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

In spite of informative responses to your questions, you seem to want to get defensive and argue with people providing elucidative and helpful answers. You DON'T understand the differences if you need to ask the questions you did, and people are trying to be helpful and point you to examples. Do some independent reading on the subject (not the web, but well respected science based resources. One time honored one on lighting and exposure is the book "Light, Science and Magic" which you can get for less than $5 used.)

Actually, this is the opposite of what you should do! Let me explain.

 

And so the bunny will be correctly exposed, whatever its shade of grey. The caveat is if the camera cannot capture a highlight that strong. If you know this, underexpose a bit, then bring it up later. Phone cameras are not great at pure white subjects, for example.

 

But with a spot meter, you definitely need to know how bright the bunny is, relative to 18% grey. So you take your reading, and compensate afterward.

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...?

With incident,

typically you stand near your subject and point the meter's white dome directly back toward the camera and you have your reading (It does not see light coming from behind the subject.). Often you can even take a single reading from your own position if you are in the same lighting as the subject of your photo. But with the dome it allows it to measure how much light is illuminating ALL surfaces in the scene. That's about as constant as you can expect.

If you are needing to take several readings then you can switch over to spot/reflective readings. But some photographers can easily make the necessary calculations for the different reflective surfaces based on experience with using incident.

Really one of the reasons some prefer incident is the single read... it is fast and accurate with experience.

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.

Ok, if you taking an image which includes a black labrador retriever, a snow white bunny, and a large section of green foliage, where are you going to point your spot meter? Pointing it at the black lab or white bunny will result in dramatically different camera settings, so where will you point it? Does it make a difference to you if you are using color slide film, color print film, high contrast black and white negative film, a vintage CDC sensor from the early 2000's, or a modern CMOS sensor? Do you understand what your meter is telling you when you take a meter reading?

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

If you are only shooting with one area that is prioritized then you can point your spot/reflective meter at that area, adjust exposure and be done. But as soon as you want to consider other areas and find the exisiting relationship you will need to take more readings.

 

The incident reading is concerned with the light source(s) and can most often be done in a single reading. Either way you will need to run some quick calculations to place your subject where you want.

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..

If you want to measure Flash then you definitely need an incident light meter called a flash meter to determine the right amount which will fall on a subject.

 

The Difference Between Reflective and Incident Metering and How They Work

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...

Strongly encourage you to do some reading on the effectiveness of each type of metering. For 60 years I've preferred incident metering, but that doesn't mean that it is best in all circumstances. An understanding of the shortfalls of each methodology can immeasurably improve your exposure, becasue you have knowledge and choices.

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?

"

Yes...incident meters measure light falling on subject, not light reflected from subject.

 

People come in all sorts of colors, their skin reflectance varies a lot with perspiration and makeup..that can make spot metering more tricky.

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????

Link The Difference Between Reflective and Incident Metering and How They Work

 

This isn't bad and should provide some info.

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.....

I shoot both 35mm film and 645 and I can easily tell the difference even on a computer display (after scanning). I have a largish monitor and I can display what would be close to two or three 8 x 10 portraits side by side. The dye clouds/grain will be pretty evident in the 35mm photos, while practically invisible in the 645.

 

Mixing 35mm and 645 in a slide show on that display, it would be very apparent in most photographs which were shot in which format, - if the picture was up for more than a second or two.

 

Why do you think I bother with 645?

 

Would a casual observer notice the difference? Maybe not, unless I had two photos of the exact same thing right next to each other in the slide show.

 

That's just a computer display. Now imagine a slide show on someone's TV. 40" to 65" TVs are pretty common. 35mm would not look nearly as good.

 

Most of the prints I do are in the form of a photo book I make for my wife on an annual basis. It's an 8 x 10 book and most pages have anywhere from 2 to 4 photos on them. 35mm is just fine for that. Even for an 8 x10. You can see some grain but that's not necessarily bad.

 

If I want a print to put on a wall, it's probably going to be from a medium format or digital camera. But what if I had a really great picture from a 35mm camera? Sure, I might put that on a wall too, - but more for quality of the content than for the quality of the print itself, - if that makes sense.

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?

If I understand it correctly, the OP wants to shoot a panoramic frame, with a portrait subject in the central area. I think what he proposes will give him that. The central part of his frame will have normal perspective: for that area, the 55mm lens is a normal lens. The areas at the left and right will start to look more unusual, just because of increasing subject distance; real perspective, in a view we just aren't used to seeing. I don't think 55mm will be extreme though. It could be a good way to include an interesting location with his portrait.

Just for fun, you should get your subject to lie across the whole frame, or maybe take a group shot of three people.

It's worth investigating what Silent Street said about the 35mm holder; if it's a serious problem I'd expect it to be mentioned on user's fora (maybe elsewhere on photo.net); but if in doubt you can always shoot it on 120 film and crop it. Good luck!

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

I would caution that you do not use the or any 35mm "panorama" kit in a Pentax 6x7 (older model, 1969-onward) if it has the unmodified long film spool holders. If the adaptor is put into place with unmodified spool holders it will result in a jam, with the film requiring to be cut out and the spools destroyed. The modification has been done by others keen to use the panorama kit. Other problems include film slip that can damage the 6x7 shutter and inaccurate frame counting.

Jam in the take up spool? How?

Errr, just have a look at the picture of my FM that I posted.

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

Can't you simply drop the viewing screen out through the mirror box after the removal of just one screw?

 

I seem to remember that the screen retaining frame has a single screw holding it in place, where the release-clip was fitted on later user-interchangable screen models like the FE-2.

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.

That was quite a costly victory, but congrats!

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.

"I'll give my answer here, because it's something that I see often, this myth that lenses 'compress' distances. Even some cinematographers believe it!"

 

I see this so often when someone wants to bring up a mundane technical point. The lens doesn't compress the distance it just makes it look like it compressed the distance.If a cinematographer wants to make it look like the actor is on a crowded city street, he sends the actor up the street and shoots him from a few hundred feet back with a long lens. That doesn't compress anything it just makes it look like all the people on the street are really crowded together.

 

A long lens doesn't compress anything it just makes it look like it compressed it. If you want the look of things being compressed you use a long lens. You can use a short lens and then crop out maybe 5mm from the 35mm film and blow that up and it would look compressed (and very grainy). But, why not use a long lens in the first place to get the compressed look?

"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.

One reason I've seen for people exposing 35mm film in a medium format camera is they want the area around the sprocket holes exposed as well. Is that part of what you're after?

 

I think most people doing that scan themselves. The typical 35mm film holders won't work.

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 don't really understand what you are asking here. What kind of scanner they use? Well, why does it matter to you?

 

I have a Noblex 135S which produces negatives measuring 24x66 mm - that's 1 mm wider than what the Xpan produces. The lab I use - Peak Imaging in the UK - offers an XPan scanning service, and if I want my Noblex images scanned by them, I just use their Xpan service.

 

What size are your images? Can you find a (mail order?) lab that handles XPan images? Ultimately you just want to have some panoramic 35mm images processed and scanned, right?

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?