO DIMM; total memory 640 MB

 

$ 130: Spare battery

 

$ 250: LaCie Electron 19 blue III 19in electron (no blue hood) refurbished (good for PS work at home) Or about the same price for a 3 year warranty, or a smaller 5GB ipod, or...

 

-------

$ 1805 total.

 

Can't go wrong either way.

also, sometimes you can have the thumb film winder just-not-quite-all-the-way wound, which causes taht problem.

 

you can find a lot of online info by searching nikon f3 under Google.

Hard drives are great--they're fast.

DVDs are great too--they hold tons of data.

But for the best combination of price, portability, and storage safety sense, you should still go with CDs... $0.25-0.50 or so each. A new external Firewire or USB2.0 drive will burn a data CD in 4-5 minutes (!). You can afford to send CDs to friends, family, or potential clients--which gets pricey fast with DVDS. And for better or for worse--depending on your archiving viewpoint--it lets you split up things into smaller blocks to filing. Also, unlike a hard drive, there's nohing to be lost (except another quarter) if you want to duplicate any special images and have 2 backups. Seeing as even the best hard drives can be damaged by surges, water (got sprinklers where you live?), etc, CDs are still a more accurate storage medium.

 

If you're ina hurry though, and and willing to sacrifice a small amount of risk in echange for vastly improved transfer speed and easy, bulk-searchable data accessibility, get a Firewire hard drive.

Buy yourself any of these:

 

1) an 8x10, older model, heavy wooden camera, prefarably with an ancient, heavy, and fungus covered lens.

2) a misaligned-finder rangefinder camera

3) a point and shoot with 2 second shutter lag (don't laugh, i had one once)

 

 

Keep it for a week. Sell it. Then you'll LOVE whatever you get next. i used to use a Maxxum, full auto. Loved it. then it got stolen and I replaced it with an f3. Love it. My picture taking was never pro level and never will be, but my fun hasn't stopped yet.

 

As long as you don't get a truly horrible camera, your fun won't stop either.

As alongtime PC user who switched to Mac in August, I'd say the Mac is great.

 

First, make sure you check www.smalldog.com for Mac prices. It's great.

 

OSX is a robust system. I'm not sure which version of Safari the unhappy poster was using. It's been redesigned yet again (though still technically a beta) and I've had no problems in continual surfing.

 

As for compatibility, I think the Macs beat PCs hands down for interface issues. It's true, however, taht some companies don't have their most developed drivers available for OS X. however, taht situatino continues to improve almost daily. And let's face it, Windoze connectivity really isn't all it's cut out to be. Mac actually provides plug and play without the annoying security measures.

 

normally it might not be the case that a DP G4 would be faster than a Pentium, but I think with the Photoshop stuff it should be true. the different architecture and OS make a big difference in how the speed is used; the more recent updates to cache help a lot too. Make sure you get the best graphics card you can, of course.

 

It may be that the Minolta software doesn't work as well for OS x (or it may not; updates are frequent). But Vuescan works, and is widely regarded as being great software.

 

I may have been a pc-only tech for years, but you couldn't pay me to switch back. I don't think you'll regret it for an instant.

 

(my best moment? When I hot-plugged a 2 year old DV camera, no drivers, and had it know what camera and work perfectly. hee hee. try THAT on my old PC... not)

I had assumed they had redesigned FARE to use a different wavelength, which would include Kodachrome film--maybe because a certain wavelength transmitter dropped in price...? I dunno. It sure would be nice. I mean, "ir" covers a pretty broad spectrum. Surely there's SOME wavelength that isn't scanned for visuals, but will pass through kodachrome emulsion? We'll see.

...who knows which is right? :)

 

1) The Press Release (find full text at http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/03_feb_scanners_pma.html):

 

"....FARE level 2 helps deliver high quality scans from damaged originals and increases support adding compatibility for Kodachrome film..."

 

OK, that sounds good and as lot of my old family slides are on Kodachrome it might be worth waiting for the next generation F4000... BUT:

 

----------------------

 

2) My email to Canon and their response:

...Dear Erik Hammarlund,

 

Thank you for your inquiry.

 

Unfortunately like FARE 1.0, FARE 2.0 does not support Kodachrome or

black and white monochrome film....

 

-------------------

 

I wrote back pointing out the press release and asking for some clarification. We'll see what I get.

 

-Erik

I always get a message:

 

These are discussions in which there has been a contribution since your last visit, which we think was 03/10/03. that being some time ago and my visits being near-daily, I know taht 3/10 ain't true...

 

I have tried logging out, rebooting, logging in. Is this a live-with thing, or is it easy to fix?

 

thanks,

 

Erik