LenMarriott

<p>Elliot, Many thanks for the link. It'll prove useful in the future I'm sure. It doesn't answer my question though as it doesn't address the issue of the D7100's crop mode. I'm looking for a comparison of a D7000 (16 mpx) image to the D7100's 1.3 crop mode (15.4 mpx) image, assuming that the area covered by the sensors is the same. Thanks, LM.</p>

<p>Has anyone compared a D7000 image at 100% to the D7100 (crop mode) at 100%? (same subject, same lens & same area covered) The D7100 is on my radar screen, thus the curiosity about the image quality to be expected. Best, LM.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Joel, Another vote for a fast 35mm. You can do a whole wedding with it in a pinch. Great for interiors, most groups, and full length shots, even portraits if you are careful about keeping the camera back in a perfect vertical orientation and zooming with your feet. Next in line for me would be the fast 85mm. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Shawn, Duct tape! Don't laugh, it worked for me after I lost one battery holder ($75 to replace) due to a faulty battery compartment cover on my Bronica SQ Ai. Swore I'd never lose another! Your call of course & for what it's worth I feel your pain. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Steve, Some images, as you have correctly pointed out, are rendered, to my eye at least, as superior images in B&W , partly due to the original being monochromatic anyway, though not always. I do this with my scans in Photoshop, mostly using the 'Channel Mixer' feature. I like the lower contrast (can be increased post exposure if desired) and wide range of tones that Portra is capable of recording such as detail in deep shadows and, at the same time, in highlights such as sun on snow or, as Kodak intended, details in both a bride's dress and a grooms dark tux as well as superb skin tones. Makes it easy to get a satisfactory image in B&W from this film. Since I'm not prepared to process my own B&W images this is my preferred workflow. The bonus is that I get to put forth a colour version as well if I want. Not to disrespect those who prefer Ektar 100 or Velvia 50 but they're simply not my preference. I'm not a proponent of overly saturated images so I leave those types of images to the photographers who are. To answer Alan's question, one can indeed increase the contrast and saturation post exposure but it's arguable as to weather Ektar or Velvia can be accurately or satisfactorily rendered from a Portra original. You'd have to ask someone who likes the pallet those films produce. Best to find out what combination you like personally and pursue that workflow. And thanks for the vote of confidence. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Steve, You can find some samples on PN<a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+160+nc&sort_order=1"> here ,</a> <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+160&search=&start_index=0&sort_order=1&page=Prev">here</a>, or <a href="/gallery/tag-search/search?query_string=portra+&sort_order=1">here</a>. I am one of the Portra fans. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Emma, I use only Epson Inks and paper on my Epson printer. For me, an unfailing combo. 3rd party stuff? What the others have said! Best, LM.</p>

<p>Mary, Thanks for starting this thread. And thanks too to the respondents for their insights. Since the D7000 is on my radar screen the above discussion is valuable to me, both the Pro's and the Con's. I'll now be looking for threads which point to the lenses which WILL do this camera's sensor (or the D7100's) justice. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Paul, Whoops, I should have read your post twice. I was going to point you toward a +1 diopter. And there's no way to delete this post. Sorry. Best, LM</p>

<p>Michael, not sure how much you are willing to pay but if you can't get a beater locally you might consider <a href="http://barrie.kijiji.ca/c-buy-and-sell-cameras-camcorders-Minolta-XG-M-Body-only-W0QQAdIdZ388024946">this ad.</a> Best, LM.</p>

<p>Marco, Try turning the negative 180 degrees in the scanner & see if the band switches to the bottom. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Marco, Is the band at the top visible on the negative(s)? If not, your trouble likely lies with your scanner. If it is visible the trouble likely lies somewhere in the process from fresh film to processed film. (Camera or processing are possible suspects). Come back & let us know what you find. Many here could benefit from your findings. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Harry, What works for me (Dell computer with Windows XP) is: I right click on the picture and then toggle down the provided widow to 'Open With'. Then choose your program. If you toggle down to 'properties' you'll get a window showing you the default program used to open the shot. You should be able to click on 'change' and pick the program you want for default. Mine is Photoshop CS. Come back & let us know how you made out. OOPS, Christopher beat me to it. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Erik, Plastic reel? As I recall, they have to be PERFECTLY dry for the film to feed into them smoothly & evenly. Especially true for 120 film in my experience. I suspect they were dry for your first roll but were a bit damp and caused the film to feed imperfectly on your second roll. Just a guess but it's happened to me.......albeit a while back. Best, LM.</p>

<div></div>

<p>George, I agree, good idea. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>Drew, My favourite too, though with a crop and a bit of post processing to suit my tastes. Your mileage may vary. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>Mark,<a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php"> This link </a>might be of assistance to you. According to this Massive Development chart you are in the ball park. I've no experience with this combo so can't give my personal experiences. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Sorry, no way to delete my response. Others have a better grip on this than I. Liked your portfolio though. Very inspirational. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Brett, not sure who the decorated dude is but I did get a shot of the Duke using the same (sports finder) technique. Thanks for your interest. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>Brett, not sure who the decorated dude is but I did get a shot of the Duke using the same technique. Thanks for your interest. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Kayla, Here's a shot taken using Arthur's sports finder technique. Camera was pre-focused at about 7ft. The sports finder was used as the subject was moving and, knowing this was a one shot deal, I didn't want to be confused by the reversed image at a crucial moment. Best, LM.</p><div></div>

<p>John, Since Tamron (Canada), part of Amplis, no longer services Bronica I had to contact<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/"> Tamron (USA)</a> for a new battery case cover for my SQ Ai (lost on outing). They were most helpful. Give them a call & see what they suggest. Let us know how you make out. Many here will likely benefit from your experience. Best, LM.</p>

<p>Julien, I echo Mendel's response on it's quality. I have one too & use it often. For 35mm negs it produces a superior image to that produced by my Epson V500. (I use the V500 primarily for Medium Format negs. Do yourself a favour and get Vuescan software. <a href="http://www.hamrick.com/">(trial version available at no cost) </a> I find the bundled software to not be user friendly. Best, LM.</p>