david_tolcher

<p>Thanks Guys, I guess I know that is the right thing to do even though I now have confidence in the output.<br>

Does anyone know the answer to the electronic rangefinder question & manual focus ?</p>

<p>Michael, point of focus is nearer to the camera than the focus point as indicated in the viewfinder. Adjusting the values between -20 & +20 shifts the point around with +15 being most right for all lenses except the 105mm F2 which is +20 but probably should be +25.<br>

The numbers & diagrams seem illogical to me so I have gone with what looks best. I expected front focus to need a -ve adjustment but that isnt borne out by what I have seen. Testing method has been to set to zero, see where it was in focus vs where the focus point is then incrementally move the adjustment to see the impact. Set, test, reset defaults and then test again and finally test on some live subjects. Have done this on Lens align and some static subjects with strong contrast points that cant confuse the AF sensor. Manual focus adjustment between shots so the camera had to refocus after each change in value. Am pretty happy with the rigour of the testing. All tripod mounted with no movement of subject or camera between cycles and looked at 100% via remote control in LR.</p>

<p>I had been not entirely happy with the focus of images at wide apertures from my D3X since I had it. I always expected better than I was getting but as I mainly used it with PC-E lenses it wasnt a big priority to worry about. I have been messing about recently with wide open images with a 28 F1.4, 105 F2 and 50mm F1.4 and getting increasingly questioning of the camera & its AF. So I have spent a day messing with all my lenses and Lens align and some carefully chosen still life subjects and found that best setting for AF for all my lenses is between +15 & +20. The 105mm F2 could actually take a little more but that adjustment doesnt exist. This suggests that the body is off rather than the lenses - this also applied to new 70-200mm VR II and 200mm AFD micro. Beyond F4 its not really an issue which is why I probably hadnt been too bugeed by it - but I am surprised at the difference even at these apertures. A couple of questions:<br>

1) if I change the camera default setting does the adjustment window move with that setting or is it a physical limitation of +-20 regardless of how. By example, if I set camera default to -10, does this mean that using lens adjustment I can get down to -30 ?<br>

2) Based on the fact that all of the lenses are towards the extreme limit should I be taking the camera to a Nikon service centre ? Its out of warranty so I would have to pay and its a drive there and back twice.<br>

3) Does the adjustment factor apply to the electronic rangefinder too ? Should I make an AF adjustment for the PCE lenses as I do use the focus confirmation & AF points as an aid to focus with T/S ?</p>

<p>I can borrow a second body to test the lenses but as its pretty consistent across new & old I am working on the assumption that it is the body.</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p>DAve</p>

<p>I think this is a conundrum. I have changed my 85mm lens to tilt & shift in the same plane but as I do more panos I keep wanting to change back. Its useful to tilt for focus and then shift for pano which is what the out of the box configuration does very well.<br>

Something I havent verified is that is said that the tilt is slightly off axis which if I understand it correctly is equivalent to a slight front rise & tilt which is mostly what you want to do with landscapes. I use front rise to correct for the composition change when you tilt to get your composition in focus. If its off axis perhaps the need to recompose is reduced.</p>

<p>I was always against L brackets because of the additional bulk until I started shooting a lot of 'portrait' landscapes. I find it very much easier to level the camera and make micro adjustments to composition with the camera on the L bracket. I often found that I had to adjust the tripod legs because of the lack of flexibility with the head adjusted for the camera to be upright. For that reason alone I now use L brackets on all the cameras I use for landscape work.</p>

<p>Now fixed, thank you for your help. A new morning and a revisit of the screw heads so I took the option to strip it out myself as I had nothing to lose. A clean, lube and re-assembly has fixed it completely. I think where it was stiff the two cogs had just jammed together. Fortunately no parts required.</p>

<p>Best regards</p>

 

<p>It was bought privately from the US and worked when it arrived - just very very stiff but the guy hadnt used it for a couple of years so I suspect the grease has gummed up. I'll call RW in the morning and see what they say, I was going to buy new but they only have 6x9 demo cameras and couldnt get a 5x4 to look at ( I have an sv45te from RW) to compare. Buying S/H is hard in UK, they just arent available so US seemed like a good idea and the seller was great. <br>

I had taken the frame out but it has already been somewhat tampered with (screw heads are nearly stripped) so undoing the cover on the orbix wasnt an option without a much higher risk.<br>

The camera came from Precision so they may have a view also.</p>

<p>Thanks<br>

Dave </p>

<p>Sadly the micrometric knob now just rotates without operating the gears so I think "no" is the answer to part 1).<br>

Many thanks</p>

<p>I have just bought an Arca Swiss F Classic with micrometric orbix. All the movements are butter smooth (just a joy to operate) but the micrometric is really stiff and clunky. This doesnt seem quite right to me - esp with the engineering quality of the rest of the camera.<br>

1) Any other micrometric users - should it be butter smooth as the rest of the camera ?<br>

2) If I needed to get it serviced - any recommended places in UK or do I have to contact Arca directly ? I assume its not a DIY job.</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Thanks Bob, so would it be the shim between the front element group and the shutter that could change as a result of replacing the element ? I have had the current one apart by unscrewing the plate on the front and the element just drops out / seats back into the mount.<br>

Best regards<br>

Dave</p>

<p>Hi, I have a 240mm APO Ronar with a damaged front element. It is fairly modern in a prontor professional shutter. Rear element is fine. Can I replace the <strong>glass</strong> only with the equivalent glass from a barrel lens of the same designation ? These can be picked up really cheaply and this would be the most cost expedient solution if possible.<br>

I am aware that with some versions of the 240mm APO Ronar barrel lenses I may be able to unscrew the whole assembly from the barrel and screw into the shutter but I am asking here specifically about the glass only once the lens has been disassembled.</p>

<p>Many thanks</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Hi, I had both for a long time. I sold the nikkor despite it being a favorite lens. Main reason is that I would never carry both and with a move to FX I found the extra working distance much more valuable than VR. Quality is for all intents the same from either both at macro and normal distances - different character but both modern sharp lenses. I had an old nikon 200mm micro AI which I found the focal length valuable but the sigma was better quality in a more compact package and at times a bit too long. The AF nikkor was too big for me to contemplate.</p><div></div>

<p>I should have added that lack of ICE is a deal breaker for me.</p>

<p>Hi, I have a v700 and find it perfectly satisfactory. Why ? For most work scanning 5x4 at 1200 or 1600 gives a very nice detailed sharp 24in print which is as big as you want 99% of the time. This, by the time it is mounted and matted is 30x20 or even slightly bigger in the frame. Multiscanning/multi exposure overcomes some of the DMAx issues. For anything that requires bigger than that or is a difficult slide then I send it away for a professional scan on an Imacon. Also anything bigger routinely would need much more horsepower than my 2.6 quadcore / 4gb vista 64bit OS to process anyway. Once you accept scanning at 1200/1600 the comments on the low real resolution of the flatbeds goes away for 5X4 at least as you are working in their sweetspot.<br>

I strongly suspect that the M1 would be as efficient at this resolution with the differences largely down to personal preference and availability of support. One issue the Epson does have is the glass platen and the fact that it has clouded up and got a little dusty on the inside after several years use. The M1 wouldnt have this problem but may have others arising from no glass. I did have a previous version to the M1 before the Epson and found it good for the holders, probably better than the Epson. Lack of ICE forced me back to the V700 at the time.</p>

<p>I have both and in general prefer the D700 because of the viewfinder but there is a rub... its not 100% and it really irritates me when I have been used to 100% for probably the last 10yrs worth of Nikons. Reviewing always has perceptably more in than you think when you are trying to compose tight to the edge. YMMV but it really takes the camera down a few pegs for me for landscape usage where you are trying to squeeze every pixel out of an image and it slows the workflow down. In that respect the D300 is much better.<br>

On image quality - nothing to add except to concur on noise. for my usage at 800iso the d700 has no shadow noise and the d300 normally requires it to be dealt with post capture. Any differences in detail / sharpness are much more likely to be lens or technique related.<br>

I didnt see whether you had a 70-200mm nikkor but if so then there are some difficult choices with the D700, along with others my copy is not usable for landscape work without heavy cropping of the corners due to sharpness issues. </p>

<p>Chamonix do some particularly nice whole plate holders at a good price. Film is tricky in Europe but sheetfilm.be do sell it as do retrophotographic.co.uk. As said previously the best route is to get some via the annual ULF film order process.<br>

One other option as film tends to be the same price as 10x8 is to cut down that film.<br>

I have an old Gandolfi but unless spending mega bucks on an Ebony then Chamonix also make one I believe.<br>

Dave</p>

Sorry - didnt really answer the question - but you will notice that the verticals are straight on the buildings by keeping the back vertical and using front tilt only :-) Just pointing the camera down/up will give divergent verticals even if you can get the DOF sorted.

I do have the 24 pc-e and a 24-70. 1) quality is superb - my personal view is that it surpasses the 24-70 in the wide field. 2) manipulation of DOF, enables me to use the camera as a point and shoot at F8 using movements to get everything sharp that I want and with a decent shutter speed. I am a LF landscape shooter primarily and use the DX00 when I need a light walking kit with no tripod. Combination of 24 and 85 PCs gives me everything I need.

 

Attached piccie was taken at F8, hand held and is sharp front to back. 24 PC-E and D300. Cant be done with aperture alone.<div></div>

Prices will drop, period - I paid ukp 1950 and it can now be bougth nearly 20% cheaper. But... did you look at the images on the Canon web-site. The CA is terrible - if that is what doubling the resolution gives on an FX sensor then I can pass please. I get no CA fro the D700 and it is a joy.

 

http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg

Friedemann, thank you - that was a very useful insight.

Having been out on Sunday I think I am inclined to go with the brighter GG of the 250 vs the 200 & 300 nikkors. The other possibility is to trade the 150 for a 180 and then the spacing is better with a 80/110/180/250/450 set vs 80/110/150/250/450 but this is splitting hairs I think.

Hi there, thanks to all.

Paul, suspect that your advice may just be tainted !

Erlend, The 150 is the normal APO L Symmar so only covers just over 200mm and the nikkor is the rare macro lens.

I think 250 is probably wide enough on whole plate.

 

Having been out this morning with the 200 and 300 it was interesting that I ended up with compositions using both

lenses !

Thanks for your comments. Re the 210mm - I have ( and am selling) a nikon 210mm AM ED which covers 400mm and is lovely but weighs in at 1.2kg ! The IQ isnt a big enough draw to compensate for size and weight.

 

It would be nice to keep all and carry a selection depending on mood and practicalities - maybe that is the answer. Sometimes more is less and in this case I feel I'd rather not have to make a choice.

Hi Sheldon, a friend I photograph with regularly swears by his 240mm F9 so it is an option. I was trying not to buy anything else having been very happy with the way the 250mm lens renders pictures.

After going round the houses for quite some time on lenses I would like to get down to a basic set of lenses to stick

with. Wideangle end is sorted with the schneider 80 / 110 XL and a 150mm. I have choices how to cover up to

450mm and each is a trade-off of some description.

 

For reference I have a 5X4 with bellows up to 450mm taking TK panels and an old Gandolfi whole plate (and 5x4

reducing back) which takes TK panels too. Ideally want to cover both with one set and I can just swap out the

gandolfi for the 5x4 in the same bag and know I have everything. The Gandolfi will just accomodate the 110 XL with

limited ability to do movements due to bellows compresssion. My works is exclusively landscapes on 5x4.

 

I am fortunate to have a choice from:

 

1) 200mm / 300mm / 450mm Nikon M which gives a nice 6 lens kit although quite petite. The 200mm wont cover the

whole plate. 300mm is probably too long as a shortest lens on whole plate. Its a very nice set of lenses but 6 is

probably too many with not a big enough gap between 150 and 200 but a leap up to 300 is too large. 200mm is a

tiny bit short for close up work and 300mm a tiny bit long.

 

2) Fujinon 250mm F6.3 / 450mm Nikon M. The 250mm is quite a large piece of glass and occupies the space and

weight of both the 200mm and 300mm nikkors but does cover whole plate easily. The 250 is about spot on for macro

work. The Fujinon is a gorgeous lens producing a lovely image quality.

 

I cant really keep both sets so it comes down to selling either the Fuji or the 200/300mm nikkors. I am leaning to 2)

but the Nikkors are such lovely lens and took a long time to find at reasonable prices. To part with them I would need

to be sure that this wasnt a mistake. Any advice ?