david carver

<p>I agree with John Morriss.</p>

 

<p>Ruediger, it is called an unrealized loss. Their real loss is using an inferior product compared to the current model. I want to point out that for some people that is acceptable and for others it is not. That does not change the facts. </p>

<p>Walt, the only reason that I won't look at an M9 is because I would be very upset in 2 years when the M10 came out that was better and my M9 was worth 50% of what I paid for it. I know all of the arguements that it still takes pics and it is not obsolete. For me, it wouldn't be acceptable. Digital has been a savior for the camera companies. In times of major annual advancements in technology equipment manufacturers make a lot of money. They are also great marketers. No thanks, I'll stick to a D90 with a lens that cost $900 new. The most I will lose is $900. How much have M8 owners lost? My M6 will be worth what I paid for it 10 years from now. Film will be available for the next 30 years. That is all I need.</p>

<p>I have used every camera that I have had an interest in..but never a Leica. I thought that it was just a bunch of BS. I picked up an M7 and I was immediately hooked. I just bought an M6 and a 50mm summicron and I could not be happier. It is without a doubt the best camera that I have ever used---Nikon- F4, F5 F100, FM3A (amajor dissapointment), Mamiya 7, Mamiya RZ67, Canon IV, IN, ect. I shoot a Nikon D90 for digital and now a Leica M6 for film. I won't start a dispute about which is better, although anyone can see the major differences if they did their own comparison. The Leica film images have a certain look that digital can't reproduce. I just want to say that I am completely happy now with photography. It has taken a long time but I have finally found the perfect camera. Thank you Leica.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone, it does sound like a meat grinder. I am going to send it back and get my money back. The way it sounds, I couldn't scan at night because it would wake the whole family up. I rolled the dice on the auction site and lost. <br>

I've found out that Nikon Service generally does not do a very good job fixing scanners. Life is too short to be sending the scanner back and forth to Nikon. </p>

<p>I just bought a used Nikon 8000 scanner that looks like it had never been used. I scanned some MF slides and the scans are beautiful. THe only question I have is if the scanner is suppose to be as loud as it is. It makes noise in the regular mode but when I scan in the "Super Fine" mode it gets louder. I opened up the scanner and scanned with the cover off to see if something was loose. It looks perfect. <br>

I appreciate your input.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I recently purchased an RZ67 pro II and it did not have the strap lugs. Does anyone know where to buy. I need a strap!!<br>

BTW, the quality of these lenses is incredible. They are on par with a Mamiya 7 that I used to own. The diff is in how close I can get with the RZ vs the "7".<br>

I am thrilled with the system.<br>

Thanks </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Annie Leibovitz handholds an RZ67 with a 140mm lens. A tripod is not essential for everyone.</p>

<p>Shun, I did not pay a high price. I paid what it sold New as back in 2001 or 2002 ($450). I guess it is high but not ridiculous. I buy a lot of different cameras to play with. I don't have buyers remorse. I just wanted to know why a lot of people would pay $800 for the camera.</p>

<p>Good answer Bob</p>

<p>I have always heard and read great reviews on the FM3A. Recently I purchased an FM3A and have used it for the past 2 weeks. I am at a loss in understanding all of the praise that this camera receives. To me it is OK but nothing special. The viewfinder is a pain to use with glasses and is shamed by the finder on the F3. I do like the two needle system. The camera just does not feel as good in my hands as the F3.<br>

Am I missing something? Is the following and high prices based completely on the lower number of cameras that were produced or because it was Nikon's last manual camera? It can't be that it runs without batteries or in freezing temperatures. How many people really need that option?</p>

<p>I disagree with Frederick. The 40D's LCD screen is horrible! It is really silly that it is that poor in quality. The 50D's is nice and I have had them both. I have found that the 50D's IQ is superior to the 40D's. Get the 50D. </p>

<p>Gracias Micahel y Jim.</p>

<p>Just got an F4 and other than it being the best film camera ever I have a question. I came across this change that was made to the hot shoe;<br>

"The finder now has an extra hole in the hot shoe for the security pin of the SB25 and SB 26 flash units."<br>

This does not help me because I don't know how many holes the hot shoe had originally. I want to see if I have an updated Hot Shoe on my F4. <br>

By the way, I am not interested in Film vs digital because I also shoot with a D90 but the F4 is a freaking joy to use. It is soooo much fun. I have to admit that the scanned slides sure give me something that I wasn't getting with my digital camera.<br>

Thanks in advance for your help</p>

<p> </p>

Can I run 120 film through my 220 back? Thanks for the help.

Elliot, I went from a D300 to a 5D and a 40D in the last couple of months. I see no real difference in my files and prints. I really like the 40D the best. For me, I like the interface and feel of the camera. I really left Nikon for the low cost, high quality 17-40 and 70-200mm f/4 lenses. I really believe that the marketing gurus of Nikon and Canon are really doing a number on all of us (at least me). I have vowed to get off of the purchasing merry-go-round ----- tomorrow!!

I have no idea what Mark Ci is talking about. Mark, can you explain your comment? What is your point?

Jay, can you expound on that. I really would like to know how to test. Thanks

No, don't buy it ----- a camera is just a tool. It's the creative force behind the lens. I had to say it. That is such a crock. I don't think that carpenters sit around and discuss the merits of screwdrivers and hammers on a forum.

 

The reality is that it is as much a hight tech toy as anything. Who cares if you haven't explored the D40X completely. Buy the D700. You will at least be happy for a little while.

G.T. - I make my own from non glare glass that is made for picture framing. It works. Only one piece over the top.

 

By the way, the largest pic I made from the 4990 is 16 by 20. I made exact comparison pics (mamiya 7 and tripod) and could not tell a diff. Maybe if I made larger it would matter.

 

I'm not the only one who came to this conclusion. I know because I had both scanners.

I had the Nikon 9000 ED and the epson 4990. I just sold the 9000 because contrary to a lot of opinions, I could not see a difference when I viewed at 100%. Honestly. I think that the 4990 is easier to use. I do put a piece of ANR glass over the negative holder and I tested to make sure the negative holder was at the correct height. The 9000 is huge and clunky and loud.

 

I commented on this comparison and I got a lot of comments that I tested incorrectly. At first I thought that I was wrong in my assumptions. I tested extensively during the last 3 months and I am at the same conclusion that I reached after scanning a couple of MF negatives. There is not a real difference.

Kelly, I shoot with a Mamiya 7II and the 80mm lens. Probably one of the sharpest medium format lenses made.

 

I really believe, after testing further this weekend, that I got really lucky on the 4990. It's focus point is at the standard film holder height and the glass that I use on top of the negative keeps it completely flat. I am keeping the Nikon 9000 but I will say that on 13 by 19 inch prints there is no difference. I viewed on screen at 16 by 20 and still saw very little difference. I did not print 16 by 20's but I will in the near future.

 

The major difference that I experience is that the 9000 is faster and the colors are way better. The 9000 requires very little post processing. As I said earlier in the post, with a negative from a tripod, I did see more detail at 100% than the epson. Whether or not that translates into noticeable better qualtiy prints is a big question mark. By the way I scan at 2400 DPI or 3200 with the 4990. I am comparing to 4000 DPI scans on the Nikon. It really is unbelievable.

 

I think there is a great variance in quality among the epsons.

 

If I were on a budget I would sell the Nikon. Because it is easier and I will never have any doubts about the quality, I will keep it.

Jay, It was simple. I just took the piece off that hold the film in place. I took a piece of non glare glass that I had cut to fit the holder. It keeps the film perfectly flat.

 

As a follow-up I tested the scanner on some chromes that I took with a tripod. The results were completely different. The Nikon won hands down. The other issue is that the color accuracy was a lot better with the Nikon. A lot less work. I will not sell the Nikon.

 

I appreciate everyone's help.

I am comparing just on the screen.

I also just want to reiterate that I love the Nikon 9000 and I am not posting to make claims that the flatbed is the same because I don't want to spend the money for the Nikon. At this point it is a sunk cost.

 

I am really in shock because I expected to see a clear cut advantage.

 

Edward, your point about the original image is interesting. You may have a point. The shots that I compared was with a Pentax 67 with a monopod and the Mamiya handheld. Both shots look very sharp. The reason that I purchased the Mamiya is for hand holdability. I tried a Pentax 67 and absolutely hated it because it was so heavy and required a tripod.

 

I will try more tests with the Mamiya on a tripod.