patrick_drennon

Just my two cents worth. I don't personally have a problem with it. These users

are sometimes lost as to what to do and are inherently inefficient with attempts

at solutions. The traffic level on this forum is such that it isn't really a problem

(at its current level). It could become a problem as the forum grows.

Fact is there are some great minds and levels of expertise posting on this

sight, seems a shame to prevent access to that expertise to someone who

might not know where else to go.

I've had an SS120 for over a year. I was not real thrilled until some software

updates came out. Silverfast v.5.5 on a Mac in OS 9 is wonderful. It is clearly

outclassed by v.6 on OSX. I love it. It has been flawless for me and is

wonderful on transparencies (no surprise) AND color and B&W negs

(somewhat surprising). It has software ICE which works O.K. but it slows down

an already slow process so I don't use it much.

Hard to add to the quality responses you've gotten.

I've turned into kind of a collector but I tend to use all of the collection (I dearly

love the build quality of MF cameras).

I have a P67 system that includes a P67 MLU and a P67II. I also have a Fuji

GX680III. I bought a Fuji GA645Zi in 1998 and have put well over 100 rolls

through it in that time. I use it as a sort of large point and shoot and it is

wonderfully suited to that. All things considered (number of shots, ease of

loading, weight, handling ease, features, AF performance, etc.) my

experience has been that there is no comparison. The big negative IS a 270%

improvement and that camera makes it a painless transition as long as you

can live within its limits (I'm sure you've checked the threads on it). I do use

the other systems as much but for different things, I really don't prefer any one

over the other overall (my way of saying you might consider keeping your

6X7).

Sounds like you plugged into the FP terminal. There is no shutter

setting that would have resulted in a totally thin negative (I

assume the frame edge data is of proper density).

Any slower and you would have an ambient interference an a

denser negative. Shutter speeds faster than 1/30 would have a

properly exposed focal plane 'strip' on each frame. I have made

the FP mistake in the past and had the effect you describe.

I am not trying to sway you from the Nikon but will offer my

experience with the Polaroid Sprintscan 120.

It has been a very good performer on everything since I installed

Silverfast v 5.5. Prior to that I was very disappointed in its

performance on both color and B&W negs.

With the new software it's an excellent performer. I've never used

ICE but I've not had any particular problems in its absence (I

haven't wished I had it).

Just wanted to offer an alternative (not opposing) point of view.

I have the lens. It is difficult to use but creates outstanding

results when used properly. I try to stay @ f/8 or smaller. I have

seen the chromatic behavior but can work around it, I love the

lens. It is a very good cost/performance ratio performer.

This is GREAT Steve. I'm very pleased to see that you're going to

continue as administrator, whether we say it or not, we do

appreciate your hard work.

A generation from now, if anyone reads this thread, they will

marvel at us.

As long as there is an economic need (and there will ALWAYS

be) for imaging then dollars will be spent in improving the

quality, convenience and efficiency of producing those images.

There is a highly disproportionate spend on the digital side. The

ability to use the net to transfer images is too important (not

necessarily view, but transport). This lends itself uniquely to an

efficiency equation.

Where the MONEY is spent FOR images, art directors, clients

and photogrphers will head in the direction of the cheapest,

most efficient way to conduct this business. In the long run, film

cannot possibly compete as development proceeds in digital. I,

personally, am so over-equipped in analog equipment that my

heart wishes film would win this 'battle'. The fact is it will not. All

we can hope is that in the long run, the manufacturers will

continue to provide emulsions for those of us (todays generation

of photography buffs) who are irreversibly hooked on analog

photography. The next generation (my son's) will use digital

primarily and analog to fill in. In 1974 I was in the last freshman

engineering class required to learn the slide rule. Believe it or

not there was a similar (if not as heated) debate over the

wisdom of that change.

Years from now, the only analog work being done will either be

for specialized purposes or for some esthetic preference the

researchers and Adobe developers haven't figured out how to

duplicate digitally.

Economics will dictate the outcome of this debate and we will

lose.

My first MF was a Mamiya M645 (1982). I had wanted a Pentax

6X7 at the time but couldn't afford it. Couldn't even think about

Hasselblad. 15 years later, nothing wrong with the Mamiya, I got

a P67 MLU for christmas. Love at first sight (and use). I was able

to afford additions like 45 f/4, 165 LS, and the 600 f/4. I added a

P67II a couple of years ago.

<p>

I bought a Fuji GX680III 1 1/2 years ago. What a system! Very

well thought out and flexible (I seem to have become a collector).

The Fuji has fabulous optics, movements and motor drive with

multi-format capability. Should have caused me to at least

partially sell off my Pentax system.

<p>

My go-to camera is still the P67. I agree with everyone that feels

a comfort with it in their hands but it goes beyond that. It's my

favorite because of what I can do with it. I can produce the

images I WANT faster, easier and with greater confidence than

with any other camera I own. I have a huge respect for the

flexibility of the Fuji but my affection is for the Pentax.

<p>

It has a hook that is hard to describe. I read constantly about its

unsuitability in the studio, yet I've never had any struggles with it

and love the results. You can't handhold it, yet I do all the time

with no problems. I fully understand those that buy one and then

sell it later, but when I downsize my equipment the P67's will be

the last to go.

This probably too easy but my first MF was an M645 and I got

frustrated with it once until I remembered I'd locked the shutter

release. The front shutter release button (the one an L grip

actuates) has a locking ring with a red and white dot, make sure

the white dot is aligned with the mark, if it is the shutter is

unlocked. If that doesn't work the last ditch would be to remove

and then replace the battery.

Roberto, I'm one of the promoters of the GX680 idea. You are

correct in assuming it is more handholdable than an LF but is

not ideally suited to that mode.

I also have P67II and an MLU P67 w/ 45, 105, 165LS and 600. It

is my favorite system due to my experience and comfort with it

and I very much second what you appear to have decided to do. If

you don't need front movements I think the camera is unbeatable

for your application. Just an opinion (my GX 680 has yet to leave

the studio in 1 1/2 years).

Petr hit the nail on the head. If you want view camera power (80%

of movement NEEDS) and MF SLR speed and portability the Fuji

is the answer. It is slightly larger than the RZ/RB cameras and

MUCH more powerful. Multi-format, full front standard

movements and a built in motor drive. Fabulous Fujinon optics

as a bonus. It is heavy and bulky for a medium format but not

horrible.

If you're need is limited to A4 size (image area +/-7.5 X 10.2) in

an affordable machine, an Olympus P-400 dye-sub is

impossible to beat with ink-jet. Each print costs about $2. I also

have an Epson 2000P, very useful for good results in larger print

sizes, but for A4 it can't remotely compete with the Olympus.

A side by side comparison of the best I can do with an Epson

2000 and the P-400 is won EASILY by the Olympus. I just wish I

could do larger than 7 1/2"X10 1/4" prints.

I have a Polaroid Sprintscan 120. When I need (or want) 130 mb

files it is the only way to go. It is very good at auto focussing and

produces remarkably sharp/detailed images........but.......I also

have an older Agfa Duoscan that is probably little different from

the output of the 2450.

There is little competition in the $/output ratio (PARTICULARLY

for web publishing). Get a 2450, then, if you absolutely need the

big files, have it done. It simply doesn't come up that often. The

2450 (or similar) will easily satisfy the 80/20 rule (in this case

80% of everything you need for 20% of the cost).

There is no limitation I'm aware of on disengaging the metered

prism with a lens mounted (or unmounted). I've done both often

with no ill affect. If you do it and you don't unmount and then

remount the lens it will not meter. I've heard of the chain breaking

and it seems to me there is a cause, I just can't remember what

it is.

At the risk of repeating. Digital WILL replace analog in a broad

sense. Computer performance and digital back/body

performance WILL become more cost and performance effective

than film. The developers will figure out what is needed and

they'll have the flexibility to provide it. When the res:cost ratio of a

digital solution exceeds that of analog even consumers will

switch (already happening), much less pros. When a wedding

photographer is capable of putting his sale package together

and walking out while his dye sub printer automatically pukes it

out COMPLETE on the same day as the wedding at half the cost

and hours, he'll switch.

Everything in our world is driven by economics. To some it will be

direct cost, to others it will be the economics of their time. But I

find it a bit humorous to debate its occurence since it's

inevitable. The debate will eventually center around how all of

this will affect those of us who still love the elegance of the

analog solution. How many emulsions and/or formats will we

lose. And that's already begun. I have several friends who are

still pissed at Kodak for some of the changes they've made over

the last three years. I doubt those changes were due to a digital

influence, they were likely due to drops in the demand for those

products. Never the less digital will cause the same adjustment.

We can also debate the archival suitability issue, but I'm cofident

that won't have an ounce of effect on the ultimate outcome. I

agree with those who claim a superior preservability of analog

images but Fuji will still drop NHGII 120 if digital causes a drop

in its sales below the economic threshold.

Same here, I've used lockup just playing around in studio and

never had that happen on a P67. I have a 67II also but I've never

tried it w/ MLU. I don't ever use MLU w/ studio strobe, it's not

anything religious I've just never seen the need.

I've had the same problem intermittently for 20 years and it has

occurred with every camera I own.

<p>

I used to keep a supply of sync cords because they seemed to

be so fragile. I have a coiled chord (don't know mfg.) that's been

flawless for the last 12 years on 2 different Fujis, 2 P67's, a

Mamiya 645 and a view camera.

<p>

I'm NOT a sync cord expert and I don't know this for a fact by any

means but I suspect the problem is with the cord(s).

I use P67's and a Fuji GX680III. I chose a Fuji GA645Zi for my

flexible, lightweight alternative. I've been immensely impressed

with the little camera. Some have claimed AF problems, I've had

none that weren't my fault. Others have had film winding issues,

again I've had none. It does NOT have TTL flash capabilties

though. Just a suggestion.

35mm & MF only - Beseler 23 CII. Then Omega 67's

35mm, MF & 4X5 - Omega DV &/or DVI. Beseler makes one, I've

just never seen it. I've been in labs w/ multiple varieties of

Omega D's.

Lenses are tougher. I have one each Schneider (50, 2.8),

Rodenstock (APO 80, 4) and Nikkor (135, 5.6). I don't know which

one is most common, I've seen about the same number of them.

No difference in quality in my opinion w/ Nikkor being best bang

for buck (that's an opinion, not necessarily fact).

These are the most COMMON (i.e popular). I will not start a

flame war over the comparitive merits.

I bought a C220 about 3 months ago. I already owned a P67 &

P67II. I'm quite impressed with the little TLR.......but. You'll likely

hate it for macro or any other work where the SLR has a clear

advantage. By the way, the finder on the 67II is about 1 1/2 to 2

stops brighter than the P67.

You'll use digital immediately, it WILL be fun, you'll shoot alot, get

better, want more, THEN move on and include MF. Huge

point........have FUN. Then you too will write run-on sentences.

The scanner comes with clamp in, glassless carriers that

preclude scanning the edge. If your camera imprints data there it

will not show up.

The default for the software is to allow auto focus and it is

continuous. The overall flatness is very good so there is no

distortion and you get incredible detail (including more grain

image than I had ever seen prior) across the entire scan. The

software will also allow you to manually focus.

The only drawback for me is a tendency to be very sensitive to

dust. Even when I think I'm working with a perfectly clean

negative I'm always proven wrong but it's a small price to pay.