ant_nio_marques

<p>Thank you all. We ended up getting the Leica 14875 and it fits very well. The top part is attached via two click buttons, one easy to detach while the other is in a keyhole-shaped groove and has to be pushed topwards before detaching. I don't find the material to be anything out of the ordinary, but it doesn't look shabby either.<br> I'd certainly look into Zhou's offers - not for this specific usage - if only I knew an importer in Europe. As it is, I'm not risking customs havoc.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> (I've asked this in other forums but so far got no reply.)<br> I need some sort of case for the original M6. Ideally I'd get a half-case, but that doesn't protect the top (for when the camera inside a bag or something). So, the next best thing, I thought, could be Leica's own 14875 'ever ready' case: it *seems* to me to be composed of a half case, plus a top+lens cover that can be completely detached.<br> Does anyone have experience with this? Does the half-case part fit the M6 ok? Does it have any disadvantage in comparison to other half-cases?<br> Or does anyone have another solution?<br> Thanks!</p>

<p>I had no idea about a reintroduced Jupiter.<br> Regarding 85mm lenses, can they be rangefinder-coupled? What's really needed for it?</p>

<p>Are any of you gentlepeople in Europe? I'm not necessarily interested in packfilm per se, but I'd like to have a couple of empty cartridges (or however one calls them). I might get a pack of film, but then I'd be taking it away from people who can actually shoot it...</p>

<p>Thank you all, this is precisely the input I was looking for!<br> Low light is a nice-to-have, not a priority, I'd say the priority is shallow DOF. In that regard, an important thing is how much the lenses are usable at large apertures. I don't mind corner softness, but I prefer the center to be reasonably sharp. I prefer contrast to sharpness, anyway.<br> I'll have to stick to the European market because otherwise customs are a gamble. But from what I've seen so far, that's not such a limitation as it is with Pentax (or Canon, even) material, which you find much cheaper overseas.</p>

<p>Hi. This is my first foray into the L world, so I apologise for asking stupid questions.<br> I'm not keen on carrying big lenses. On the other hand, what I like rangefinders for is mostly single-subject photos with small DOF. And I'm preferably looking for something under $1000.<br> I've looked (on paper) at the Voigtlander 75mm f2.5 (or the f1.8 but that's heavier) and the Tele Elmarit 90mm (or the older Elmarit, but that's heavier as well). I think 90mm is a better focal distance for what I want, but I suspect 75mm will be easier to focus accurately with my lacklustre eyesight. But this is all hypothetical.<br> Do you have personal input about this issue? What is your opinion, subjective or not? What would draw you to a particular lens in this segment?<br> Thank you.</p>

If you want to scan the 4 borders of the frame, it may be tricky. Film is usually held in place by something, and that something will usually cover the edges. With a flatbed you can lay the film on the platter, but that is hardly ever the correct procedure. With wet scanning you may be luckier, since aiui the film is just placed in a glass sandwich. As to developing, I think every lab will leave the whole of the film in place! If you aren't concerned about image quality, you may take a picture of your negatives and process that on your computer.

<p>I don't recall saying anything about 'blown away', Joe. I said 'it's a different system with different dynamics.'.</p>

You were comparing digital formats, so Pentax 645 did have to be the 645z/645d rather than the film system called 'Pentax 645'. 33x44 / 24x36 = 0.77..... Below 1, the decimal digits become more relevant, hence why I said 0.8 was a bit misleading. Whoever's worked with a 645z can explain why it is anything except a 'trivial' improvement over FF. it's a different system with different dynamics. By comparison, the difference between APS-C and FF _is_ trivial. They work much the same.

@jon all I'm saying is that if that's what you mean then the ISO row should say 'given *DOF* and shutter', not aperture which makes it wrong. I don't think anyone overlooks the DOF factor. What happens is that folks usually want *shallower* DOF. If they want the same DOF with the same aperture, then they'll choose slower shutter over higher ISO unless the shutter value is intrinsically needed. While we're at it, the 645 should be to the right of FF and the crop is 0.77 (at that point, it does make a difference).

@Matt, I still don't get what the ISO row is supposed to convey. It says 'given aperture and shutter'. What's that supposed to mean if then you 'have to stop down more' to get equivalent DOF?

What Tim described is different. Not multiple accounts in support of one another but multiple accounts arguing with each other. Whether pretend-argument or real, he doesn't specify. What I didn't get was the last part about an email he received.

<p>My impression is that 10.10.3 is faster than 10.10.1 (what I had before). But I'm only on 10.10 because I have to, otherwise I'd wait until just before 10.11 is launched to install 10.10.<br> Before 10.10 I had 10.8 and the update was smooth, but the performance went down. Not enough to pull hair, but.<br> (This is in a workplace MacBook Pro (13-inch, Early 2011), 2,3 GHz Intel Core i5, 8 GB 1333 MHz DDR3, Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB, which I have no idea as to its degree of shabbiness. I'm sure it would be much better with an SSD, but I'm not allowed to put one in it.)</p>

<p>PNG is pixel-perfect, meant more for computer-drawn graphics than for photos. JPG is lossy, but when it comes to photos it leads to much smaller and faster to load files. JPG's kind of lossy doesn't pose problems with photos, where individual pixels are seldom important and edges are not of the razor type. In principle, there's no reason ever to use PNG for web photos. The file format just wasn't designed for that.<br> Photo resizing is not an exact science. If done without special care, the odds are that it will diminish the quality more than it should. Others here may be able to give you some pointers.</p>

<p>I suggest you go to the Silverfast forums for this kind of question. Their support is very poor when it comes to bugs or missing features, but when they do have a feature that can help, they usually guide you through it.</p>

Is the adapter shiny inside? That could be it.

<p>My experience is that even a basic model such as the FDn 50mm f/1,8 can be very reasonable even on a Pentax Q (5.6x crop).</p>

There will be new Ferrania film soon and there are many choices from Kodak. There's also Agfa, whoever makes it, and there are other brands. As to ISO 200 fil, in my experience is the worst to scan, on average, due to grain aliasing.

My question was not about changing 35mm film, but making a different usage of the film and lenses as they are. The other, and original, question, could be recast as why are small sensors 4:3. Would there be something specific to smaller sizes that would favour that ratio? Maybe formats aren't so free form, after all a number of sensors aren't exactly the nominal ratio. And Panasonic has a history of not-quite-4:3 sensors so that 3:2 mode isn't so wasteful...

I don't think I'm being successful putting my question thru. Never mind, it's not very important. I thought of putting this in the OT forum, but that seems to be for moving OT threads to rather than starting new ones.

<p>Hi folks,<br> @JDM, the films I look at give about 25.9mm from sprocket to sprocket. Other may be different. I'll have a look at current crops.<br> @Nick, @JDM, sure, other film formats do it. I was wondering about non-standard use of 135 film. (126 film rules!)<br> @Andy, 3m diagonal is not peanuts (I had to reread you a couple of times to get what you were saying). Are there great challenges in making 25.8x34.4 sensors? Sensors come in very many sizes. I though I was clear that I don't even like 4:3. It's not that I want it, it's just that I'm curious.</p>

<p>Hi.<br> I'm not find of the 4:3 AR. For some reason, I like either squarish or 3:2 and wider. That said, 4:3 is popular in many places: the 6x4,5 format s 4:3, so is that held frame format, and so are most compact and bridge cameras, not to mention (m)43. So I was wondering why I see no one, anywhere, pining for a 25.8x34.4 sensor. That would have a diagonal of exactly 43mm, so it could make the best of every past and future FF lens (well, a 30.5x30.5 could make the most of them, but square format isn't considered general purpose; I've seen someone once suggest a 30.5x36 sensor, so that you could choose AR at will, but that would still mean a lot of unused sensor regardless of the chosen AR).<br> I can only think that manufacturers don't go for it because, for the same diagonal, a 4:3 sensor has a larger area than a 3:2 one (hence getting more out of the lenses), which means there will be fewer sensors per wafer, but following that logic why aren't lower-end cameras 3:2 as well?<br> As I said, I'm not fond of 4:3, but I'm fond of diversity and a 4:3 sensor able to use FF lenses fully would be interesting. Heck, I think there are 25.8 usable vertical mm in a 135 film strip, so why not have 5% more shots per roll, with each shot having 2.7% larger area? Does anyone know of past 135 film cameras using more than 24mm vertical?</p>

<p>Don't photograph for the web, photograph for yourself. Completely avoid any thought about what other may or may not get out of a photograph. Instead, photograph instinctively - not instinctively regarding the technique, but regarding the theme. Then publish what you come to like.</p>

<p>WARNING: if the emulsion looks smeared/smudged, DON'T put anything liquid in contact with it, it will wipe the emulsion off. Otherwise, I suppose it's safe to use PEC-12.</p>

<p>I find Sony has the edge on specs, Nikon has the edge on quality specs, Canon has the edge on delivering actual products, and Pentax has the edge on producing really likable cameras and lenses. Unless you want 24x36, I don't think Nikon will give you better photographs.</p>