ted_daughety

B+W's 67EW filter has a 67mm lens thread, but a much larger glass,

with 82mm outside thread. It allows protection without vignetting.

Other manufacturers may have a similar product.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

I doubt the premise that there exists yet a good or bad season. The

major time-related variable I would guess is the age of eBay itself.

Early on the number of buyers was sufficiently small that there were

bargains. As the number of buyers has grown so large as eBay has

come of age, prices bid approach [define?] retail. I don't remember

enough Economics 101 to quote an equation for it, but it's not varying

much with the seasons, at least not yet.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

lee,

 

<p>

 

When I took the Darkroom III workshop there a few years ago, we shared

the darkroom one week with the yofo's [Young Photographers], so that I

was able to see and hear some of what went on. The teaching was

excellent. The students were obviously having a good time. They

created some of the most interesting images made in Rockport the two

weeksI was there. If Joe [surname?] from a small New England private

school is again the teacher, you'd love it. Others may do as well or

better. Now, are there better places to consider? Don't know.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

Lee,

 

<p>

 

When I took the Darkroom III workshop there a few years ago, we shared

the darkroom one week with the yofo's [Young Photographers], so that I

was able to see and hear some of what went on. The teaching was

excellent. The students were obviously having a good time. They

created some of the most interesting images made in Rockport the two

weeksI was there. If Joe [surname?] from a small New England private

school is again the teacher, you'd love it. Others may do as well or

better. Now, are there better places to consider? Don't know.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

I'm not certain that I fully appreciate this criticism. I understand that no rangefinder camera is a good choice for macro work. I understand that portraiture of some faces benefits from the decreasing perspective effect of increased subject to camera distance, possible with longer focal length lenses. Clearly 150mm is the longest in the Mamiya 7 system. Beyond those criticisms, what are people concerned about? The minimum focus of the Pentax 67 165LS is 1.6m, compared with 1.8 for the Mamiya 7 1.8m; is that difference significant? If you want to deal with three times the weight, the min focus of the bellows based Mamiya RZ 150 is 0.8m. If we want a macro lens or a 300 or 400mm lrens or interchangable backs, we would better choose an SLR. However, for an image of 20x24 inches at 1.8m from which one can crop little pieces of face if desired, the Mamiya 7 seems economical of money and weight. OK, I also wish it did it all, but no tools do.

 

Ted Daughety

Ken,

 

<p>

 

Excellent recommendations--autoeverything Nikon or Canon if you want

action, 6x17 for seascapes. I'd like to followup on Chris's thought

of the Mamiya 7. I believe it's the lightest camera with the biggest

negative and best grip, thus the easiest to handhold with one hand

while hanging on with the other when the seas are up, IF your goal is

big prints. See January Shutterbug article on Hassy with gyroscopic

stabilizer for bridgetop shooting as an alternative, if holding on is

not a priority.<g>

Ted

Dave,

 

<p>

 

About a year or two ago I purchased a "LN" Mamiya 7 with 80f/4 from

Edgar Chan [not sure about the last name] from Shutterbug, before he'd

opened the retail shop in SF. The deal included cash and the trade

of an older used Leica body and lenses. I found him fair, prompt and

accurate in those phone and email dealings. At his suggestion, we

FedEx COD'd for the total value to which we had agreed, both

directions. Worked fine. I haven't dealt with him since, but have no

reason to hesitate doing so.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

Harry,

 

<p>

 

There has been a thread going on CompuServe in recent

weeks on developing Delta 3200. The principle discussants are John

Hicks and Roger Hicks. Their experience seems to have been with Xtol

and Microphen primarily, though Roger says he has 5 gal of DD-X to

work with, apparently a new Ilford liquid product with particular

advantages for the 3200.

 

<p>

 

The consensus seems to be that the Delta product is an improvement in

every way over TMZ. They are finding true speeds in the 1200-1600

range, reasonable results up to 3200. Neither has commented about

using a Paterson developer. Both are hoping that the newer product

delivers even better results.

 

<p>

 

I'm hoping to lurk until they settle on their favorites before

developing the several rolls I have in the frig'.

 

<p>

 

Ted Daughety

Ron Wisner responded to a similar posting on CompuServe by referring

me to Nicholas Hellmuth's work, shooting Mayan archeology with Wisner

4x5 and digital back. Fairly demanding conditions. Some of the

images thus created depicted at www.digital-photography.org, also very

extensive review of lots of equipment. Must be that's how he repays

manufacturers who donate stuff to him. Having said that, the reviews

seem to ring true when he writes of equipment which I know.

Is there a field camera being manufactured now which has a clear advantage in stability, sufficient to be usable with a digital back? Given the long exposure times, I assume that everything must be optimizedm, i.e., heavy tripod, rigid ballhead/QR coupling, umbrella to windward... However, all the work I've seen has been done apparently on Sinar or other rail cameras. Are the backs just too heavy for field designs? Are some field cameras sturdy enough for the task?

I'm interested in big negatives of dancers shot in available light with moderate telephoto (200-300). When I've picked up the Pentax without grip it have seemed a challenge to maneuver and stabilize. How much would the wooden grip likely help, ore are fingertip pushups the only answer? Has anyone experience with Newton or Stroboframe for handheld or monopod?