mark_erickson

So what's your opinion on vibration and its effects on photo gear? I've put 33,000 miles on my 1998 VFR in 3 years, but I usually take my cage when I go on photo trips. Do you worry about vibes coming through the tank and harming shutters?

 

--Mark

Another option is the Graflex Century Graphic. See http://www.graflex.org for more info.

You can download a PDF version of the manual from the Pentax USA website. Here's the address for their manual download page:

 

http://www.pentaxusa.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6

 

--Mark

By far the cheapest scanner that will do what you want is the Canon D1230UF. It has a 4" by 5" built-in lightsource in the lid and comes with holders for 35mm, 120/220, and 4x5 film.

 

I think that Canon is closing this model out. It was originally priced at $300, but Amazon.com has them in stock (last I checked) for $99.

 

I have no idea how good the D1230UF really is, but if it doesn't completely suck $99 is a good deal.

If you want a "do-it-all" MF camera, you might consider looking at the Pentax 645nii. It weighs about the same as a Nikon F5. Pentax glass is excellent, plentiful, and cheap. The mirror damping on the 645nii is reputed to be excellent. Also, 645nii user interface is easy to work with.

 

Most importantly, I suggest you go into a camera store and play with the alternatives. See what feels good to you. It might make your decision much easier to make.

What model Epson scanner do you have? The 1650?

If you want to do landscape work and don't want to fork over too much $$$, you might consider a used Pentax 645, 645n, or 645nii body with 45-85mm and 80-160mm manual-focus zoom lenses. Alternatively, you could consider a Pentax 67 series camera and a couple of lenses. Both camera types are SLR's, so they'll be familiar to you. Pentax makes great glass, and their lenses seem to be significantly cheaper than Mamiya, Contax, or Hassy equivalents.

 

As noted above, a number of prominent outdoor and nature photographers shoot with Pentax MF gear. The Luminous Landscape website (http://www.luminous-landscape.com) has quite a lot of MF nature photography information.

I have an RB67 120 back that I use on my Century Graphic with no problems. The various newer Pro, Pro-S, and SD backs may have more interlocking than my old (non-Pro) back, but you should be fine as long as there is a way to release the advance lock so that you can wind the film after each exposure.

 

On another note, the build quality of the RB67 backs seems to be a lot better than that of the Graflex backs....

I'll speak for Pentax. Here's the good news:

 

<p>

 

With the exception of one low-end body (The MZ-50/ZX-50), every

bayonet-mount Pentax lens will work properly on every bayonet-mount

Pentax body. With an adapter ring, screw-mount Pentax lenses will

work properly on bayonet-mount Pentax bodies (you must use stop-down

metering, but the lenses will focus to infinity, unlike the Canon FD

to EF converters).

 

<p>

 

Now for the bad news:

 

<p>

 

Pentax does not offer any USM/Silentwave or IS/VR lenses. The most

expensive current Pentax body offers 6 focus points (one more than

the Nikon F5, but 39 less than the Canon EOS-3), only winds at 2fps

(vs 8-10 for Nikon/Canon). The flash syncs at only 1/180, and the

shutter tops out at only 1/6000.

 

<p>

 

Here are my recommendations (worth what you pay for them):

 

<p>

 

If you want to use old lenses on a new body, buy a Pentax or a Nikon.

 

<p>

 

If you want the whizziest technology, buy a Canon.

 

<p>

 

If you want a great user interface, buy a Minolta.

 

<p>

 

If you want a "classic" user interface, buy a Pentax.

 

<p>

 

If you want to take pictures, take pictures and quit worrying about

all of this stuff.

Pentax has shown working prototypes of a 6MP Digital SLR with a full-

frame (24x36mm) array. As of a couple of months ago, a price of

$6000-7000 was being floated. The body is shared with the just-

released MZ-S Professional body.

The National Park Service is required by law to provide appropriate public notice and opportunity for comment before changing access rules. Has anyone checked to see if they are following their own rules? If not, they can be forced (in federal court) to suspend the changes until they implement public notice and comment processes.

We're thinking about going to Costa Rica or Belize this winter. Can

anyone offer guidance regarding locations and wildlife/nature photo-

friendly accomodations?

Anyone here have any experience shooting landscapes with a digital

camera and filters? Specifically, how easy is it to use ND grad

filters with digital cameras? How about color enhancing filters?

<p>

<p>

Thanks in advance....

Pentax has done that for the last few years with the

ZX-5n, ZX-5, ZX-10, ZX-50, and ZX-M. All are built on

the same chassis, but have more or fewer features depending

on the price

Forgive me for asking, but why is focusing beyond infinity such a bad

thing? Many high-quality SLR lenses are _designed_ to focus a bit

beyond infinity to account for thermal expansion.

<p>

<p>

Could it be that Konica is doing the same thing with the Hexar RF?

The June 2000 issue of the Smithsonian had a great article on

California Bighorn sheep. I suggest you read it to find out

what's going on with the various populations around the state.

An intro to the article is <a href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues00/jun00/sheep.html">here</a>.

<p>

<p>

By far the best California wildlife viewing I have seen is along

the coast. Elephant seals can be seen and photographed in several

sites, and a herd of Tule Elk lives at the end of the Point Reyes peninsula.

As a moderator, Bob sets an example for the rest of us. If anything,

he should be MORE careful about adhering to the rules rather than LESS.

Are you going to use the flash off-camera for macro shots?

If not, you might consider getting a flash with a head that can aim down (i.e.,right at a really close subject). Tilt and swivel

are really nice in general for avoiding the "deer-in-the-headlights"

look that you get with direct flash.

<p>

<p>

The AF-280T has a tilt (including tilting 15 degrees down) and

swivel head. The AF-330FTZ is a digital flash and has more features than the AF-280T, but you can't tilt the flash head to aim it.

<p>

<p>

The AF-500FTZ has it all (digital, power zoom, tilt/swivel head,

rear curtain sync, etc.), but it'll cost you....

Anyone taken a workshop with Robert Glenn Ketchum? I so,

could you share your experience?

Bogen 3001 with 3262QR ballhead. Check out Bob Atkins' articles

on tripods in the Nature Photography pages.

I picked up a copy of American Vision, the new book of amateur

nature photography edited by John Shaw et al., this weekend.

I was struck by the fact that many images in the book were not

very sharp!

<p>

The sense that I get from reading posts in this community is that

"critically sharp" images are really, really important, and that

an image is fatally flawed if it is lacking in this respect.

<p>

Then along comes this book of beautiful pictures, some of which

seem to violate this rule. According to the authors, the published

images were culled from thousands of submitted pictures. So what do

you think? Were the editors nuts? Are our standards too high?

Check out the Lowepro Street and Field stuff (www.lowepro.com).

Looks like a Deluxe Waistbelt, Shoulder Harness, and Lens Trekker 600AW weigh in at around 4.5 lbs total.

Thanks for the answers! I shoot with Pentax gear, and their

A* 200mm F4 macro is considered to be insanely good. It is

also really expensive at around $950 (B&H price). Turns out

200mm (macro or not) is a hole in my current lens array, so

I may just try to fill it with this lens.

A perusal of the archives indicates to me that "longer is

better" when comparing macro lenses. I haven't really

seen any arguments against 180mm or 200mm macro lenses. Is there any

technical reason NOT to go with a 200mm macro lens (other than cost)?

<p>

Thanks in advance,

I have the Pentax FA* 300mm/F4.5 lens and I use it on my Pentax

ZX-5 (USA version of the MZ-5). I like it. There are times

when I would like an additional stop in low light situations.

I really miss having an integrated tripod mount on the lens,

though. I use a Bogen long lens mount as a substitute,

but it is a pain to attach to the lens. Otherwise, the lens

is a super performer. It is very, very sharp and solidly built.

<P>

By the way, I wrote the review of this lens for the Pentax

section of photo.net. At the end of the review I mentioned

that I had an infinity focus problem. I sent the lens back

to Pentax and they fixed it to my satisfaction.