eric_meyer

<p>I've been shooting an XT1 for most of a year now and like it. Handle one before you make your choice; the viewfinder is far better and easier to use, and that makes a huge difference to me.</p>

<p>By the time you've bought a few lenses, the cost difference between bodies will seem minor. That said, if it still seems an issue I'd get an XE2. Fuji is very good about firmware upgrades bringing new features to older models, and somehow I just don't like the XT10. There's no point in moving the VF to the center and having a lump there if it's still small.</p>

<p>I do think it's good that Fuji offers different designs, like XE2 vs XT1. (Not to mention X-Pro with the optical hybrid VF!) Each is nice in its own way, and fun to use.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for all these great ideas.<br>

<strong>@David Henderson:</strong> These are 35mm negs. I would want to be able to print from the scan not just view (so backup or substitute for the negs), but I don't think I've ever gone larger than 8x10. Some images (especially older) don't need to be scanned, surely more than the 20% exclusion someone mentioned in connection with ScanCafe.<br>

<strong>@Allan Cobb:</strong> I wouldn't have thought of a refurb minilab scanner. Can it handle cut strips of 4-6 negs?<br>

<strong>@others:</strong> ScanCafe seems to have mixed reviews online -- work done in India(!), QC issues, communication issues... (haven't looked into it yet myself)</p>

 

<p>I know I'm slow getting around to an issue most faced long ago, but I wonder what the best approach is today. I have around 100 rolls of color negatives. What scanning options are still available, and what's adequate and cost-effective? Buy a scanner -- which? Or what sort of scanning, from a local shop? Any special issues with some rolls up to 40 years old? Thanks.</p>

 

<p>I don't think there's a magical quality to R lenses, though they do tend to be a bit warmer in color and not quite as contrasty a look as most others. Optically, those I've used are all excellent, probably even amazing. The 35mm Summicron (my standard lens) is remarkably sharp even wide open, and unusually flare-resistant. The 50mm Summicron is a fine lens too, and the 90mm Elmarit is also one of the best ever made. If you get into the faster lenses, results might vary more, though I'm sure they're still very good compared to other equivalents.<br>

<br /> The body matters too. I was never fond of R bodies, and if you don't really need auto exposure you might want to seriously consider an SL or SL2. Take a look through the viewfinder, and then try to put it down.</p>

<p>My first real camera was the SP500 -- a prudent choice to get a teenager started, I suppose, but hardly what I would have chosen myself. Of course I loved it at the time and have some fond memories, but really, screw-mount lenses and stop-down metering, in 1972? It was a decent basic camera, certainly nothing special in any way. It didn't seem especially robust generally, except in the sense that cameras back then were all much simpler than today, so no idea how it would hold up 40+ years later. I didn't find out; was glad to replace it when I was able to, and wouldn't look back. (Curiously, today I have exactly the camera I wished I had then, a Leicaflex.)</p>

 

<p>I just got an X-T1 and like it... but would never have done so with intent to adapt DSLR lenses to it, due to the bulk, crop factor, loss of features, retrofocus lens designs, etc.<br>

Re: fast action, have you tried setting the AF mode to continuous? That should help. Also, have you looked into whether that 18-55mm is one of the quicker-focusing lenses in the Fuji range? (It wouldn't have been my choice... I went with the 23mm, and plan to get the 56.)</p>

 

<p>Obviously this is a matter of personal taste, but I would stick with a 90mm and crop when necessary. I had a Tele-Elmar (great lens, not expensive by Leica standards) for a while but hardly ever used it. The small finder frame (and large relative size of the focus window) just isn't much fun. And 135mm may be the longest the M rangefinder allows, but it's really pushing it, and frankly it still isn't long enough! When I want more than 90, I find I want 180 or 200... and for that occasion the M is just the wrong camera. But it all depends on what you mean to do.</p>

<p>The SL2 is a fine camera and yes, durable -- don't ever imagine it's too pretty to use. Mine spent two months in Antarctica in all sorts of conditions and still looks great. (That was some years ago but already it drew puzzled looks, along with some admiration, from those toting Canikons... which experienced a number of failures.)<br>

The real trouble with the SL2 is that it's still going strong, and such an ergonomic pleasure to use that it's spoiled me. The reason I still haven't managed to go seriously digital (beyond a lightly used pocket camera) isn't really film vs digital at all, but about camera design and automation. Where's the SL2 equivalent today? Who makes a digital SLR that's this simple and pleasant to use in manual mode, with a bright viewfinder, good focusing screen etc? Sure, in a pinch you can do manual focus and exposure with most cameras, but they're optimized for people who might <em>need</em> to do that 2% of the time... whereas that's about as often as I ever <em>need</em> AF or AE. As an amateur I have to enjoy using a camera to stay interested in photography. You'd think in the entire global market at least one manufacturer might cater to my taste too, but no...</p>

<p>Hi CFY -- There may not be a lot of X2 users here, and I'm not one myself. But if you give more of an idea what you've learned with yours, or what you'd like to know, you're more likely to get some responses.</p>

<p>Has anyone ever used this accessory? They do turn up occasionally, and I've often wondered how well it works. (I imagine the field of view isn't the widest? But that's not documented.) It would turn my 350mm into about a 27x scope -- hardly as convenient as a dedicated spotter, but I'm not about to spend the money on one of those.</p>

<p>Alan, I have the 350/4.8 and have used it extensively on my SL2. I picked up a nice used one about 8 years ago when facing a new photographic challenge (3- and 4-week trips to Antarctica). It's a bit large but handles very nicely on a monopod, and I loved the results. Doug Herr, a serious wildlife photographer who at least used to post here occasionally, likes and uses the 250/4. My other long lens, the 80-200/4, is hard to find in 3-cam form but also excellent and a good value. I have the impression that the people who pass up these lenses for the much more expensive APOs must regularly be doing something very technically challenging, like photographing small brightly backlit birds on a branch. (Much the same is true in the binocular world, where fluorite really won't matter much to most people. This is why I'm glad to see Leica finally come out with a new Trinovid 10x42 again.)</p>

<p>Were 135mm lenses <em>ever</em> cool -- I mean, was there ever <em>really</em> a purpose for that particular focal length in the first place? I never had or wanted one myself. I think they only ever existed because that happened to be the longest lens that could be accurately focused on rangefinder cameras like Leica and Contax, given their measuring base, without a TTL reflex viewer. And the main reason they continued to be made for SLRs was habit, inertia. The truly distinguishable and useful focal lengths tend to go up (from 50) roughly by factors of two: 50-55mm, 85-105mm, 180-200mm... and people eventually figured that out. So most 135s are also older designs. But the question isn't why not 135; it's why 135.</p>

 

<p>Here's a thought. I have a digital P&S now, but the main reason I <em>still</em> can't get seriously interested in digital actually turns out to be... <em>autofocus</em>. Once in a blue moon it could be useful to me (flying birds?) but for general use I just loathe it. Manual focusing has been part of how I use a camera since 1972, and with AF it just doesn't feel like the same experience. Yes, I know many AF cameras offer manual too, but they're just not much fun to focus manually: not really built for that, or up to it optically. (Only upscale models even have optional screens with focusing aids, and their finders don't seem bright enough anyway.) With cameras becoming obsolete every few years, who's going to build in the kind of mechanical & optical quality I'm used to? (Except Leica, and they never made their DSLR.)</p>

<p>If your father is having an experience anything like this, getting back to his favorite old Nikon and rediscovering the best workflow for it today, which might or might not involve shooting print film and/or scanning and photoshopping it, could really be the only solution. (Though I also like the suggestion above to try a classic medium-format camera instead, for the same reason.) And in either case, go on a nice trip somewhere together to use it. Best of luck!</p>

 

<p>Years ago I used an XA as a travel and backup camera. I loved the manual features but it seemed that the results weren't always quite as sharp as I expected. I imagined the small size and lightness induced some camera shake, but could that really have mattered so much with a 35mm lens at 1/250? (Same film and photo lab as for my Pentax SLR shots which came out fine.) I wondered whether it was just a lemon, but then I heard one of my grad school profs say he had the same problem with an XA, so I just stopped using it much. It's still around someplace... does anyone have advice? It was a nice little camera, and not expensive.</p>

 

<p>These are exactly the focal lengths I use, but "Best" is so subjective! I use the 24mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron ASPH, 50mm Summicron, 90mm Macro-Elmar (no adapter). The 90 ME in particular wouldn't be everyone's choice, but I don't need wider apertures than these, so I'm glad to enjoy the more moderate sizes and prices. There are more choices now than when I got most of these, and many are optically excellent, so it all comes down to your aperture requirements and handling preferences. For example, I like the focusing tab on my older 50mm, it's handy that three of these share the E39 cap/filter size, and the two spares carry very nicely on that back-to-back lens adapter. Any shortcomings in my results are not due to the lenses. :)</p>

 

<p>From what I've seen, they changed from the greenish-yellow outer coating to the purple one shortly after the 3000000 s/n, c. 1980. (Don't know whether that coincides with the E60 version of this lens.) I prefer the later coating, and in wide-angle lenses it resists sun reflections/flare better. I imagine it would make less of a difference with a 180mm.</p>

 

<p>On a related note: I'm curious why I never see the first, Mandler-designed 19mm Elmarit-R on the used market. Were there just very few made/sold? I've heard that it was fairly good, and it ought to be much more affordable than the later model.</p>

 

<p>Vic is absolutely right about a Bi-Elmarit. A 35-50 f/2.8 would be a great universal travel lens for me, whereas I'd never considered the Tri-Elmar due to size and speed. A 35-75 might please even more users.</p>

<p>Pure curiosity here: previous posts have explained that a normally focusing lens increases effective focal length slightly when focused close (while an internally focusing lens changes its effective f/stop, I forget which way). So what then is the effect when a floating element is added for close focus? Would such a lens (like the 75/2 M) experience a greater or a lesser change, compared to one (like the 75/1.4) that had none? (The possible relevance here being accuracy of framelines.)</p>

 

<p>Thanks Colin, I expect the MP film rail design is the problem -- why on earth would they change something like that, after all those years? I'll be paying more attention to them in the future.</p>

 

<p>Twice recently I've had a film loading(?) problem with my MP (now ~5 yrs old) that I never saw before, or during previous years with an M6. Images were off-center on the film by ~1 mm, pushing the edge of the frame off into the sprocket area. This was at the bottom of the image, so the film should have sat a bit farther in than it did -- and not just for a few frames, but the whole roll. Any idea how this can happen (and persist like that!) with "easy, foolproof" M film loading? Thanks!<br>

(No chewing of sprocket holes or anything else suspicious. And FWIW, after the first time I started paying attention to sprocket alignment as I hadn't before, but that didn't prevent it from happening once more.)</p>

 

<p>The 80-200/4 and 350/4.8 are my own two long lenses, and they're both great. I use the 80-200 handheld, thanks to its compactness -- don't be afraid to try that even at 200mm, the results can be excellent. For traveling light, the 350 is also excellent on a monopod. I hope you find the f/4.8 usable with your Canon viewfinder; lots of SLRs start getting dark and grainy past f/4. (Even my SL2 begins to, by 5.6)</p>

 

<p>I've stumbled on this at a late stage, but I see one previous remark that escaped the attention it deserves: <em>"The police are charged with protecting society, and that is best done by preventing problems, as opposed to dealing with them afterward."</em> <br /> <br /> This shouldn't be said (or taken) lightly; it sums up the entire civil-liberties problem since 9/11. Apprehending those who've actually committed crimes can prevent them from committing more, and we do want police for that, but "prevention" itself simply can't be the prime directive of law enforcement in free societies; it's incompatible with too many civilized values. How it's suddenly become the watchword lately mystifies and frightens me. The preventability of all evil is a delusion. Its pursuit greatly magnifies the role of mere suspicion and speculation in the sometimes arbitrary exercise of state power by people who aren't all the best or brightest, and who even when entirely well-intentioned can't avoid collateral damage. That way lies something too much like a police state for my comfort, one that too easily forgets that the whole point of security is to leave people free to live their lives! The personal anecdotes shared here of run-ins over cameras may seem easy to laugh off, but more and worse can follow. So thanks everyone, and please keep this discussion alive elsewhere too.</p>

There are a lot more truly decent binoculars out there today than there were 30 years ago, but some like Trinovids and ELs still stand out. An 8 (or 10)x30 of that grade will go anywhere and be a pleasure to use.

 

Oddly enough, I remain a Trinovid fan: I don't like the (10x) Ultravids I've looked at. They may be brighter, but the eyecups don't adjust far enough out for me, and they just don't deliver as flat a field -- some combination of worse distortion or field curvature or DOF, I haven't tested which. Strange, at that price, to have moved backward on such essentials. (The current Zeiss is even worse; for a 10x42 today I'd pick the EL.)

To get back to your original question about splitscreen blackout with slower lenses, for me a killer advantage of

an SL(2) is the incredible brightness of the (large) prism viewfinder. My own long lenses are pretty slow, the

80-200/4 and when needed, 350/4.8, yet I can focus just fine even

at 4.8 -- annoying blackout doesn't start until 5.6, which is a stop or two later than most other SLRs I've seen.

(How does that F1 do?) Definitely go for the SL2. Most vendors will state whether a lens is (all) 3 cams. The

complexities of Leicadom are well worth figuring out, and even "budget" lenses like mine are pretty stellar.