lwg

<p>Ebay is an option. You can also list it at the largeformat forum http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/forumdisplay.php?27-For-Sale-Wanted. I think you need to have been a member for a month or more.</p>

<p>The videos look bad, but I don't think it's the camera. Put the camera on a tripod, manually focus, set the WB, and use manual exposure settings. I never found the D7000 video great, but if you set things up correctly you will find it much better than what you shot. I forget, but I think the D7000 also defaults the bitrate down to a low value. Change this to the highest it offers and you will get rid a lot of the artifacts.</p>

<p>Is the camera 5x7 or 4x5? I have an early Omega E (5x7) for sale as well as a few Omega D5XL (4x5). Both are reasonably priced. I also have a Durst 138S (5x7) for sale. I'm in NH. My issue with selling enlargers is I'd rather not ship them.</p>

I know the D800 has about the same number of pixels in crop mode as the D7000, so you loose some with the D750 (about 1/3). You could look at the 1.7 teleconverter to get some of that back.

<p>I do it the same as the others here, putting a few drops into the final rinse. No squeegee. If your water is really hard I would do the final rinse with distilled water and photoflo. I don't reuse it beyond one session. In other words i will rinse several films in it in one day, but do not keep longer than that since in theory it can grow mold if any gelatin gets into the water. And it's very cheap.</p>

<p>I would buy a Nikon version of the A7R, assuming it had the following:</p> <ul> <li>nice selection of light weight slower prime lenses from wide to short tele 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm f/2.8 type lenses that are excellent wide open,</li> <li>it has an adapter to use the existing F mount lenses,</li> <li>a very fast EVF with excellent manual focus capability,</li> <li>buffer at least as good as the D800E</li> </ul>

<blockquote> <p>I found that using the AF fine tune on the 35 f/1.4 sorted out one focal distance, but not others. I believe I'm not alone in finding this. I'm told the dock fixes it - I have it, but still haven't found free time to use it. I need to re-do all my AF fine tuning, really - but the Sigma dock is more flexible than the single number that Nikon lets you set.</p> </blockquote> <p>I found the same thing, and using the Sigma dock has the lens focusing correctly at all distances. Now none of my lenses on the D800E need fine tuning in the camera.</p> <p>If the lens focuses correctly at +20 at all distances I wouldn't bother to exchange it. The one you get might be like mine and require the dock to get accurate near and far focus with the same tune.</p>

<p>I think that's normal in the older cameras that don't have the gliding mirror system. The vignetting is present with lenses over 120mm, or using extension tubes.</p> <p>Edit: it's only visible in the viewfinder, not on the film.</p>

<p>Tim, I'm glad at least one person can see the artifacts in the image. I was beginning to think I was blind. Or everyone else was blinded by Ken Rockwell's name.</p> <blockquote> <p>Thus proving the Krockwellian corollary to Godwin's Law: Any thread that mentions Ken Rockwell is a troll thread. Even if the OP didn't consciously intend it as trolling, any mention of Ken Rockwell converts any thread into a troll thread that devolves into a flame war.</p> </blockquote> <p>I have now learned this lesson and I'm sorry I started the thread.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Ken Rockwell is nothing short of a buffoon. I have nothing to add.</p> </blockquote> <p>I don't think that's fair. I like a lot of Ken Rockwell's work. I don't agree with him on some technical things, like shooting JPGs over raw, but I don't think that makes him a buffoon. I didn't post my question to pick on KR, but rather to see if I could figure out why the image looked odd to me.</p> <p>Allen, do you have a larger version of that image hosted somewhere?</p>

<p>I know KR likes saturation that is sometimes over the top, but I don't think that's the issue I'm seeing. Looking at the image more I think it's JPG compression. The bare branches over the blue rocks on the left side have a sort of halo of stuff around them. I can see it elsewhere in the image as well.</p>

<p>Ken Rockwell posted an image from the X-T1 that looks very funny to my eyes. The image is at http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2014-05-yosemite/18/XT1K1393-full.jpg and the full post is at http://www.kenrockwell.com/fuji/x-mount-lenses/55-200mm.htm. The image looks very odd to me, almost like it was run through a photoshop paint type filter. Particularly in the stones by the river and the leaves. </p> <p>Is this an artifact of the sensor (xtrans), simple over sharpening, JPG compression, or am I blind and I'm the only one that thinks it looks odd?</p> <p>I really like the look of the Fuji system, but this is not the first image I've seen that looks funny to me.</p>

<p>I received my new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 lens last week. I am pretty happy with the image quality, but I am having issues with the Auto Focus on my camera.<br> At close distances (a few feet) it requires no AF fine tune, but at infinity it requires -11. Essentially I can't get it to focus correctly at all distances.<br> Has anyone else seen this issue? Any solutions? Should I send it back to B&H for an exchange (where it's back ordered), or send it to Sigma? If other's have had this issue and had it resolved I would love to here from you.<br> I wrote this up with some examples at http://www.trippingthroughthedark.com/sigma-35mm-f1-4-dg/</p>