Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!

Bandicoot wrote:

A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.

Is there such a beast (no, I'm _not_ in the market for one, just
curious).


Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
underpowered flash normally produces.

In the context of flash sync, usually talking manual mode. A TTL
system can't stop a studio strobe... they discharge completely.

(I've always wished that studio strobes would switch to a
thyristor approach to power. Potential for more accurate power
control and definitely would allow intermittent fast shooting at
mid power levels. Even avoid the (reputed) warmer colors in the
tail of the discharge curve at all but the highest power).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Bandicoot wrote:

A flash meter with a variable gate time is the answer to this.

Is there such a beast (no, I'm _not_ in the market for one, just
curious).


Not sure if the Rollei's TTl system also deals with the issue, but
presumably it would. Since all that TTL can do is quench the flash, then if
there is enough light it will do so, and if either you run out of light or
the shutter closes the problem (for TTL flash) is the same: the same as an
underpowered flash normally produces.

In the context of flash sync, usually talking manual mode. A TTL
system can't stop a studio strobe... they discharge completely.

(I've always wished that studio strobes would switch to a
thyristor approach to power. Potential for more accurate power
control and definitely would allow intermittent fast shooting at
mid power levels. Even avoid the (reputed) warmer colors in the
tail of the discharge curve at all but the highest power).

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:16:22 +0000, Matt Clara wrote:

Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.

Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?

Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.

Oh crap.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:16:22 +0000, Matt Clara wrote:

Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.

Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?

Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.

Oh crap.

--
Dallas www.dallasdahms.com
"Going down a dirty inner city side road I plotted
Madness passed me by, she smiled hi, I nodded"
- Sixto Rodriguez

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
.. .
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:m0M3d.230473$mD.19389@attbi_s02...

"William Graham" wrote in message
newsuL3d.472542$%_6.326832@attbi_s01...
That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap
inside
my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat
hairs
off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have
three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper
body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid
that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less
often....IOW,
I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


You're really going to hate digital...


Peter


Yes....I understand that dust is a big problem. But the sensor is still
protected by a shutter. I guess that with film, the little bit of dust that
gets behind the shutter is moved out whenever a new frame is positioned, but
with the digital sensor, it stays in place in the camera, so it
accumulates....there must be some way of blowing it out, however.....I would
think they would make the sensor removable for cleaning, like the screen in
my F5 finder. Are the sensors on a removable chip, or are they permanently
wired in place? And if permanently wired in place, how does one clean the
back of the shutter blades?

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
.. .
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:m0M3d.230473$mD.19389@attbi_s02...

"William Graham" wrote in message
newsuL3d.472542$%_6.326832@attbi_s01...
That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap
inside
my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat
hairs
off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have
three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper
body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid
that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less
often....IOW,
I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


You're really going to hate digital...


Peter


Yes....I understand that dust is a big problem. But the sensor is still
protected by a shutter. I guess that with film, the little bit of dust that
gets behind the shutter is moved out whenever a new frame is positioned, but
with the digital sensor, it stays in place in the camera, so it
accumulates....there must be some way of blowing it out, however.....I would
think they would make the sensor removable for cleaning, like the screen in
my F5 finder. Are the sensors on a removable chip, or are they permanently
wired in place? And if permanently wired in place, how does one clean the
back of the shutter blades?

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
.. .
"William Graham" wrote in message
news:m0M3d.230473$mD.19389@attbi_s02...

"William Graham" wrote in message
newsuL3d.472542$%_6.326832@attbi_s01...
That's what I would have thought too, but I sure get a lot of crap
inside
my
camera, even though I am really careful....I am always taking cat
hairs
off
of my mirror, and sometimes off the bottom of the screen. (We have
three
cats) And I have rather a bad case of psoriasis on my arms and upper
body,
and so I get a fair amount of dead skin dust into everything....


I forgot to add that if I had a non-removable finder, I would be afraid
that
it would be harder to clean, even if I had to clean it less
often....IOW,
I
think I would rather put up with the junk getting inside the camera, and
know that it is fairly easy to clean it out, than I would hope that it
didn't get in there to begin with, and know that it's going to be really
hard to clean it out.


You're really going to hate digital...


Peter


Yes....I understand that dust is a big problem. But the sensor is still
protected by a shutter. I guess that with film, the little bit of dust that
gets behind the shutter is moved out whenever a new frame is positioned, but
with the digital sensor, it stays in place in the camera, so it
accumulates....there must be some way of blowing it out, however.....I would
think they would make the sensor removable for cleaning, like the screen in
my F5 finder. Are the sensors on a removable chip, or are they permanently
wired in place? And if permanently wired in place, how does one clean the
back of the shutter blades?

Dallas wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:16:22 +0000, Matt Clara wrote:

Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.

Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?

I don't know if I am throwing a wrench into your choices, but I evaluated
several 17 to 35 mm zooms at the beginning of this year. The Nikon was
obviously the most expensive, though the surprise was the newest Tamron
offering. While the earlier Tamron in this range was not as good, the newer
one provided images nearly indistinguishable from those produced using the
Nikon. The comparisons were done on Fuji Provia 100, with most of the shots
hand held, and a few tripod mounted shots. Even under an 8x loupe, the
difference was almost unnoticeable between the Nikon and Tamron. The only
apparent difference was on a couple wide open aperture shots, with the Nikon
seeming to have a more even exposure. My guess on this is that the Nikon
might be passing slightly more light wide open, which would indicate that the
T stop differs from the Tamron, and could be explained by the different
optical construction.



Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.


The other interesting lens in the comparison was the old Nikon 20 mm AIS.
That lens was slightly better in the corners than all the zoom lenses, though
the used cost was near to the new Tamron zoom. I viewed all the images on a
balanced light table under controlled lighting conditions. Someone else took
the comparison photos, and provided the notes.

I guess then the consideration might be different with direct digital. I am
not sure if results seen on film could indicate possible results on an
imaging chip. As always, your mileage may vary.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Dallas wrote:

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 16:16:22 +0000, Matt Clara wrote:

Yeah, I read a few reviews after I replied last night. Apparently
distortion isn't bad, but chromatic aberation can be a problem. Still,
the 12-24 doesn't hold a candle to the 17-35mm (which I own) and the one
click correction for the 10.5 is still a kludge.

This will hopefully be my next lens purchase (17-35mm that is). I was all
set to buy it for Xmas, but then I thought about it and decided that I
should probably get the SB-800 and TC-20E II beforehand.

Now I'm wondering if I shouldn't just get the SB-600 instead of the
SB-800, skip the teleconverter and go for the 17-35mm instead?

I don't know if I am throwing a wrench into your choices, but I evaluated
several 17 to 35 mm zooms at the beginning of this year. The Nikon was
obviously the most expensive, though the surprise was the newest Tamron
offering. While the earlier Tamron in this range was not as good, the newer
one provided images nearly indistinguishable from those produced using the
Nikon. The comparisons were done on Fuji Provia 100, with most of the shots
hand held, and a few tripod mounted shots. Even under an 8x loupe, the
difference was almost unnoticeable between the Nikon and Tamron. The only
apparent difference was on a couple wide open aperture shots, with the Nikon
seeming to have a more even exposure. My guess on this is that the Nikon
might be passing slightly more light wide open, which would indicate that the
T stop differs from the Tamron, and could be explained by the different
optical construction.



Then I saw Thom Hogan's glowering review of the 12-24mm DX and I am
wondering if that wouldn't be a more sensible option, seeing as you can
also use it on a 35mm body at lengths above 18mm.


The other interesting lens in the comparison was the old Nikon 20 mm AIS.
That lens was slightly better in the corners than all the zoom lenses, though
the used cost was near to the new Tamron zoom. I viewed all the images on a
balanced light table under controlled lighting conditions. Someone else took
the comparison photos, and provided the notes.

I guess then the consideration might be different with direct digital. I am
not sure if results seen on film could indicate possible results on an
imaging chip. As always, your mileage may vary.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
[Snip]

I always think of the 1/500 of leaf shutters as a standard that
35mm generally falls short of. 1/250 .. 1/300 is damned good of
course.

Another reason why I got a Yashica Electro GT (actually two, but who's
counting). While I am stuck to one fixed lens, it is one way to get that
1/500 in 35 mm. One problem is that the camera is aperture priority, so it
is tough to tell if the shutter is operating at 1/500, or slightly slower.
Medium format is much better for this stuff.


You could look into the Konica S3 Auto. That is shutter priority auto (no
manual override, unfortunately) with a _fantastic_ 38mm f1.7 lens and, of
course, sync. up to 1/500. It also has a nice fill flash system that, in
effect, tells you in the VF how much fill relative to ambient you are
giving.

I have looked at a few, though the prices are not as nice as the Yashica GT.
The use of shutter priority is also a little limited in most situations, which
might make it too specialized as a 35 mm camera body. With medium format, and
full manual control, the results are very accurate and predictable.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!