keith_b1

<p>Make your own Lightroom 'User Preset' for your Fuji. After a while you should be able to notice what's missing in your Fuji files: needs a little more saturation, maybe a touch more magenta in WB, slight exposure comp, stuff like that. I did a couple of different presets for my XE1. Imo, they're better than the canned Fuji "film look" presets that Lightroom offers.<br> Import your Fuji files using your custom Develop Preset.</p>

<p>What camera?<br> I ask because my copy caused the D800 and D800E meters to underexpose(across all modes) by about 1.3 stops. Other than the exposure meter interference---which was a deal-breaker for me---it was clearly superior in sharpness, especially at the sides of the frame, to my 16/2.8 Ais and the 16/2.8AFD that I had tried before.<br> I mollified by 'new fisheye acquirement' desire by purchasing an ancient Nikon 16/3.5 K instead.</p>

<p>It's impossible to tell from the submitted JPEG.<br> X-Trans sensors will produce moiré....It's only 16MP, after all.<br> I've gotten some pronounced moiré-ing from my XE1; rarely on common scenes, but two juxtaposed layers of coarse woven material like dark green chain-link fence screening, sharply imaged, at the right distance and the X-Trans will go nuts with alternate green and magenta colored bands.</p>

<p>See below...</p>

<p>Here's what you want: 114 degrees horizontal on super 35(APSC equivalent), Brand new, and only US$32,000...<br> http://www.arri.com/camera/cine_lenses/prime_lenses/ultra_prime_8r.html<br> I looked thru an Arricam optical finder with one of these mounted once and there was no...I repeat NO...visible distortion.</p>

<p>Epson has a little dye-sublimation printer called the "Picturemate®" which prints 4x6" prints only. It's small and more portable than your 2400. Can't speak about the relative economy of the Picturemate, but in general with <em>inkjet</em> printers, smaller = more expensive because of the higher cost of ink (per volume)for the smaller printers.</p>

<p>My ais 135/3.5 is amazingly sharp close up----including on extension tubes----for a 79 dollar lens.<br /> My 135/2 ais is not as "color fringy" as some recent posters here and elsewhere seem to describe it as being. It does, by design, get slightly blurrier as it is focused closer, which is often desired for close ups of human faces. <br /> It is not and never will be the equivalent of an 135 Apo-Sonnar.<br /> Could be sample variation, or maybe they're not using lateral CA elimination in their PP software?<br> I only used a 135/2.8 ais on film; I gave it away to a friend.</p>

<p> I'll take your word for it, Peter. </p>

<p>The 14mm m43 lens cannot be a 28mm-FF equivalent, because m43 is a different aspect ratio(1.33:1) than FF and APSC(1.5:1).<br> I have the Fuji 23mm and 14mm, but am scared off by the lack of focus markings on the Fuji 18, and it's pronounced barrel distortion, which the camera magically 'corrects'....</p>

<p>The Nikon 6-element 35/2.8 K/Ai is good...on 24x36, film and digital. No guarantee it would be any good on your Nex, however.</p>

<p>"Baryta (barium oxide) coated paper should work. It's chemically inert, and just there as a brightener. Titanium dioxide is also neutral."<br> The 'Baryta" used in photo papers is Barium Sulfate. <br> Apparently, there are several different barium compounds that are commonly(and correctly)referred to as "baryta".</p>

<p>Cyanoacrylates are high outgassing materials and should not be used if there is a possibility that the outgas products could invade the interior space of the lens...you won't like the fog filter effect.</p>

<p>If you keep your entire photo collection of folders under one giant master folder, and then switch the whole shebang to a new drive, all you have to do is re-direct Lightroom(by right-clicking the newly appeared question mark next to the master folder) to find that one giant folder in it''s new location. Takes about 12 seconds.</p>

<p>"Pure IPA has the consistency of mineral oil"<br> Assuming "IPA" means isopropyl alcohol and not India Pale Ale, I have found this not to be true. I buy 99.5% iso by the gallon and find it to be more or less physically indistinguishable from 70%.<br> I have possessed an NEC 27" monitor(which has a plastic matte surface) for a few years, and I always cover it when not in use, because I'm putting off the day when I might have to clean it. A textured surface that large would be laborious to clean <em>cleanly</em>.<br> I have cleaned my 17" matte MacbookPro screen several times with distilled water and a cotton cloth...seems to work fine.<br> Glass fronted monitors are, by comparison, a piece of cake to clean.<br> </p>

<p>Be forewarned that that film stock (and all the Eastman Color Negative stocks until about 1980) reliably suffers from rather severe dye layer fading, and therefore may require a more elaborate color restoration than modern, less fade-prone films.</p>

<p><strong>XE2 is a good choice if you want access to some of the better prime lenses for mirrorless out there -- the 14, 23, 27, 35, 56 are all top-notch. the kit lens is compact but optically superior to other kit lenses, and the whole package is super svelte with the 27/2.8 pancake.</strong><br> As a user of the XE1 and the 14mm plus the 23mm, I agree with Eric.<br> Good primes are essential to keep it compact. The downside with my XE1 is the time lag of the finder, plus a few minor operational annoyances...but what do you want for $800? The newer XE2 or XT1 are probably better. Still, none of the APSC or M4/3 cameras I've seen have a display of aperture on the top deck of the camera, for me an absolutely required feature if the lens has no, or no marked, aperture ring.</p>

<p><strong>XE2 is a good choice if you want access to some of the better prime lenses for mirrorless out there -- the 14, 23, 27, 35, 56 are all top-notch. the kit lens is compact but optically superior to other kit lenses, and the whole package is super svelte with the 27/2.8 pancake.</strong><br> As a user of the XE1 and the 14mm plus the 23mm, I agree with Eric.<br> Good primes are essential to keep it compact. The downside with my XE1 is the time lag of the finder, plus a few minor operational annoyances...but what do you want for $800?</p>

<p>"Be careful lenses wearers: Read carefully the specification of this camera, the diopter adjustmemt is only -3.0 to +1.0, when other Nikon cameras have -3.0 to + 3.0."<br /> <br> The D800, D810, D4, D4S, D610. are -3 to +1 also. I don't think there has been a +3 built-in correction for a while. Like ten years. Maybe never. </p>

<p>"Be careful lenses wearers: Read carefully the specification of this camera, the diopter adjustmemt is only -3.0 to +1.0, when other Nikon cameras have -3.0 to + 3.0."<br /> <br> The D800, D810, D4, D4S, D610. are -3 to +1 also. I don't think there has been a +3 built-in correction for a while. Like ten years. Maybe never. This is not a legitimate complaint.</p> <p> </p>

<p>"Be careful lenses wearers: Read carefully the specification of this camera, the diopter adjustmemt is only -3.0 to +1.0, when other Nikon cameras have -3.0 to + 3.0."<br /> <br> The D800, D810, D4, D4S, D610. are -3 to +1 also. I don't think there has been a +3 built-in correction for a while. Like ten years. Maybe never. This is not a legitimate complaint.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Just the fact that it [i assume] automatically generates a 'finished' JPEG or a TIFF alongside the raw file would seem to be useful.</p>

<p>I've had my Fujifilm XE1 for over a year now. I change lenses fairly often, and I have never had to clean the sensor. I've gotten pieces of lint(gigantic when imaged) that I removed by blowing, but still no stuck-on dust.</p>

<p>Lightroom calls it a "Picture Package", and you'll find them in the Print Module, but, yeah...it's a composite by any other name. You can create custom picture packages, give them names and save them. </p>

<p>The current Zeiss ZF2 35/2 from f/4 onward will give an M-Summicron Asph a good run for it's money, but the Leica lens has way less distortion. <br> BTW, a friend has the 35 Biogon ZM (using it on an M9) and it's a very nice optic. I wouldn't rule it out without conducting your own comparison.</p>

<p>Decent 35mm film specific scanners can be had for under $300 new. Commercial lightboxes---even the small ones--- are relatively expensive, considering the low technology involved, but if you're on an extreme budget, you can make one fairly cheaply. Make sure you use so-called 'full spectrum' flo tubes and white translucent Plexiglas/Perspex as a diffuser. I have also done it with flash, the easiest way being to use a flash sync cord that allows communication between camera body and flash for exposure purposes--Nikon SC-29, etc. The auto-exposure TTL flash system works really well in this arrangement, with only the occasional need to retake the exposure. The only downside of the flash method is that in order to view the negs for framing and focusing, a modeling light of some sort must be rigged.</p>