kenneth_smith7

<p>OP here. I'm sorry if I confused two issues. Sharp is always the goal, unless we intend otherwise. An argument against sharpness to defend sub par images would be ridiculous and was nowhere in my post. However many images often are quite valuable despite perfect sharpness, but that opinion about aesthetics was not my primary statement which was simply one of anti-consumerism. My thoughts had nothing to do with what amount of sharpness was OK, passable, aesthetically pleasing, historically visited, artistically manipulated, etc. I merely had dismay at my stupidly pouring over masses of internetted blather about minutia regarding sensors and lenses promising incremental improvements in sharpness, when after all that quality was already obtainable to a high degree with what I owned. Not to mention what a supremely lazy pretense of research when there are dozens more important things to bring to image creation. I do not give in to sub par image making. I'm currently shooting with a 240mm Fuji-A on a 5x7, and Pentax 6x7's, but I'm not about to toss a perfectly good 50mm Nikkor out the window for a Sigma, or drop thousands on an FX. That's all this OP meant. </p>

<p>My initial post was for the most part a self criticism against my gear acquisition tendency. Within the context of actual image creating the factors are all over the map, subjective needs and preferences. I love sharpness, and have always been a fan of that very quality of photography. But it gets out of hand when you're tossing 4x5 chromes because of a little wind shake, or great 35mm black and white street photos, because of a little back focus. Editing is one thing, but that absolute sharp thing is not number one, to me. Also, my gear is astounding and capable of all that photography offers. I've had my fill of shelving good gear just because of the next generation blah blah blah. Enough is enough. No $900.00 normal primes for me. Or $900.00 anything for that matter. And not even an FX. This D7000 is astounding. My darling, you will not suffer the indignity of being sold, or put on a shelf. I commit myself to living up to you, not forever glancing around at all the other girls.</p>

<p>The sharpness obsession had me in it's grips. Despite my knowing better, I had to check it out anyway, and hopefully bury it forever, so even though this post smacks of time wasting, its dedicated to the end of the year, end of sharpness worries and end of comparing cameras for that inadequate reason. <br>

I am forty years in, and have done medium and large format for most of it. The first digital was as late as 2011, amazing in and of itself, with the D7000. I have since tested a D7100 and found no reason to upgrade. Point being, neither is the D750, or even the D810. The quality difference is just not that big a deal. High ISO, sure, focus in dark, buffers, etc. All the other reasons, sure, but splitting hairs over sharpness, no, not really.<br>

Regards dynamic range and shadow detail, my D7000 shines, and post processing NEF's, are you kidding me? Many here probably know what slides required.<br>

So with good lens quality and good technique I'm as sharp as need be, for me, to my eyes, non professional and likely never about to print beyond 30 inches. It is after all the image itself that counts the most. I don't think I've ever seen good pictures and thought, ohh, if only that were taken with a 4x5.<br>

And yet the nagging mind that knows better is still peaking in at senseless tests and discussions wondering, is there a sharper camera sensor? Now unlike the rather dull Rockwell conclusion that "real" photographers don't worry about sharpness, of course they do, in a hundred circumstances, the real question should be, why should that be so important? It concerns one to not fumble the instruments capability, with poor focus and shake, but beyond that, why would it be so important to see more and more detail, because that seems to be where so called improvements are continuing to head. While it would be scientifically useful, aesthetically it's kind of absurd. It improves nothing to count eyelashes on a leopard. In fact they become fake looking. As bad as those dreadful every pore mug shots on the cover of Time that make a person look worse than they ever have in their life. <br>

So is there a question? No not, really, but I would be interested in hearing about how possessed others might be, how they place this attribute on their scale of importance, and maybe even how they dispense with it altogether. </p>

The lever at the right hand side that moves upwards when a 220 is inserted, is in the correct position for 120, and is flexible. The camera still continues to cock instead of wind through.

 

One thing I did notice was that when the camera back was popped open, there is another lever where the light seal is on the bottom right side, and when it moves out, then the crank continues to wind. As long as the door is closed and this lever is pressed inwards, the crank cocks shutter. That is the only part whose function seems to affect this, though this is merely doing what it should do, I'll assume, whenever the door is open. Perhaps there is some link though.

 

Bravo Mr. Butler on your very considerable effort and presentation. Much thanks sir.

 

 

<img src="https://ssl.gstatic.com/ui/v1/icons/mail/images/cleardot.gif" alt="" />

 

 

<p>Just to follow up. It still does this. All the gears in the camera, and the film spools look practically new, and I don't see signs of tampering. Hmmm... oh well, at least there is no overlapping. It shoots the 15th, and cranks for the next shot without a problem, I just need to be aware that there is no next shot. </p>

<p>Thank You Cory, and Ray Charles. Stuart... <br /> The counter does read 15, so the gear inside the camera and on the insert will get a look at, as soon as I finish this roll. <br /> Wonderful, wonderful cameras. I picked up these two as a Xmas gift to myself and am having a ball. Always had the bigger medium formats, but not these. They make stunning 11x14's.</p>

<p>I picked up a Mamiya 645 1000S recently, and was surprised that after 15 shots the camera still cocked the shutter, instead of winding the film up. I have to wind and fire the shutter all the way until the film is completely spooled. The multi exposure function switch is not in use.<br>

I have an 645 where as it should, after 15 shots the winder then continues thru until the film is completely wound. Am I overlooking a setting somewhere.? I am using 120 film cartridges, not 220. This is also just a hand winding crank, not a motor. Is there a 220 setting that I need to undo, I wonder?</p>

<p>I decided against LightRoom recently because I thought very highly of Capture, especially it's handling of NEF color. I also don't work in the high volume that LightRoom was specifically designed for.<br>

However Capture has sat on the sidelines now for a good while and this very kind of lens corrective that you speak of has been developed by LR and Dx0. That and many other subtle and advanced picture editing tools that I discovered using their 30 day trials. Actually LR is very reasonably priced. I suppose I could throw it in the mix.<br>

Even Captures vignetting correction is mild at best. But I'm very much in love with the U-Point technology of Capture. As far as this lens goes, I will just have to modify it the best I can with other tools. A color burn and dodging tool would certainly help. Maybe Layers. I'm not very well versed in post processing. I'd almost rather just avoid the problem, and shoot what it can shoot without showing it's weakness. In my particular case this lens was just a luxury item. I'm not generally a wide angle shooter, although I'm liking it more than I expected.</p>

<p>Yes it is, but I think the consensus was that the darkening of vignetting itself was the culprit, and that the coating of the lens was not causing the cyan color. It appears the Nikon doesn't have the vignetting, therefor doesn't have the color shift. I think. </p>

<p>It is an excellent lens and I'll keep it. No sense running to the Nikon lens when the issue is vignetting, and the Nikon might do that as well. Although my other tester reported evenness, no pictures were sent. I'd like to see it for myself. <br>

But as you say, software is the fix for this lens. The two color problem becomes one. Unless there remains a lens coating issue. There was a second version of this lens that received a better coating, but that was probably for CA, and maybe flare. I've had no unexpected flare problems with mine though. Quite impressive there.<br>

Thanks to you both for your response. </p>

<p>Just for the record, this was the Tokina. I said Tamron throughout, but it's the highly rated Tokina. As for the Nikon, I managed some feedback elsewhere from a user who went out in the snow with his and reported good even color. That's why it's more expensive. I kinda wish I'd stuck it out and paid the extra, but lesson learned. In reading a dozen tests over a period of a week, no one mentioned this. They warned of more chromatic aberration, but nary a word about uneven color overall. Point Nikon.</p>

<p>Thanks Joe. I will give that a try.</p>

<p>Throw a little more subject at it and it's not really noticeable. If the Nikon build quality were higher I might have held out for it, but when you read it's a bit plasticky and kinda cheap feeling, you don't exactly get too excited. I for one don't mind a little heft in a lens. Go ahead with the metal next time Nikon.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the vindication Mike. I have a refined taste in finding things gone wrong, and often it's unconvincing to others. This was a great idea. The unevenness also discourages the filter idea.<br>

Now what? Just live with it I guess. I'll use the lens as best I can, and maybe avoid the snow scenes. I shoot too many of them anyway.<br>

Still wondering if the Nikon lense has this problem. Anybody use the Nikkor 12-24?</p>

<p>Thanks Don. The filter cost would probably be more than the lens . I wonder if the Nikon 12-24 does this?<br>

The camera used is a D7000, with a raw conversion. I like the idea of color response for the red. Although all whites, just like all blacks have some color tone in them. I know from making C-Prints for years that there is always a vestige of some color in white. It's when it varies like this that it becomes a girl dog to print. If I printed one of these myself I'd have to wave a little taste of red over all corners, all at the same time.<br>

Is there a plug in for selective color dodging? I don't have PhotoShop CS. I have Capture NX2, and use an older Photoshop 7 for touch ups.</p>

 

<p>The two statements are related but not to the photograph sample. The sample does not have chromatic aberration as we normally encounter it, however I tried the NX2 correction anyway, just to see if there was an effect. I also am wondering if there is another way for chromatic problems to manifest. This is an extreme wide angle lens, so possibly the center is one color and the edges another. </p>

<p>Sorry I thought this would be large enough to see. I see it clearly. It might be something chromatic, but it's not fringing. This is the entire edge/ sides of the photograph, not along a contrast edge. There appears in the center of the entire photo a slight redishness, albeit slight red cast to the white snow. Then to the edges left and right, top and bottom, it begins to go cyan. I tried NX2 chromatic aberration corrections to no effect. I also looked at many snow scenes with Nikon lenses, and saw nothing like this. </p>

<p>This is not a Nikon optic, but the people here know a thing or two about lense, so I thought I'd ask here. This is the Tamron 12-24 which is supposed to be as good as the twice the price Nikon. I'm not so sure, and in fact this may be one of the reasons for the Nikon. I have cyan edges. Is this chromatic or vignetting?<br>

Any way to correct it? Does the Nikon do this? Sigh. I've been chasing my tail lately. </p><div></div>

<p>Thanks to everyone. </p>

<p>Ha, my English is terrible. I should'nt say, I'll write you off the discussion. That must have sounded like "get lost". No I meant to say, I'll e-mail you apart from this forum discussion. Wow, this is exhausting. There seems to be an offend meme at every turn.<br>

Look for my e-mail Bela. Goodnight Irene.</p>

<p>I'll write you off the discussion. Tell everyone where that astounding Alpine is. I couldn't find a location for it.</p>

<p>Zowie. Digitalizimo. Wacko. I like. I'm glad you got to see all the west and everything. With that crazy name of yours I figured you were back in Mostar printing with a kerosine enlarger, but now I see your one of those filthy rich Russians. You'll have to excuse and hopefully enjoy me. I was never properly trained.<br>

What truly more than anything convinced me that the new was better was never marketing or an inbred insatiable consumerism that likes to refer to people as dinosaurs. What startled me was this monitor. I think the flickr's and elsewhere shocked me with the stunning detail. Meanwhile my C-Prints from 35mm, my scans (of course) just about anything from a 35mm camera that I did was starting to look bad. Then I go and set up some tests with my old lenses and put them against the kit. Darn kit looked better, Try again and again, still looked like modern had it. But now fortunately, with the focus issue clearly in mind, and with dragging out all my film and looking at it, I can see the oldies are great. Truly great if you add in the character. I can't see a Df in my future though. D4 sensor at a D800 price, when I'm not a low light shooter.<br>

Besides I just got this D7000, I think it's wonderful, and I believe it's good enough for me. Medium and large format are really my main thing. Delta 100 in 5x7. Talk to me baby. Can't even afford that stuff anymore, and you have to buy it by the case.<br>

Your portfolio is brilliant. Very direct and clear. I will spend some quality time with it later. I never put my stuff up because it's practically all film based and scanners are not satisfactory IMO.<br>

</p>

<p>This is my backyard looking east.</p><div></div>

<p>I was printing fiber in the wet darkroom yesterday with my elegant and stately D2 enlarger. TMY 35mm from Nikkor AI's, and I don't remember which lens. I had a 50 f/2 and probably the 24 or 28. All I can say is ridiculous detail, just flat out ridiculous. Absolutely sharp to the corners. <br>

What made me drift into doubt over the years can be attributed to my use of color neg. I had reasons for it. I stopped shooting chromes because of cost, and although I shot black and white I still seemed to drift into this belief that newer was better. By the time I compared my older lenses to even the kit, I was practically on the verge of selling the older ones. Thank You Luke and others. Here's a few from the 28mm AIS from today's cold morning in Wyoming. Thank God, I don't live in the east.</p><div></div>

<p>Oh, and I forgot to compliment the Nikon dF, if it mounts the Q's that beats all. I can't put them on a d7000. I still use them occasionally on all my film cameras. </p>