gandicarter

The Rolleiflex SL66 had twin mounts. The inner mount was the "regular" one, the outer mount allowed many of the

system's lenses to be reverse mounted for macro photography. You had to use manual stop-down when reverse

mounting the lenses, and you had to use the focal-plane shutter on those lenses that had leaf shutters.

<p>Just a quick addition.</p>

<p>The Mac comes with an MD5 checksum generator -- via the Unix command terminal. There are several books and online sources for information on how to access the terminal on the Mac, I won't expand on it here. The command is simply MD5and it returns the checksums, which you can put into a file or pipe to diff to compare against an existing set of checksums.</p>

<p>To be safe, I have three sets of backup drives and I occasionally erase, reformat and reload a backup drive just to be sure all my files have been recently recorded. It's not a lot of work, since the computer does it all, but it takes a long time to finish so I do it overnight. (The backup drives are 1TB in size)<br>

Gerald</p>

<p>The hot-spotting is from an older D70. I will look for an image to show this problem and will see if it is visible on a D3 image. I'm just off to work, getting in my morning photo-chat fix, so it will be a day or so before I reply. I'm now curious if there is a significant difference between cameras' IR filters.</p>

The 55mm Ai is a good, sharp lens over its whole range of focus, however it has little working distance once you near

1:1. The 200mm also has excellent performance over its whole range and it provides a usable working distance. I

have the auto-focus version, which works nicely in its manual mode. The other lens you might consider, although it is

pricy, is the 85mm PCE. The ability to tilt the plane of focus is very useful. Two downsides (other than cost) is that it

doesn't go as far as 1:1 and the aperture is automatic only on newer camera bodies. On an F3, for example, the

aperture stays at F/2.8. I have no experience with the earlier tilt/shift lens.

A problem with my 55mm is that it "hot spots" on digital cameras. The rear element reflects light bouncing off the IR

filter over the sensor back onto the image. Recently Nikon has addressed this problem with their "Nano coating". The

200mm does not have this problem.

<p>The Phase one medium format camera back is indeed an excellent way to make good looking images. I expect from the "WOW" you have found out how much they cost! In addition to their price, skill on the part of the photographer is key to getting really good looking images.</p>

<p>But please don't despair, you may not get quite the same images with a Nikon F7000, but they can be very good. (I have both Hasselblad and Nikon equipment, Hasselblad digital cameras are comparable to Phase One) Realistically, you only see a difference between the two (given good technique) once you print larger than about 12"X18".</p>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted. Please review photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</A> and <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/">Community Guidelines</A>.</i>

<p>I'm really curious about that big, excellent photograph. Could you open it up in Photoshop CS5, look at the camera data (File/File Info... then click on the "Camera Data" tab on the pop-up window) and report it to us here?I'm particularly interested in the camera make, the ISO and the pixel dimensions. (Although there are other pertinent statistics there) </p>

<p>There is a chance that this information may not be available in that image, but could you at least give the pixel dimensions? (Image/Image Size...)</p>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted. Please review photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</A> and <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/">Community Guidelines</A>.</i>

<p>I also have this lens and I have had this very problem with my older D2x. I also am lucky enough to work only 4 blocks away from a Nikon repair centre. When I brought this lens in for repair, the technician took perhaps 2 minutes before handing it back, working perfectly. This problem was apparently well known to him and is simply fixed (I don't actually know what the fix was).</p>

<p>My advice is to not worry about it but get it to a knowledgable technician, it most likely is a common design problem and won't be costly to remedy. I was not charged when I took it in.</p>

<p>The Nikon repair facility I took it to was in Vancouver, Canada. I have had only good experiences with these people and I highly recommend them, although they probably only serve western Canada.</p>

<p>By the way - mine is a very sharp and light (for a 300mm) lens.</p>

<hr>

<i>Signature URL deleted. Please review photo.net <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/terms-of-use">Terms of Use</A> and <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/">Community Guidelines</A>.</i>

<p>I have a few images on my website made from my H3DII-50 for people to enjoy. A number of them have a flash player called "Zoomify" that allows you to zoom in to 100% to get a feel for the images at a per pixel level. Those images are compressed however, the actual images are better than what you can see over the web.</p>

<p>It is my experience that that camera provides prints upwards of 30" X 40" that are very satisfying to me. Pixel peeping comparisons between its images and my Nikon equipment usually gives the advantage to the Hasselblad -- so even if I only used 12MP cropped from its images, the Hasselblad image would look sharper and more contrasty than from a Nikon D300. (Both cameras have approximately the same sized photo sites) This probably has to do with the AA filter in the Nikons. This tells me that the Hasselblad's lens is just as good at the fine detail as the Nikon's even though it covers a much bigger sensor.</p>

<p>On of my favourite pictures is http://suresoft.ca/G031/G31L.HTM and it is a good example of what that camera can produce. I admit I not sure why I like that image as much as I do, there is no one strong point of interest or really strong composition but I find it quit satisfying.</p>

<p>However for every Hasselblad picture I make, I probably make about 4 with smaller, more portable and flexible cameras.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

<p>http://suresoft.ca</p>

<div></div>

<p>Re-reading this thread has made me aware of a misunderstanding. When I see 1/125s or less, I think of less time, like 1/250s. I guess the poster meant 1/125s or slower. I hereby resolve to only use faster or slower to compare time values and suggest other photographers should consider doing so.</p>

<p>Sorry about that!</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

<p>Randy, you probably are using the viewer correctly, but can occasionally be slow to update.</p>

<p>The tripod is a wonderful device when the shutter speed is too slow for sharp handholding but it isn't necessary all the time. Slowing your camera work down by the use of a tripod is no better than simply observing your subject well. The point of both is to think about your subject and imagine how it would look best on a print (or whatever) taking into consideration camera position, lighting, aperture (depth of field), and all similar photographic variables you, the photographer, have control over.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

<p>I've tried to find two of my photos that are on the web and were taken with approximately the same focal length, shutter speed, and aperture but where one was hand-held and the other was assisted with a tripod. The thought was that evidence would be more eloquent than verbal argument.</p>

<p>Then I realized that what is true for me is not necessarily true for others. It isn't even true for me on some days when I just don't seem to be as steady (I blame it on coffee!) as on others. I think I'm better than most photographers at holding the camera steady but I practice at it because I produce better images when I can work the way I want -- a part of which is without a tripod unless necessary.</p>

<p>I did not find two such images, but here are two that match the criteria except the aperture is quite different. Both are made with the same camera, both have similar shutter speeds and focal lengths, although they are not identical. One was handheld and the other a tripod. I did not cherry pick the handheld photo, all the other pictures on my website made with that camera (a Hasselblad) were handheld except the panorama "Athabasca Valley, Jasper National Park", even the other panos. The two images are <a href="http://suresoft.ca/G027/G27D.HTM">"Nairn Falls" in Gallery 27 </a> and <a href="http://suresoft.ca/G031/G31L.HTM">"Dismal Swamp, Blackfoot Grazing PRA, Alberta" in Gallery 31</a>, there is a "Zoomify" window at the bottom of the page so you can explore the images to the pixel level. (As you zoom in, it may take some time to refresh the window -- and you need a "flash viewer" for it to work, most people already have it) If the difference between tripod and handheld really is enormous, please indicate which is which and how you can tell the difference.</p>

<p>Note: The above is true when posted, if you are reading this a year from now it's only true for Galleries 27 to 31. There are no photographs from that camera in the earlier galleries and I reserve the right to make and post images made by that camera on a tripod in galleries 32 and greater -- which did not exist at the time this message was posted.</p>

<p>Gerald</p>

<p>Is there a big difference for a 60mm lens at 1/125s or faster? No -- I find the tripod unnecessary at that speed and, unless the angle is such that I can't find a comfortable way to hold the camera, I would not use it. I use tripods really only when I need them.</p>

<p>My personal experience is that I usually have no camera movement problem in my images and I am fussy about this (I like to make large prints, say a metre on the short side). However I have had motion blur unacceptable to me in pictures taken at 1/180s and perhaps (although I don't recall any) faster. However I use a digital back and review pictures for acceptable quality before moving on. So on those few occasions when I have motion blur I can re-take the image. If it's a situation where these isn't the ability to correct for a mistake, I trust myself and still don't use the tripod.</p>

<p>Although I do think I have a rather steady hand, I doubt it is outstandingly so. Most people serious about their photography should be able to develop their camera handling technique to render a tripod unnecessary at speeds of approximately 1/focal length in mm or faster.</p>

<p>There are several pictures from my medium format camera at www.suresoft.ca (in the galleries) and very few of them involved the use of a tripod. Many of these images can be zoomed in to 100% if you want to check for motion blur.</p>

Older Nikons, like the rangefinders, the F and F2 had the internal connections to open and close those canisters. They are used when a photographer wanted to clip off a length of bulk or movie film to use in the camera.

Gerald

I have an Ultra 45 scanner, is that the model you're after?

I have not heard of a 5545.

In case it the 45 Ultra, it produces 16-bit TIFFS (I believe it actually has 14 bits/colour) of around 107 megapixels from a 4x5.

The quality is exceptional, you need to go to a wet mount drum scan to get anything (slightly) better. My only peeve is the scan area is slightly smaller than my slides, so be careful with important elements of your image near a border of the film.

The light in the 45 Ultra is not replacable, but is said to be good for 50,000 hours. So it is important to determine the amount of use such a scanner has. I won't be selling mine for anything less than a king's ransom!

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

I'd rather clean a filter than a lens.

Our Nikon equipment is used all the time. With care cleaning is required every 3 months

or so plus right after harsher conditions (seashore, dusty wind, etc.) which happens

perhaps half a dozen times a year.

My wife broke a filter about a month ago on the edge of a can of fruit salad. I don't recall

the previous time one was broken, although it happens. This time the filter did save the

105mm micro-Nikkor it was attached to.

I now prefer the B&W MRC filters, they are easier to clean than my older standard L1Bc.

Gerald

That camera gives a lot of detail in the shadows but suffers from blown highlights. The blown highlights problem is typical of most digital cameras. Consequently the bias of the meter is to stay well away from overexposing the highlights.

You have two options. Let the camera work as it is and tweak the images with Nikon capture or Photoshop afterwards. (Which works very well) Or you can use spot metering with manual exposure and put the brightest area where you want to see detail at +2 stops. (A little more trouble when making the images, but also works very well without having to post-process the images)

I haven't used the flash white balance very much, so I can't comment on it.

By the way, that camera has a very pleasent tonal response. I prefer the look of its images to the more modern cameras.

Gerald

I don't have a Caltar lens, but I do have the Rodenstock lens. If indeed they are the same,

then the Caltar is simply better value for the buck. The lens is designed for subjects at a

distance, such as landscapes. You will not be able to get a better image with a Schneider

lens because the lenses of both companies typically outperform colour film.

In short, don't worry, be happy!

Gerald

Go north and not just a bit. If you want to see real wilderness and a huge beautiful part of the earth, get north of 60. Yukon & Alaska have good roads!

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

Personally, I find that 2GB is a little small for that camera. I store RAW + JPEG and would

get about 100 images on a 2GB card. I find that's enough for most days but often I do end

up swapping out to a 1GB card while depositing images into an Epson P2000 so that I can

keep going. I'll be looking for a bigger card soon.

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

If it is of any consolation, I have this camera and I don't have said manual.

My number one advice is, use the bag bellows!

It is good for lenses up to 135mm. (and probably a little longer, my next lens up is

210mm which needs the pleated bellows) The "normal" bellows never stays on my camera

through the folding/unfolding process.

Basically what you want to do is first collapse the rails and snug their locks. (the camera is

so nicely machined that none of the locking levers ever has to be forced) Set the tilt and

rise to 0 on both standards. Release all four locks at the bottom of the standards as well

as the shift locks. Release the springs that snap the swings at 0 degrees and swing both

standards countclockwise (when looking down from above the camera). Now you're ready

for the "tricky" bit -- move the two standards towards each other while rotating them to

their 90 degree folded positions. Try to keep the lens plate centered in relation to the

groundglass while doing so. Note that allowing the standards to shift simplifies the

motion and you can tidy it up afterwards. It bears repeating that the bag bellows is far

more foregiving of any misalignment during the folding process than the pleated bellows!

I will be putting up an image made with my Technikardan this coming weekend.

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

That white blob above the "Nikon" is a colour sensor -- if you use it correctly, that camera pretty much nails the colour.

Push the "WB" button below the LCD and rotate the rear thumb wheel until "Pre" comes up on the lower (black on white) LCD. Now release the WB button and push it in again and hold it until the "Pre" flashes. Once it flashes, turn the camera so that it is facing the light falling on the subject (you can let go of the WB button) and then push the button on the lower right (when you're looking at the front of the camera).

When you do that, the camera measures the Red, Green and Blue components of the light and can "figure out" what the actual colour of the subject is.

Warning -- if you do this for a landscape in morning light, you won't get the expected "alpine glow" since the camera will have taken the strong colour of the light into consideration. You'll probably find the daylight setting (push the "WB" and rotate that rear thumbwheel to the sun symbol -- same as on the D1x) is better for you.

I use colour mode II all the time -- but I do convert it to sRGB in Photoshop before I post images on the web. I will adjust the contrast of some photos, but not a lot of them and that is all the postprocessing work I do.

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

Just a quick comment.

Assuming you haven't yet acquired your lenses yet, the mid-point between a 210mm lens and a 90mm lens is (surprise) roughly a 135mm lens and not 150mm. Not that there's much difference between the two!

The progression is geometric not arithmetic, so the midpoint between two is found by multiplying the two focal lengths (210 and 90) and then taking the square root of the product.

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )

Since you don't see it on one system, I'm included to think it's not the camera but the monitor/software.

I have the same kind of problem with my laptop. It's because the LCD is using only 6 bits/colour rather than the usual 8 bits/colour.

Your problem could be the monitor itself or the way the program is converting the sRGB colour profile to the monitor's profile or it could be the graphics card or one of many things I haven't thought of.

Gerald

The Planar is smaller, faster, lighter, sharper and usable over a greater range of distances

than the Distagon. (The Distagon is designed for more distant objects) The Planar also

has a flatter field. The main benefit of the Distagon is its shutter, although it will give a bit

more subject distance when retro-fitted for macro photography.

Gerald

( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )