Is CF a Dying Format?

In article , nick c
writes
Tony Polson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:25:52 +0000, David Littlewood
wrote:

In article , nick c
writes
BTW, when I was into Nikon film gear, I had and often used Nikon's
18mm lenticular lens
^^^^^^^^^^
???

Just curious.
Rectilinear, dear boy. ;-)


Me thinks he already knew that, Tony. My guess is he was just nudging
me to take a second look at what I wrote. ;-)

No, I really couldn't decide what you meant. I wondered if there was
some new Nikon thing I had not heard of, not being a Nikon person. The
irony is, of course, that "lenticular" means .... lens-shaped, but I
thought that was probably *not* what you meant.

David
--
David Littlewood

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
dennis@home wrote:
"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
...


I don't. At least I can't remember ever doing so. The whole point of any
SLR is that it shows you in the viewfinder exactly what you're going to
get, as far as picture content is concerned. I always frame the shot as
tightly as I can, once I know what I want in the picture. Why waste? In a
few cases I may make a small allowance for straightening verticals, etc.,
but that's about it.


Do any SLRs show the whole frame?
All the ones I have used only show about 95% of the frame.

Minolta Maxxum 9
Nikon F5, F6
Canon EOS 1v

Digital compacts do show 100% on the LCD unlike SLRs.
If you want accurate framing SLRs are not always the best.

Many (not all) photographers keep some crop margin at the edges.

Cheers,
Alan

All Nikon Pro bodies (F, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6) have 100% viewfinders as do the
D2 series DSLR.
Bob

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...
Neil Harrington wrote:

Ah, now you're catching on. To you the Nikon 12-24 is $400
overpriced while
delivering, we'll say, average performance. There's always the world
famous
Tokina 12-24 that blows the Nikkor away in both performance and
value.

It sure seems to blow it away in value, anyway. I'd still rather have
the Nikkor, just not at its price.

Keep checking eBay, there's no reason you can't get a new in the box USA
model 12-24 Nikkor for under $700, though still a bit steep for that lens.

What I've been hoping for is a nice fat Nikon rebate on the 12-24. That is
among the items they have on their present rebate list, but at $25 the
rebate is sort of stingy. I do check eBay from time to time.



Actually, the Tokina kills the 10-22 as well. I agree that Nikon
ought to be able to build and market a decent WA lens or offer an FF
body that would
eliminate the need to redesign a lens system. I guess Nikon makes
more money reinventing and reselling lenses?

I am still not one of you people who are pining for a full-frame Nikon
digital, so what Nikon is doing makes perfect sense to me. I just wish
they'd hurry up (but not doing anything in *haste* of course) and
bring out a good WA zoom at a more appealing price. If they don't, I
probably will settle for the Tokina, though the idea of buying
something other than a Nikkor for my Nikons doesn't really sit well
with me. I do have a Tokina 20-35 in the Minolta mount though, and
that's a very nicely made lens.

I would love to see Nikon get off their butt and offer something exciting.
I'm with you; it's tough putting a third party lens on the old Nikon.

Yes. I've used plenty of third-party lenses with Minoltas and other brands,
but my Nikons I really prefer to keep pure Nikon.

Neil

David Littlewood wrote:
In article , nick c
writes
Tony Polson wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 12:25:52 +0000, David Littlewood
wrote:

In article , nick c
writes
BTW, when I was into Nikon film gear, I had and often used Nikon's
18mm lenticular lens
^^^^^^^^^^
???

Just curious.
Rectilinear, dear boy. ;-)


Me thinks he already knew that, Tony. My guess is he was just nudging
me to take a second look at what I wrote. ;-)

No, I really couldn't decide what you meant. I wondered if there was
some new Nikon thing I had not heard of, not being a Nikon person. The
irony is, of course, that "lenticular" means .... lens-shaped, but I
thought that was probably *not* what you meant.

David

LOL .... Well, I thought you were giving me a nudge. Sure enough, I saw
right away I goofed.

Sorry to say my doctor told me at my age sometimes getting things mixed
up is to be expected. Last time that happened was when I was writing
about a sarcophagus and without batting an eye I wrote esophagus. Now
*that* was embarrassing. :-)

Skip wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
...
Skip wrote:
"nick c" wrote in message
...

Skip, I've looked at the photos and I do have some nit-pick comments to
make but rather than do that, I would like to set this subject aside, at
least for the moment.

Just curious, what nits would you pick? ;-)


One example of my nit-picking would be in viewing the shots:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...3545/index.htm

Heck, Skip ... one would purposely have to ignore how good the shots are
and specifically look for faults to criticize. In many of the shots
light falloff or vignetting is nothing. My nit-picking would be not in
making a comment but choosing to ignore making a comment. In viewing the
pictures I don't think light falloff or vignetting is an issue. Ymmv ...

Aside from that, I went to the camera store this morning and coupled a
5D to a 16-35mm lens. With the lens set at 16mm wide open, shots were
taken and viewed on a monitor. For sure, the test on the 5D *does not*
support the photos showing very dark corner vignetting, that someone
left at the store.

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil Harrington
writes



Just so. A standard mounted slide lost about 90% of its area to the mount,
and negatives lost about the same to most standard negative carriers, so
SLR
viewfinders showing only about 90% of the frame made made sense.

Neil

Hm, I think you may be slightly overstating - I thought the typical figure
for the visible area (for mounted slides or neg carriers) was about 95%,
but I may be remembering incorrectly.

David

I remember being surprised many years ago on finding out how much of the
image was obscured by a standard Kodak slide mount. But now I can't find any
official dimensions either through Google or in Wikipedia. I do have lots of
slides, but as usual cannot find any of my metric rulers. (I probably should
buy 'em by the gross, as I keep mislaying them.) I'll keep trying to find
one, though.

Neil

In article , Neil
Harrington writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil Harrington
writes



Just so. A standard mounted slide lost about 90% of its area to the mount,
and negatives lost about the same to most standard negative carriers, so
SLR
viewfinders showing only about 90% of the frame made made sense.

Neil

Hm, I think you may be slightly overstating - I thought the typical figure
for the visible area (for mounted slides or neg carriers) was about 95%,
but I may be remembering incorrectly.

David

I remember being surprised many years ago on finding out how much of the
image was obscured by a standard Kodak slide mount. But now I can't find any
official dimensions either through Google or in Wikipedia. I do have lots of
slides, but as usual cannot find any of my metric rulers. (I probably should
buy 'em by the gross, as I keep mislaying them.) I'll keep trying to find
one, though.

Neil, if they are metric rules you have to buy them buy the hundred -
it's the rules, you know (ouch).

Just measured some slide mounts.

Kodachrome (from about 96 - stopped using it quite a time ago):
34.5x23.0mm = 793.5mm^2

Fujichrome (from 2000): 34.8x22.9mm = 797mm^2

[Note the Fuji ones are virtually identical on both sides but the Kodak
ones have one side 0.5-0.8mm wider. I took the narrower side above.]

35mm film format (assuming 36x24mm) is 864mm^2

Thus visible area is 91.8% or 92.2%. A narrow points victory to you, I
think. Couldn't muster the energy to measure my enlarger masks, they all
vary so much anyway.

David
--
David Littlewood

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil Harrington
writes

"David Littlewood" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington
writes



Just so. A standard mounted slide lost about 90% of its area to the
mount,
and negatives lost about the same to most standard negative carriers, so
SLR
viewfinders showing only about 90% of the frame made made sense.

Neil

Hm, I think you may be slightly overstating - I thought the typical
figure
for the visible area (for mounted slides or neg carriers) was about 95%,
but I may be remembering incorrectly.

David

I remember being surprised many years ago on finding out how much of the
image was obscured by a standard Kodak slide mount. But now I can't find
any
official dimensions either through Google or in Wikipedia. I do have lots
of
slides, but as usual cannot find any of my metric rulers. (I probably
should
buy 'em by the gross, as I keep mislaying them.) I'll keep trying to find
one, though.

Neil, if they are metric rules you have to buy them buy the hundred - it's
the rules, you know (ouch).

Eeeuuwww. You're right, of course.



Just measured some slide mounts.

Kodachrome (from about 96 - stopped using it quite a time ago):
34.5x23.0mm = 793.5mm^2

Fujichrome (from 2000): 34.8x22.9mm = 797mm^2

[Note the Fuji ones are virtually identical on both sides but the Kodak
ones have one side 0.5-0.8mm wider. I took the narrower side above.]

35mm film format (assuming 36x24mm) is 864mm^2

Thus visible area is 91.8% or 92.2%. A narrow points victory to you, I
think.

I'll cheerfully settle for that, David. :-)


Couldn't muster the energy to measure my enlarger masks, they all vary so
much anyway.

Right. And the only 35mm negative carrier I own is the adjustable one in my
Durst A300, so that wouldn't mean anything.

Neil

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Jørn Dahl-Stamnes wrote:
Mark² wrote:
I like/prefer CF, but have you ever tried to REMOVE a CF card with
thick gloves on??

Yes, I do it all the time during winter... :-)

Oh, it's doable... It's just not very fun...


With SD you push on the card and it pops out a bit making it easier to grab.
With CF you have to push on that little tab, which is the hard part for me
with gloves on my 1D2N.

"Neil Harrington" wrote in message
. ..
Same here. I don't really see how you *can* bend a pin with a CF card
since the insertion guidance seems to be foolproof, but there are people
who insist it's been done.

Yep, my mom did it first time she used a card reader. Broke the reader
thankfully and not the camera.