yourfavephotog

Bas said:

<P>

<I>"Andrew, there is more wrong than with lack of bodies. Yes, there were a few SLRs but no "EF-S/DX" lenses, which the system would have needed badly."</I>

<P>

Both Canon and Nikon made "IX" lenses specifically designed for their APS bodies.

<P>

<I>"Add to that that APS didn't support slide film; in fact, I don't think there were any professional emulsions at all."</I>

<P>

Fuji made APS slide film for quite a few years. It certainly wasn't the best selling film on the planet, but to say that the APS format did not "support" slide film is false.

The most common cause is dirt/dust on the mirror box and/or mask. Tell your lab operator to clean it. After cleaning, the Frontier's "Pre-Operational Check" must be performed again for the system to reset itself completely.

I operate a Frontier. Every scan I've ever done looks like what is posted above. The Frontier is not a dedicated film scanner and shouldn't be used for that purpose. It's great for quick and dirty stuff. That being said, I've printed '16Base' scans up to 8"x12" (on a Frontier, of course) and have yet to see the pattern show up on a print.

<I>"Is there any way for the Frontier to make a larger index print thats easier to see?"</I>

<P>

Yes. The default templates on most Frontiers include one that has the ability to do an 8x10 index sheet.

Loblaws film is re-branded Fuji Super G and old emulsions of Superia which do not match up to the current ones. Almost all re-branded Fuji films in Canada match this same pattern. The only exception that I know of is the Black's house-brand film, which is always concurrent to the most recent version of Superia. It's also pretty cheap in multi-packs compared to the Fuji.

 

No one sells re-branded Reala.

Simon, your assertion that Dundas Square is private property is false.

<P>

The Square is a public venue, <A HREF="http://www.ydsquare.ca/faq.htm">owned by the city of Toronto</A>.

<I>G lenses won't work on AF bodies produced a couple of years ago.</I>

<P>

True of some cameras, but they work plenty fine on my <B>SEVEN YEAR OLD</B> Nikon Pronea 600i.

<P>

I concur with Ellis on this... I don't understand what all the moaning is about...

I bought a brand new Vivitar 19mm f3.8 (Yashica mount) last summer for $75USD. For my purposes, and the price, it's an awesome lens. Most everyone else here seems to have had bad experiences with this lens -- but I love mine. Is it soft? In the corners, absolutely. There's some MAJOR distortion in the corners as well... it's certainly not a tack-sharp lens, but I've made 8x10s that I think look fabulous.

<P>

The only other ultrawide that I've used is my Nikon 20-60mm IX, and it sucks some serious ass. Soft lens? This is it. *EVERY* shot (no matter the aperture, distance, or focal length) looks like I'm shooting through a block of ice. Everything is incredibly blurry. But that's neither here nor there.

<P>

Examples above and below taken with the Vivitar 19mm.

<P>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1037387&size=md">

<P>

<IMG SRC="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=1037393&size=md">

</CENTER>