jamietea20

Since I couldnt find a sub forum for Sigma camera users, I'll just try my luck here, but.....Where do I begin: So discovered this new wonder of Foveo, while getting lost in Youtube, and since the price of filmstocks are going higher each year, I decided to give it a try. Girl friend bought a brand new SD quattro while on holiday in Japan. But when I finally get my hands on it, it has anything but headaches for me... Here is the chronology 1) I only have M42 lenses, and throw them on to tryout, but the photos came out with this heavy and unusable green cast. 2) then I took the lens off, and it appears that the sensor gives off green blank image regardless 3) immediate freaking out and the inevitably that I just dropped on a $700 potato cam. so Internet search I did 4) some suggests to update the filmware with type A or B image processing file(PLEASE Need your Help! Bought new Sigma SD quattro and images are green!: Sigma Camera Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review) 5) Then I realized the firmware is already the lastest version 1.13, and the system won't let me update again even though I put all the right files in the SD card, 6) Then I came across this thread who states he had the same problem (SD Quattro H Firmware update problem, help please.: Sigma Camera Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review), but no one was able to solve the problem 7) writing this post, and tryin not to think any more about it, and let it ruin my day.... Any wise guys out there??? I'm attaching a sample picture with my m42 lens, and another taken at the same position without a lens(bare sensor) , the third one taking against a white wall, so you can see the green color chunks. PS: please don't tell me to go and buy an expensive Sigma lens. Because I've tried multiple lenses and obviously this is not just the problem cause by my lens. with m42 lens bare sensor uneven color chunks

I found my answers, thank you everyone..

Umm.... no, with the incident meter, the bunny under the metered reading will be over exposed, as you said the camera will not handle the brightness, hence you need to "compensate" to under expose from what the meter reading is... with a spot meter you see exactly how bright it is, so I don't understand what you need to "compensate" afterwards...?

I can see this is true for mostly outdoor settings with only wide shot of an assortment of subjects in the frame, where there's a single light source(sun), and the reflective factors are negligible. Otherwise, even for an outdoor portrait, you still need to calculate, either mentally or with a spot meter for the skin tone differences.

I don't see how this has anything to do what I am asking... in your stated scenario, I will meter whatever subject I intend to "bring out", let it be the dog, bunny or leaves. What I am saying is that why would I meter for the bunny using an incident and then adjust the compensation due to its skin tone, instead of using a spot and exposure as what the meter tells me.... And if I want to do an averaging of the three, I can step back and let the viewfinder include all three, or spot meter each and find a common ground. Still, if I use an incident, not only I'm doing all that, I also have to mentally add/subtract the reflective factor

I don't believe this is true, you need to meter many times with incident meter as much as spot meter. Just because it measures the amount of light falling on to the subject doesn't mean it's constant, say over a surface..

I never use flash, and even if I do, I don't understand why can't I keep the flash turned on continuously and use a spot meter...

This is not really helpful. Can you elaborate more and how it can answer my original questions? I already know how each meter work..

There is a correction for a typo in my original post" I don't understand: If a spot meter can you give the reading of the amount of light reflected from the subject, which is essentially is what the camera sensor/film will be exposed to, then why bother using a *Incident meter* and then having to adjust the skin tone/reflective surface factor? "

I don't understand what this "more tricky" mean? At the end of the day we are metering what we want to see on the image, don't we. Then, "People come in all sorts of colors, their skin reflectance varies a lot with perspiration and makeup" is preceisely my point, if we can spot meter it accruately to what the camera sees, why get an average reading and not factor in the skin colors????

I know how each meter works, but I don't understand why ----what my first post asks...

I don't understand: If a spot meter can you give the reading of the amount of light reflected from the subject, which is essentially is what the camera sensor/film will be exposed to, then why bother using a *Incident meter* and then having to adjust the skin tone/reflective surface factor? Could anyone explain? (Moderator Note - the content has been edited to reflect post #8)

I guess I agree to the fact that there IS a difference but what I'm trying to say is that they are so minute that in most of the circumstances, (especially when today everything ends up to be viewed on a computer), it is almost pointless to spend the extra bucks. If, at the end of the day, your work ends up on instagram.....

Let me ask you this, have you seen the movie Dark Knight? It was shot on 35mm and 65mm, were you able to tell which one is which when you were looking at a 40 FEET screen in the movie theatre?

Yes, a 55mm 6x7 lens is about a 28mm on 35mm, so I doubt it will be much of a difference.

Jam in the take up spool? How?

i don't know what we are arguing here. I own an FM, and it took it apart yesterday, completely... perhaps yours is one of the later models. But mine has focusing screen sits in a enclosed metal crate

NO, not for FMs... there's no screw.. the focusing screen is sitting in a metal crate. Opening up the camera is the ONLY way to gain access to it.

Yes, but I bought it with a 50mm 1.8 for a total of $100 two years ago. So....

Like the title suggests, I took the camera completely apart, 1> remove the top cover 2) remove the lens mount 3> remove the light meter circuit 4> clean the screen, viewfinder and the prisms 5> put everything back on. While my focusing screen is now as clean as it can be and dust free, due to the age of the camera, a few things broke on its own. There are: 1) the (+ o -) label , so now it just shows a red dot for each 2) I had to replace the supporting foam on which the viewfinder sits Upon opening the camera they fell completely into crumbs. They are actually the cause of the dust in the viewfinder and the screen. 3) A supporting plastic tab next to the prism, it's part of the light meter circuit. But it has no functionality than holding a wire in place. 4) This is the biggest one: the film counter doesn't work anymore. The spring and the numbered wheels showing S, 0, 1...36, now has lost it's original traction , which makes it over turn the numbers per wind. And when I pop the rear gate hoping it'll reset to S, it bounced way over to the bland area before S, and now when I wind the film advance it the counter stays stuck. However, none of this bothers me per se. I'm posting this just to warn people who may be thinking doing the same, try it at your own risk. Due to the age of the camera, a lot of the things won't bear the slightest adjustment. Now, I have a perfectly clear view finder, and all internal foam seal replaced.

"A long lens doesn't compress anything it just makes it look like it compressed it", Well, then why does it "look" that way, isn't it because the long lens "compress" the distance, by bringing far object closer then? Like a binocular.

I realized that. I guess there is no point to ask in here than to inquire at each individual lab. But as far as I know, industrial scanners doesn't use film holders like the consumer ones, they scan them continuously like a drum. I saw a very old Fuji one (frontier 1000) once in a lab.

I'm asking because I'm afraid that industrial/bulk scanners are programed to recognize the frame separator shot on normal 35mm, and then automatically divide full strip of film into 24/36 individual pictures. It matters because I'm shooting a continuous frame of 24x67, as opposed to a conventional 24x36. I don't want the scanner to cut in between.

Thank you for all your folks' response. It's been educational. My take-home so far has been 1) 35mm/medium/large will show resolution difference on large print, but not so much on a computer 2) (Normal) Lens distort distance, hence distorts subjects. e.g fisheye lens trying to squeeze far object closer, hence bending the lines? 3) There is sharpness difference between different f stops. But I still find it true only when you compare two extremes like f5.6 vs f32. To me it's virtually indistinguishable for less than 3 stops. And the same goes for film formats, yes, 35mm vs 4x5 you can tell difference in large blowup prints. But 35mm vs 645? Unless we are talking billboards, I don't believe so, unless there's proven blind test with the naked eye.. 4) Much the source of my questioning comes from the fact, in my generation( early 20s), everything is viewed from LEDs, so I'm rather unaware of any of the minute details only show on actual prints. And, therefore my new understanding is that, current preference for shooting film lies only in two aspect 1) the work flow, 2) the out of factory color grading. 3) Making large print copies for display. Apart from these aspects, it's rather pointless to shoot film and pretend it's inherently different from digital, while be we are viewing on a LED, whether it's computer, cell phone. Am I mistaken in any of the points mentioned above?