nathan_wong2

It's a pretty sharp lens once you have everything in focus. However, that said, you'll have a problem getting things in focus. I've used a few different focusing screens and even the split image rangefinder is hard to differentiate focus since everything "looks" in focus. I have an ultrasonic measuring tool but it's a bit bulky. So now I resorted to using a laser measuring tool so I could nail focus on non-moving subjects. I use a digital back where I pixel peep so that could be the reason why I see objects out of focus and why I'm a stickler. I can stop down from f/4 also, which I don't do often, and that would help immensely. Again, the lens is pretty sharp and I like that I'm able to see through the lens vs. an SWC where it's kind of a guessing game in composure and focus, unless you use a measuring tool. I forgot to mention, it's heavy and pretty big. So be prepared for that too. Here are just a few photos I took with the lens. Hasselblad 40mm CF

OMG, I'm so sorry. Day late, dollar short. I purchased it from USCAMERA. It was $12.

I just received a C3 not too long ago. I ordered some precut foam from Ebay (I think the seller was in the UK), installed it when it arrived, and it was perfect.

Just an FYI. On your site where you need to approve emails and such you have a typo. "...please provide your consent to continue recieving emails from Photo.net." Receiving is spelled incorrectly.

Okay, I'll probably get flack for this, but I've been using a Gossen Luna Pro F since 1983. I have the spot meter attachment and have used it in the darkroom with the enlarger attachment. However, just last week I downloaded a free light meter app for my Android Galaxy 7. It appears pretty accurate. It's an Incident, reflective and spot meter too. Pretty nifty. So save your money if you have a smart phone and download it. Guess what my shutter speed was. I was using f/8.

I owned a Pro Back Plus for a limited amount of time about a 9 or 10 years ago. It was actually quite nice. Heavy, but nice. Kodak had discontinued the model long before I purchased it used, but I was still able to get the latest updates and manuals (I still have them on my hard drive). I agree that picture quality is really good. The only thing I didn't like was the fact was I had to use an external battery that I slung over my shoulder or clipped to my belt. I purchased a Phase One P25 back (circa 2007) just a few months ago knowing that a new Nikon DSLR was right around the corner (D850). I wanted the larger format, bigger pixels, and the color rendition for my Hasselblad. I realized that the Phase One would be an equivalent to a 12MP FF DSLR camera. Since I don't shoot professionally that's quite fine. I just wanted something for medium format.

<p>I was a little confused by this post because I never had to take the bottom plate off when the film finished winding. It's not a Leica M. However, if you've not familiar with the camera, especially with film cameras, I guess you wouldn't know.<br> As John Henry mentioned, just move the dial to M90 to flip the mirror back down. Sometimes the mirror gets stuck when the battery runs out too. As for finishing the cocking of the shutter, stop moving the lever when the film runs out. Press the little button on the bottom of the camera and then rewind the film back into the cannister, then you can finish cocking the shutter by moving the lever. </p>

<p>How do they look in a 11x14 or 16x20 optical print? That's where the difference is. Film was made for optical printing, not scanning. You'll less magnification factor when enlarging with a medium format negative than a 35mm negative. That's where the advantages of medium format came in. <br> As for the scanner, what I normally did with the V750 was scan, then do two types of sharpness with Photoshop. That basically brought you where it was really good. I apply a 172 sharpness at 1.2 or 1.3 and then a 100 or so sharpness at 1.0. <br> You need to remember, also, that 35mm lenses were always sharper than medium format lenses.</p>

<p>Sounds like we can rename the N8008(s) to Canon AE-1 Program. LOL</p>

<p>I particularly like the AF version. It does what I want it to do. <br> Here's my favorite photo taken with the lens: https://flic.kr/p/BMQf9V<br> Here are some examples of what I did with the lens. It's not just a specialty lens, but my ultra-wide angle. https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/albums/72157627247430991</p>

<p>I used a 60mm and a 120mm Makro for at least two decades. It was all I needed. Buy a sturdy tripod. I use an aluminum Gitzo. It wasn't until years later that I added a 80mm (rarely used) and a 180mm lens (the reason why I wanted a Hasselblad to begin with). I usually use the 180mm on my Nikon D810 more than the Hasselblad. It's a nice lens, but newer, more modern Nikon lenses with the same focal length are sharper. Even my 28-300 zoom (not the sharpest tool in the shed) is sharper at 180mm at f/11. However, the Nikon lenses aren't going to fit onto a 500 c/m or 553ELX (my main body) no matter how much I want them to, so they're the best lenses for the Hasselblad. <br> The 40mm is the other lens that's perfect for me, but I never picked up. <br> So here's the conversions if it helps you:<br> Hasselblad 35mm/full frame<br> 40mm = 24mm<br> 50mm = 28mm<br> 60mm = 35mm<br> 80mm = 50mm<br> 100mm = 70mm<br> 120mm = 75mm(ish)<br> 150mm = 85mm<br> 180mm = 105mm<br> 250mm = 135mm</p> <p> </p>

<p>I agree on the Hasselblad. They're so cheap nowadays it's crazy. Forget the 503CW or 503CX or even the 501. Go for a $400 500c/m or a $450 motorized 553ELX, get an 80mm f/2.8 CF standard lens for $450, and a $300 back and you have a complete Hasselblad system for $1200. I paid twice the amount just for one lens back in the day. </p>

<p>I hate when you buy something off EBay (or any online place) and the product's condition is far from what was described or pictured. It just makes me mad.<br> The best thing for you to do is to look for a local camera repair place that services Hasselblad cameras and have them do a CLA on it. If you want you can send it to Hasselblad and they'll do the work too. I had a Kodak digital back a long time ago and the back wouldn't work at times. After checking all the parts with the manufacturer of the release cables and other parts everything pointed to the 500 c/m. So I took it to get a CLA and when it came back I was just shocked how well everything worked. So much better than when I purchased it. It was quite amazing. The two flaps in the back moved so much more smoothly and much faster.<br> Hope that helps. </p>

<p>I agree with the others. Just buy them from Epson instead of going through the trouble to make your own. They're cheap enough to get. I was surprised when I had to replace my wet mounting unit that disintegrated from the chemicals (found out it's very, very similar to camping lamp fluid...in fact it's probably the same) and also a slide mount unit that broke.<br> Just go to one of these recommended sites and buy them: http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supAdvice.jsp?UseCookie=yes&type=highlights&noteoid=153590</p>

<p>The largest I printed a scanned 120 film b/w negative with my V750 is 30"x30". It looks pretty good but knowing the techniques I know now I think I could have gotten a better image today. Either way it's a good way of getting your images onto the computer. <br> The way I've been doing it today, though, is to tape your negative/slide to a diffuser (I use the white part on my lightbox) and a Hasselblad 120mm macro lens, extension tubes to bring it to 1:1 and a Nikon D810 or D700. For lighting I use a studio strobe, but have used a Nikon SB-xxx on manual setting (better for light control). </p>

<p>I took comparison photos with the D810 and D700 and found the photos were nearly identical at the same magnification. On one hand people would say Nikon failed to make the sensor better, but I looked at it as a way of Nikon being consistent with their image quality. <br> As for your photos not looking flat and lifeless you might want to change some settings, such as taking it off neutral or flat setting and setting it to standard for jpg. I thought the same as you when I first purchased the D810 but over time I found the settings that gave me the images I liked and expected. Just keep at it and you'll find it's a really, really nice camera. Certainly one of the best made.</p>

<p>When I was in high school I found a Olympus XA with a flash on top of a pinball machine. I had really wished there was some way to contact the owner so I could return it but there was no way so I kept it (thinking now, though, I could have given it to the manager of the place) and used it until the rangefinder went out of whack. It was a really nice camera and certainly one of the best made. At f/2.8 it was an okay performer (as expected), but stopped down it was pretty good. The part I didn't like was the wide angle distortion in the corners where people would elongate.<br> When the camera finally was stolen out of my sister's purse I purchased a Nikon L35 (Nikon's first venture into consumer point and shoot cameras) and I never looked back. It was a great camera that took filters. If the pop up flash popped up and I didn't want flash I just pushed the flash back down and held it with my finger. It then used slow shutter speed to take the photo. Very nice. </p>

<p>Was browsing Flickr when I saw what looked like shots from the moon. It turned out to actually be photos from the moon. They're archiving photos from the Apollo missions. Thought you'd like to see them. All Hasselblad, all the time. Many I've never seen before. https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/page1</p>

<p>I didn't buy a new AI-s lens recently. The last Ai-S lens I purchased was a few years ago and that was a 400mm f/5.6 EDIF for about $650. That's basically the only truly manual lens that I use on a regular basis. The only AF counterpart is the 80-400 zoom that Nikon has. The lens is sharp, when I get focus, but in reality I feel that the newer AF lenses, even the zoom, is better optically for the digital sensors. The 400mm EDIF was made for film and was probably pretty sharp for the day. That said, though, I won't give it up until a AF version becomes available because it's very lightweight and compact. <br /> Here's my album on Flickr of pictures taken with the 400mm lens if you're interested. Note that most of the pictures are 80% quality and not full quality: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/sets/72157627642493184<br> This one photo is the only one I have that's fullsize for your viewing pleasure. It's full frame and the second one is 100%. You can see how sharp it is. I'll include the one that I filtered with the noise reduction feature in lightroom.<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/15342147347/in/album-72157627642493184/<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/nathantw/15357494578/in/album-72157627642493184/</p>

<p>My Nikkor 400mm f/5.6 wasn't giving me ultra sharp images when I first purchased it. After some time I ended up looking down the barrel and saw the element was filled with caked on dust. I got a cleaning cloth, a long stick (chopstick) and cleaned the element. That made a world of difference and now my photos are rather sharp. Might want to take a look at that. It won't hurt and it only takes a moment of your time. </p>

<p>Wish I had known you were looking earlier. My friend just sold her 503CW. She really took care of her equipment and it showed. Someone on Ebay lucked out when they purchased it. She'll be putting a few lenses and maybe a back on Ebay. Keep an eye out for tlsullivan. </p>

<p>Hope I'm not too late to put my two cents in. I had decided to do some printing in the darkroom and hadn't bought paper in years. I decided to use some paper I had lying around. I exposed and developed normally and I found that the paper had yellowed after all the years had passed. So the whites weren't white, they were yellow-white. Never used old paper since then and always had white-whites. </p>

<p>Most of the Kodachrome processing on sites and videos that I've seen recently have focused on 8mm movie film. I hadn't seen many that was centered on 35mm film. That's why I wrote my processing experience. I shot some video so I'll make a youtube video when I get a chance. In the meantime I'm going to write up processing C-22 using black and white developer. That's pretty straightforward since I already developed a roll of 126-format film so I know what to expect.</p>

<p>I processed some Kodachrome II film I received a while ago in black and white developer (Diafine). I thought I messed up the process because it was all black and sticky when I took it out of the tank. After some research I found a lot of information on photo.net on what I could do to get rid of the black goo (rem-jet). <br> I decided to write up my trials and tribulations for future reference to someone that might find a roll of Kodachrome or Kodachrome II and would like it processed. It can be found at https://waybackman.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/developing-40-year-old-kodachrome/ .</p>

<blockquote> <p>Nathan, your images shot with the Nikon superzoom do not suck. :) I have seen "sucky" images shot with more expensive lenses, and I have my share of those.</p> </blockquote> <p>Thanks, Mary. I love lenses, but when I'm on vacation or whatnot and don't want to bother swapping prime lenses I use the 28-300. At that point I try to get as good a photo as I could make with the lens. Sometimes I have winners and sometimes I don't, but at least I got the image I wanted to take. <br> Since Shun asked why use a $2k - $3k camera with a $1k superzoom, the answer is convenience. I know I could probably get the same photo as a point and shoot at times, but I like using a DSLR. If I want to drag that heavy sucker around with a lens that's less than satisfactory to most of the photographic community, well, that's my prerogative. I find it pretty flare resistant when shooting into the sun (more so than the nano coated 24mm f/1.4G) and sharp enough for most of my purposes. Here are a couple examples: https://flic.kr/p/qU1aZm and https://flic.kr/p/qUDkts</p>