david_tolcher

Thanks for your responses - I am familiar with the pros and cons of a smaller sensor area and the crop versus telephoto effect. A crop or longer focal length gives me more working distance for the same relative frame fill so if the quality is comparable I gain the equivalent of a longer lens but with more dof. Because it is winter I can bide my time to see what nikon announce over the coming months as the only affordable dslr for me is the d100 but I desperately need AI/AIS lenses to meter otherwise it limits my specialist lens usage. All I have read and images seen suggests that a d100 is a very viable alternative for bug photography. <p> Many thanks

My 200mm micro nikkor (AI version) is a bit long in the tooth and

just doesnt have the quality of the shorter macro lens or

particularly the Tamron 90mm that I use. I do need the longer focal

length for the insect photography I do - no brainer in that respect.

The interesting dilemma that I face right now is do I replace it with

a 180mm tamron/200mm AF micro nikkor or buy a D100 ? The D100 would

get me alot of the way there with a 1.6X on the Tamron 90mm and have

advantages in depth of field etc. If I bought digital next year then

the 200mm would be too long for what I do and would become redundant.

Just wondered whether anyone had faced the same question and has any

experience of making a decision ? <p>Thanks <p>Dave

<p>http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

I am happy with my Kodak holder running both Kodak (TMax) and Fuji (Provia F100) through it with no problems over a 2 year period. My kodak holder does have the slight light leak problem around the seat of the back which I think was fixed with later holders. Its not a problem that makes me buy a new one to give you a measure of its significance though.

I did the inevitable and bought some of the new velvia 100F to try

(UK stock)and pushed it to 200 as I normally do with provia for

natural history work. It has come back with a yellowish cast - anyone

else having this problem ? I read a review that suggested this was a

problem with pre-GA stock.

 

Also tried it rated at 100 and it looks a bit underexposed as velvia

50 does for me at 50. Is the perceived wisdom to rate at 80 ?

 

Many thanks

 

Dave

Jeff, I constructed my darkroom in a garage. It has neither water or drainage but this has not proved to be an impediment in use. It was very straightforward using a prefab door frame, plasterboard and 2X2 wood for frames. I bought cheap kitchen components for base units and work surfaces. Tiled and painted. Overall dimensions (internal) are about 10ft by 6ft. Took 2 good days to construct and finish. I have never done anything like this before and am not by any stretch a builder ! It has transformed my darkroom experience.

 

Best regards

 

Dave

 

David Tolcher

 

www.btinternet.com/~davidjt

Darin, I have both - just bought an Xpan2 with 45 and 90mm lenses. Initial impressions are that the lenses are as good as leitz, particularly the 45 and so quality from the cropped '6x7'format is very nice. Think of it as 6x7 and you can gauge how big it will blow up in panoramic mode.<p>I found I was taking more and more panoramic type shots with 5X4, didnt want a 6X12 back particularly (nearly as big as an xpan), also needed a slight tele (the 90 is circa 270 on 5X4) and my 5X4 wont do above about 180. Needed a portable camera for travelling where taking the 5X4 would be a pain so bought an xpan.<p> Comments about the metering are correct - need to think of it as an aid rather than a ttl p&s answer.<p>Your point about the allure of the 45mm lens is actually an asset in my eyes. You get the coverage of a 24mm lens on the horizontal with the vertical of a 45mm lens - really excellent for panoramic landscapes. <p>Conclusion so far - a valuable asset which I will use in different circumstances to 5X4, if you have a 6X12 or 6X17 back and have it and your 5X4 with you all the time then the xpan wont add to your photography. If cost is no obstacle then shooting 5X4 and cropping is also easy.<p>Sorry for the ramble, Dave

It compresses to about 1 and 1/2 inches from the wooden body of the gg holder so its a shade over 1 inch extra depth.

 

To answer one other question with another - looking at the deisgn I seen no reason why you couldnt have a bigger aperture at the back and just use a larger +3 diopter filter. As these are cut to order it may be worth a converstaion with Matt at RW.

 

Dave

The bellows fit in the same manner as the protective plastic cover over the gg.

 

Dave

Michael, I bought one of these recently also and find it excellent. I have used it with a 90mm and 65mm lens and it does get progressively less easy to move your view around to optimise the focussing especially in the corners. That said, as you rack the bellows out you end up with a very nicely magnified view and I no longer need a loupe or glasses to focus. The only very minor downside for me is packing the camera where I dont feel comfortable taking the weight of camera and lens on the back so store the camera resting on the lens panel.

 

Dave

I tried this earlier in the year with my Ebony and no problems with light leaks. I used either an opaque IR filter from Lee (6ASA seemed about right) or dark red heliopan filter (25asa). Nice results but the film is IMO slower than rated because I ended up with rather thin negatives. You also dont get the nice halo effct like HIE. Will post some pics later if I get the chance.

 

Dave

My second thread was deleted so here is the picture taken with the tamron

I may have misled - I was looking to demonstrate the obvious difference in perspective and out of focus rendition rather than the absolute quality differences. Many posts suggest getting a 200mm or 180mm macro lens rather than a 90/100 because of ease of approach to flighty insects. The pictorial quality of pictures taken with the longer focal length is a bigger factor IMO and that is what I was trying to demonstrate graphically.

 

Dave

Sorry - these should have been in line and both in the same posting but couldnt get the HTML to work. If someone can post or send me the html to load the image from my HDD then I will repost.

 

Dave

A question that regularly gets asked or answers include - get a

longer focal length macro lens. I was able to take some roosting blue

pictures last week with both a Tamron 90mm AF lens and a 200mm AI

micro nikkor. I think they illustrate more than words what the

difference is with the longer focal length. Both were taken at the

same time at F11, handheld with Provia F400.<p> Interestingly results

with the Tamron show it to produce much higher quality pictures than

either the 105 F2.8 or 200 F4 micro nikkor - sharper and with more

contrast.<p>Dave

I have just changed from a MF nikon 105 f2.8 micro to a tamron 90mm F2.8 AFD lens - very very impressed. It was less than 1/2 the price of a s/h nikon 105mm micro AFD lens and is brand new. Overall quality, mechanics and optical performance are very good - a very compact package which delivers stunning results. Perhaps a bit short for film but perfect for digital giving approx 135 F2.8 macro lens.

I have the book - get it - he uses almost exclusively Mamiya 645 and SQ. It really is a ground breaking book - it has had the same effect on me as when the first Shaw book on Nature Photography came out. The techniques arent especially new - similar coverage of material to Shaw. The design of flash bracket is especially neat. What differentiates the book is the sheer volume and quality of the photographs of particularly dragonflies and butterflies all taken with MF and fill flash on velvia. The book is arranged into technique, then a section on each insect group he covers (butterflies, dragonflies, moths, caterpillars and other) each finished with a portfolio section of his own work. Publication quality is very high but perhaps a small notch (1-2%) below the Shaw Amphoto series.

<p>

I have one or two top draw perfect photographs over 20 years of photographing insects - this guy has a book full that blow all bar one or two away in most respects !

<p>

Dave

 

<p> Some of mine can be found at :-<p>

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

There is a truly excellent book just been published in the UK exclusively doing insect work with MF 66 and 645. It is the best photographic book on insects I have seen - period. The book is :- <p>

 

Close Up on Insects by Robert Thompson.<p>

 

Amazon reference :-<p>

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/186108238X/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/202-2409735-9833457<p>Dave

Due to the onset of poorer eyesight and the inability to find a

suitable correction for my F3HP I have upgraded to an F5. Sharp

viewfinder images and slides at last.... It has prompted a slight

change in my lenses and a lens mount (200 F4 micro) to Rolland for

chipping. I have a 105 F1.8 which I was also considering having

chipped but I have to send the whole lens from UK which makes me a

bit fidgety. I notice that the 85 F1.8 can be picked up very

reasonably and has good reviews. It would be smaller and lighter,

give AF if needed and still be relatively manageable if moved onto a

dx/dx00. They are both high quality lenses so I am not particularly

worried about performance - would be interested in some detached

perspectives on the pros & cons of moving to the 85 F1.8 and selling

the 105 F1.8. I think I would even end up in pocket ! For background

I tend to use a two lens setup for my general photography, a 35F1.4

and the 105 F1.8. I have just got a 20-35 F2.8 AF Nikkor which is

great so its a partner to that as a medium tele, almost standard

lense.

 

Many thanks

 

Dave

Jose, before spending a pile of money on AI/AIS nikkors you should consider briefly whether you are likely to need/want a nikon digital body in the forseeable future and whether you want the new lenses to work (at all) on the body. You then might think about a 35/f2 AF and a 105 F2 / 85F1.4 AF or even an F2.8 w/a zoom all in AF fitting (20-35 or 18-35). Have a similar dilemma myself triggered by having upgraded my old F3s to an F5. I have a 105F1.8 and it is a glorious lens and will look to get it chipped by Rolland Elliott assuming the 200 micro works out OK. The 35 F1.4 cant be chipped. There must be a reasonably high probablility that the next generation of nikon digital cameras will be like the d100 and unable to meter with the non cpu lenses.

 

Best regards

 

Dave

My personal favorite is Dixactol rated at 80 asa for sheet film. I have used other staining developers without as much success due to agitation challenges.

Barry, I use exclusively Dixactol for all my B & W film developing these days - sheet in a combiplan (TMax and IR820)and Delta 100/400/Plus-X in 35mm. Partial stand development gives very nicely graded sharp negatives with good stain. I would say that you get slightly increased grain compared to say perceptol which was my regular soup prior to this. Its a very tolerant of temperature and time - I find it exceptionally easy to use and get very consistent results. Not necessarily a good indicator of quality but all the B & W except the Lac Montriond picture(colour)on my website was done with Dixactol. <p>I havent tried any of the others because I havent seen the need.<p>

I find best results by downgrading film speed by about 1/2 stop. <p>

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

<p>

Best regards

<p>

Dave

Wally, interesting observation and opposite to my recent experiences. I have been putting delta 400 through my old Nikon F3 and 35mm F1.4 / 105mm F1.8 outfit and am really pleased with the results. They are different subjects but the sharp grain giving great texture on a fibre based paper up to I guess 14X10 is just lovely. I have been blasting away on automatic, near wide open and it has been a joy. Here is an example

 

Dave

 

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

A quick question regarding close up work with a LF camera. My camera

has limited bellows draw with a 150mm lens making focussing below

about 2ft impossible. I have a Nikon 35mm outfit which includes a 4T

high quality close up lens. I see no reason why this shouldnt work

well on the LF lens also but should I put it on the front or rear

element and should it be reversed or not ? It is recommended to be

reversed on some of Nikon's micro lenses (e.g. 200mm micro) to reduce

chromatic abherrations which I think is to do with the special glass.

Lens I shall use it on is a 150mm Apo symmar. <p>

 

Thanks

<p>

Dave

<p>

http://www.btinternet.com/~davidjt/

Bill, I was shocked by the quality from the latest Canon Ixus (Elph?) 4mp camera for macro work. This tiny camera is capable of as good A4 macro shots as my Nikon 35mm equipment. See attached

Thanks you all for your answers. I am very excited about the trip and the possibilities for a good holiday. I know that it is a bit cliched looking for a well known site. However, my feelings are that it is a bit like going to Yosemite and not photographing some of the classic sites because they have been done so many times before. A very difficult one - my experience tells me that well known sites look nothing like you expect when you get there !

I am going to take some Maco IR820 film as well as the usual tmax and provia/e100vs. I will be very interested in the results, I havent seen too many pictures in IR of Tuscany. They could be very good at this time of year.

 

Best regards

 

Dave