steve2k

". . . would the Gitzo 1127 be okay, or should I up that to the 1227?"

I can't tell you about the Slik since I don't own one. However, I wouldn't even think about the 1127 with an 80-400 on a D100. Even the 1227 would be a compromise. I would look at the 13xx series as a bare minimum for a stable platform for this setup.

I'm not saying you can't physically mount the setup on an 1127 (heck, I can put my 10D with a 70-200 and 1.4x teleconverter on my Velbon Maxi 343e), but if you're not satisfied with the stability of the Slik 713, then I seriously doubt you'd be satisfied with the 11xx series, or even the 12xx series.

Like you said, when it comes to 'pods: light weight, stiffness, low cost - pick any two.

Of course, YMMV.

Actually, I think he is a little too late to order from B&H (or many other NYC-based camera stores). They're closed for Passover until May. You might try Kirk Enterprises, I think they carry the Laird Rain Hood. Otherwise, I've used Zip Loc freezer bags.

Good luck

The laboratory frames (found in the chemistry department for holding lightweight items e.g., burettes, thermometers, rings, etc.), are probably not rigid enough for your application. My guess is the frames used by the music department also would not be especially rigid, more likely placing a premium on lightweight/portability (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

I would agree with the poster who suggested the Bogen Super Clamps and an assortment of pipes (1.5" diameter, Schedule 40, galvanized should be plenty rigid), or better yet the aluminum backdrop supports from people like Bogen, Photoflex, etc.).

Actually, after re-reading your post (and your budget), I think maybe a camera stand would be something to look at. Plenty of rigidity, flexibility, and I believe some have accessory side arms to allow you to cantilever the camera over the object.

Try:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=4985&is=REG

Good luck.

The Gitzo 1325 is one of the carbon fiber version of the 3-series tripods. It does not come with a center column, the 1327 comes with the rapid column. Personally I got the 1327 then took the column off when I added the leveling base. I think the 1340 is the aluminum equivalent, but don't quote me on that.

The A-S model that most people use is the B-1. Personally I haven't had any problems with it locking up. It isn't the lightest (look at the Acratech for that), but the quality is impressive - especially compared to the old Bogen ballhead that soured me on ballheads for many years.

Try here for the Gitzo:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=271642&is=REG

and here for the A-S B-1:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1908&is=REG

Good luck.

I agree about the Gitzo, but with a 100-400 and teleconverter looming on the horizon, I wouldn't look at anything less than a Gitzo 13xx, and since weight isn't an issue, you could get the aluminum version to save some $$$ (sorry - don't have the model numbers handy).

Now about the ball head, if you only want to buy one once, then go with an Arca Swiss (although people could argue the merits of the Kirk, or RRS, or Arcatech) - either way it'll blow the better part of your current budget all by itself. Of course, you could spend quite a bit less and get a Bogen/Manfrotto or Giottos (or something similar that costs closer to $100), but you're likely to eventually get frustrated, and you're apt to end up with the A-S anyway (at least that's the way it works for me).

In the end, it's all up to you and your individual budget. With the wisdom of having 20-20 hindsight, I wish I'd just bit the bullet and bought the Gitzo and A-S combo a long time ago. I'd have spent less overall, and maybe I wouldn't have a closet full of tripods and heads gathering dust (but then again, maybe I still would).

Of couse, YMMV.

Good luck.

I consider myself extremely fortunate. I have a local camera store

(LCS) that is extremely good. In particular there is one salesman

who goes above and beyond the call to educate the customers, not

just make a quick sale. They carry a wide seletion of Canon and

Nikon, film and digital, some medium format equipment, fair

selection of lighting equipment, tripods, and camera bags. They

even carry darkroom equipment and supplies. When I finally took the

plunge and decided to purchase my medium format equipment, they

special ordered it for me, and wrote the invoice using the latest

B&H ad to price the equipment.

So my question is this: How much is this worth? Obviously when I

purchased my medium format gear, there was little financial

incentive to mail order the equipment (other than saving the sales

tax, which would be partially offset by the shipping costs).

Likewise when I purchased my Canon 10D, the cost was within a dollar

or two of the lowest I've seen advertised. Of course, there are

some items (mainly lenses and accessories) where they are higher

than B&H, Adorama, etc.

Now, I believe in fair play, and that means I want to support my LCS

to the greatest extent possible (including referring friends to the

shop), 'cuz I want them around in the future. So if their price

on lenses and accessories is 10% more than B&H, no problem, right.

20% more; still not a problem. 30% more? 40% more? Now we're

getting into serious dollars, especially when we start talking about

those tasty white lenses. So where do you draw the line? I know

some people who would mail order just to save the sales tax, but

like I said, somehow, that just doesn't seem fair. So what is a

reasonable cut off point? Is it a percentage value, or a straight

dollar limit?

Like I said, I want to support my LCS, but unless I can claim them

as a dependent on my taxes, I have to be realistic about how/where I

spend my photography dollars.

Thanks for any input.

I have a 30 GB Delkin Devices Picture Pad. I think it's the same as the (Nixvue mentioned above), just branded differently. It works great on extended trips just like you described. My only complaint was battery life, but as long as I could recharge it every night or two, even that wasn't a problem. A huge bonus is that it will function as a USB device, and when my hard disk got corrupted a couple of weeks ago I was able to immediately back up my essential files onto the Picture Pad. That feature alone just paid for itself.

Good luck,

steve

Actually if you read the RRS catalog, you'll note that they recommend not using a ball head (too complicated and not necessary) on a monopod. They recommend the use of an Arca-compatible clamp (theirs, naturally) along with a Bogen swivel (can't remember the model number off the top of my head). Check out the above link to see RRS' article on monopods.

Good luck,

steve

Are you sure you need a tripod? It sounds like all your shooting is in your studio (correct me if I'm wrong). If so, I would get a studio stand and geared head before a Gitzo and the Arca. don't get me wrong, I have a Gitzo 13xx and Arca B1, and it's great in the field or on location, but in a studio I would much prefer the more-easily controlled movements, and rock-solidness of a studio stand. Of course, YMMV.

Re: the plates. RRS makes camera- and lens-specific quick release (QR) plates that fit the Arca QR clamp. Another source is Kirk Enterprises. Both are supposedly vastly superior to Arca's offerings. I have the RRS plates (for 35 mm, digital, and MF), and couldn't be happier.

Good luck.

steve

Sounds like a Cullman to me. Can't remember the exact model.

Good luck,

steve

The 180 f/2.8 takes 95 mm filters. Scneider makes a screw-in lens hood that fits this lens (as well as the 100 f/2.0).

I don't believe the Rollei Compendium hood fits since it's a Bay 60 mount(IIRC), so some vignetting likely would occur. Of course, I'm only speculating, since I don't own the compendium hood.

Good luck,

steve

Contax makes a 95 mm snap cap that works very nicely (assuming the filter you're putting on has front threads). IIRC I got mine from B&H.

Before that I was using those neoprene "Hood Hats" (I think they were called). Not bad, but not as nice as the Contax lens caps (wish they said "Schneider" though).Good luck,

steve

My recommendations, in order of preference (IMHO):

1: Hire a pro to shoot the wedding and enjoy it as a guest. I could be mistaken, but it doesn't sound like you have shot a lot of weddings before. I consider myself an "advanced amateur", and have shot a number of weddings, but when friends/relatives ask me to shoot theirs I ALWAYS recommend that they hire a pro that (a) does this work for a living (b) has all the equipment (including backup equipment), and © is not as emotionally involved. I'm not saying don't bring a camera, but hire a pro for the "money" shots, enjoy the wedding, and take your own photos as time allows. This would be much less stressful and produce a much more enjoyable wedding.

2. Use the S2 (assuming you have lenses/flash, etc.). The lighting conditions don't sound really conducive to the two lenses, changing filters, a relatively small flash, etc. The S2 (from what I've read) is well-equipped to handle the variable lighting quality and quantity (you can change ISO based on conditions of shot - even better than changing backs on the Pentax, if you could).

3. My last choice - use the Pentax. Stock up on color print film for its wider exposure latitude. If you know the shots will be under tungsten lights, by all means use tungsten-balanced instead of daylight film. You'll need a filter if you're shooting daylight under flourescent, I think one manufacturer calls it an FL-D. Similarly, you'll also need a filter if you're shooting daylight film under tungsten lights (and vice versa).

FWIW I still recommend option #1. If you hire a pro (assuming you do your homework) you can be assured they will have done these types of shoots many times, often in the same church, so they know exactly what will be needed (and what works and more importantly what doesn't work) in terms of equipment and lighting.

Of course, YMMV.

Good luck,

steve

Has anyone heard anything about the new Nikon DSLR due to be released

next week? I believe it's called the D2H. Any specs, features, etc?

Thanks,

steve

I've had a T2 since 1992. Wonderful camera. Never had your situation occur to me. You could get it checked out, but as long as the pics come out OK, I don't see the harm (except in wear and tear on the motor, etc., or maybe in lost time).

Good luck,

steve

Has anyone tried using this combination? Quantum doesn't list a TTL

adapter specifically for the G3, and when I e-mailed them they

responded that while they had no plans of developing a TTL cable

specifically for the G3, their standard D13N cable might work, and

even if it didn't no harm would come to the camera.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

steve

My understanding is, except for maximum shutter speed, there is no difference between the PQ and PQS lenses. Not that you have any choice. If I'm not mistaken each lens comes in only one version, either PQ or PQS (although I could be wrong about the 50). The three most popular lenses (50, 80, 150) are also offered in EL versions. Can't remember the difference right now.

As for focal lengths, I also do mainly scenic/landscape and portrait photography. I started out with the Schneider 50 f/2.8 and 180 f/2.8, then added the Zeiss 110 f/2.0. I chose these lenses primarily for their speed (obviously not for their weight or cost) since I was concerned about viewfinder brightness (this being my first MF system, and being spoiled by 35 mm AF systems). I also wanted the flexibility of the shallower depth of field the one-stop difference makes. Also I wanted to use the 1.4x teleconverter to change my 180 to a 250.

All three lenses are very sharp. They all could be a little sharper, but I have not found it to be a limiting factor. If I were to do it over again, I'm not sure I would choose the same 3 lenses. I don't have any regrets about them, it's just I know a little more. I'd consider the 6008iAF (for focus confirmation) and 50 f/4 and 150 f/4 (with the 1.4x TC) - primarily for weight/space savings. In place of the 110 I might lean toward the Schneider 90 mm f/4 macro which I've read great things about. One other thing about the lenses I have - they take 95 mm filters. Ever price a 95 mm circulat polarizer? Oh well, I guess it's not that much in the total price of the system.

Good Luck,

Steve

I was just about ready to buy an Epson 2450 scanner to use with my MF

transparencies (until I could justify the Nikon 8000). Then I heard

Epson is about to release an updated version. Has anyone heard when

this replacement is due out? Epson's e-store shows the 2450 as out of

stock which makes me think they've stopped producing the old model and

are gearing up for the new one. Can anyone point me in the direction

of real information on this?

Thanks,

Steve

No idea of the value of the mint 6008i w/90 f/4.

My understanding is the 6008AF will accept all existing 600x accessories and lenses back to the SL66 series. No AF of course, but AF confirmation will be there. Check www.elikurland.com for more information (no affiliation, just happened on the website the other day).

Good Luck

Steve

You might check out the Domke Photogs jacket. I recently got one (I've had the vest for years), and it seems like it will fit your needs perfectly. It's not very heavy (none of the others I looked at were either), so if you're planning on trekking the Himalayas you'll want another jacket to wear underneath it - (that's why I got it a size or two big). Not the most fashionable piece of clothing I own, but it doesn't bother me since I'm a bit of a frumpy dresser myself. I have heard that Adorama (I think) sells something like a Tuxedo vest/jacket for those "special occasions", e.g., wedding photos - haven't seen it myself though.

Good luck.

Steve

I didn't have any trouble logging on to www.hecphoto.com a few minutes ago.

steve

The phone number for Marflex in New Jersey is (973) 808-9626.

Ask for Martin.

steve

I agree a brighter, but less contrastier screen may not make focusing any easier or accurate. I was thinking about the same issue last year (after some really nice photos were just enough out of focus to limit enlargement to 5x7 or less). I decided against a new screen for the very reasons you state. Plus my local dealer told me the screen on my Rollei 6008i is comparable to the Acute Matte as far as brightness goes. So I decided to go with a magnifier.

I ordered a Brightscreen AccurFocus AFD-5 (or something like that). This clamps onto the eyepiece of the prism finder and enlarges the central portion of the image about 3x. It is hinged so it can be flipped out of the way for composing, then flipped back down for critical focus. It also includes diopter adjustment. It has made a HUGE difference in the number of in-focus photos. Was it expensive? Sure it was, but considering the cost of the camera, lenses, tripod, lights, etc., plus the lost opportunity and frustration cost of having out of focus photos, it is cheap at twice the price. Is it slow to use? It definitely slows things down a bit but not unacceptably. I figured if I need "rapid fire" pictures I can just pull out my Nikon F4, but that's a subject for another forum.

Steve