david_r._edan

<p>This forum seems to be too generalized. Well, I'm hoping this lands on the right ears (the left too).<br /> I never really needed a proper card reader. Mostly I work in my studio so the file transfer is wireless. On the rare occasions that I shot on location I used to transfer the photos from the CF via a cheap USB reader. Since I upgraded to Nikon D800, I just prefer to connect the camera to the PC. Recently I've been shooting more and more outside the studio, so I need a dedicated solution.<br /> The thing is that there are so many readers out there, most of which are of questionable origins, without proper specs listed. And by 'specs', I mean: 'Maximum capacity compatibility" and 'Maximum read speed'. It's as if these parameters are not important.<br /> Currently the fastest (and my main) CF card can read 120 mb/s. Obviously there are cards that can go faster than that (I'm planning on getting one). Now, the prices of card readers vary wildly. There are units that go for under 10 dollars as well as ones that cost over 1K. I'm a practical fellow. I can be a happy camper with a card reader that is much slower than 200 mb/s, <strong>as long as it's reliable</strong>. Data safety is key. I don't want my photos to be ruined, or my $900 card rendered useless because the reader couldn't handle the 512GB capacity or used improper voltage. I'm just illustrating a point here. Currently my most expensive CF card is $400 and is 256GB but that's about to change. So what I need is:<br /> • An internal card reader that connects via internal USB3 connector (on the MB).<br /> • CF - full compatibility with the most advanced cards available.<br /> • SD - full compatibility with the most advanced cards available. (I have SD cards too)<br /> • USB3 - at least one connector, since I'm giving up the USB3 on the motherboard.<br /> • No unnecessary clutter. Less is more. I'm not looking for a panel with a dozen slots. I don't need extra SATA or headphone jack outlets. The only other format I use occasionally is microSD, which would be a bonus. I know that this is a lot to ask but again: less is more.<br /> • Panel size: I actually prefer the 5.25 but will take a 3.5 just as easy.<br /> • Read/Write speeds: reasonable. I don't want to wait the whole afternoon for the photos to transfer. Each takes up 40-50 mb and usually there are a lot of them. At the same time I don't want to overpay for a marginally better product.<br /> • Impeccable reliability. Data integrity goes before everything else. The card reader has to be able to properly handle exotic and expensive cards.<br /> • Price range: Any. Has to be good value. No cheap garbage and no overpriced gizmos.<br /> And please, don't just google something up and post it here. I really need the opinions of people who have personally experienced the product they're recommending. Internal readers only please.<br /> Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Wow.... Seriously? No one's gonna say it? How about using a cleaning kit?<br> I used to be an occasional printer... many years ago. The last printer I used was an Epson 1280, I believe. But even before I started printing with it I knew the clogging problem all too well. Luckily I came across a cleaning kit. Whenever the test print showed some bad clogging I just went straight to using the kit instead of wasting gallons of ink on the cleaning cycles. It was a very straightforward procedure which took 10 minutes at the most. I even remember restoring a printer to full operation after about a year of not using it... in 15 minutes. Prior to cleaning, the test print showed no lines at all. The head was clogged up and dried out. After using the kit I had to do 1 or 2 cleaning cycles.<br> This was such a long time ago, I couldn't for the life of me remember the brand of the cleaning kit I was using. I do remember that there was a solution and some sponges. A quick search on ebay returns quite a selection:<br> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xprinter+cleaning+kit&_nkw=printer+cleaning+kit&_sacat=0<br> Ask around and be careful. I'm sure there's bad stuff too. The one I've been using was a 5 star product (IMO). Worked like a charm.<br> <br />I'm surprised no one here has mentioned anything of this sort. Manually cleaning an inkjet printer head is like Printing 101.</p>

<p>That scanner is just bad. It's been known for years. Towards the end, Konica-Minolta had had terrible QC. That scanner model was no exception. I have the Dimage 5400II, which is the updated version of the same scanner (no firewire BTW). My model is plagued with the same problem due to the horrible QC. Some scanners are 100% OK, however, the "horizontal lines" problem does exist in many of them, to a varying degree. It's pretty much a crapshoot with this, otherwise good scanner.<br> The "white lines" that you see, are not actually white/bright. Because you scan negatives, the colors are reversed, so in reality they are dark, pixel-wide lines, near the bottom range of the spectrum. With my scanner (scanning positive transparencies), the lines don't show above around 8 RGB, while the green channel is the worst. So for me it's: either clip them out or clone them out. Though I must say, that the results vary from scan to scan, even with the same piece of film and identical settings.<br> The red channel is a little cleaner while the blue channel is mostly "line-free". I've scanned B/W film with Vuescan too and this is what you can do. Luckily, in Vuescan you get to select which channel you want to sample your scan from. So when scanning B/W film, choose the blue channel. You are almost certain to get better results. Obviously, scanning from the blue channel is not ideal, because you lose a little bit of detail in the blacks (clear film) but it's mostly trivial.<br> I haven't scanned any film for years so my memory of this might not be as good as I think. Anyway, I hope this helps.</p>

<p>Thank you, Jeremy. They do provide some slick-looking themes, however, I wasn't able to see one blog that showcased high-resolution photos. The whole idea behind sites like Zoom.it or Zoomify is to provide a full-screen or near full-screen experience of endless zooming in. Maybe at Weebly they do host pictures of 200 and 300 MP. And maybe they do provide a proper navigation platform for displaying such images.<br /> Does anyone know a blog at Weebly, with huge panoramas? If yes, do post a link. I'd love to see what something like that looks like w/o first signing up and possibly wasting hours of my time.</p>

<p>Thank you, Peter. I was aware of Zoomify before creating this thread. However, at the time that I looked at it, I didn't give it much consideration, mainly because of some mumbo-jumbo about coding and also that god-awful picture they showcase on their home page. Now, wanting to see their actual product at work, I ran a quick search and this is what I came up with. Take a look. Just click the "full screen" button:<br> http://www.panorama-factory.ch/_English/e_Galleries_GigaPano/e_503_Guetsch_2009/Luzern_vom_Guetsch.html<br> Looks fantastic, especially on my 27", 2560X1440 panel.<br> Now take a look at this:<br> http://zoomify.com/compare.htm<br> This looks horrible. I got a headache after just 3 minutes of trying to make sense of it.<br> I'm supposed to have a website to host the photos, then I'm supposed to do some coding but before all that I actually have to pay them? Like I said before, I need it just for the gimmick, I'm not gonna make any money off of it. This is over my head. I don't mind shelling out a few bucks as long as I don't have to also put in hours of my time. Plus my website is at Photoshelter. I wouldn't know how to even approach this thing.</p>

<p>No, nothing of the sort. The images I want to share range from about 100 to 400 MP. If there's a size limitation of let's say 200MP, then I can downscale. A 200MP limit would not be a deal breaker<br /> What I liked about Zoom.it was a slick and simple interface, a responsive engine and a near full-screen, ad-free window, as far as I remember. Something like that would be great.</p>

<p>I hope this is the right forum to post this...<br> <br />Hi. <br> A few years back I stumbled across Zoom.it. I kinda liked the gimmick and I bookmarked the site, just in case.<br> I've had a dedicated site to showcase my work for a long time but now I would like to share a few hi-res images among friends and family, mainly as a gimmick. The platform that was employed at Zoom.it is exactly what I need. Unfortunately, Zoom.it is not longer functional. Maybe it's a matter of time before they're up and running again but I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket.<br> So, what else is out there? A not so extensive search on google yielded nothing. If you've ever visited Zoom.it, you know what I'm looking for. Upload a hi-res photo and display it using a cool engine. At this point I would actually pay a reasonable amount of money for a subscription, so the other site doesn't have to be free.<br> Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>I thought this thread was dead but thank you for your input.<br> Even though I won't be using this length for any portraiture, buying the older version of the 85mm T/S makes no sense at this point. The new version is well within my budget and I will get myself a copy as soon as I get around to it. I'll have to run it through numerous tests and then send it back to Nikon for the axis change. Then when I get it back: more tests. All this takes precious time which I currently do not have.<br> This discussion has been very helpful.</p>

<p>I am loving this discussion!<br /> <br />Rodeo Joe, believe it or not but I know exactly what you're talking about. Back in the days of film I went through all the spot-metering-zone-placement school. I used to develop the b&w film myself and my whole 'imaging system' was very well calibrated. I myself have also dabbled in the area of increasing the dynamic range of film, and I'm not talking about 'plus' or 'minus' developing.<br /> In theory, a certain amount of light is needed to produce even the slightest density. If the light that strikes the film is less than the required minimum, the film will be clear after developing. This principal could be applied to increase the shadow detail with no tangible loss of detail in the highlights, thus expanding the practical dynamic range of any given emulsion.<br /> In my calibrated system, all I had to do was place the entire frame at Z0. For my film testing purposes I've constructed a diffuser from 2 sheets of matted plexiglass, with space between them. It was held in front of the lens with a Cokin P filter holder.<br /> This technique of 'priming' the emulsion prior to the main exposure was fairly easy to execute. I was using the Nikon F5 body, which imposed no limitations on multiple exposures. And since I was experimenting with B&W film, I had no issues priming the emulsion with anything other than neutral density. I would place the camera on a tripod, set it to stop advancing the film, slap on the diffuser, focus on infinity and take a center-weighted reading. Based on the reading, I would set the exposure to place the entire frame at Zone 0. The diffuser worked so well that I could even have light sources in front of me, yet the film plane was lit evenly. I should still have my home-made diffuser today, though I'd have to look for it.<br /> Anyway, in my experience, the increase of detail in the shadows was trivial at best. It was not worth the hassle, not by a long shot. I must say that much later I did wonder if this theory could have any application in the digital capture world. Now I'm intrigued. When I have some time on my hands, I must try this with my D800, though it would be very different. The amazing shadow detail this camera captures is jaw-dropping. I'd have to test first, just how much light I can get away with before it begins to register. This idea is very far-fetched but I will definitely try it sometime.</p> <p>As per the tilt-shift bellows... Am I stupid or is it really possible to take a regular Nikkor lens, put a bellows between it and the camera body and still be able to focus on far-away objects? Even at infinity? Am I missing something here?</p>

<p>That's all nice and well but you couldn't get that other corner in focus if you wanted to. All thanks to the stupid design of Nikon's PC lenses. (talking about the first photo)</p>

<p>Thanks for the post, Pat. With the 1.5 crop factor of the D300 things are not as indicative. If there's significant blurring and vignetting around the edges, you simply can't see it. I'll be trying to utilize the whole frame of the 85mm PC-E with my D800 body, however, cropping out the bad stuff is often a viable option with 36 MP. This is one of the reasons I thoroughly test all my optics; to find out if any particular lens is sub par around the edges at any give setting and whether the image it produces is sharp enough for cropping. The findings of such tests affect my composition.<br /> The 85mm PC-E has a very odd construction and it really bums me out because there is nothing else out there. Your 45mm has the same problem, which is manifested in the first photo. The exercise of 'shift' is very evident but the complete lack of 'tilt' on the same axis demonstrates a major flaw in the design of all Nikon's perspective control lenses.</p>

<p>Thank you very much, Steven. It really was a great read. If previously I've been considering the 90mm Schneider, now I know it's not what I need. The insufficient 1:4 magnification and poor optical performance in conjunction with extension tubes is the real deal-breaker in this case, not the lack of electronic interface with the camera body.<br> I really want to believe that something better is on the horizon, for us, DSLR shooters. It's long overdue. For now I have to settle for the Nikkor 85mm PC-E. 'Settle' because it's not exactly what I need and there is simply NOTHING else out there.<br> T/S bellows and even Canon PC lenses I can throw out the window because those take away the ability of focusing on objects beyond a few feet away. And 'a few feet' is the best case scenario.<br> The REAL bummer in all this is the awkward, and in my opinion, retarded way Nikon decided to design this lens. After some thinking and better understanding I realized that the orthogonal alignment of the tilt and shift axes is very limiting, especially for my type of work. I'll just have to get this lens 'hacked', like others have already suggested.<br> <br />I thank all who contributed. I need no further help with this.</p>

<p>Great discussion, everyone! A great deal of help!<br /> Now I understand (more or less) how the movements are applied with this lens. It makes the most sense to have them the way they are. It's a shame that this lens doesn't provide more freedom of movement though. Obviously there are all kinds of solutions out there. However, I simply cannot use a cumbersome bellows+rail (such as the Novoflex) because I sometimes have to work on location; mostly food shoots in restaurants. Food is not exactly 'still life'. The photos have to be taken fast, while it all looks freshly made.<br /> A 'view camera converter' is not the way to go for me. At least not for now.<br /> The Nikkor 85mm PC-E though is right up my alley. It will be my first ever (and long overdue) T/S lens. It's almost exactly what I need for my work. I'll buy it, see what's what, take great pictures with it and when the time is right - maybe even sell it and get something else. I'm not marrying it.<br /> <br />Ellis: I did dabble in focus stacking. I've tried it a long time ago with PhotoAcute (which I use for super-resolution) but about a year ago I've been convinced that Helicon Pro is the best tool there is. I haven't really implemented this technology in any of my commercial work or my personal projects. Shooting 6-7 frames per photo is time consuming and difficult enough, especially when strobe lighting is involved but post-processing is something else entirely. D800 file sizes, 16-bit workflow, a few dozen pieces of jewelry per catalog, 6-7 frames per photo to process.... Do the math. It's simply not feasible. I had a girl working for me part-time, handling some of the post-production. I don't see how it could be done even then. Focus stacking is by no means for any high-volume-low-manpower projects. I do plan to get my technique polished and to at least devise a proper workflow for it.<br /> You will agree with me though that the purpose of tilting is not limited to acquiring as much DOF as possible. I see it as the 'proper' technique of achieving the 'desired' DOF. It's not just about getting what I need IN focus. It is also about getting what I DON'T need OUT of focus. And you just can't do that with focus stacking. <br /> As per your client with the golden picture frames.. Have you tried shooting them in a tent? I do almost all of my jewelry in a tent and it doesn't get more 'golden' than that. Those frames are probably big but I'm sure you can find a tent that's right for you. I have 2 and one of them has a removable back, so it becomes a kind of a 'shoot-through' tent. Gold, silver and gemstones look their best in a tent, plus I can use whatever background I want and light it however I need.<br /> <br />Howard: The 90mm Schneider is very tempting. The build quality, the optics, the huge image circle, the tripod mount(!). I work mostly on my Arca Swiss D4 head and those two would be just perfect together. The price is within my budget too. But right now I feel that this lens is just 'too big' for me, if you know what I mean. And it's bulky too. When I do get on location I have to haul so much stuff with me in my SUV - it's ridiculous. And I almost never get any help. Right now I need ONE all-around T/S lens that I can also take with me for out-of-studio-under-time-pressure work and the Nikkor 85mm seems to fit the bill. I have a feeling that someone will produce an even finer T/S lens very soon. One with proper electronics and maybe even AF. Would be kinda cool. As an owner of the 90mm Schnider, where would that leave me in terms of resale value? I'd just be stuck with it because no one would need it (unless for dirt-cheap) as long as there were a better lens available, possibly more competitively priced. I'll start small and see where it goes from there.<br /> <br />Everyone who says I should rent a copy first: What if I get a rental that's been dropped? What if an element came out of alignment? What if the lens is a lemon and the store doesn't even know it? Should I really form my opinion of its resolving power, based on a rental? What if I buy this lens, test it and find that it's adequately sharp but in reality it is not as sharp as it should be? I keep it and live happily ever after not knowing that all that time I'm shooting with a lemon.<br /> No matter how you look at it, I need to see some proper samples, so when I rent and/or buy, I'll have something to compare my own results to. Does ANYONE know where I can see some ful-res photos taken with this lens? At this point I'll look at anything, even pictures taken by another camera.</p> <p>Once again - great discussion. If anyone else has to add anything, I'm not going anywhere.</p>

<p>Youtube is flooded with unboxing videos, how to shoot buildings and how to make regular people look like legos. Not one proper tutorial of doing some serious studio work.<br> Daniel: You got me a little confused (a little more than I already am). I need this lens to be able to tilt AND shift simultaneously. Can it do that? This is so important that I simply cannot be mistaken. Forgive me if I sound stupid.<br> As per the rental. Renting and testing this lens is a lot of work and time. Aren't there already photos of test charts taken with a D800? Someone must have them online. I would rather pay money for something like that than renting this lens and doing all the work myself.<br> As I said, I don't expect any miracles from this lens but I do have a certain standard in mind. If I wasn't doing serious studio work with a 36MP camera, I wouldn't be concerned as much. And yes, with the Nikon D800 and the kind of commercial work that I do, image detail is of primary importance as I have to compete with folks who shoot with Hassleblad and what not. Ease of operation is also essential. It's enough that the 85mm PC-E is manual focus and Christ knows what kind of aperture control but I have to give up the metering too if I want something else?<br> What a cluster****.</p>

<p>I was about to order this lens but then I began having second thoughts.<br> I should tell why I want this lens in the first place.<br> Mainly for product photography, food, tabletop still life, that kind of deal. The shift movements are always welcome but mostly I need the tilt function of getting the right things in focus. I am not interested in the miniature effect B.S. or any other gimmicks of that sort.<br> Just to make sure we're all talking about the same glass, here's the link to it:<br> http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/specoalpurpose/pc_pce/pce_85mmf_28/<br> <br />My concerns are such:<br> 1. Physical compatibility with my D800. By 'physical' I mean the flash protrusion. I just couldn't find any definitive info on that. Does the D800 body limit the movements in any way and if yes, how bad is it?<br> 2. Optical compatibility. 36MP is no joke. I am yet to see or even hear about one Nikkor lens that does justice to their (actually Sony's) 36MP sensor. I've noticed that the design of this lens does not incorporate any special elements, just their standard glass, so it made me doubt its resolving power.<br> I sometimes create super-resolution images with my D800 and a few prime lenses, so I know what a truly sharp, 36MP image should look like. Moreover, I've been producing stitched panoramas of 100-300MP+ since about 2005. It is VERY hard to wow me by image detail in general. I think I know what to expect from the 85mm PC-E in terms of sharpness, so I've lowered my expectations but even then, I have a feeling I'll be disappointed. The lack of proper image samples strengthens my suspicion. There's the MTF which looks fairly decent but then, it was produced by Nikon. Can anyone post a link to a few image samples taken with this lens, preferably captured with the Nikon D800/E. Obviously I need to take a look at full-res photos and those should be able to demonstrate the full optical resolution capability of this lens, not the fake miniature effect that it can produce. Looking at photos taken at f/2.8 and f/4 would be nice too. Again, I need to see the sharpness, across the image plane, not some sort of artistic implementation at wide-open.<br> There's another matter that I'm curious about. I'm aware that there is quite a bit of vignetting involved when the 'shift' is employed but how does that affect image sharpness? Does the vignetting also bring on softness?<br> 3. Ghosting... Nikon states: "Nano Crystal Coat virtually eliminates internal lens element reflections..." What about the REAR element?<br> We all know the drill: the image bounces off the sensor, then off the rear element, then it ends up back on the sensor, forming a 'ghost' image. Another scenario is: from the sensor, through the rear and any consecutive elements, reflected off the diaphragm back to the sensor, ending up as diffused, stray light, that creates unwanted 'density' all over the image plane, swallowing up shadow detail and lowering the contrast. It all comes down to how well the rear element is coated to handle this kind of issue.<br> Perhaps the best way to test the performance in this area would be to photograph a close-up of a regular safety match on black background. And by 'black background' I mean that it really should be way back and not produce any sort of signal under the following shooting conditions. The match should be held by a clamp and should run the entire lengths of the frame. The light source (strobe or continuous) should be placed very close to the subject and the spill on the background minimized. The exposure should be set to expose the match so it would occupy the upper end of the dynamic range, without clipping. Focus manually and take a picture. Remove the match and take another picture; same exposure and focus. Now, the images should be compared. For best comparison, the two should be overlayed in Photoshop. If the lens produces ANY ghosting, it will show up in this test... Now, has anyone been in a similar scenario with this lens? How was the ghosting?<br> Good rear element coating that knows how to handle sensor-to-glass-to-sensor reflections is a major time-saver in post-processing. I need this.<br> 4. Electronic compatibility. Obviously, I'll be working in LV, manual mode. Does the metering just work? Mostly I'll be using my strobes anyway but available light will also be used. What about the aperture? "Lens aperture can be preset by using aperture ring and aperture stop-down button"... I never got that. I understand that this is because the older bodies cannot control the electronic diaphragm. There is a lot of confusing information on this. I have the D800 body, so: Can the command dial control the aperture just like with any other D/G type lens? Does the DOF preview just work?<br> 5. Durability. The 85 PC-E has been out there for a while. It appears to be built to last but is it really? I've read somewhere that the movement gears are made of nylon. Has anyone ever had issues with them? What about drifting? I'll be making long exposure with this lens too, that is if I decide to buy it.<br> 6. Tube extensions and teleconverters. I must say I'm fairly impressed by the 1:2 reproduction ratio as I do (at least used to do) a lot of macro work. I have a set of 4 tubes and I was wondering if I could use them at all with the 85mm PC-E. All of the extension tubes relay the electronics to the camera body. I've had zero issues in that department with D and G type lenses... the AF (not that I need it) and the metering just work. Obviously, the image circle will suffer to some extent with the 85mm PC-E, however, I'm curious - can any 1:1 macro work be done with this lens? What about the tilt? In theory it should not be affected but has anyone actually done it?<br> What about teleconverters? Kinda interesting.</p> <p>Another major concern is the lack of a proper alternative. 85mm tilt lens for product photography for the D800? - Nikkor 85mm PC-E. Period.<br> I'm aware of the 90mm Schneider but I am put off by its complete lack of electronic interface. For that kind of money I would at least like to get my metering. The Novoflex adapter is not even a lens. But if anyone does have a better solution, I would love to hear it.</p> <p>So, anyone - feel free to chime in. Any and all input is welcome and appreciated. I'd love to hear about your experience with the lens. You can address anything that I've touched on, even if it's not specific to the equipment in question.</p>

<p>I'm looking for a basic director's viewfinder, which would be good for still 35mm (FX) photography. There's plenty to choose from and B&H and Adorama carry quite a few. My concern is that all of the models are basically for cinematography and videography. All those I've checked out had a separate scale for 35mm but I know, of course, that motion picture 35mm film format is not what I'm looking for. What do I do? I need to be able to tell which focal length I should use and it has to be pretty exact. Then there's the aspect ratio that has to be 2:3.<br /> So, has anyone used one of these for still photography? There's really a lot of them out there, probably too many, so there's got to be something for me.<br /> The range I'm interested in is about 20 to 300mm and I <em>would </em>buy accessories that can either meet or expand this range. The size of the picture in the viewfinder is also important. Naturally, the bigger - the better. I'll be also using the finder for night photography, so if some model is really dim, I would have to pass.<br /> The finder has to be small enough to fit in a pocket.<br /> The most I would pay is probably around $350 but that's not really my absolute limit, plus the thing doesn't have to be available at Adorama or B&H. I would have no problem with buying one (even used) from ebay or pretty much any other site. The most important thing is that it has to be good for what I need to do with it.<br /> <br />Thanks.<br /> PS: If you're about to suggest an 'iPhone' or some other DIY solution, please save your time as I'm not interested.</p>