Re: Ping: Littleboy - Fuji 645 rangefinder

[Alan Browne]

On 2011-10-31 18:53 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> Any mechanical issues with the Fujifilm 645? A friend picked one up
>> for $25. (!).
>
> Is that the exact model, or is it a GS645, or a GS645s?
>
> The GS645 (75mm lens) that I had had persistent problems with bellows
> pinholes. I think it crunches it up too tight in the closed position,
> maybe; or else the factory materials just aren't very good. The idea
> had great potential and I was so pleased to get mine, but it took VERY
> few good photos, and ruined quite a few good opportunities for me
> (discvoring new pinholes in the negatives of something good).
>
> I believe I paid over $700 for mine used off the internet, so I hate
> your friend :-). Hope his doesn't have the bellows problems mine did.

I now recall he mentioned something about having to set the focus to
infinity before folding. Whether that was for fit or to avoid excessive
compression ... ?

[rpd.slr-systems added as I don't see a history of Littleboy posting in
35mm of late. (and _nobody_ posts at M-F anymore). He replied to this
question on slr-systems.]


--
gmail originated posts filtered due to spam.

[David J. Littleboy]

"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> I now recall he mentioned something about having to set the focus to
> infinity before folding. Whether that was for fit or to avoid excessive
> compression ... ?

Many folders have to be focused back to infinity (focusing closer than
infinity corresponds to extending the lens making it harder to pack up
small, doh! (truth in advertising: I just noticed this just now<g>.)) to
close. Even the newest one: the Fuji 6x7 thingy sold outside Japan under the
Voigtlander name. I really ought to buy one of those, but it's pricey and I
wouldn't use it all that much.

So that's part of being a folder. I wonder if the original Mamiya 6 is a
counterexample?

> [rpd.slr-systems added as I don't see a history of Littleboy posting in
> 35mm of late. (and _nobody_ posts at M-F anymore). He replied to this
> question on slr-systems.]

Yep. digital.slr-systems is the only usenet photo list I read nowadays.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2011-10-31 18:53 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>
>>> Any mechanical issues with the Fujifilm 645? A friend picked one up
>>> for $25. (!).
>>
>> Is that the exact model, or is it a GS645, or a GS645s?
>>
>> The GS645 (75mm lens) that I had had persistent problems with bellows
>> pinholes. I think it crunches it up too tight in the closed position,
>> maybe; or else the factory materials just aren't very good. The idea
>> had great potential and I was so pleased to get mine, but it took VERY
>> few good photos, and ruined quite a few good opportunities for me
>> (discvoring new pinholes in the negatives of something good).
>>
>> I believe I paid over $700 for mine used off the internet, so I hate
>> your friend :-). Hope his doesn't have the bellows problems mine did.
>
> I now recall he mentioned something about having to set the focus to
> infinity before folding. Whether that was for fit or to avoid
> excessive compression ... ?

I believe I did that consistently, and it didn't avoid problems. I
could be deluded...but I think it was quite obvious if you did it wrong,
so I got well-trained.

(Sold the camera some years back now. I sold it with both repaired and
new unrepaired pinholes, but I described the condition accurately and
the buyer didn't complain. And I got a non-trivial amount, even.
Sometimes I sell things just because they shouldn't be trashed, not
because the money is actually worth it.)

[Alan Browne]

You just described my Sunday at a Montreal camera trade event. I shared
a table with a very active Montreal camera trader (He paid for the table
as long as I was mostly available to cover for him while he prowled the
other tables. I wasn't in buy mode (though I was tempted on a few
things...). Actually got him a better price on a Sekonic meter than he
was asking. (Got him $210 instead of his settle line of $195).

I sold an old beat up Manfrotto tripod, my Manfrotto monopod, its head
(separately), 3 disk drives, a couple small umbrellas, etc. Stuff I
couldn't sell online but once the hungry see them, they salivate. A few
people ridiculously low balled things (my 190 tripod and head) so I
still have it. ( I think having 5 tripods in the house is a bit much
for some reason).

Got serious interest in my Hassy system as well - one fellow's wife
dragged him off as he agreed on the 500C/M, 80mm and back; waiting for a
few others to call. Also a maybe acceptable offer for my 9000ED
scanner. But I won't sell it until the Hassy is gone.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2011-11-01 11:26 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>>> I now recall he mentioned something about having to set the focus to
>>> infinity before folding. Whether that was for fit or to avoid
>>> excessive compression ... ?
>>
>> I believe I did that consistently, and it didn't avoid problems. I
>> could be deluded...but I think it was quite obvious if you did it wrong,
>> so I got well-trained.
>>
>> (Sold the camera some years back now. I sold it with both repaired and
>> new unrepaired pinholes, but I described the condition accurately and
>> the buyer didn't complain. And I got a non-trivial amount, even.
>> Sometimes I sell things just because they shouldn't be trashed, not
>> because the money is actually worth it.)
>
> You just described my Sunday at a Montreal camera trade event. I
> shared a table with a very active Montreal camera trader (He paid for
> the table as long as I was mostly available to cover for him while he
> prowled the other tables. I wasn't in buy mode (though I was tempted
> on a few things...). Actually got him a better price on a Sekonic
> meter than he was asking. (Got him $210 instead of his settle line of
> $195).

I've still got the last separate light meter I owned, a Gossen Luna Pro
F. No, wait, I have BOTH the last light meters I owned; I have a
1-degree spot meter too; I forget if it's Pentax or Soligor.

But I have absolutely no use for them now, I really should sell them. A
digital camera is a much better light meter, once you understand its
behavior decently. I should sell them.

> I sold an old beat up Manfrotto tripod, my Manfrotto monopod, its head
> (separately), 3 disk drives, a couple small umbrellas, etc. Stuff I
> couldn't sell online but once the hungry see them, they salivate. A
> few people ridiculously low balled things (my 190 tripod and head) so
> I still have it. ( I think having 5 tripods in the house is a bit
> much for some reason).

I keep two in my car, that helps keep the count in the house down :-) .
Also avoids carrying them around so much; I very rarely use them at
home. (Two in the car is excessive, but I don't have a
RRS/Kirk/etc. plate for the Olympus EPL-2, and that's the one I carry
full-time, so I need a tripod for it in the trunk, and found my old Slik
U212 lying around still functional.)

I do actually have one at home still, the big Bogen I use for the 4x5.
A 3050 maybe? Two-section legs, with a release at the top that lets all
three legs slide free to hit whatever ground is under them, making setup
on uneven terrain really quick.

> Got serious interest in my Hassy system as well - one fellow's wife
> dragged him off as he agreed on the 500C/M, 80mm and back; waiting for
> a few others to call. Also a maybe acceptable offer for my 9000ED
> scanner. But I won't sell it until the Hassy is gone.

Good luck with it!

I need to send my 5000 in for cleaning and adjustment while they still
have parts. I've got dirt or a bad sensor bit somewhere towards the
edge, too.

[Alan Browne]

Not in the studio. Setting lighting ratios is much easier with a meter
than with a camera even if the shoot will be digital. I hardly ever
bring my meter outside unless shooting the 'blad. And haven't done
that, in studio or out, since last autumn.

Probably cost you a good penny - but as you say, now or never.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.

>> I need to send my 5000 in for cleaning and adjustment while they still
>> have parts. I've got dirt or a bad sensor bit somewhere towards the
>> edge, too.
>
> Probably cost you a good penny - but as you say, now or never.

And I have a LOT of film yet to scan.

It's weird that I know so many people just getting serious about
scanning film when everybody has stopped making scanners. I suspect
they may have to start again.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>It's weird that I know so many people just getting serious about
>scanning film when everybody has stopped making scanners. I suspect
>they may have to start again.

But they *have* started making scanners again. Over the last couple
of years, film scanners designed for consumer use have been made in
China and sold in huge numbers. They aren't especially good, though.
The most common brand in the UK is Summit but I have seen similar
scanners with a wide range of brand names.

There are some good scanners that have continued to be made, including
the Plustek OpticFilm range. Mechanically, they aren't up to Nikon
standards of robustness but they are optically good enough for most
photography enthusiasts.
http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html

I still shoot film and use an Imacon Flextight (now Hasselblad) and
occasionally an old but extremely capable Howtek drum scanner. Either
of these will blow away any Nikon scans because of their higher Dmax.

There is a large selection of film scanners at B&H:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Film-Scanners/ci/1151/N/4277366338

[Alan Browne]

On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.

How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
using a camera?

>
> And I have a LOT of film yet to scan.
>
> It's weird that I know so many people just getting serious about
> scanning film when everybody has stopped making scanners. I suspect
> they may have to start again.

There are a few brands we've never heard of out there...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>>It's weird that I know so many people just getting serious about
>>scanning film when everybody has stopped making scanners. I suspect
>>they may have to start again.
>
>
> But they *have* started making scanners again. Over the last couple
> of years, film scanners designed for consumer use have been made in
> China and sold in huge numbers. They aren't especially good, though.
> The most common brand in the UK is Summit but I have seen similar
> scanners with a wide range of brand names.

Yeah, I mean real dedicated film scanners. Nearly everybody makes
"transparency adapters" for their flatbeds, but the results on consumer
units are unusable.

> There are some good scanners that have continued to be made, including
> the Plustek OpticFilm range. Mechanically, they aren't up to Nikon
> standards of robustness but they are optically good enough for most
> photography enthusiasts.
> http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html

I put the Plustek below the range of consideration, but I've never owned
one, so it's second hand info for me.

> I still shoot film and use an Imacon Flextight (now Hasselblad) and
> occasionally an old but extremely capable Howtek drum scanner. Either
> of these will blow away any Nikon scans because of their higher Dmax.

Sure, and at that price they damned well better :-).

> There is a large selection of film scanners at B&H:
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Film-Scanners/ci/1151/N/4277366338

Sure, but most of them are clearly a trap for ignorant consumers.

Pacific Image seems to be trying to market some serious things; dunno
about their results, though.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
>> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
>> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.
>
> How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
> using a camera?

Same way you do with a meter; test until it does what you want.

[Alan Browne]

That's *not* how one does it with a meter.

If desired DOF is at f/4 for a 3:1 ratio I meter (adjust) the key light
to f/4 at the subject.

Then I meter (adjust) the fill light to f/2.4 (3:1 key:fill).

Finally, for the -1 stop BG , I simply meter the BG light to f/2.8 at
the background.

All separately (other two lights off or masked from the meter).

Then shoot at f/4.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>>It's weird that I know so many people just getting serious about
>>>scanning film when everybody has stopped making scanners. I suspect
>>>they may have to start again.
>>
>>
>> But they *have* started making scanners again. Over the last couple
>> of years, film scanners designed for consumer use have been made in
>> China and sold in huge numbers. They aren't especially good, though.
>> The most common brand in the UK is Summit but I have seen similar
>> scanners with a wide range of brand names.
>
>Yeah, I mean real dedicated film scanners. Nearly everybody makes
>"transparency adapters" for their flatbeds, but the results on consumer
>units are unusable.

No, these aren't adapters, these are dedicated film scanners. They
are cheap and made of nasty plastic, but they are perfectly suited to
their target market, people scanning their old family snaps which were
probably taken on supermarket own-brand film. Most of them seem to
scan at 1800 dpi and produce ~5 MP images. The Dmax isn't great but
they offer a low cost method of digitising film for consumers.

>> There are some good scanners that have continued to be made, including
>> the Plustek OpticFilm range. Mechanically, they aren't up to Nikon
>> standards of robustness but they are optically good enough for most
>> photography enthusiasts.
>> http://plustek.com/usa/products/opticfilm-series/introduction.html
>
>I put the Plustek below the range of consideration, but I've never owned
>one, so it's second hand info for me.

Plustek OpticFilm scanners have improved dramatically over the years.
They are a reasonable alternative to a used Nikon Coolscan. The top
models are definitely worth a look.

>> I still shoot film and use an Imacon Flextight (now Hasselblad) and
>> occasionally an old but extremely capable Howtek drum scanner. Either
>> of these will blow away any Nikon scans because of their higher Dmax.
>
>Sure, and at that price they damned well better :-).

The Howtek cost me nothing, as long as I removed it. The only problem
was finding a spare room large enough to house it, with a strong
concrete floor. The Flextight cost me about 15% of the new price at a
bankruptcy auction because no-one seemed to know what it was ...

>> There is a large selection of film scanners at B&H:
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Film-Scanners/ci/1151/N/4277366338
>
>Sure, but most of them are clearly a trap for ignorant consumers.
>
>Pacific Image seems to be trying to market some serious things; dunno
>about their results, though.

It's not a brand that is sold over here, but the B&H site suggests
that Pacific Image seem to put their brand on scanners that range from
cheap Chinese-made consumer grade junk to average. The PrimeFilm
range which Pacific Image offers was sold in the UK in the early 2000s
by Jessops - nearest US equivalent would be Ritz Camera - and was not
highly rated. Unless it has been significantly upgraded in the last
few years, I think one of the Plustek scanners would be a better bet.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2011-11-03 13:41 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>
>>>> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
>>>> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.
>>>
>>> How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
>>> using a camera?
>>
>> Same way you do with a meter; test until it does what you want.
>
> That's *not* how one does it with a meter.
>
> If desired DOF is at f/4 for a 3:1 ratio I meter (adjust) the key
> light to f/4 at the subject.
>
> Then I meter (adjust) the fill light to f/2.4 (3:1 key:fill).

How does that differ from "test until it dows what you want"?

> Finally, for the -1 stop BG , I simply meter the BG light to f/2.8 at
> the background.
>
> All separately (other two lights off or masked from the meter).
>
> Then shoot at f/4.

Sure. You can do that with the camera, too, you know.

[Alan Browne]

On 2011-11-03 17:22 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> On 2011-11-03 13:41 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
>>>>> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.
>>>>
>>>> How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
>>>> using a camera?
>>>
>>> Same way you do with a meter; test until it does what you want.
>>
>> That's *not* how one does it with a meter.
>>
>> If desired DOF is at f/4 for a 3:1 ratio I meter (adjust) the key
>> light to f/4 at the subject.
>>
>> Then I meter (adjust) the fill light to f/2.4 (3:1 key:fill).
>
> How does that differ from "test until it dows what you want"?

It's not subjective. It takes 2 or 3 flash firings to set a light.

>
>> Finally, for the -1 stop BG , I simply meter the BG light to f/2.8 at
>> the background.
>>
>> All separately (other two lights off or masked from the meter).
>>
>> Then shoot at f/4.
>
> Sure. You can do that with the camera, too, you know.

Enlighten me with a procedure.

What is your reference for 3:1 lighting?

[Noons]

On Nov 4, 6:23 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Pacific Image seems to be trying to market some serious things; dunno
> >about their results, though.
>
> It's not a brand that is sold over here, but the B&H site suggests
> that Pacific Image seem to put their brand on scanners that range from
> cheap Chinese-made consumer grade junk to average.  The PrimeFilm
> range which Pacific Image offers was sold in the UK in the early 2000s
> by Jessops - nearest US equivalent would be Ritz Camera - and was not
> highly rated.  Unless it has been significantly upgraded in the last
> few years, I think one of the Plustek scanners would be a better bet.

The top of the line from Pacific Image is a re-badged Kodak with D-Ice
added. As good or better than the original, reasonably priced, will
do an entire roll without add-on gizmos like the Coolscans, usb 2 and
good speed. I've got one of the Kodak originals and am considering an
update. Good for B&W.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2011-11-03 17:22 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>
>>> On 2011-11-03 13:41 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
>>>>>> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
>>>>> using a camera?
>>>>
>>>> Same way you do with a meter; test until it does what you want.
>>>
>>> That's *not* how one does it with a meter.
>>>
>>> If desired DOF is at f/4 for a 3:1 ratio I meter (adjust) the key
>>> light to f/4 at the subject.
>>>
>>> Then I meter (adjust) the fill light to f/2.4 (3:1 key:fill).
>>
>> How does that differ from "test until it dows what you want"?
>
> It's not subjective. It takes 2 or 3 flash firings to set a light.

"What you want" is subjective. If you want 3:1, then test until you get
that.

The camera is covered with controls adjusted in f/stops. The histogram
will tell you when things are being exposed to a given level. So, set
your key light, photograph a standard (gray card, whatever) and observe
the location of the sharp spike on the histogram. Set the fill light,
open the lens 1.3 stops (is that what 2.4 is from 4?), photograph the
same standard, and adjust the fill light until the spike in the
histogram is in the same place.

Mostly I use less precise and quicker procedures; I'm skeptical of
people thinking that .1 stop precision actually matters anywhere, but I
don't do studio stuff professionally, so maybe it really does.

[Alan Browne]

On 2011-11-04 10:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>
>> On 2011-11-03 17:22 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 2011-11-03 13:41 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2011-11-01 15:51 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose if you're used enough to using the meter. I could do it, but
>>>>>>> I find the digital data more complete for multi-flash setups.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you set a subject 3:1 lighting ratio with a BG light @ -1 stop
>>>>>> using a camera?
>>>>>
>>>>> Same way you do with a meter; test until it does what you want.
>>>>
>>>> That's *not* how one does it with a meter.
>>>>
>>>> If desired DOF is at f/4 for a 3:1 ratio I meter (adjust) the key
>>>> light to f/4 at the subject.
>>>>
>>>> Then I meter (adjust) the fill light to f/2.4 (3:1 key:fill).
>>>
>>> How does that differ from "test until it dows what you want"?
>>
>> It's not subjective. It takes 2 or 3 flash firings to set a light.
>
> "What you want" is subjective. If you want 3:1, then test until you get
> that.
>
> The camera is covered with controls adjusted in f/stops. The histogram
> will tell you when things are being exposed to a given level. So, set
> your key light, photograph a standard (gray card, whatever)

I knew you'd go there. So you also need a grey card. So you need
something to hold that (a person, a stand, ...). Of course a grey card
has to be at the right angle to prevent specular reflections to the
camera from all lights. So you'll end up having to adjust it for two
light shots, and then move it to the BG for that shot (or v-v).

Further, your camera does not expose at f/2.4. It likely has f/2.3 or
f/2.5 or both (third or half stops). This is a quibble.

With a meter, a simple setup as I describe takes about 2 minutes to set
the lights - less if you have an assistant or remote controlled lights.
You wouldn't get there with a camera that quick.

The expression goes: "The right tool for the job."

[Paul Furman]

Bruce wrote:
>>> I still shoot film and use an Imacon Flextight (now Hasselblad) and
>>> >> occasionally an old but extremely capable Howtek drum scanner. Either
>>> >> of these will blow away any Nikon scans because of their higher Dmax.
>> >
>> >Sure, and at that price they damned well better:-).
>
> The Howtek cost me nothing, as long as I removed it. The only problem
> was finding a spare room large enough to house it, with a strong
> concrete floor. The Flextight cost me about 15% of the new price at a
> bankruptcy auction because no-one seemed to know what it was ...

That would be cool for large format!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/6327219114/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/castorscan/6348420483/

[Bruce]

Two interesting links, thanks! :-)