max_steinhardt

<p>I had the same problem with an after market Miranda mount->m42 adapter. The only marking on mine is the word Japan. I ended up taking my adapter apart and removing the clip. I then took the clip and carefully cut off the part that catches on the bayonet with a hacksaw as close as I could get to the pin that holds the spring. Then I reassembled the adapter rings and held the remainder of the clip in place while wrapping the whole thing in electrical tape.</p>

<p>Long story short, it looks terrible but works... sorta (i have to use a key to wedge the clip open and get the adapter off and hold the clip down when mounting lenses). From what I've seen, the OEM adapter (which is labeled Miranda) is a lot nicer because the clip lever is the same width as the adapter and juts out from the side, rather than stick out on top. Unfortunately, The OEM adapter is rare and usually goes for way too much money.</p>

<p>I had something like this happen to me once. My right hand/wrist started to develop a dull ache that was just enough to be annoying during the day. I was afraid that it was carpal tunnel, so i decided to significantly scale back my computer use to only the necessities. Part of that cutting back meant that I put down my D70 and used my old pentax MX. After having a really great time with film, I decided to take my D70 out for old times sake, and instantly identified the original cause of my hand pain. The built-in grip on the D70 is really uncomfortable in my hand, and prolonged use causes the dull, lasting ache. I find this is the case for me and cannons, too. I think, in the end, that a square camera is the camera for me... now if only i had the money for a leica M9...</p>

<p>under the California government, had Arnold disqualified himself and not signed it, it would still go into law. In CA the governor has 30-90 days (i forget the exact amount) to sign or veto a bill. If the governor does nothing and the grace time expires, the bill automatically goes into law. Whether or not he should have not signed it as a symbolic thing or vetoed it is another issue.</p>

<p>Wow, thanks! Next time I'm in your area, I'll swing by and pick it up. Judging by your tombstone pictures, I'm guessing you're in Tennessee or Kentucky. If the rate I am in that area stays constant, I'd say I'll see you in... 22 years =).</p>

<p>Awesome...Can i barrow some money? I swear I'm good for it... in fact I'm a Nigerian Prince, my accounts are just being transferred.</p>

<p>In all seriousness, I think it is important to understand your medium, and since "how big can i print 35mm film" seems to be one of those unanswerable questions, I'll just have to find out for myself. Thank you to everybody for all the information and opinions =).</p>

<p>Yeah Larry, at this point I'm totally going for it. The spot I'm thinking of hanging it has about a 5 foot minimum viewing distance due to furniture, and i doubt people will spend much time even that close to it.</p>

<p>Alan, I just tried that out, and the slide still looks awesome.</p>

<p>Edward, This is my first slide projector. I have little romantic feelings for film, I just like it because it has absolutely nothing to do with a computer (well except the obvious forum posting). I was frankly shocked at how sharp the image was at 6 inches to 2 feet away from it. I had always assumed it would look something like a digital image viewed at 10X it's original size, but it looked soft like the world does after an optometrist dilates your eyes.</p>

<p>I hear ya Tom. Being 25, I can look at the prints made from when I was a kid and compare them to the prints I get now, and all the old glass prints seem to have a certain smoothness that I just don't perceive in the digital prints, even though they were made with the same lenses and camera. Some day I'd like to get into the whole wet darkroom thing, but even then a print as large as 24x30 would cost a lot more than the $37 it would cost me with this sale, due to the fact that I would have to buy more than one sheet of paper. I usually try not to think about the whole digitization faze of the process, as it is a large consideration to take in, and if the print is full of both grain and digital noise.... well that would suck. In the end though, I'm thinking that at less than $40, it is worth the gamble to know once and for all how big 35mm can go to.</p>

<p>Ya know, i think this is just one of those things I'm just going to have to try. One of my semi-local labs has a half off sale for RA prints in 24x30 to 30x40. I think That I can lay down a few bucks to satisfy my curiosity.</p>

<p>Is it right to assume that the greater contrast applies to the grain itself, thus making it have a harder, more noticeable edge?</p>

<p>ah, i knew there had to be something to it, thank you very much.</p>

<p>Is a slide projector a reliable indicator of how a print would look in terms of grain and sharpness? I was just looking at a 35mm slide at around 2 feet by 3 feet, and even close up the grain and sharpness was fine. Prevailing wisdom on the subject, however, is that a massive enlargement of that size from 35mm wouldn't be great. I'm not actually interested in an enlargement that big, I'm just trying to determine if other people have wildly higher standards of grain and sharpness than i do, or if a projector is not a good way to preview what a print will look like.</p>

<p>o.O Ken Rockwell and The Holy War in one post...</p>

<p>My advice is to go out with both your digital and film cameras one day and take the same pictures with each. Make prints from both and scan the film. Choose the one that best fits you in terms of results, use, and processing and take pictures with it.</p>

<p>I am by no means an expert, but I think the biggest problem that you will have is batteries. If it is going to get really (freezing) cold, batteries get really efficient, which sounds great but really means that they die in a hurry. You can usually get a bit of juice out of them by warming them up in your coat, but as long as it is really cold battery life may be a problem. On top of that, it seems doubtful that they have electrical outlets on everest, so charging may be a bit tricky.</p>

<p>I had a lot of problems with the big 3-4 filter holding cokin and a 18-200. I ended up dremeling the opening to the point that it was razor thin and cutting off a filter space or two on the front. Get the wide version, it'll save you a headache.</p>

<p>yeah, that's the one. It's nice because after that battery dies, you can peel the O ring off and put in a silver oxide battery. The Energizer 392/384 is the battery I am using right now, and it fits perfectly.</p>

<p>my SP1000 came with an O ring as well. Mine looks to have come from a company called Wein, which specializes in mercury battery replacements for old cameras. If you don't want to spend a lot of time finding the right sized O ring, it might be worth it to buy an (expensive) Wein battery once to get the O ring.</p>

<p>That was the story I got from my local CVS lab tech, who I've affectionately nicknamed Cap'n Quaaludes. I had gone in with a test roll from an old camera and wanted to make sure that the pictures turned out ok before I had them scanned, and he vvveeerrryyy sslloowwwly explained to me that it was easier to do it in one pass because they scan the prints. I clarified that they didn't have the ability to scan the neg, and he confirmed. Maybe my CVS just really sucks, or maybe the tech is incompetent, but that's the story I was sold.</p>

<p>My understanding from my local CVS is that they don't scan the neg, but rather the print. The way i was told they work if I just bring in a neg is that they print it, then scan the print. If this is in fact how the work, the lab tech might just suck at scanning.</p>

<p>good to know, i guess I'll keep them around as a historical curiosity. Thanks for the heads up.</p>

<p>while cleaning out a garage, I came across ekta/koda chrome 64 (a roll of each), new in box, from 1979. They had been sitting in the hottest part of the garage rafters, and were probably put there in the late 80's. I know that age and heat will probably mean that these rolls at least have color shifts, fog, or potentially totally irradiated, but I going to take my chances and see what turns out.</p>

<p>From what I understand, really expired film may need exposure compensation. I was wondering if anybody was willing to take a stab at what exp. comp. is needed. Really, even "shot in the dark" type guesses are welcome, seeing as how over baked film from the late 70's probably isn't really all too common.</p>

<p>as an afterthought, I'm also wondering how likely it is that the film is trashed beyond all practical use. Like I said before all best guesses welcome.</p>

Raa, is your heart set on the photo industry? I ask because, in a time where questionable business practices are a dime a dozen in the news, you seem to be making this really hard on yourself. If this is for a business class, especially business ethics or law, I seriously doubt that Nikon pricing is going to get you very far. I can't think of any truly unethical business behavior in the photo industry, but it doesn't mean they don't exist (insert cliche about well known search engine here). If you decide to go with something other than the photo industry, you can't beat a classic like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi">Charles Ponzi</a>

I dunno if I'd call myself a true macro-ist either, because i take a ton of non-macro shots. The thing is that in my eyes the Macro, not the zoom, is the king of versatility. Just as a a zoom user is willing to make a few picture quality trade offs to get a wide range of focal lengths, I will to make a few quality trade offs for the ability to get a wide range of magnification. My SMC-M 50/4 Macro is the lens that is on my camera the most, for both macro and as the standard 50mm. I like the versatility of being able to take snapshots and super close-ups, even if the snapshots aren't as sharp as my 50/1.4M. However, I run across a lot of occasions that I find the 50/4 is either too slow, the 1:2 magnification just isn't cutting it, or the >1 foot focal distance for 1:2 is just a little too close.<br><br>The second most used lens I own is the 135/3.5M. I love the focal length, but the roughly 5ft min focusing distance bugs me, and I'd kill for an extra 1-3 feet a lot of the time. Adding this to the issues i had with the 50/4, a longer macro lens seems to be a real winner. The sigma speaks to me because it is of a decently long focal length for both macro and non-macro, it's faster than my 50/4 and my 135/3.5, and it has 1:1 at a bit more comfortable working distance, thus solving a bunch of problems at once.<br><br>I also looked into Ring flash and extension tubes. If memory serves extension tubes take away your ability to focus to infinity. Even if they don't, ring flash and extension tubes ad a level of cost and complexity that I'm just not ready to deal with. I also don't have a lot of expendable income at the moment and will have time to reconsider, so if there is a cheaper manual focus that offers the same benefits as the sigma, I'd be all over it.

<br><br>

Long story short, getting the sigma lens will be a total impulse buy =).

awesome, that clears it up =). thank you very one.<br><br> Yeah, I know that I could get a cheaper manual focus lens, but the last time I looked at the used sections on B&H/Adorama/keh (yesterday), the sigma is the cheapest option from those sites, barring screw mount lenses. I was surprised when the SMC A100/4 Macro went for about $100 more than the sigma on KEH, and figured that the 1:1 and faster speed made the sigma lens a better buy. I was also thinking that since there isn't much for a discount for getting the lens used, it might be nice to actually buy a new lens for once. I actually have the SMC-M 50/4 Macro, and after using it, a farther working distance and higher magnification appeal to me. Also, should i ever decide to get an AF camera, at least I would have 1 AF lens for it, even if the AF on the sigma is supposed to be kinda sub par, as all my other glass is SMC-M.

Thanks everybody for the help. Dave, after a bit more searching, i see that you are correct, it does have a aperture ring =).<br><br> John, My concern is not with the normal clockwise/counter-clockwise movements of the focusing ring, but rather with what sigma calls their Dual Focusing system. I saw complaints stating that switching this lens to manual is a two step process; you have to set the barrel switch to manual and "declutch" (thanks Andrew) the ring forward or backwards (in other words, it has both a barrel switch and a clutch that need to be in manual).<br><br> I have never used a lens with the clutch system, and if it truly is a two step process, I worry about the interaction of accidentally changing the clutch position to 'Auto' would somehow being an annoyance/impediment to manual focusing on an all manual camera. More specifically, I worry that setting the clutch on auto would cause the focusing ring to spin freely so as to not hurt the autofocus systems, regardless of what the switch on the barrel is set to.<br><br> I hope this is a little more clear, but i kinda doubt it is.