bill_caulfeild_browne

<p>Ray, you make some good points about why MFDB might more often match 4 by 5. I agree.<br /> The trouble with mechanical theory is that in practice the lack of film flatness, GG focussing nearly always get in the way! <br /> I don't shoot resolution charts - in fact I never have, and don't own any - but I do shoot very highly detailed landscapes. There is absolutely no doubt that my present P65+ images equal 4X5 in 40 inch prints - and that the IQ180 will certainly exceed. Forget theory - I'm talking about viewing large prints from proper distances in real life.<br /> Incidentally, the IQ 180 will make 2 minute exposures.<br /> Bil</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For those who doubt digital will ever out-resolve large format - I think it has already exceeded 4 by 5 inch.<br>

Last week I had the privilege - and pleasure - of using Phase One's new IQ180 MFDB. It clearly out-resolves my (admittedly quite old) 4 by 5 images. It also has a greater DR.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>As I've been (accurately) quoted by Rishi, I'll pitch in.<br /> I have used 4 by 5 inch cameras and yes, film flatness is an issue, though sheet film never was bent. It still bulged a bit in the middle of the holder. The saving grace is that the 4 by 5 lenses are not very fast and in any case, especially for landscape shooters, are used considerably stopped down.<br>

<br /> With Hasselblads (in the 1980s anyway) I found the problem quite acute. So acute in fact that I could see no point in using F2.8 or worse, f2. (I had a 2000 FC ). But as a landscaper, I generally shot for max dof so it wasn't a major issue for me.<br>

<br /> And Hassy's had the problem of backs mating properly with the camera body, too, which didn't help. I moved to the Rollei 6008 partly because its magazines did not require any bend in the film and I was able to shoot at larger apertures with confidence.<br>

<br /> I still have hundreds of Kodachrome 120 shots from that era. That film had very high resolution and was very unforgiving of any focus errors, but rarely did I have a problem with the Rollei shots.<br /> Bill</p>

<p>John, I believe the 15 mm Voigt will work on the M9. I have the 12 mm Heliar and it works just fine.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I bought three "no name" batteries from Hong Kong. They work fine and last better than the OE that came with the M9. I numbered each and rotate them religiously so each gets used equally.<br>

I don't know how long they will last - I've only had the M9 for six months but I do shoot a lot!<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Hi Brett, yes I did get some great colors but the smoke got in the way! Here's my 3 shot pano but it was with MF, not a Sony.<br>

Bil</p><div></div>

<p>And as the title of this thread is Fall colors, here's one from near Lake Superior last week. 70-400 G at 300 mm.</p><div></div>

<p>For some reason, my post looks much darker on this forum than on my screen, so I'm reposting with a brighter image.</p><div></div>

<p>Brett, I was at Oxbow a week before you - lots of forest fire smoke and no snow - your pano is way better than mine so here is my sunset shot from a different location.</p><div></div>

<p>ZA 24-70 and 70-400 G.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>FWIW, here in Canada the 300 mm f2.8G costs about 15% more than the Canon, which I used to own before I switched to Sony.<br>

The Sony lens is equal in image quality to the Canon but the focus speed is not as good. On the other hand, I think it focusses a bit closer if I recall correctly. It is very sharp wide open and diffraction limited at f4-5.6.<br>

It also performs very well with the Sony 1.4X TC.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I used to own the 120-400 Sigma. The first copy I got was poor and I returned it for another which was much better. Sigma's QC leaves a lot to be desired. <br>

I now own the Sony 70-400. Trust me - there is simply no comparison. It is far superior to the Sigma, as it should be at it's higher price. It is the sharpest zoom in this category that I have ever owned.<br>

In my view the choice is a no-brainer!<br>

Bill</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yes, Grayham, the filter is 77 mm, same as the 24-70 and the 135 f1.8.<br>

I simply mis-typed - sorry!<br>

Bill</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can find no fault with this lens - it is the sharpest tele zoom of it's type I've ever used. (I'm a Canon convert, btw). Its best aperture is just one stop down from maximum, tho' maximum is very sharp too. At 300 mm it is as sharp as the 300 mm f2.8 G except at the very edges, which doesn't matter if you use it for wildlife as I do. (Of course, it is not as fast as the 300 mm f2.8)<br>

The colour of the lens is completely irrelevant to me - I look through it, not at it!<br>

It takes 72 mm filters, same as the ZA 24-70. I use B+W personally.<br>

Get it - you won't be sorry!<br>

Bill</p>

<p>And the last shot is the CZ24-70 mm at 70 mm.</p><div></div>

<p>And the last 12 mm.</p><div></div>

<p>And another 12 mm.</p><div></div>

<p>I spent the day testing the Sigma 12-24 mm on the a900. The first three are at 12 mm, the last the CZ24-70 at 70 mm.<br>

Bill</p><div></div>

<p>It sure sounds like moisture to me. The suggestions above are all good. Do you live in a damp climate?<br>

Bill</p>

<p>a900 with a700 as backup, <br>

Mamiya AFDIII and Phase P45+ back,<br>

Rollei 2.8F<br>

Canon 7s rangefinder, Canon AE 1, Periflex, Ilford Craftsman and Bilora Radix and some other antiques! (But I still use them occasionally!)<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Thanks William - tho' the bird should get the credit for the color!<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Still won't work...one last try.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry about that - I have difficulty uploading images to this forum, but here it is - I hope!</p>

<p>Here's my weekend shot - this is a crop of the centre of the a900 frame at 100%, 70-400 G lens at ISO 320, f8.</p>

<p>I tested my new 70-400 G. Full aperture, 400 mms, centre crop at 100%.<br>

Bill</p>