tom_monego

<p>Another thing to look at is the coverage circle of your lens, some lenses are better than others. Some 240s will barely cover any movement with an 8x10 others will give you some, WA lenses the most. Indirect movements take the largest circles. No move of a bummer than to get your film back and you have the edges of the image circle coming into your film.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>I found 10 rolls of K64, when looking for b&w film for my son who is taking a college photo course. Then i found out Dwaynes in Parsons Kansas is the only place processing the film and they will stop at the end of the year. I have had 2 rolls processed by them and they have done a good job. Images look good even though the film has a 2006 date. If you are going to scan the film afterward, shoot at ISO 64, it is difficult for a scanner to get good results in the shadows in under exposed film, though a slightly underexposed frame will project with more pop. I'm in northern New England so I have to wait for spring to get color in the landscape.<br>

Enjoy<br>

Tom</p>

<p>The V700 is definitely better than a V500, have done 35mm slides on both. The V750 is supposed to be marginally better than the V700. I have used a V700 at work for 4 years, my job changed 6 months ago and I lost the scanner so I just bought one for home. I like the 4x5 scans I get even with the Epson carrier, it is 2 1/4 that the carrier is a real problem doesn't have enough support for the thin film. It is not a bad 35 scanner either. Epson often has them for sale in their clearance center for $450 or so. Oh yes I have done 4x5 and color on the scanner, always use 48bit for color and 16 bit for b&w, with the Epson software.<br>

<br /> Have fun<br /> Tom</p>

<p>Nikkor has a good reputation for its LF lenses, unfortunately they have stopped making them. But a 150 is a good place to start, but if you want to have WA a you can probably find a 90mm f8 is OK f5.6 is better but bigger, Caltar, Fuji, Nikon, Rodenstock, Schneider are all good lenses. The lens to stay away from is the older Angulon f6.8, just not up to the quality of the newer lenses. Some like it because it is very small though. Get much wider and your bellows can get in the way while doing movements, so a special bag bellows is needed.<br>

A problem with LF wide angles is that they don't have even illumination across the film, falls off to the corners, not to be confused with sharpness falling off. There is a special center dot filter to compensate, but they can cost as much as a used lens. <br>

Good luck<br>

Tom</p>

<p>the lens was sold mostly with a Polaroid MP3 for copy work. Not very good coverage at infinity. I tried one on an old speed graphic years ago and went back to the old uncoated Tessar that was originally on it. May not be worth a used shutter let alone a new one I believe it is a #1. Look for a used 150 Xenar or Caltar, probably will cost about what a new shutter will and be a better lens.<br>

Tom</p>

<p>I have had a very good Epson V700 and a rebuilt Nikon LS2000, the Epson was better. Same sharpness but it had better dynamic range. The main problem with the Epson is that it requires calibration right out of the box, it is tedious, putting the little feet on the film holders. Mine was good on my second try, I lucked out. I have been impressed with the unit, but its max res is 3200ppi, there is no improvement going to 6400, just eats time. All its auto software is worthless, use the pro scanning section, manual setup, working with scan settings you can get a good scan. I have 16x20s made from this scanner, only one from a 35mm b&w neg that scanned beautifully. Mostly I use it with large format scans. I have scanned a lot of 35s for presentations, the nice thing about the V700 is 12 slides are better than scanning individually, by selecting each one separately you can apply individual adjustments to each image. The neg holder will hold 4 strips but works best with strips of 6.<br>

Handling a huge amount of images, you really don't want to keep them, or scan them all, editing is the key. First cull the bad exposures, we all have them. I'd even suggest making contact prints of the negs so you have a reference. Then find the images that mean something to you and your family and scan just those. We through out tons of pictures when my Mom past away, the ones we saved are priceless, it maybe 1/10 of what she had.<br>

Good luck<br>

Tom</p>

<p>A scanner is the best way to do this. While an Epson V500 maybe OK, the V700 is definitely better. You can come close to a Nikon dedicated film scanner with a V700 (probably not catch it quality wise). But it would be easier to do odd sized films.<br>

I have tried to copy slides with a true slide duplicator, Schneider Componon slide copy lens (80mm f4) on a Bessler Slide Duplicator using my D200 as a camera back. You can do RAW, but these files were too much work and I could get a better file from my V700 or LS2000 I used before the V700. Seems fast but dust shows and with RAW you can get a decent result but it is just a lot more work, and in the long run doesn't save any time.<br>

Tom</p>

<p>The original digital image does look like a competant repro image, doesn't look like it was shot with a good macro, with decent lighting. Lousy contrast and poor WB gives this one away. While a 6x7 should beat 12mp digital it should be close, at least in my 9 years of large format printing. With 35mm my D200 easily beats most of what I have seen, and I have seen a lot of bad 35mm prints. While I can get a decent 16x20 from my D200 40 years of Leica and high end Canon film shooting I still don't print 35mm larger than 11x14. If I want max definition I will still go with 4x5 and film though a Betterlight back will come close. Most of these film/digital theads are slanted towards what the poster wants as an answer. Just couldn't let this one go.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>You wouldn't be able to afford it. Would cost thousands of dollars. The lens mount to film plane is longer in a Nikon that an FD Canon. There isn't that many electronics on an F3 but you would still bung up the mirror movement. Lenses just worked differently so you couldn't get auto aperture. Just not worth it.<br>

So why just buy a nice used F1AE, wonderful camera (get one with the caps on the bottom), maybe better than an F3, I have used both. You can also buy Nikon AIS lenses relatively inexpensively for the F3.</p>

<p>Tom</p>

<p>Nice time to learn about macro lenses<br>

1) Close up photos taken by macro lenses look nice because the lens is designed for close focusing while your 85 is designed for head shots to infinity.<br>

2) Very close to all macro lenses made are nice lenses, can't think of a bad one, Nikon, Sigma, Tokina, Tamron all make good macros, you can get a good Sigma 50mm for $250 or so, I paid $225 for a 2nd hand Nikon 55 f2.8AF.<br>

3) Check out used lenses<br>

4) Any adapter or tube won't make your lens a macro, you may get closer but it will be hard to get to 1:2 or 1:1 magnification. Hint you need enough tubes to equal or come close to the focal length of your lens to get to 1:1. 85mm of extension tubes, in fact multiple tubes anything over 25mm or becomes unweildy.<br>

5) You loose light as you focus closer so it is nice to have the lens work with your in camera meter.<br>

Good luck<br>

Tom</p>

<p>Don't know if it is any cheaper than a conversion but a D70 has much better IR response than a D200. Another alternative is a Kodak DCS 760, basicly a digital modded Nikon F5, these had removeable IR filters. Kodak no longer supports the camera so this is a little iffy as they were last made in 2003.<br>

Tom</p>

<p>Sad to here there are problems with this lens, judging by mine, the lens is well worth a repair.<br>

I do wonder, though I have no complaints about the lens, on AF it has never reached the printed infinity mark on the focus scale. It is quite quick and accurate focusing but never reaches the end point.</p>

<p>Tom</p>