rick_dorn

<p>Well, quickly is a relative term. If I decided I wanted +1 stop compensation, I might move the dial three clicks in say, a second or less, and then sometimes there would be this problem. I didn't mean that I would just randomly rotate the mode dial as fast as I can.<br>

RD</p>

<p>I hope I have chosen the right forum for this question. <br>

I have a Contax T3 which I purchased new and have owned for some time. This is a delightful little camera, but it does have a few quirks, and one in particular is a little annoying: When I spin the mode dial to change whatever setting it is set up to adjust (such as compensation or manual focus) I notice that sometimes the dial clicks and the amount of adjustment don't always agree. For example, if I set it for exposure compensation and quickly rotate it through 3 clicks of -1/3 each, the panel may only indicate that it has set to -2/3 compensation, as if it missed a click. it does the same thing with other modal settings, occasionally overlooking one or more clicks if I spin the dial quickly. There is not a precise 1:1 correspondence of mode dial clicks to adjustment increments, as you would experience with a mechanical camera. I've attributed this odd behavior to the fact that the dial is software controlled and the CPU may not be able to respond quickly enough to rapid input changes.</p>

<p>I recall having a similar problem with a Contax G2 I used to own, when trying to adjust the manual focus dial. You would turn the dial and the camera decided if it would respond proportionally or not. Drove me crazy.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if other T3 users have had this same experience. When I sent the camera to Contax for general servicing a few years ago, they said everything was "in spec", and implied this was normal behavior, so I just deal with it.<br>

What's your experience?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

RickD</p>

<p>We've bought and sold a lot of equipment through KEH. I think they have the best system in the business but it isn't perfect. The problem you experienced occurs, I think, because while their rating system appears to be consistent, the lower you go on the scale the wider the range of variance in perceived condition.<br>

Very little gear is rated LN, a bit larger percentage falls into LN- and so on down to BGN and UGLY. The ugly stuff is uniformly well-used (or worse), and so I believe that their grading method puts things in the BGN category that range from quite nice to not so nice. I know they say that BGN is 70-79% of original condition, but it seems that the range is wider in my experience.<br>

My solution? I stay with EX or better now, and have never been disappointed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I can recommend David Odess. He's done several repairs to my complete satisfaction and is well known on PN.</p>

<p>I could not link to the photograph you referenced in the posting.<br>

You'll probably need to use stroboscopic flash to get the effect you seek. While it is possible to construct such an image in photoshop by assembling separate shots, the subtle dynamics of the dancer's movement will usually make those composites look contrived.<br>

Take a look at strobist.com. There's lots of info there on creative way to use strobes.</p>

 

<p>I'll add another endorsement for Canons. Both the S90 and G11 are the best choices I have found. Having one of each would be ideal. Image quality is identical, and the S90 is amazingly compact for its capability. I prefer the G series, having used them since the G5 was around, as their handling and control layout suits me perfectly, but they are not pocket cameras.<br /> Richard Franiec makes a custom grip for the S90 that vastly improves the handling of this tiny camera.<br /> Try handling them both and see which best fits your personal tote-around criteria.</p>

<p>Costa Rica is really no different in scale and scope of subject matter than any other destination in that region. I would choose the 24-70, but after a quick look at your site, perhaps the 17-35 would be a better fit to your style.</p>

<p>If you're only bringing one lens, I'd select the 17-50 for all the wide-angle vistas that Maui offers. If you want to bring two, than add the 70-200 for wildlife and scenic isolation.</p>

<p>I would definitely bring polarizers and graduated ND filters for scenics in the brilliant Hawaiian sunlight. B+W is my preferred manufacturer, although they are costly.</p>

<p>They are indeed lovely photographs. the depth of field does not seem all that shallow to my eye. It looks typical of what you might achieve with a normal-to-short-tele lens using a large aperture, such as 50/f1.4 or 90/f2.<br>

If you've ever shot with a super fast lens like the 50mm f1.2 or f1, you know that there isn't even enough depth of field to keep your subject's face in full focus. Shooting in close, if the near eye is sharp, the ear will be noticeably unsharp. Using the widest aperture is probably the key in these photos as well. The nice bokeh of the portraits would lead me to think that a high quality lens was used, something like a Canon 85/1.4 L or equivalent.</p>

<p>Tri-X and Velvia 100F. </p>

<p>Unless you're planning to scan all your film later. In that case I would select Astia and Tmax.</p>

<p>I really don't see the advantage of using an incident meter with a DSLR, although I use one regularly for medium format and some 35mm film shooting. The instant feedback from the camera is a faster and more reliable way to get good exposure. It also lets you see exactly where you should be if you want to expose to the right in a shot you will PP. <br>

However, I do agree that for more <em>consistent </em>exposure results you should't let the camera automatically set exposure for each frame. I like to zero in on the ideal exposure for a subject and then lock it in the camera using either manual mode or exposure lock, and then shoot away.</p>

<p>Masks are used in a WLF to match the view with the format being shot, for example a mask placed in a 6x6 WLF could match the view to a 645 image. This can be used both for interchangable format backs and to previsualize images that will be cropped later.</p>

<p>You might also consider the F80/N80 and the D80. I was just reading through Simon Stafford's Nikon Compendium and sadly, none of the small, lightweight Nikon AF cameras support metering with all lenses, so you are still stuck with an external meter. The lightest all-around solution is an F100, which you have ruled out. A shame, really, as I thought the N80 was an otherwise perfect camera for this niche.</p>

<p>A shoot-through umbrella would provide a different lighting effect than the softbox because of all the light spill, especially if you use grids on your softbox, but they certainly can both be useful. I might consider a more flexible combination umbrella that can be configured for either shoot-through or as a reflector. But the best way to answer this question is to read up on the actual lighting setups used in portraits that fit the style(s) you are looking for, then just duplicate that equipment.</p>

<p>Luigi Crescenzi at Leicatime.com makes cases for the canon 7. I own several of his cases for other cameras and they are of high quality.</p>

<p>A great price, probably indicating that the camera isn't operational. But I would buy it anyway. These cameras are noted for being rather fragile in their old age, and repairs are difficult to have done because of the scarcity of parts. It is very collectible, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable shooter. For regular, dependable use, I would get a Rollei.</p>

 

<p>As Rob says, the color temperature readout is problematic. I know of no current meters that measure both exposure and color temp, other than ones built into a DSLR. I think minolta made one years ago, but that doesn't help your search.</p>

<p>Other than that, the Sekonic L-308 series is an excellent, high quality choice. I use them all the time, after having worked through 3 or 4 other meters that proved less than satisfactory, and it meets all your other needs.</p>

<p>I generally agree with Kelly (except for the harsh comment that some of us are fools and Luddites <grin> ). This was a reasonable concept and approach for early digital development, when 35mm film bodies still dominated, and indeed is still valid in medium format with products like Leaf. But the time for building a digital back for 35mm bodies has passed. There is no business case that can be made for it, and the highly evolved control layouts and camera ergonomics that have gone into creating digital bodies by now have obsoleted it from a user perspective as well. The handling of such a camera would be very awkward as compared to the access of controls on, say, a 5DII. I would much prefer to shoot an F6/D700 pair with an integrated lens set, than go back to this early concept.</p>

<p>This is a quest many have pursued without success. If you want lightning fast response from digital, today your options are limited to a DSLR. None of the compacts have the speed you seem to need. Even the Panasonic will disappoint -- at least, it disappointed me.The T2 is a very responsive camera, especially when prefocused, and I regret trading mine away.</p>

 

Leica IIIG, 28/3.5, 50/2, 90/4. Rolleiflex 2.8E. Meter, HP5, Provia, plus filters and such. And in deference to modern technology, a Canon G9.

<p>NCPS does have an FTP upload facility as well. Wal-Mart, Costco, etc are OK for developing and prints, but their scanning services are very inconsistent, and my local stores don't do 120/220. Finding a good lab that consistently delivers high quality isn't easy. I don't even use Fuji any more for just that reason - I had problems with their 35mm processing on several occasions.<br>

You might be able to use your V100 for scanning MF. Just purchase a few 6x6 slide mounts, remove the glass in the mount, and put the film frame to be scanned in one. lay it on the glass under the transparency illuminator to scan. Depending on how your unit focuses, you might have to stack another mount under the slide to get it at the proper height to focus well.</p>

<p>I would start by getting a good quality, color balanced light box to view your transparencies and to evaluate negatives. Medium format transparencies look great on the light box.<br>

Shooting and scanning transparencies offers the best of both worlds - You have an archival reference image in the slide as well as a digital file to work with for web and print. A good way to try this approach out is to send your 120 slide film to North Coast Photographic Services in San Diego. For $6.50(develop) + $11.95(scan) they will develop and scan 120 at high resolution (or you can get a lower res scan for just $5.49/roll). Then if you like the approach, you can invest in a scanner later. NCPS has the best-priced scanning services I have found for 120, and the scans are of high quality so you will get a good idea of what is possible using this workflow.</p>

 

North Coast photographic Services, near San Diego. Highly recommended.

<p>This is a tough thing to do well with a camera. As you have noted, a good scanner is the right tool for the job. That being said, I would shoot raw and save reworked files as TIFF, as Michael suggests. The Lighting is more important than the camera settings, once you get the exposure and white balance down. I think I would try underexposing, with oblique lighting about 60 degrees off the camera axis, and cross-polarize it to further reduce glare and boost contrast.</p>

<p>I find that shooting B&W with filters is the best way to go since, as Scott Murphy said, you can then start with the best possible negative before scanning. You will also have a better negative should you someday decide to have one printed traditionally.<br>

As for tonal adjustments after the fact, I think that the digital tonal adjustment tools based on color info are good, but also pose limitations in that they must also be used with masks if you want to strictly control the areas they will affect. And by using those same masks with a true B&W image, you can still achieve the desired results with the same amount of work. In other words, I can dodge and burn either image format with the same effort. Just learn how to use adjustment layers and masks fluently, and the rest is easy.</p>