niloy_hil

Here's a special case. To use Tiffen warm polarizer, the 67mm + b60-> 67mm adapter works much better than their B60 version. The issue is

in the width of the ring. The Tiffen B60 polarizer has a very very thin mounting ring, that makes it very difficult to attach (to "screw" on) to the lens. The better way is to have an adapter dedicated to the filter (~$26). It works much more naturally.

As far as the flare, this is a new but good point to me.

Depends. I've used K64-120 and K25-135, out-dated for

more than two years but freezed, no difference observable. Velvia-120

outdated for more than a year looked almost as new, but someone shown

that there could be slightly degraded satuation, (I think it's on rec.photo.*, search the last two years.). However, the Konica Impressa 50, one or two year out-dated, had terrible color rendition, though it came from a very reputable source (Freestyle).

In general, I'd assume three months really short, but it depends on the storage condition.

The first thing you must know is what type of battery is required,

or you'll damage it immediately.

There are two types of battery back, one with rechargible battery,

the other for rechargible battery. Never, ever use non-rechargible

battery.

If your battery back looks to take five AA batteries, remember it's

only for recharigible battery that supplies 6volt total (1.2v x 5).

Non-rechargible AA battery can supply 1.5v or even 1.6v. The camera's

electronic circuit can'd endure 5 x 1.5v. You can't use 4 1.5v either,

(if you are thinking 4 batteries with a bypass to fill the fifth battery seat), because there won;t be enough current to drive the

electronic-machanical parts. You'll still damage the cameera.

Even with the proper recharigible battery, if should constantly checking the battery. Whenever the battery is suspiciously low (don't trust the battery check. --listen to the shutter), recharge it

immediately.

Tiffen (warm) Soft/FX uses oval-drops instead of Softar's round ones.

The drop dristributes very similar to Softar, but the results are far from comparible. I believe Hoya and Kenko are even less desirable. I've heard many good words about Nikon's soft filter, but no one around has it. You might give it a try. However, I believe eventually you'll find Sotfar still the safest answer. Save money now!

By the way, I find even Softar I is hard to focus with SLRs. Softar is terrible on SLRs just as polarizer is terrible on RFs, so I made my own "flip-ups". It made my life much easier. This is another thing that I think SLR is for landscape and RF is for portraits

I'm working with a friend to convert the HP Photo scanner to take 120 or 220. It needs a "film carrier" and a way to fool the scanner so that machanically it is in the 5x7 print scan mode while electronically it is in the film scan mode. Since it only scan 24mm

at a time, and 120/220 is 54mm~60mm wide, it'll take three passes and

some software to complete the job.

Many said the expensive Arca Swiss is the cheapest ball head, or

simply THE ball head to go. A while ago I saw the Sputnik Ball head

from the Adolf & Gasser in SF. It's extremely light (3 lbs?) and yet

felt very sturdy. The ball is about 3 inches in diameter, held by

three upright fingers, no quick release. The ball might have empty

inside as it is unbelievable light. It is said that the America

Wildlife Society (or something like that) strongly recommend it.

The sales told me it works very well even with large format.

(The spec has 45 lbs capability). Is that just a sales talk?

Anyone has more direct experience to comment?

Yolin Lih

I have to mention that, although E100S is my best MF slide choice,

Velvia is still a good film. Mainly due to the fact that I got

cold stored Velvia from Freestyle with extremely good price,

and I have a 2X graduate filter always ready whenever Velvia is

on duty.

Don't know about Alaska, but from my Banff/Jasper experience, I found

the already contrasty scene prefered medium~low contrast film. I have E100S at ISO100 and Velvia at ISO32~25, all developed at 38 degree / 6min 20sec. E100S works much better. I also have Velvia at ISO 40, developed 7min, but results are terrible. The problems are missing details in both light and shade. I think Provia/Astia should also work better than Velvia. Since generally I don't like Astia in landscape, I

would choose Provia over Astia.

E100S has much longer achival life than Fujichrome (200 years vs 40 years according to the published number), combining contrast, color rendition and storage life, my best MF slide choice would be E100S.

If you'd also shoot 35mm, I'll urge you don't leave home without Kodachrome. With Kodachrome, all you need is a good lab and a little luck on the processing/handling.

This answer is from experience of 35mm Contax, not Contax 645.

It's the Contax lenses that are attractive, not at all the camera.

Contax camera body is Yashica, whatever it means to you. It has the most fragile switches and knobs. Obviously Contax uses very cheap

material in these area. Dropping the camera is obviously bad, but

try to turn the knobs or the switch is equally evil. I'd not recommend any Contax 35mm camera body except the Contax S2/S2b, the all manual/mechanical one. It's an exception.

However, I must add that I haven't owned any other 35mm SLR than Nikon FM. Maybe all "modern" cameras are equally fragile? For any

cameras full of plastic and PC boards, I'd be glad to give it at

least a year for it to prove itself. For anything costs like Contax

645, three years!

How much is enough?

Arca Swiss ball head has the capability to hold 90 lbs,

Bogen 3038 has 26 lbs, and the extremely light weight Sputnik

has 45 lbs.

I can't think of using ball head for LF, so all super ball should be

for MF or smaller. Is 90 lbs overkill? what about 45 lbs? 26 lbs?

Yolin Lih

Wess Plastic has "presentation mount" sort of slide mount for 6x9.

(outer:8.5" x 10.5", inner: 2.25" x 3.25"). Glassless, pin-registered.

Labeling is just like any 120 slide mounts. ~$12 per 20-mount/box.

Hi, Tom, Could you explain how it works? do you rewinnd before unloading? do you need the dark bag?

I almost ordered one about two or three years ago. VH USA quoted

$1080 for the A2035, but asked me to order through authorized dealer

as VH USA can't deal with me directly. The local dealer actually asked

less, something like $980 as I remembered. It's expensive but what

stoped me ordering it was the unsured delivery time. I was told it might take 2 months or one year.

Now I shoot 35mm with Hasselblad, but with my home modified 24 back. With a 35mm back, I can have a 35m SLR and a 6x6 SLR in one weight. 35mm films is more convenient than 6x6 for the film scanner, and I like 24mm x 54mm better than 24mm x 36mm.

I know at least one local store here has the price cheaper than B&H.

But after tax, it matches cent to cent.

Going up to MF is obviously a more pleasure path for many many people,

just like going up to LF or down to APS or any other directions. It's

at least not something very unusual. However, carrying a 35mm SLR and

a MF SLR does seem requiring an unusual back.

I'd suggest several options:

1. Get a light MF with a zoom, such as the new Fuji 645.

2. Get a fixed RF, such as Fuji 690 or 645.

(Even the 690 can be too heavy.)

3. Get a Hasselblad, also get a HB-lens to 35mm-body adapter,

use the Hasselblad system + HB-to-35mm adapter + 35mm SLR body.

Depends on the widest MF lens you have and the widest 35mm lens

you want, you might need to carry the widest 35mm lens as well.

(for example, the 28mm or wider).

From looking at the inkject printer, I feel the tonality is more

related to the dot shape instead of dot size. Even wondering why

a 300dpi Kodak printer looks better than some 720dpi inkjet printers

a couple years ago? or even the 1440dpi now? It's the shape of the

pixel that matters much, although to some degree, the size of the dpi can be equality important.

In inkjet printer, with about the same dot size, a dot with bell shape

is typically better than a cake shape. A donut star shape can be very

bad even if it is smaller. In 4-colors, a perfect dot that has all 4

colors coincidently aligned is better than if off-shifted.

I'm not sure MF is by nature better than 35mm in terms of point shape,

but I remember somewhere a comment about "bokeh" said that many best 35mm lenses that have very small point size also have a brighter outer

ring at the edge of the "cake", or maybe like the Fuji mountain.

I guess the brighter ring helps to reduce the point size, and hence

improved the high frequency performance (ie. higher resolution) but hurts something else (tonality?). --> I can easily build an audio with

very high frequence response, but not necessarily produce pleasant

overall "tonality".

So if MF does on average create better tonality, maybe it's because

it has less need on the point size in exchange of that something else?

Yolin Lih

150 has a larger image circle, which you might care if you

own a flexbody.

<p>

Yolin Lih

I have a 12 back dedicated for 220. I have the back completely taped

with thick dark tape, to avoid light leak from the back window.

<p>

To load the film, I check the film position from the front window (the

exposure window, removing the dark slide). When the film is right

about to appear in the exposured area, I can see a white tape that

tapes the film and the paper (this is Fuji slides).

<p>

Reset the counter right here, fire the shutter, turn to next frame,

then reset the counter again, it'll be ready to take the first real

shot.

<p>

But DOING SO WILL NOT GIVE ENOUGH FRAME SPACIONG.

<p>

The frame counter needs to be reset again after each shot for the

first two real shots. Allow the frame count to count up after the

third shots untill it reaches 12, reset the counter after that,

then take the rest shots.

<p>

REMEMBER, the film ends after count 10 or 11. (your back may be

different, depends on the condition)

Wess Plastic has slide mount for 6x7, the outer dimension is 8.5cm x

8.5cm, AN glass or glassless. Call Wess Plastic for their catalog.

I remember their 6x6 glassless is ~$7 per 20 and their glassless

6x9 is ~$12 per 20, so the 6x7's price must be somewhere in between

or simply the same as 6x6.

<p>

I put the mounted slides in the slide page (pocket) for further

protection. There're few mm's room between the film and the slide

page's pocket. However, I don't know if it would cause humid problems

in the long run.

The December issue of Shutterbug mentioned an Italy born

medium format lens to 35mm body adapter with tilt & shift

capability. It says there's no USA distributor yet.

<p>

Heard more info since then?

It would be a perfect camera for me if it also comes with a 135mm

or 150mm lens, particularly the 150mm. Maybe it's just a matter of

time if the finder/body is ready for it.

<p>

For the concerns on the panoramic slide mounts, Wess Plastics supplies

two sizes: 7cmx7cm with ~23.6 mm x 54mm opening, and 8.5cm x 8.5cm

with ~22.3mm x 67mm opening. You can choose AN glass or glassless, you

can also choose pin registered, peg registered, and regular type.

<p>

The problems would be more on the projector. 6x6 Projectors for 24mm x

54mm aren't difficult to find, but a good 6x7 for 24mmx65mm, would be

tough to find.

<p>

Don't know if the 35mm slide scanner and the Fuji's 1-hour lab would

give this format support as good as the regular 24mm x 36mm format, or

at least close to that. It might make big difference.

A local photo sales said it should also have the

new wave 24mm x 65mm adapter, but not 24x36mm.

<p>

Very possibly the best all-in-one format camera.

<p>

Niloy Hil

Today you can hardly find any C-41 film that can be called a crap.

The more practical issue is on getting a right lab.

<p>

Regarding Reala and PRN, here what I've read seems to me are responses

from what I called the "corner case" users. Certainly they all have

their points and good taste, but for a more safe consideration,

think of this:

<p>

PRN, Kodak calls it their film of the "best color structure";

Reala 120, Fuji does not import it to USA, and it was not listed

as a professional film. Regardless how much facts it bears,

or exactely which one is better, which one do you think will get better supports from the majority labs, including Fuji lab?

<p>

If you like Fuji, better go for their real professional film

(new NHG, for example) than the Reala. If you have to get ISO100,

for lab's sake, get PRN.

<p>

Niloy Hil

The 120 format is easier to RETOUCH and to ENLARGE, while 135 format

is easier to HANDLE.

<p>

The 135 format would be a better choice if your wedding is to so

busy and so unpredicatible that demands the photographer to work

like a jounalist or a foot ball game player.

<p>

Otherwise, use your common sense.

I know the fixed Hassy to 35mm body adapters are made by Kenko, Tamron, etc., but who makes ones with tilt/shift capability?

Price?

<p>

Noloy Hil

General speaks, this might be a special purpose item,

but I use my Hasselblad to Contax adapter a lot.

<p>

Since I already have the Hasselblad 80mm and 180mm,

this adapter is a cheapest way (cost me $180, but now

probalbly is less than $100) to get the 80mm and 180mm

to my 35mm-format system?: Together with the my Contax 28mm/50mm/135mm/2X, it's quite complete. It happens to me

that the 50mm and 80mm are the two most used lenses,

followed by the 28mm.

<p>

I don't know how the optical performance of the Hasselblad

80mm compared with a Contax 85mm or 100mm. Contax has a

report says that the Contax-Zeiss performans better in

serveral ways, but I found my Hasselblad 80mm and 180mm give

me the best pictures in terms of the tonal appearance. I should

have compared the Hasselblad 50mm vs. Contax 50mm, but I neveer did.

So It can't conclude anything solid.

<p>

Actually the real usefulness of the adapter is, it converts the 35mm

body into a wonderful 35mm back to my Hasselblad system. This is the

cheapest and most convenient way for me to get a 35mm slides for

digital scanning and projection. As you probably know, the film scanner for 120 format is about 10X of the best 35mm film scanner.

and similar for a 120 slide show. I can tolerate 35mm slides in glasless slide mounts, but not for the 120 slides.

<p>

To use this adapter, before firing, you'll have to use the focus

depth preview to step down the aperture to the desired setting.

The camera can't control the aperture but the meter and the

aperture priority auto exposure still work.

<p>

My Hass-Contax adapter is from Hasselblad/Contax. Most Hass adapters

are from other parties (Tamron has Hass-Mamiya; Kenko has Hass-Nikon,

Canon, Contax). I've heard some adapters may damage the lens or the body. Make sure the one you want does fit perfectly.