bill_caulfeild_browne

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

Bill</p>

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

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

<p>Rollei 2.8F with Velvia 100<br>

Mamiya AFD III with P45+ back.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Allen, you're right. People do like new toys and "the latest".<br>

Having said that, the improving technology often enables one to take pix that you couldn't before. One of the joys of an a900 is being able to grab just a quarter of the frame (roughly 6 mp) and still get an acceptable bird shot, for example.<br>

This is just one such shot - with a (say) 6-12 mp camera this would not have been possible, at least with comparable quality.<br>

http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com/assets/galleries/polynesia/content/_DSC2084_large.html<br>

Taken with 70-300 G, just about 1/5th of the full frame.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I have compared my Sony 300 2.8 G with my 70-300 at 300. The latter's image is definitely smaller, I would guess about 285-290 mm. (Assuming the 300 G really IS 300 mm!)<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I'm using a Sigma 12-24 on an a900 - quite good IQ at 12-17 mm, but poor at 20-24 mm. See <br>

http://www.billcaulfeild-browne.com/assets/galleries/recent/content/_DSC3212_large.html<br>

for an example at 12 mm.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Vertical grip, also for the ability to use two batteries.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>If you really really really want the highest resolution images, with any camera, I strongly recommend reading "Image Clarity" by John B. Williams. (Focal Press ISBN 0-240-80033-8). It is the undisputed bible of high resolution photography.<br>

Another good book is by Harold Merkllnger, "The ins and outs of Focus". As someone has already posted, his mantra is that if you want objects sharp at infinity, focus at infinity. (Hyperfocal distance focussing is a compromise not acceptable for truly high resolution of distant objects.)<br>

Bill</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with you, Peter, on the subject of "digital conversion" and APS sensors. To prove this to some unbelievers I took a photo of a bird on my feeder with both the a900 and an a700 and the same 70-300 G lens at 300 mms.<br>

My position did not change - I was about 5 metres from the feeder. The ONLY visible difference in the two shots was the angle of view covered. The image size of the bird was exactly the same (of course) and the rendering on screen was almost identical - a very slight difference owing to the slightly different pixel pitch of the two sensors.<br>

11 by 14 inch prints where the bird was 6 inches high were identical, tho' owing to the pixel density of the a900 you might theoretically get an image that could be made a tad larger than the a700 image. <br>

The only factor governing image size is the focal length of the lens - whether it's on a Box Brownie or an 8 by 10 Linhof.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Erick, not to be combative, but I did say "usually", not "always"! There are indeed some great deals if you shop around enough.<br>

I think we agree....<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I have two Phase batteries and they are indeed 2500 mAh. I bought a Canon which is 1750 mHa. It works as an emergency back-up but it certainly doesn't last as long. Personally, I'll stick to Phase batteries in future.<br>

You usually get what you pay for!<br>

Hope this helps,<br>

Bill</p>

<p>If it's the clear plastic mask with the black line to mark the field of view, it just sits on(in) the metal frame that holds the focussing screen up - but beneath the screen or you'll screw up the focus!<br>

Bill</p>

<p>One of the reasons the A700 is selling is because of people like me who have bought the A900 and want a back-up body! Same battery, much the same user interface, same lenses but one third the price. (Roughly!)<br>

Bill</p>

<p>I have a 2.8F also and the meter works just fine. There is no reason a silicon meter should not work forever - I have a 1950's Weston Master that's fine too.<br>

Bill</p>

<p>Tom and Peter....beg, borrow or steal (temporarily only, please!) an A900, put a high quality lens on it and take few shots of detailed subjects. When you see the resolution, $3000 will not seem like rip-off!<br>

And for the record, this camera has impressed me as a confirmed MFDB (Phase P45+) user. <br>

Bill</p>

<p>Here in Canada I hear the A900 (around US$2400) is selling like hot cakes. I bought two bodies myself, mainly because of the Zeiss glass which is so much better at wide angles than the Canon I used to use for my non MFDB shooting. I'm aware of at least two other people who have done the same. Personally, I love the camera and think the pricing is a heck of a deal. And the Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 is way better than my Canon 24-105, which I've now sold.<br>

Bill</p>

Re scanning with the glass neg carrier vs the straight open plastic carrier.

I get very sharp corner-to-corner scans using the standard carrier for 6 by 6 cms because I store the individual transparencies in

archival plastic sheets under several heavy books for at least a month before I make serious scans.

The resulting transparency is very flat with none of the "bowing" associated with "green" slides. (To be fair, as I usually scan a

horizontal or vertical rectangle, the extreme corners of the full square slide are not being scanned.)

Hope this might save someone the cost of the rather expensive glass holders!

Bill

I know this is not very helpful to the original question, but I have hundreds, maybe thousands of K'Chrome 64 MF

transparencies and they are STILL stunning when I put them on a light table. 6 by 6 cms K64 just blows me away -

more than 20 yrs after I took them.

More relevant, I think, is that E6 is slowly but surely going the same way.

Bill

Well said, Wai-Leong Lee!

I agree completely with you.

Bill

John, I use a Mamiya and routinely alternate between the film back and a Phase digital back. I frequently take both along on a

shoot so I can use Velvia and digital.

I end up printing the digital images more often for several reasons - I don't have to wait for the lab, I don't have to scan and I

have full metadata.

And as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, 24 by 36 inch prints are generally indistinguishable, scanned film from digital. (I

don't use a microscope to count lppm resolution - I'm only interested in the appearance of the final product, the print.)

Bill

Try this - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Do please read the following as input based on my tastes and purposes, not a diatribe in favor of digital or film.

I find many folks have strong opinions on this without actually having done their own testing by producing large prints of real subjects, which in my case is

the desired end product of my photography. (Resolution charts don't cut it in real life, for me.)

I have conducted my own tests using a Rollei 6008 and Velvia, a Mamiya AFDII with a P45+ back, a Canon 1Ds mk II and a Canon 7 rangefinder with

TMax film. I have not included a large format camera because I no longer have one. In each case I used the standard lens at its best aperture, tripod,

mirror lockup etc etc and then made 24 by 36 inch full frame prints. (The MF shots were cropped top and bottom to fit.)

The two films were scanned with a Nikon 9000 at 4000 ppi, so I cannot comment on how they'd have stacked up if I'd used an enlarger and photo paper.

However, comparing some Velvia images done on Cibachrome (Ilfachrome!) in the past, I'd still rate digital better - even the 1Ds II, AT LEAST FOR MY

STYLE AND PURPOSES!

For clarity and apparent resolution in a 24 by 30 inch inkjet print the unidentified P45+ was picked as clearly the best by non-photographic friends. (To

remove any wishful thinking bias of mine!)

But I too still love film and will continue to use it until the last E6 lab goes out of business! There is still something very captivating about a light table

covered in 6 X 6 trannies!

Referring to the number of MFDBs sold each year, I think Phase accounts for more than 50%. Hassy may provide half the

MF cameras, perhaps, but many of those are using Phase backs, not Hassy backs.

My source for these figures is a non-scientific ad hoc survey conducted in the LL discussion forum - as I recall it!

Bill

You may be interested that this will not work with the AFD III. I have the 80 mm f1.9 manual lens and through-the-lens

metering will not work. It gives exposures 3.7 stops too dark at full aperture and f2.8, but then starts overexposing at smaller

apertures.

At first I thought there was a problem with the camera, but on re-reading the manual, I see it expressly says that stop down

metering will not work with the older lenses. So my solution is very simple - I use the sunny f16 rule for the first shot, then

refer to the histogram and modify the exposure - if needed - for the next. Works very well - though of course only for static

subjects and with a digital back.

So if you have a number of the older lenses, you may not want to upgrade to the AFD III !

Bill

It may be long but it's very useful. Thanks!

Bill

The great advantage of MLU with the AFD III is that you can leave the camera on autofocus. With the II you had to move

to manual focus before the shutter would release with MLU.

I find that the problem Michael referred to in his review rarely occurs if you use the electronic cable release. I can recreate

the problem but I have to work at it!

Bill