joshua daniels

For the record, you can shift the lens or shift the camera with the Zoerk shift adapter and maintain the nodal point.

This is a very sharp but also very flare prone lens. Beware of shooting it against backlit subjects. Otherwise, highly recommended. But I replaced mine with the first series Tokina 28-70/2.8, and this has become my favorite zoom. Not quite as sharp as the Nikon wide open (but the Nikon isn't really usable at 2.8 either), but the Tokina is good at 3.3, very good by 4, and great otherwise. Excellent bokeh, and very sharp throughout the range. I prefer this series to the later versions. Build quality is second to none (better than Nikon, I believe).

Just let it really dry out. Don't try to turn it on. Keep it in a warm, dry place. I've seen electronic devices come back to life once they are truly dry.

I still shoot film and have adopted digital for most of my professional work, simply because of cost, convenience, and quality (esp. at high ISO). But I miss the human scale of film, particularly in low-tech cameras (esp. those not requiring batteries).

 

Digital photography is truly amazing, and if you've been a film user previously you can appreciate many of its qualities. But I'm concerned about the facile boosterism of digital. It seems to have been embraced as a panacea, without much critical examination. The comparison point is not just "film" but the whole infrastructure and technological extension--and cost--that goes along with it.

 

At a certain level, film photography can be carried out with a relatively low level of technology. Without large computer, chip, and software companies photography is still possible; not so with digital.

 

In some ways I feel that digital photography is far more complicated given the returns--and costs--compared with black and white film. Color photography, in constrast, has always been far more complex, and for the serious hobbyist expensive and difficult to master. But the supporting infrastructure of film resellers, processing labs, and custom labs has allowed the photographer to produce good quality color images with a minimum of investment. Digital, as we know, takes the level of control light years beyond what was possible with color previously, but at a significant cost of infrastructure (not just the individual purchases, but the ongoing computer techonology associated with it).

 

Perhaps most of all, as user, I miss having a truly high quality camera with good ergonomics. Yes, we have some wonderful gear from Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Pentax, and Leica, but none come close in balancing form and function as the best film cameras, and -- I'm sorry -- but the viewfinders of most of these cameras pale by comparison to the average decent quality 35mm SLR of the past 25 years or so. Pick up any manual or semi-automatic professional 35mm camera of the past 35-40 years, and look through the viewfinder, adjust the controls, go through the motions of framing, setting exposure, and taking a shot. Then pick up the digital-wonder-beast, and see which you prefer. There is no comparison in terms of ultimate capability, but in terms of less-than-extreme use where autofocus and other advances are not a premium, the state-of-the-art film camera rules.

 

Finally, I think that in allowing digital to replace film--at least in our orientation to photography's future--we have assented to an aesthetic shift that bears further consideration. The way in which digital handles the dynamic range and color of a scene is both distinctly different from film, and in some ways if not less satifying at least expressive of the underlying techonology. As someone who has spent many hours in Photoshop converting RAW files and correcting images, there is a certain mechanistic, repetitive nature of digital images (not that film doesn't have its own algorhythms), and this can be disconcerting (I'm thinking mostly of the way highlights are handled, and the shifts in color and loss of detail that occurs, in a very consistent manner).

I appreciate the various feedback. Actually, I'm less concerned with who makes it than with how well it works, particular the archival quality with HP inks. In my experience with Ilford paper, this one is a lot different. With the HP 8750 the finished result has a higher gloss than any of the HP or Ilford paper I've used, and, indeed, appears quite similar to the Epson Premium Glossy. The HP, however, does an awful job on the Epson paper. I'm very impressed with this paper, and it is a fraction of the cost of other premium papers, particular HPs. I would be very interested to hear other people's experience with it, esp. with regards to fade resistance (that is the wild card when using third party papers).

I have recently tried this paper on the HP 8750 and it produces excellent

quality prints. I can even use my existing profile, and the results vary little

from those on PGP. Any one else given this a try? Any comments on archival

quality?

My guess is that if the printer is under warranty you can get it repaired. I'd call HP; in my experience they have reasonable repair rates (they used to have a swap out deal for about $125-150). The 8750 is still a current printer, and an excellent one. I'd say get it repaired. No, I haven't had this problem with mine. Perhaps there's a home-made remedy that will work?

Go for the 8750. This is the best price-performer, plus you get the gamut of dye with the archival life approaching pigment. All of these printers exist to generate ink and paper sales, so unless you go for a higher end, professional machine, expect to get the shaft on consumables. But the HP delivers more uniform gloss and more neutral color than any of the Epson's I've seen (incl. the 2400).

Actually, the 17-35/2.8 was not developed for digital but, rather, was the successor to the 20-35/2.8. The 25-50/4 is a very old zoom that never even made it into the auto-focus era (no AF version exists), though some of the old Nikkors are great lenses.

I would consider any of the Tokina lenses, but as with the Nikkors watch for sample variation. I've used several versions of the 28-70 (I shoot professionally) and it is an excellent lens. Most Nikkors don't produce great results wide open, and neither to the Tokinas. The 80-200/2.8 Nikkor can be shot wide open; I've not used the Tokina of that range, but I've read / heard that it is not as good. Still, I would give one a try as Tokina quality, in my experience, is very high.

Pentax is waiting for the optimal price-performance of the sensor relative to best-scenario retail pricing. They want to offer it at an attractive retail price (below the 1Ds II), but the cost of the large sensor is keeping the projected retail high. The longer they wait, the lower the cost of the sensor, or the more MP they can offer. It's a dilemma. I think the camera may appear because the medium format digital market is very much alive, and they want a piece of it (this parallels Pentax's entry into medium format nearly 40 years ago with the original P6x7). Unfortunately, the crop factor may be their undoing (maybe they know this?). For this camera to really steal some thunder it will need not more than a 1.1 crop factor and 30 MP. If they can do this (and get a really first class chip from Kodak -- another question, given the latest debacle with the Leica M8), and keep the price below $7500, they could have a killer app.

You might also look at the Zoerk Multi Focus System - the original "lens baby" -- www.zoerk.com

Nikon seems to enjoy testing the loyalty of the loyal!

I have heard and read that Mamiya offers no support for this camera--however, a recent call to Mamiya service in NY contradicts this! According to Mamiya, the 6 and 6 MF are still serviced by Mamiya. I don't have an exact figure, but a complete CLA was close to the $200 figure. In fact, I was able to get a small part for my camera within just a couple of days of my call into Mamiya. There interest in the camera seemed strong and their response to my parts order prompt and efficient. I'd be curious to hear other people's experiences.

All hail the mini-mighty EM. Now, does anyone know how to go about repairing a broken rewind lever?

Clearly, the dominance of digital cameras is creating a glut of used film-related equipment. However, it wouldn't surprise me to see a reaction in the market--maybe 2-5 years down the road--when people start to realize that the true "cost" of digital imagining is far, far more than the cost of the camera, cards, and software. Indeed, the computer "infrastructure" and, much more importantly, the long-term storage, archiving, and security issues--costly and uncertain as they are--will drive some of the enthusiast if not professional markets back to film. Moreover, if film manufacturers are smart (hmmm...) they will continue to improve the quality and scanability of film. What would be the smartest move Fuji or Kodak might make? Introduce (and strongly market as direct competition) "next generation" film ALONG with a top quality, affordable, film scanner. These companies have tremendous technological resources and deep R&D expertise in the digital imagine world. Why not a apply a few crumbs of that to film?

Have a look at www.zoerk.com - but nothing for Mamiya 7.

I go to Japan regularly and frequent the camera shops there. Even though the dollar has been slightly stronger than the yen in recent years (and, miraculously, remains so), Japanese prices are almost always higher on new equipment. Deals may be found on used equipment, if you're willing to make the rounds. One of my favorite shops is Fujiya Camera, near Nakano station. With used in equipment, you find that the condition is often excellent and the sellers are very honest. While you do want to apply caveat emptor, the entire camera-culture, particularly the used market, is far less predatory than in the US. The stores seem to actual like having their customers satified and, consequently, coming back. But if you're looking to save money on new equipment, with a few exceptions, Japan is not the place to buy.

Have a look at the offerings from Zoerk - www.zoerk.com - esp. the Panorama Shift Adapter.

As with any relatively inexpensive glass (Nikon included, even the pro lenses), sample variation is a significant factor in lens performance. I have an older 28-70/2.8 Tokina AT-X that is one of the sharpest lenses I own (including the pro Nikon glass). As with any manufacturer, some lenses are better than others, and of course some samples of those will be better and worse. I've been very impressed with Tokina glass and use it professionally. The build quality of the lenses is generally outstanding - much better than some of the Nikkors at similar price point.

I really appreciate your posting these, but I must agree with some of the other posters: the sample shot is problematic. There is a time honored tradition of shooting brick walls to test lenses, and failing a more appropriately chosen and controlled technique, I would say reshoot these! I think the results will be interesting, but these shots don't allow us to draw any conclusions.

Hi Chuck -

 

The only alternative to the Mamiya glass is the Pentax 35 from the P645 system. There is a manual and AF lens, and of the two, the AF is superior because of an aspherical element. It is lower distortion than the Mamiya as well. None of the Rodenstock lenses for large format in this focal length range (or shorter than 100mm) will allow infinity focus. If you use a 105 APO Rodagon on the Panorama Shift Adapter you will have superb optical performance, but you will need to make at least 3 separate exposures to get into the wide-angle realm. This, however, is workable and a lot of people use this method.

Try fresh batteries all around.

I'm considering purchasing the upgrade, but in the past I've found that

Silverfast is notorious in dolling out micro-upgrades (and if you have multiple

scanners using this software, it is even more annoying). Has anyone worked with

the lastest release? If so, what is your take? Has Negafix been improved?

I would love to see a kind of "best" ISO 1600 image from the D2x. Perhaps somebody could post one.