jorge_gasteazoro

Bob:

<p>

Exactly, had PT called the article "Bob Shell's pick of the best 25

cameras" I would not have had a thing to say, but when the article is

titled "the 25 best cameras" I think I am entitled to disagree.......

Of course the other obvious response is that I could have bought a

Mercedes 10 years ago for 20000 dollars, or maybe less if it was

a "demo". So if we are going to talk prices lets stick to "retail"

over the counter prices not special deals.

<p>

Kerry:

<p>

Yes I may disagree all I want and I do, I distinctly remember seeing

Zone VI cameras in the $2000 dollar range, unfortunatelly I don't

remember the year so it is a worthless pursue to continue arguing

with you, on the other hand you NEVER specified the Gandolfi model

you were refering to....and even at a double extension I would take

the Variant Level I over the Zone VI triple extension, what good is

triple extension if the camera is unstable?

<p>

Bottom line is in the past years there was an effort in this article

to include cameras that had quality, stability, decent price range,

and wide appeal. This year I feel it was more of a "personal" choice.

In any case I guess this will be the last of me on this topic since I

certainly don't plan to go and buy any of these choices....

Kerry, I dont think Shell was talking about the ultralight, if

anything when he got his camera the ultralight did not exist, as he

stated he has had this camera for some time. So when you call my data

inacurate it would serve you to read carefully, of all these cameras

in their middle of the road configuration the price difference is of

a few hundred dollars around the $2500 range. In addition I could

also point out if we are going to pick just the examples that best

fit our points that Tachihara and Sheng Hao are much cheaper than the

ultralight with equal if not better construction. As a last point I

checked Badger Graphics price for a Gandolfi VArian level I and found

the price to be $1290 dollars, well within "your" price range for the

zone VI. So Kerry in the future when you call someone else's data

inacurate please make sure YOURS is.

Fred Picker has nothing to do with this, since he has not owened this

company for some years now, our objection was to picking a camera who

is obviously not one of the best.....specially compared to the many

other fine cameras with comparable price.

I agree with you Jim, you are out of your depth.....

I guess if I critizise Mr. Shell my post is going to be deleted, so I

will only comment on the choice of the best camera, I agree with Neil

the choice of a Zone VI as one of the best cameras for field

photography is laughable. One only has to look at Wisner, Canham,

Gandolfi, etc. All cameras within the same price range to see that

Zone VI is definitly not the best. In the past I have seen some of

these "Best Cameras" lists previously published in PT and with some I

agreed and some I did not, but this is the firts time I found only

one camera I thought was worth it fo this appelative.

Michael:

<p>

I think my post was deleted before you read my response, I agree

with you, the cash flow management is important, but I was unaware

that PT was in such dire straits, if they are going to dumb down the

magazine to increase sales, then maybe they should lower the price

also. I think we all agree that Shutterbug was a much cheaper

magazine geared towards the trading/sales of items, I find it hard to

find a reason to equate the previous Editor of this magazine

(Shutterbug) as a credible source of photographic technique for which

I should pay a premium price.

As to subcriptions, I have recently moved to Mexico, and wanted to

subscribe to View Camera, from what I understand they don't take out

of the US subscriptions anymore....So I guess my one and only choice

will be Photovision.

you dont need variable power, you can always move the flash closer or

farther to change the light intensity.

I agree with Paul the first thing I would look for is to have the

lamps working...:-)) fully lighted etc, and the use the outside light

source to balance the lighting ratios. With a view camera this is

extremely simple since you get to see a "big" image....I also think

that your best bet is to use tungsten ligting to start with, as a

matter of fact you can go and buy some of those cheap reflectors and

a few clamps and see if it works for you. In the end remember, if you

want to see it, light it!!!

I have had for many years a Longan compact mat cutter, for the price,

ease of use and conveninece you cannot beat this mat cutter. The only

draw back is that the support table is too narrow and you have to put

a book under the mat to prevent from getting bowed cuts, once you do

this, you can get beautiful mats for a very reasonable price. Of

course if you are related to Bill Gates then you can buy one of the

B+H mat cutter, they are wonderful and have all the gizmos and

gadgets to make it almost automatic, but for the price I vote for my

Logan....Hope this helps.

Kerry, exactly....I thought if the fall off is worst at infinity...in

this case focusing distance of 65mm, then if I focus at infinity and

place the wall 6 feet from the camera then there would not be any

sharp image and all I get would be light transmission. Am I mistaken

thinking this way? This method has worked very good for me to test

development since all I get is an uniform negative....this way I can

see development problems, uniformity in development and yes...light

fall off....

Kerry:

<p>

I dont know if it was you or not, in any case you are a frequent

poster in this board and always very helpfull, if this is the case

and it was you then I apologize for the characterization, I did not

mean to offend you.

BUT, I agree with you that sensitivity might come in play, on the

other hand when you use a densitometer to measur side to side density

and it only varies by .05 then I think I am ruling this out.

I took a pic of a gray wall with the lens defocused and after

developemtn in JOBO expert drums I took the densities....so, I dont

know, maybe like I said before I got a magical lens....:-))

Paul:

<p>

I agree with you, but with the 65 mm mounted on a 4x5 you only have

about 10 mm movement before you loose coverage, of course this is

wide open, I imagine I have a little bit more when I stop down, but

nevetheless I am unable to see light fall off. I have used this lens

with the minimal movements I can get and still I am unable to see

this problem.

<p>

Don:

<p>

I thought the same thing, since Nikon never mention this I thought

they were operating under the phylosophy of "is easy to ignore a

problem if you don't know one exists" :-)))

But then before I bought my lens I asked the Nikon rep in Houston to

let me borrow her lens because she had told me they did not need a

center filter as the Schniders do. As I put it to the test I was

never able to notice a problem. Again maybe is because I only shoot

B&W and the one color slide I shot was without movements, but still,

with such a border line coverage I was sure to see the light fall off.

I don't know maybe I got lucky and got the one magical lens..lol.

Q.-Tuan Luong:

<p>

This question is sort of what comes before the chicken or the egg? :-)

<p>

I suggest we keep on posting and if the thread continues you can put

the program in place, as it stands I think you should wait for a

little while before you spend more time on this. BTW good job and my

thanks for keeping up this site!

<p>

ONTH anybody going to Queretato,Mexico is welcome to contact me. I

usually stock TMX, TMY and fuji ACROS in both 4x5 and 8x10. Any other

emulsion you can contact me and I will research the availability and

price. I will also have a full darkroom with facilities for regular

and alternative printing.

contact me at this address or at jorgegm@mail.com

Michael, I have wondered the same for a long time, I have a 65 mm for

my 4x5 and I have never seen fall off, like you I only shoot B&W but

I used it once to take a city scape with fuji velvia and the results

were beautiful, no light fall off at all. Since this lens barely

covers 4x5 I imagined I would have seen the fall off easily.

<p>

In a previous thread I comented on this that nikkors do not seem to

need this center filter and some smart ass answered "physics do not

change, designs are all the same" I decided not to argue with this

guys since obviously he has not used the nikkors and was obviously

unaware that designs are not "all" the same. In any case I guess I am

not answering your question, but I concurr with you. Hopefully

someone more knowledgeable than me will enlighten us.

Peter, I put myself through college working at a photo lab, many

times techs are reluctant to let people they don't know use the

densitometer because it is an expensive piece of equipment and more

importantly THEIR process depends heavily on corrrect measurements.

If you by mistake change a calibration and/or a zero setting it can

cause a big headache for them, you need to develop a relationship

with them and show them you know what you are talking about before

they will let you use their densitometer. On the other hand when

people walked into my lab and asked to use the densitometer and I did

not know them I offered to read the negatives for them at no charge.

Most people were happy with that.

<p>

As to a densitometer from E bay this is a good idea, I got me an X

rite form e bay for about 150 bucks, is all beat up but it takes

consistent readings so I am happy. This is the key, make sure the

seller will let you return the item if you are not happy. If that is

the case then go for it, there are some good deals to be had at e bay.

Don, I have to disagree with you very strongly....1/10 of a degree?

This is overkill, as a matter of fact T max is more sensitive to

variations in agitation than it is to temperature. Back when I first

got my densitometer I tested this. I plotted the different CI for T

max developed from 70 to 78 F. The difference from one film to the

next was very little, of course the difference between th 70 degree

roll and the 78 degree roll was very great, but the rolls that only

had one degree difference did not have a big change in contrast. What

does make a big difference is agitation, this is a well known fact of

T max films. If you wish to obtain the same results you need to

agitate the same way. Although I agree with you that consistent

darkroom practices will yield the best results, I am answering to

your post because it this type of erroneous information that make

beguinners paranoid and leads them to hate darkroom work!

As a chemist I can tell you that 1/10 of a degree will not make a

difference one way or another, give me a break! Althought there are

many specialized chemical reactions that are dependent on rigorous

temperature control, darkroom work is not the case.

Hey Dave woulnd't have been great if he had put the manual in word

instead of PDF?

Any way, Dave is correct this little program does all the

calculations very easy.

Hey Ellis, I guess like me you did not understand a darn thing he was

talking about..lol. Well I don't mean not understand, but after I

went through his book, If I was to do all those calculation it would

take me 2 hours to focus my camera.....lol.

ah, ok cut of and rotated.....you should have explained that more

clearly. Do you have a reversible or rotating back? I beleive the

master technika has a rotating back, and I think you have your back

rotated just a little..which would be the cause of your film showing

this type of image. Check back that your film back is either totally

vertical or horizontal and that it does not move when you insert the

film holder. Good luck.

Adrian what they are trying to tell you is that the area of film

exposed in a polaroid back is smaller than a regular film holder

because of the construction of the polaroid back. In other words your

image has not shrunk, you only have exposed part of the image because

the available are in the holder is smaller.

Yes, when you are framing you are not really guessing but you must

frame according to the film you plan to use, if you are going to use

polaroif p/n 55 and want the negative then you should frame so that

the image is contained in the smaller area. If OTOH you are going to

use a "regular" film the you should frame using the entire area and

use the polaroid to check exposure.

Neil I tried answering to your e mail but I keep getting an error

message. Anyway I am glad it worked for you.

Dan Montgomery:

<p>

The reason that Schnider USA will not "touch" your lens is because

they want to discourage the practice of buying grey market, you see

Schinder USA is only the official importer, in other words they buy

the lens from the factory and they "resell" them to us at a hefty

profit, this is how Mr. Klayman earns his paycheck.

<p>

Personally I would never buy a USA warranty LF lens. For the 35 mm

autofocus with all the dohickeys etc, maybe it is a good choice to

get a US warranty, so you dont have to send the lens for repair

overseas, but for a LF lens the worst that can happen is a bad

shutter which many people can fix. Another point is that dealing with

Badger you are assured you have always an option and good service

from them.

<p>

As to Mr. Klayman's statement they will not touch my lens, well I

don't mind, they are not touching my money either. And given the

attitude they display I can assure you they never will. I guess it

all comes down to voting with our pocket book, my vote is for

Schnider, not for the importer...

Kerry I saw the camera you mention, although unusual I have serious

doubts as to it's stability. My gitzo CF tripod has 1 and 1/2 inch

thick legs...the little standards in this camera seemed to flimsy to

me, in addition the way it extends on just a strip of CF rod...I

don't know I certainly would not spend $6000 dollars on something

like this, if I recall correctly it is the second time it has been

put for auction.

BTW the weight of my TK45 is 6 punds, and my Gandolfi 8x10 8 pounds,

this camera is 7 pounds....why use CF if you end up with a camera

just as heavy as the rest?...lol.

Thomas don't make it difficult, first don't take the slide all the

way out, if you slide it only a little to be able to unfold the flap

all you need to do is hold the film flat against the edges and it

will go right in. Since the dark slide is not out there is no danger

of the film going into the slots for the slide which I found is the

major cause of problems for beguinners.

Do not use cotton gloves, they collect lint and it will show on your

negs, the best thing is to wash your hands with hot water and dry

them very good, if you don't like this, then use latex gloves without

talcum. Good luck.

I second all the opinions here, I bought a camera from them and

received nothing but excellent service. Dont be shy they will take

care of you.

Oh sorry, to answer your question, if you get the "New platimum

print" by Sullivan & Weese, there is a chapter on visually assesing

densities using a calibrated step wedge.