gandicarter
-
Posts
83 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by gandicarter
-
-
Both are solid, reliable cameras.
The major differences are the meter and the shutter timing. The F2 (if it isn't obvious by
now) having the meter in the pentaprism and the body is completely mechanical. The F3
has the meter at the bottom of the mirror box and has electronic timing. In 200 years luck
or real repair talent will be involved in a working F3, in 20 years either camera will still be
viable. My guess is that in 200 years there will be a small number of people who can keep
the F2 going -- probably without a working meter though.
The meter of the F3 means that different prisms/waistfinder (or even no finder at all) can
be used and a working meter is still available. This meter can also be used for TTL flash.
The combination of the meter and the electronic shutter provides an automatic exposure
(aperture priority) mode. (Shutter priority auto exposure equipment is available but rare
for the F2 -- for that matter auto focus equipment is available but rare for the F3)
Both cameras have excellent handling characteristics, the throw of the winder of the F3 is
a wee bit longer than the F2, but the lever is more comfortable to my thumb, so it's about
the same. The F3 is slightly easier to load than the F2 - it has many slots in the take-up
spool compared to only two in the F2. The F3 has a handy little lever for multiple
exposures that ensures the film absolutely doesn't move when you tension the shutter.
The range of shutter speeds is nearly indentical, but the F2 has to use the self-timer for
exposures longer than a second. The F2's self timer permits you to set the delay in a
range from 2 to 10 seconds whereas the F3 gives just 10 seconds. The F2's claim to glory
is its ability to set any speed you want once above 1/80. Set the dial between 1/250 and
1/500 and you get a shutter speed between those two click stops.
There are a few other little differences. The F3 has a built-in eyepiece shutter, because
auto exposure would need it, but such a thing isn't needed in the F2. The F2 screens can
be used in an F3 (they go in nicely but are difficult to remove) but F3 screens don't fit an
F2. The flash slides on in different directions and so are not compatible. The mirror lock-
up is much easier to operate on the F3. There is a bit of a grip on the F3 for your right
hand. The HP prism of the F3 is easier for wearers of glasses but the magnification is
slightly reduced.
Both cameras are legends and both deserve that standing.
Gerald
-
Polarizing filters work in exactly the same way with digital capture as with film. You do not need circular polarizing filters with most cameras -- only with SLR cameras.
The semi-transparent mirror that send some of the light up to your eye and to the light meter and some down to the autofocus module inadvertently polarizes it a little bit. With an ordinary polarizing filter you could send too much light up or down, resulting in light metering inaccuracy. A circular polarizer ensures that the correct ratio of light is distributed by that mirror.
In a P&S digital camera there is no mirror and no need to spend the extra money for a circular polarizer. Regular polarizers (because they don't have a thing called a quarter wave plate) are easier to manufacture and less likely to distort than circular polarizers. In other words they're not cheaper because they're poorer quality, they're cheaper because they're less complicated.
Gerald
( www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )
-
Don't be sad about not using those 4 lenses to only the FE2. Of course they work perfectly
with the F3 and F4, but they also work on the D70. You only lose metering, no big deal -
you have a histogram -- far better than any matrix meter. Embrace manual mode!
Okay it doesn't help with the heavy bag.
Let's address some (not all) questions: I don't have the 70-300, but it does work with the
F4. The 24-120 is good enough lens for me, but I would stop to f/11 as often as possible.
The only DX lens I have is the 12-24, which has excellent image quality over the whole
imager (and is usable with film from 16-24mm)
Gerald
( www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )
-
No problem at all installing on OS X.
It could be a faulty CD - it happens every once in a while.
You should be able to swap it for another copy with no problem.
Gerald
-
I have just started to use a Technikardan after having a Plaubel Profia for quite some time. I plan to take the Technikardan hiking, something I couldn't do with the Plaubel.
The camera has the movements you're looking for, and it certainly is a nice camera to work with. The only caution is to learn how to swivel the standards about without pinching the bellows before going out in the field. Honestly those bellows detach and reattach in seconds, so I recommend removing them before storing the camera. (That is if you need to store it compactly, it is manageably small without even turning it to its most compact size)
The only thing I miss from the Profia is a handle that holds the film slot open, I find the spring that keeps the film holder in place is rather strong.
The only thing I'd worry about is the coverage of that lens (and I'm not really familiar with it) I wonder whether you might consider a longer focal length (say 210mm) so that you have coverage over a larger range of camera movements. (I haven't priced the wideangle lenses in that range of focal lengths -- I just assume they're probably too expensive for now)
Gerald
-
The interconnect between the magazine and the body is such that you can fire the shutter
with the magazine off the camera -- that's not the problem. What is the shutter speed?
Was the mirror able to move fully up? (It happen to me once when it was between 1 and B,
moving it to B [you may have to hold the shutter release down while doing so] cleared the
problem; an old 35mm camera jammed when the spring that lifted the mirror got too
weak to do its job, pushing the thing all the way up released the rest of the mechanism [i
know it wasn't a Rollei, but hey it's worth a try])
Whatever you do, don't force any of the controls. I have two bodies and each have been in
the repair shop exactly once. They have given over 20 and 16 years of service to me since
then. Its been a couple of weeks since I last sent a roll of 220 Fuji slide film through one,
again no problem.
Gerald
-
Sorry it took so much time for me to respond, I only visit occasionally.
I have had a Calumet tester for over 16 years, the exact time I don't actually know.
I've long lost its instructions, but I remembered that the effect of them was that you need twice the light of its threshold for accurate readings of focal-plane shutters.
Between the lens shutters are a different matter. For these I find the brighter the better. I use a nearby white wall in the sunshine for testing these shutters. That way I don't have to be so careful about clamping the tester in one spot to capture the smallish image of a bulb. (I remove the ground glass of my 4x5 camera and hold the tester in the relative darkness of the bellows and my dark cloth) The only problem is that I don't test the shutter's efficiency, but I normally use a small aperture, so I figure it doesn't really matter for my technique.
Gerald
-
Actually I've found my tester to be quite accurate - provided you consistently give it the
correct light level. (twice the minimum light level that triggers it) I use a hot light
(photoflood) bulb as the source - the hot bulbs don't flicker on AC.
Gerald
-
I always get 13 frames per 120 roll with my Rollei SL66 -- the magazine automatically
stops when the first frame is in position. I've never had any fogging or other such
problems. I don't recall getting any more than 24 frames on 220 film though, not that I've
used it often.
Gerald
-
In your System Folder->ColorSync Profiles Photoshop and OSX will pick them up from
there.
Gerald
-
Of course I haven't seen this camera, but modern large format lenses come with a shutter. If you have a professional camera store nearby that would have such lenses, the staff should be able to tell in seconds if one can be fitted to the camera. My guess is that something in the range of 150mm to 210mm would cover that size, although you may need a wide-angle lens (to allow for movements) for close-up work.
My real concern would be obtaining film or plates for it -- you may have to cut down 5 x 7 film.
Gerald
-
An educated guess, this is a "process" lens, made for making reduced copies of blueprints.
It's extremely sharp when the image size is 1/7 of your subject. But it has no shutter or
aperture. Right?
Gerald
-
The HFT lenses are the equal of the T* lenses. I moved from Hasselblad to the SL66 system and haven't seen a difference in image quality (except that I can now tilt the lens to adjust the plane of focus). My 150mm lens is not an HFT and I do use a hood with it without problem.
You would have to ask someone with better knowledge in Zeiss lens history, but I'd speculate that there are no significant differences between Rollei SL66 HFT lenses and their new Hasselblad counterparts.
Gerald
-
Sorry, it's physics, all lenses with the same focal length at the same aperture have the same depth of field.
Gerald
-
I'm sorry, but I have limited experience with the 20" monitor. Essentially when I was
evaluating the units for purchase the only difference I saw between the 20" and 23"
models was size. I'm sure you'll find the 20" an excellent performer, I'm very satisfied with
mine.
Practically the only program I run is Photoshop (with the occasional diversion into the
Safari web browser to check out Photo.net) and I'm sure you'll find there is plenty of room
for all the palettes you want.
Gerald
-
Read the review carefully, the two problems cited by that author are 1) motion smear and
2) off-axis hue change.
Motion smear isn't an issue for photo work - it's an issue for the gamers.
Off-axis colour shifts are a problem with huge 30" displays, because when you work with
something that big you can't help but have a significant amount of screen at some angle
to your view. It is not a problem with the smaller 23" or 20" displays, simply because the
smaller the display, the smaller the viewing angles.
I am using the 23" monitor right now, and I cannot detect any motion smear with any clip
or fast moving window. I can verify that if I move my head so that I'm looking at roughly a
45 degree angle that the display is dimmer than looking straight on. I don't see a colour
shift however and in my normal sitting position the entire display is equally illuminated.
The display is actually quite a pleasure to work with, about the only problem I have is that
I miss it when I go to work and have to put up with a puny little 19" flickering CRT.
The reviewer also had some problem with the connections and extra hardware needed to
drive the display, but I figure it's simply what's needed to drive over 4 megapixels of
output. Perhaps it was just envy!
Gerald
( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )
P.S. I also have a Compaq laptop which exhibits considerable amount of motion smear and
off-axis colour shift -- mind you it is 2 years older technology.
-
What a strange procedure.
On a Rolleiflex SL66 you merely set the switch to 12 or 24 as you load 120 or 220 film. That's it! It will count off the appropriate number of frames and then pop out the wind-off knob.
By the way, I very much prefer 220 film, not only do you get twice the exposures per film, but the film is flatter across the pressure plate since it doesn't have that troublesome paper backing in the way.
Gerald
-
Of course I can't give you the true answer given only your description, but I would suggest replacing the battery. Old batteries will lose their capacity for current, but will hold the proper voltage. The camera's low battery check doesn't draw very much current at all (or else you would never get many images on a charge) so it may well read "batteries fine", but take a picture and there may not be enough current to handle the eletronic processing that takes place.
Gerald
-
I have and use both 300mm lenses. Both are exceptionally good wide open, which is all that I ever use the f2.8 lens at. The f4 lens is pleasently handholdable, given enough light, but the f2.8 is rather too heavy for use without some kind of support. As for balance, the f4 is good with most camera bodies whereas the f2.8 needs a heavier F5, D1 or D2 series body as a counter-balance.
In short the f2.8 is ideal with a Wimberly mount, but you want the f4 if you're going to hold it yourself.
Gerald
( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )
P.S. In one of my galleries there is a photograph of an elk made with the f2.8 hand-held (sometimes subjects just don't stick around long enough for you to assemble the right equipment)
-
One minor thing that really like about the F3 is its shutter release. Human factors taken
fully into account! The release is surrounded by a broad ring that is dished slightly. Place
your finger over the release and touch the ring on its opposite side. Roll that finger down
to release the shutter and you won't jar the camera at all. I swear I can shoot one stop
slower with an F3 than any other camera. I have an F, F2, F3, FE, F4, F5, D1x and other
assorted cameras for comparison.
Gerald
-
Getting a little harder to find, but the Rollei SL66 has some back tilt, built-in bellows and
reversable lenses. The backs are quick to load and will take either 120 or 220 with the
flick of a lever. By adjusting the plane of focus, I've handheld shots that would have
required several stops smaller of an aperture with traditional fixed mount cameras.
Gerald
-
... is the DA-2, that rarely seen "sports" finder. Otherwise David's response is correct.
Gerald (the fussy!)
-
The contacts on the lens are not affected by use on manual bodies.
The PK-11 is needed on some AF bodies because the viewfinder or vertical grip prevent direct mounting. You'll see this problem immediately and won't be able to connect the camera -- you wouldn't damage anything.
The only lens incompatibility are the "G" lenses.
Gerald
-
You don't say how old the lens is.
If it is an IF lens, it will work fine without the filter.
Theese lenses "focus" past infinity, which will compensate for the tiny increase in optical distance that filter represents.
(They apparently do that to compensate for slight focus shifts caused by temperture)
You should install the filter's holder, for dust and stray light protection.
By the way -- replacing that filter shouldn't be difficult.
Gerald
( www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )
adding a 210mm lens - suggestions
in Large Format
Posted
It should be no problem, I had been looking for a 135mm and have seen quite a number of used 210mm lenses for sale. Your lens was made by Rodenstock, so you might want to look for another Calumet Caltar, Rodenstock Sironar or Sinar Sinaron S as these are all nominally the same lens. It covers 8 x 10, so you'll have plenty of movement available to you.
(By the way -- the Apo-Sironar N 210mm is an amazing sharp lens)
Nikon, Fuji, and Schneider are also manufacturers of first rate lens, so you should have plenty to choose from.
Gerald
( http://www.suresoft.ca/homepage/gcarter.html )