tcb.photo

Does anyone use the new 90mm f/4 macro lens? If so do you need the

adapter to do true macro work? Any opinions on it?

Thanks

Rob

Guys,

This wasn't a digital VS film thread. Only a example of a guy who is able to do very high quality work, sharpness and so on, with film and present it in a manor that is consistent with digital

"Arnab Pratim Das , nov 22, 2003; 12:42 p.m.

"And are we supposed to be drawing conclusions by viewing standard sized images on computer screen?"

Gee Arnab, how do you usually do a comparision on the web? By what you see. I don't think you can usually ask for a 8x10 from the artist. Isn't that how we judge work here? Sorry, but your remarks are invalid and useless.

The observation is that with post production work in Photoshop, film photos can exhibit the same qualities as digital. Especially when done by someone who knows what they are doing, like Peter.

I've been out of town a few weeks, but I have a question to post to

the group. Is digital really sharper than film?

Personally I've always felt the answer is "YES". But if you follow

this link, you will see art from a photographer that destroys that

myth. I don't want a "Film vs Digital" debate. I think this is just

a example of how film can still be a viable option.

If my posting this link violates forum protocol, please accept my

apologies. I was just amazed and whated to share it with the group.

Peter uses a "plug in" called intellisharp. Anyway, they are quite

good and worth a look, I think

http://www.contaximages.com/folder.php?id=285

Rob

Hi Alex

I have a F3HP I'm going to sell. I'm going to ask $300.00 but it comes with the eyecup, soft release, and 5 extra focusing screens, plus manual. The body is a 8 to 8+. meaning just some wear normal wear, primarily at the strap lugs (brassing). If your interested write me privately. I can give refrences

Rob

Hi Ian

Actually for that lens I'd say it's a rather good photo, I can't figure out what it is though. Anyway, I've been told the "sweet spot" for that lens is f/8 and above. If this was done at f/2.8 it came out better than I would have guessed, especially considering it's a wide angle lens.

I do have a question, was there "light fall off" at the corners of the original photo? one of the biggest complaints again the Zeiss 25mm is "light fall off" at the corners under 5.6. Just curious, since you stat you cropped the photo.

Not bad though. Any lens can work well, you just have to get use to the characterisics of it. This lens is designed more for landscapes than a close up like this, but it is an interesting effect. You seem to be getting familiar with the 167,

Rob

A ST user

Hi Derek

The Kodak "digital back" for the n90, is really not up today's standards. Low megapixal and I don't even know if you can still get them surviced. The same might be true with the DCS 460. You really might want to make sure your going to be happy with it. But I can understand how you would like one for your N90

Persoannally , I'd love a digital back for film based cameras. Too bad a 3rd party doesn't make them. Of course it would be difficult to design, but....

Hi Shawn

Definately it's the angle of view. By not holding it level you get these "effects". I did the same thing with my 20-35mm, at 20mm. So Now I use a tripod to make sure it's held level. I've seen Leica, and Contax lens do the same thing

Best of luck

Rob

Yaron

Good photo. I like it alot

I've never had a light leak either, but I have carefully fitted Black electical tape to the window. I did the same thing on my Contax ST, just for safety.

More importantly is to make sure you load and unload in as much darkness as possible

Rob

Hi Ed

The answer is Yes. I own a F100 and included a link to a photo I took with Kodak HIE. You have to be careful and bracket.

Rob

http://www.photo.net/photo/1835840

Hi Riley

Internal focus means the lens will focus internally so the "front lens elelment" doesn't have to turn. It's easier to use a circ. pol. filter and often times it's easier to "handle" the lens because the focusing is done internally as poosed to parts of the lens moving. "D" menas the camera body, like a F100 or N80, etc, can get a "distance reading" for flash photography when using the matrix metering and such.

Rob

Carl, is Lucy a Boxer?

Rob

Jason

That's high. I have a F3Hp with 5 or 6 extra focusing screens, and the manual, plus the original Yellow Nikon "bumble bee" strap issued in Japan in "EX" condition (normal brassing around the camera lugs) that I'm going to be offering for $300.00.

I've seen them on eBay for around $250.00 to $350.00 for the body, so $500 is pricey

I do believe this post has run it's course. Even though it "wondered off" track several times I think it was interesting for the most part. It was based on a conversation I had with some friends a few days ago.

For me it was a "enlightenment".

Modern Auo focus cameras are, without a doubt helpful, fast and as Shun points out, often necessary. I never meant to imply that they weren't, or that I would rather use a old Manual focus camera all the time. My only question was, by depending on them, do we loose some of our "photgraphic instinct". Could I pick up a FM2, Contax RTS III, Hasselbladd, etc. and still take the same photos? Obviously it's a question that only I, or you, can answer.

For my self I'll swith the F100 to center weighted and shoot maanual more often, just to "hone" the skills I may have and develop new ones.

One of the thinigs that Shun was trying to say is that true "art' of a photograph comes from the person, no matter what he is using. No truer words were ever spoken. "Technically Correct" doesn't mean it "artistic".

Hi Dan

Some nice work. Actually some very nice work. Plese continue to share. It's nice to see well taken photos

For those who have gotten "lost", here is the original question:

"A simple question was asked. With out the Aperture and shutter priority, Program Mode, matrix metering, Spot metering, Auto focus, matrix metered flash, computer controlled operation, VR, "D" and the other little goodies that the "Auto Everything Cameras" do, could you take the same quality of photos?" -Rob Helm

It isn't a question on which camera is better. I AGREE, that the F5,F100, N90s, N8 etc. etc., make my photography easier, faster, and perhaps even more accurate. So Carl, your point is won. But it isn't the question I posted.

The question is if you didn't have this technology, could you still take the same quality of photos???

If you weren't shooting "back in the day", or don't use the "oldies but goodies", then you don't have a refrence point to start with. I do, and wonder if I've improved or learned more, or has my equipment just made it easier?

Please "Guys" get off the "G" lens, and comparisons between F5s and Nikkormats. No one said a Nikkormat is as "good" of a camera. Only that there are photograhers who can still take as good of photos with one. Sadly, I don't think I'm one. I'm like the guy who has used a calculator too much, I'm forgetting my mathe skills.

I am NOT trashing other cameras, but let's be honest, the F5 and F100 are far superior to any other Nikon film cameras when it comes to operation - Carl

But Carl your missing the point of this thread. The point isn't weither the F5 is a better camera. Obviously it is, so is the F100, F3, N80, N90s, etc. The question is, could we take as good of photos without all the automation?

So, your response is really not relevent. I said, in a deviation of the question asked by Shun, that great photogrpahers are still able to take equally as good of photos with old cameras such as Nikkormats. Would it force them to "think" and truly understand exposure? Of course, but that isn't rally a bad thing. Would it take longer? Sure, especially if your out of practice.

So in the end does our automation make us better photogrpahers? Or do our cameras take better photos, regardless of our knowledge or lack there of?

I don't believe for a second that a Nikkormat can get you the same results, - Shun

Then Shun, you answered the question didn't you. the answer is "No". What makes you the photographer you are today, and a very good photographer you are, is the technology. You don't have to get upset, I'm afraid I'm the same way now, many of us are.

But just for the record, Ansel used allot more than just view cameras.

Like it or not, there are those who use old "F" and Nikkormats and Leica "M" and so on, and are every bit as good as we are.