Hi Paul -
That does look pretty impressive, and the price seems to be right... Much
better than what the Microtek produces. Any problem with dust? My test
scans on the Microteck seemed to be chock full of stuff, even after blowing
off the scanner plate, the film, etc...
Shot #2 is actual pix
Hi Mark,
I don't think you can beat the Epson 3200 with anything in its price
range. The Epson without the extra software is about $350. If you're in
the Detroit area one of these days give me a call, and I'll get
together with you and show you some prints. In the meantime I've posted
an exampl
Thanks, Mark - I think that finding a scan multi or something like that
would be the direction I'd like to go in. I did a quick search and they
seem to pop up used on ebay in the $350 - $500 range... doable in the long
term. Short range I may just use the *ist-D to dupe the MF exposures - I'm
Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>thanks mark - I had not stopped othtink about some of the older, lower DPI
>scanners. I figure that the whole reason for shooting MF is to scan at a
>lower DPI and avoid grain etc that comes in at 4000 dpi. So looking for a
>Scan Multi or similar beast
At 12:44 PM 2/7/2004 -0500, Mark Roberts wrote:
thanks mark - I had not stopped othtink about some of the older, lower DPI
scanners. I figure that the whole reason for shooting MF is to scan at a
lower DPI and avoid grain etc that comes in at 4000 dpi. So looking for a
Scan Multi or similar b
Maybe my lab is not so bad - they have an Imacon scanner.
- MCC
At 09:08 AM 2/7/2004 -0800, you wrote:
Mark, FWIW, quality labs here charge between $25.00 and
$75.00 per scan, depending on resolution and the amount of
work that needs to be done. The $75.00 price includes some
extra services ...
On Feb 8, 2004, at 06:59, mike wilson wrote:
How about new?
http://www.morgancomputers.co.uk/shop/products2.asp?
CategoryID=16&SubCategoryID=101
Boy thats tempting. If only I could find an affordable PCI SCSI card
that'll fit my PowerMac.
I've had my eye on the Multi Pro but thats a little mo
Perhaps Mamiya 7 lenses are sharper?
Regards,
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
Strange, I've been achieving far sharper results with my Mamiya 7 gear when
hand holding than I ever did using the P67.
_
Add photos to your messages
On 7 Feb 2004 at 12:44, Mark Roberts wrote:
> I've decided that rather than spend the really big $$$ for a 4000 dpi
> film scanner, I'll stick with the Scan Multi II for 12 x 16 and under
> prints and pay for professional drum scans on the very rare occasions
> that I want/need to go for really bi
On 7 Feb 2004 at 11:48, William Robb wrote:
> Sure, it's big. It fills 2 hands for sure. It weighs close
> to 7 pounds with a lens and meter prism.
> But, all that weight gives it inertia.
> It doesn't really want to move.
Strange, I've been achieving far sharper results with my Mamiya 7 gear whe
William Robb wrote:
> My present heavyweight is the Manfrotto 028, which seems
> good under the 6x7, though the Zone VI Standard is still
> the best tripod I have used.
> I am a big fan of wood tripods.
Having compared the specification between the 055 and 028, I can see why.
Now to compare price
On Feb 7, 2004, at 11:57 AM, Mark Cassino wrote:
I have a Manfrotto 3036 tripod and 3038 ball head, also old 3057 -
hopefully those will suffice.
Might need a new backpack, though...
I use the Manfroto 3036 tripod with my 6x7 (and my Speed Graphic) with
a 3047 three way head. I find the tripo
I scan my 6x7 negs on an Epson 3200, using the film holder. A 3200 dpi
scan in 48 bit yields a file of well over 200 megabytes. 18x13 prints
on my Epson 1200 are very finely detailed and extremely sharp. My only
bitch would be that the printer doesn't always handle shadows as well
as I'd like.
>Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> I've decided that rather than spend the really big $$$ for a 4000 dpi
>> film scanner, I'll stick with the Scan Multi II for 12 x 16 and under
>> prints and pay for professional drum scans on the very rare occasions
>> that I want/need to go for really big prints. If that
Hi,
Mark Roberts wrote:
> I've decided that rather than spend the really big $$$ for a 4000 dpi
> film scanner, I'll stick with the Scan Multi II for 12 x 16 and under
> prints and pay for professional drum scans on the very rare occasions
> that I want/need to go for really big prints. If that'
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: Re: 6 x 7 Questions
> >The 6x7 is actually easier to hand hold than a 35mm,
>
> How's that? Looks like it would be pretty big...
Sure, it's big. It fills 2 hands for sure. It weighs close
to 7 pounds
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
> For 6 x 7 users - how are you out putting your stuff? I
have a Microtek
> flatbed scanner but assume that I'd need something
better for prints -
> maybe a scanning service? The local lab charges $40 a
frame for a high res
> scan - I hope they a
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: 6 x 7 Questions
My thanks to everyone who replied - both on and off list. Great info!
A couple more questions -
How is the Takumar 55 f 3.5 ? Seems to be less expensive than the 55 f4...
For 6 x 7 users - how are you out putting your stuff? I have a Microtek
flatbed scanne
At 07:41 PM 2/6/2004 -0600, William Robb wrote:
MLU cameras have more than just that as an advantage. They
also beefed up the film transport at that time, which
cured some other ills.
I'll most definitely be looking for a body with MLU.
The 6x7 is actually easier to hand hold than a 35mm,
How's t
Thanks - I had read that earlier and that was the source of my concern
(though I had lost the link to the article.) For now I really don't expect
to use telephotos so hopefully the mirror slap will not be a major problem.
- MCC
At 01:56 PM 2/6/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Most people shoot the 67 wit
- Original Message -
From: "Malcolm Smith"
Subject: RE: 6 x 7 Questions
> William Robb wrote:
>
> > I have a light weight Manfrotto tripod, the 055 model,
> > which is junior under the 6x7.
> > It just doesn't cut it.
> > Wood tripods a
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: 6 x 7 Questions
> Most people shoot the 67 with the mirror lock-up
whenever possible. Even
> so, shutter bounce is a real problem. See
>
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml
(which
&g
Can I just add my vote for the 55mm f/4 - this is an awesome lens that
is razor sharp and s lovely & contrasty. If it was a 35mm system lens
I am sure it would be a Limited. I have the late model with the writing
outside the barrel and I can't see how it could be bettered. In the
wideangle dep
1/30 - 1/60 hand-held with a 105mmno prob.
Norm
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Mark,
Talk to people who shoot the more normal lengths to see what they say.
Hello Mark,
As I stated, this is on long lenses. His example is on a 300 with 1.4
converter. Most people use shorter lenses on the 67 and don't see
this problem. In fact, this is somewhat of an issue with any camera.
The longer the focal length, the more shutter bounce is an issue.
It is a big
Most people shoot the 67 with the mirror lock-up whenever possible. Even
so, shutter bounce is a real problem. See
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax67ii.shtml (which
is, on the whole, a *very* favorable review of the 67) for discussion
and examples of the effect.
All but the earl
Mark,
I can only add few notes to the other comments.
My experience with the 6x7 has been very satisfying so far, I've
been using a early MLU model for the last three years and it
performed almost flawlessly (it just missed a couple of times to
fire the flash, but it is probably a fault of the cab
That's Midwest Photo Exchange.
You grow up in Ohio or what? :)
They also ahve a medium format clearance sale on right now.
Prices listed are ok, and as stated, they may deal some.
Collin
Old>>>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 08:29:10 -0700
From: "Rothman, Aric" <[EMA
Hi Mark,
I've never had a problem with mirror slap. When shooting off a tripod, I use
mirror lock up and I push down on the camera a bit with my hands as I trip
the shutter. I've heard that dampens vibration a bit. However, I've had
success without resorting to this. I frequently shoot cars for mag
Hello Mark,
Answers inline.
Friday, February 6, 2004, 6:43:29 AM, you wrote:
MC> It looks like the *ist-D will replace a lot of my 35mm work, and in the
MC> areas where it won't replace 35mm I really should be using a larger format
MC> anyhow. So I plan to move up to a 6 x 7 system. Obviousl
Midwest Camera Exchange in Columbus, OH. www.mpex.com
They have more stuff than they list on their site. They will haggle,
I expect especially on the 67, which seem to multiply in the showcase.
> Aside from eBay and KEH - any recommendations on where to buy a setup?
...
> Mark Cassino Photogra
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: 6 x 7 Questions
> A couple of quick questions:
>
> I've heard that the Pentax 6 x 7 has a big problem with
mirror slap making
> photos unsharp. Is that true? Do all models have
mirror lock up, or do I
> need to look for one that has
I can answer a few for you Mark:
Mark Cassino wrote:
It looks like the *ist-D will replace a lot of my 35mm work, and in
the areas where it won't replace 35mm I really should be using a
larger format anyhow. So I plan to move up to a 6 x 7 system.
Obviously, I'd like to stick with Pentax fo
33 matches
Mail list logo
