martynas_photo

<p>Lex, thank you very much.<br>

Jim, if I had tmax3200 at the time - I would have certainly used it the way you suggest. While in this case my options were pretty straightforward - either use tmax400 at 1600, or don't shoot at all. The problem is that although I have some experience in film development - I have always shot at box speed and never did any pushing. That's where all the dumb questions come from. </p>

 

<p>thanks for your responses. I did some more reading and although I somewhat like the results of tmax in rodinal, perhaps I will go with d76 or hc110. If I use these in the abovementioned proportion (1+3) - what "safe" development time would you suggest for shots taken in low light? If I understand correctly, developing with rotary processor requires ~15% less time, than manual agitation? thanks!</p>

<p>hi,<br /> I have read many different opinions and would appreciate your input - what dilution and development times would you suggest for the best results with Kodak tmax (tmy)400 shot indoors at 1600? I am going to use Rodinal (I don't mind the grain and contrast) and the film will be processed on a Jobo cpa rotary processor. it is 135 film. Thank you!</p>

<p>as long as you do not shoot in locations where silence is preferred/required - get this camera. because it is one of the loudest Nikons of the xxx class I've ever had (d100, d200, d300). If shutter sound is of no concern - there is something extraordinary about the way it handles low light situations... it's a reduced d3, after all:)</p>

<p>I wouldn't buy a lens with marks of attempted (to an unknown extent) unprofessional repair. If this information were disclosed to you after the transaction, I would suggest that you insist on cancelling it and getting your money back. If the seller was honest in his description of the lens and the price was below average market price - I don't think it would be fair to claim a refund.<br>

I've looked up ebay's completed listings - two of four such lenses sold recently went for ~35EUR, one was sold for 75EUR and someone bought the last one for ... 238EUR... I hope it wasn't you:)</p>

 

<p>looks like amateur attempts to remove the faceplate (using scissors or similar hi-tec tools).</p>

 

<p>one of the options would be <a href="http://www.procamerarepair.com/search.asp?keyword=d3s+rubber&search.x=16&search.y=16">this company</a>. </p>

 

<p>is there a darkslide in the back?</p>

<p>a new ccd for d70?? how much??</p>

 

<p>Kevin,<br>

there's no point in worrying about <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2008/10/front-element-scratches">small spots or scratches on the front of the lens:) </a><br>

as for the OP's lens - I know, it sounds silly, but... have you tried cleaning it? a fine microfibre cloth should do the trick. If that is fungus - it will go away, leaving (or not) a trace on the element surface. If it does not go away - then it looks like a permanent damage, but merely a cosmetic one.</p>

 

<p>I spoke to sales rep today - he did not know exactly, but said that the price of the power grip with the same battery as in d4 (EN-EL18) plus charger would be somewhere around 550eur. obviously with EN-EL15 it would be cheaper. but that's pricing for Europe.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Vince Passaro:<br /> The larger point: I have a D700. I have thirteen film cameras including two MF bodies. The D700 takes some stunning pictures, if I don't screw it up. On the other hand, I rarely feel that I am taking the picture. (If I were doing sports or news I'd feel differently but mainly I do either family or arty things and arty things on a D700 -- feh.) This fabulous machine is taking the picture. I'm pointing it. When I'm using film and a separate meter (for my eye-level F and F2, for instance, not to mention Contax and Leica bodies back from the 30s, 40s, 50s) and figuring out how the light and dark masses will create values in the photograph etc etc; and even better, when I'm not figuring it out but have internalized enough knowledge not to have to think -- then I'm the fabulous machine. It's a whole different feeling</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got exactly the same feeling after playing around a bit with a d4 and d800 (at Nikon product presentations). they are great (especially for sports or news guys), but somewhat I immediately thought about my fm2 and f5... and no, I am not talking film vs. digital. its about that "I'm merely pointing it" thing. those machines are simply too smart and they quickly get you an answer for most shooting situations. the restrictions imposed by earlier cameras (crappy iso above xxx, poor af in certain situations, etc) FORCED the photographer to think of possible ways to achieve the best technical quality possible (I am not talking about the creative aspects, like angle, composition, etc. ). Now you just point and shoot, even when the light is next to none. crazy...<br /> just for reference - I do theatre photography and have gone all the way from f5, through d100, d200, d300 and d700. the latter is a fabulous camera, but its results also heavily depend on post-processing. while the d200 (with iso set to <640) renders images that can be converted and used with little to no post. I am using nikon's software for raw processing and conversion.</p>

<p>two more photographers working with Hasselblad.<br>

http://www.placegallery.com.au/2011/artists/david_gillison/david_gillison.htm<br>

http://www.amazon-indians.org/amazonian-indian.html<br>

It might be a silly suggestion, but... why not ask Hasselblad directly? Maybe they could provide some related historical info.</p>

<p>Jeff,<br>

thanks, it was useful. I was among those who thought that aside from artistic perspective, those photographs were an invaluable resource for ethnographers/anthropologists.</p>

<p>its hard to imagine what was on his mind... to spend over 30 years among different tribes taking pictures (wikipedia says he took over 40000 images, along ~10000 recordings of songs and other folklore on wax cylinders). it seems to me sometimes that those images extend beyond mere stopping of a moment. I'd say they defeat time. <br>

here's an even more exhaustive and organised collection of his images.<br>

http://curtis.library.northwestern.edu/curtis/toc.cgi</p>

<p> </p>

<p>it has nothing to do with Hasselblad cameras, but you might want to take a look at the images by <a href="http://www.worldwisdom.com/public/imagegallery/gallery.aspx?cat=Edward%20Curtis&Page=1#Anchor_Achomawi">Edward S. Curtis</a></p>

<p>I doubt that Nikon can't repair the camera. their reasoning behind the "unrepairable" is pretty simple - this endeavour would cost more than/similar to a new camera (and you surely wouldn't pay that amount for repair), hence - economically unfeasible, i.e. not worth the effort, etc. However, a third-party repair shop might do that - not because they are better qualified than Nikon tech, but because they have the time and motivation to play around with the thing.<br>

my friend dropped his 14-24mm Nikkor... Nikon said it was unrepairable, the local tech "fixed" it for ~250USD. No, it doesn't work 'like new', the zoom is pretty stiff, etc - but it is still better than keeping such an expensive lens as a paperweight</p>

<p>which 80-200 do you have? af-d or af-s?</p>

<p>if you don't have the manual for the winder, try <a href="http://butkus.org/chinon/mamiya/mamiya_645_power_grip_wg402/mamiya_645_power_grip.htm">this</a> , maybe a similar situation is described there. it is for the pro model, but should be essentially the same. I really don't think it has anything to do with flash.</p>

<p>Try how it works with the film back removed. (careful with the curtain).</p>

<p>here's the link to the part's list. Although its not the service manual - maybe it will help somehow.<br>

<a href="http://www.4shared.com/office/5_cEPBuQ/nikon_f100_parts_ET.html">download link</a></p>

<p>Tim,<br>

do you have an external flash for any other camera system (Nikon's SB, Canon's whatever-it-is-called, etc.)? You could use it in manual mode w/out problem.<br>

As for the winding crank - it all depends on your style of shooting. If you won't push the camera to its limits passing 10 rolls of film at a time, you should be fine with the motor winder. I wouldn't spend more than 20-25$ on the advance crank (bought mine for something like 20$ a while back on the *bay).</p>

<p>by the way, the missing connector between the grip and camera looks similar to <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/147601-REG/Mamiya_211_115_Terminal_Adapter_RA402_for.html">this</a> or <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/34707-REG/Mamiya_211_428_Terminal_Adapter_RA401_for.html">this</a> (site description says its for the pro version only, but you get the idea)</p>

<p>the grip will fit your 645 Super (I have the same setup) and the flash will work when it is connected via cable to the sync socket - no matter if it is inserted in the grip shoe or not.<br /> I have another suggestion. 645 Super should not be heavily used with a power winder as its internal cogs and wheels and whatnot are not that strong. This was solved in the later Mamiya Pro version . Get a simple winder handle - saves space and weight.</p>

<p>d80 uses the same sensor as d200 and there have been many discussions concerning the perceived softness of the sensor in these cameras. They are said to have a strong anti-aliasing filter installed, which effectively reduces moire, but also affects image crispness. I have a d200 and can confirm that it appears significantly softer than the images out of d100. However, I use in-camera sharpening (high) and process raws with Nikon capture nx (so that all camera settings are transferred). I also never use the camera's noise-reduction. I have found that when the camera (d200) is focused properly, wb is carefully adjusted, exposure is correctly metered and the iso is not more than 400 - it can produce high quality images, with no apparent softness. In fact, I sometimes prefer the colours from d200 (at low isos) to the images produced by d700, but that is subjective and might lead us to a ccd vs. cmos debate.</p>

<p>If you are on a budget, the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D might be a very good choice. Although it has some "plastic" feeling, it is actually a very good performer. it is sharp, lightweight and has quite a bit of distortion. Works well with d700<strong>.<br /></strong></p>