russ_arcuri

The most likely culprit is that your focusing screen may not be calibrated to the taking lens. So you achieve sharp focus on the screen, but the taking lens might be off a bit. This can be repaired by a competent technician, who will adjust the focusing screen to match focus of the taking lens.

The brightest source of light other than the Sun would have been the Earth, which due to it's size in the moon's sky, and considerably greater reflectivity (compared to the moon), would have provided light approximately 100 times brighter than the full moon provides to us. i.e. plenty of light to fill in shadows. The "special" on Fox was irresponsible and anti-educational. It was done for ratings only (like I should be surprised?) Anyone tempted to lend credence to that TV show would do well to read some of the links Sam provided above.

You cannot generalize the performance of the Epson 1200 to the 1640. I have a 1640 SU and have been extremely pleased with the results I've gotten from it, as have many others I've heard from. Here are a few sample scans:<p>

<center>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/river.jpg">6x6 Fuji Velvia scan</a><p>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/river-a.jpg">Small section of Velvia scan displayed at full resolution</a><p>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/r-c2.jpg">6x6 Fuji NPH scan</a><p>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/r-c2detail.jpg">Small section of NPH scan displayed at full resolution</a><p>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/charlotte2.jpg">6x6 Kodak T400CN scan</a><p>

<a href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2gt8w/images/charlotte2a.jpg">Small section of T400CN scan displayed at full resolution</a></center><p>

 

You're not going to get the same kind of results you'd get from a drum scan, but as the samples I provided show, the results are excellent for the $360 price tag.

2CR5 batteries are available pretty cheap from costco.com. I think it's something like $18 delivered for a 6 pack of them. If you're a costco member already, it's a bit cheaper. You can also save on shipping charges if you can buy them directly from a Costco in your area.

I agree with Andrew. A TLR -- <b>any</b> TLR -- is the wrong tool for sports.

A slight correction to something Scott Eaton said: <i>A minolta dimage dual scanner can handle MF films quite well...</i><p>

 

The Dual does not handle MF film at all. You're thinking of the Minolta Dimage Scan Multi. The Dual handles 35mm and APS only.<p>

 

Oh, and both of them handle negatives quite well. Just be sure you get the Multi if you want to handle MF films...

My above answer is copied and pasted from an older thread. I just wanted to add that my Minolta Autocord is working GREAT and that I doubt there's anyone out there who'll treat your camera better than Mark would.<p>

 

I should probably also mention that I have no affiliation with Mark Hama other than as a satisfied customer.

By happy coincidence I was in Marietta, GA on a business trip recently which allowed me to bring my ailing Minolta Autocord to Mark Hama directly. He's a very interesting guy, IMO. He can repair just about any classic Japanese TLR you could throw at him with his eyes closed. (He has quite a collection on the shelves of his work room.) He actually worked in the Yashica factory many years ago building (and repairing?) various cameras.<p>

 

He repairs a very wide range of cameras. While I was there, he was working on a Yashica Dental-eye III, which is a specialty camera designed for dental work. I saw dozens of different models of camera sitting there waiting to be repaired or recently repaired, including some classic japanese rangefinders, Olympus OM-1s, and even a Canon T70. (He told me he prefers to work on the older mechanical cameras, but that doesn't stop him from working on newer models too.)<p>

 

In any case, I just wanted to let people know that in my opinion, Mark Hama is an honest and highly-skilled technician. I will not hesitate to send him my cameras for repair and I encourage others to do the same. From his business card: Mark Hama LTD. - 2675 Earl Drive - Marietta, GA 30062 - Phone: (770) 565-1498 - Fax: (770) 977-5078

By happy coincidence I was in Marietta, GA on a business trip recently which allowed me to bring my ailing Minolta Autocord to Mark Hama directly. He's a very interesting guy, IMO. He can repair just about any classic Japanese TLR you could throw at him with his eyes closed. (He has quite a collection on the shelves of his work room.) He actually worked in the Yashica factory many years ago building (and repairing?) various cameras.<p>

 

He repairs a very wide range of cameras. While I was there, he was working on a Yashica Dental-eye III, which is a specialty camera designed for dental work. I saw dozens of different models of camera sitting there waiting to be repaired or recently repaired, including some classic japanese rangefinders, Olympus OM-1s, and even a Canon T70. (He told me he prefers to work on the older mechanical cameras, but that doesn't stop him from working on newer models too.)<p>

 

In any case, I just wanted to let people know that in my opinion, Mark Hama is an honest and highly-skilled technician. I will not hesitate to send him my cameras for repair and I encourage others to do the same. From his business card: Mark Hama LTD. - 2675 Earl Drive - Marietta, GA 30062 - Phone: (770) 565-1498 - Fax: (770) 977-5078

If you want the smallest TLR that takes 120 rollfilm, I believe the Minolta Autocord is the camera for you.

Don't worry -- the optical formula did not change. The 180 super you have is identical to any later 180 supers you might find other than the click stops. Actually, I'm not even sure if the 180 super ever did have click stops. Mine doesn't.<p>

 

The 180 super is arguably the very best lens in the entire Mamiya C-series TLR lineup. It certainly performs better wide open than all the others. Stopped down to f/5.6 or f/6.7 it's unbelievably sharp.<p>

 

Don't worry, be happy -- use that lens rather than worrying about it.

Probably not useful, but my A2 and original Elan both handle the situations you mentioned very well. As the EOS-3 is supposed to be immensely improved for AF, I would guess that your friend's cameras are in need of adjustment. In any case, try selecting the center focusing point ONLY just for testing purposes. If it still has trouble, this is further evidence that the cameras are in need of adjustment.<p>

 

BTW, with focus tracking turned on on my A2 (an 8 year old camera design), birds in flight are almost trivial. Just playing around with shooting seagulls in flight with the EF 70-210/3.5-4.5 zoom racked out to 210, I got about 75% of my shots in focus. With faster lenses and newer bodies, your friend should be doing that well at least, if not significantly better. Good luck.

Michael-- a quick comment. As alluded to above, the standard 1 stop push on Kodak E200 only gets you to EI 320, not 400. So it's not surprising that your 1 stop push (rating at EI 400) gave disappointing results. Better to go with the manufacturer's suggestion and rate it at 320 if you want to push a stop.<p>

 

Rated at 320 and pushed one stop, my results with E200 would have been the clear winner in your test. Of course, that doesn't help you if you really feel you require EI 400.

Sincere apologies for misspelling "fluorite." Although a "flourite" telescope might be interesting too...

All I know is this: when you want a cheap refractor telescope, you go with 'regular' glass. When you want better performance, you go with an APO design, which is more money, frequently uses special low-dispersion glass, and shows a marked improvement over 'regular' glass scopes.<p>

 

And then, when you want the very best, you buy a flourite telescope. Their cost is hideous, but as Jeff Drew already mentioned, there is no substitute. The views through flourite refractors ruin the observer for anything less ever again.

Also, you might be interested in <a href="http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/pr_991217brightmoon.html">this article.

</a>

You may have noticed the moon and sun in the sky (relatively) close together, but the moon was certainly not <b>FULL</b> when you saw it that way. The only way to have a full moon is if the moon is in the opposite side of the sky as the sun, such that it is being lit from behind you while you're looking at it.<p>

 

When the moon and sun are in opposite sides of the sky, you can only see them both at the same time at around the times of sunset and sunrise. And of course, if the sun never rises high enough to break the horizon (as is the case for people living in/near the arctic circle right now), you can still see the full moon but rest assured the sun is "behind" you when you're facing it.

<i><b>"full moons always rise at sunset and set at sunrise"</b><p>

 

Where I live (Varanger Peninsula, Norway), the sun set at November 23rd and won't rise again until January 21st. ... Where on Earth would the rule quoted above be valid as an approximation?</i><p>

 

In more southerly latitudes -- in fact, most of the rest of the world. Quite simply, the moon cannot appear 'full' unless the light source (the sun) is 'behind' the observer -- in a sense, in the opposite side of the sky. For most people, the sun rises and sets every day. The sun does "rise" and "set" for you too -- it's just that the highest point it "rises" to is still below your horizon. That doesn't mean that the moon never sets, though -- it still orbits the earth.* So sometimes it is on the side of the earth opposite where you are, and sometimes it's on 'your' side of the earth.<p>

 

* The moon actually orbits the earth in a west to east direction. However, because the earth is rotating much faster than the moon is orbiting, it 'catches up' and causes the moon to <i>appear</i> to be orbiting east to west.

How about a smaller, lighter, easier-to-focus TLR? The Minolta Autocord could do what you want, I think. And it looks positively puny when sitting next to my Mamiya C220.

Isn't this whole conversation just a little bit silly? We are discussing, with apparent grave seriousness, whether we should be discussing a certain camera here or not.<p>

 

It takes 35mm film ONLY. It's a 35mm camera. It's actually not even made by Hasselblad -- I believe it's made by Fuji.<p>

 

Since it's 35mm camera equipment, it fits most readily into the camera equipment forum at <a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Camera%20Equipment"> http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a.tcl?topic=Camera%20Equipment</a>.

One question. What size prints do you want to make? HONESTLY. Everyone says they want to make monster prints but few actually do. For anything up to 16x20, I doubt you'd see much of a difference between 6x7 and 4x5 (assuming good film and technique). With certain films and excellent technique, even a 30x40 inch print can look spectacular with 6x7, although at that print size a 4x5 neg would be preferable.<p>

 

Oh, and if you want to take pictures of people (nude or otherwise), stick with MF.

"the square is incredibly unnatural"<p>

 

I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps I'm odd, but I think it's easier to compose for the square. Some of my favorite photos are squares: <a href="http://www.borg.com/~arcuri/images/river.jpg">Taken on the St. Lawrence river</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/big-image.tcl?bboard_upload_id=1521">Charlotte</a> are two examples.<p>

 

Also, I disagree about how we perceive our world... my field of view is roughly circular. We tend to look left and right much more than we look up and down, and I think that skews our perception of our field of view into a roughly rectangular shape... but if I don't move my eyes or head, my vision drops off in detail basically as the distance from the center of my field of view increases.<p>

 

In any case, if you want to improve your compositional skills with the square, take that YashicaMat out and shoot a lot with it. Look at your results and make an effort to figure out why the failures are failures and why the successes are successes. Good luck.

Glen: Agreed. It makes no sense.

Someone above asked if 35mm lenses were sharper than medium format lenses. In general, this is true for comparable lenses. For example, a Canon 50/1.4 can resolve more lines/mm than almost any 80 or 100mm lens for medium format out there. Does this mean the prints will be sharper? Almost never. The negatives are much bigger in medium format, and therefore require much less enlargement for the same size print. So, unless the medium format lens is a real dog, medium format will produce better prints.

The Holga has a <b>single</b> element plastic lens. (a.k.a. a child's magnifying glass). $19.95 from B&H photo. All Holgas are 'defective' in some way, so don't think you'll be returning one if it doesn't perform up to your standards. <p>

 

You get what you pay for. They really are pieces of garbage. I have some way, way past expiration (like 3 years past) 120 film; it's the only film I'm willing to run through a Holga.