Guest TTK Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) I like the Air King.......very simple.....and really hard to tell rep from original....nice shot....good depth of field.....and composition....! I have a Fuji GX680 sitting redundant in at home in Glasgow....I've been waiting for an affordable digital back for it......same reason as you always wanted a Blad.......I just want to see what it will yield.....I can't justify it at the price....but would still love one......oh well....perhaps they'll come down from the $20k mark......sometime soon I hope....! Edited March 20, 2006 by TTK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailadams Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Now that is a cool camera. Till a decently priced digital back comes out, just shoot film and scan it. Edited March 20, 2006 by sailadams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrgod Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 (edited) Thanks for the kind words. Nice to receive response from the "Master" Digital backs for medium format are terribly expensive, even though I have seen some old 6MP Leaf Cantare and Phase one backs on "Fleabay" for around the 1k USD mark... But I guess that seven-eight years old MF-backs are nothing to lust after.. Edited March 20, 2006 by chrgod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Digital backs for medium format are terribly expensive, even though I have seen some old 6MP Leaf Cantare and Phase one backs on "Fleabay" for around the 1k USD mark... But I guess that seven-eight years old MF-backs are nothing to lust after.. They are when the money is in the optics. I'll be moving back to Glasgow in a year. I'll have to make a point of scouring Paddy's Market for the kind of stuff TTK managed to blag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 Neil - d'you mind me asking how many and which light sources you use? He uses 2. 60w iirc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted March 20, 2006 Report Share Posted March 20, 2006 @offshore.....thereby hangs the problem.....6x8 film and processing is expensive....and scanning....fugedaboudit......that's why I want a digital back...and I want it now....it's not fair.....!!!!! Oliver....I use 2x 100w tungsten household bulbs...in Anglepoise lamps....with a semi-circular plexiglass sheet....( like a big railway tunnel ).......sometimes only one....depending on the watch....! Narrow DOF is good when being artistic.....but selling requires sharpness right across the dial....! PS....try adjusting your white balance......it's a tad on the warm and dirty side...here's your photo with a slight adjustment for white balance....! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest overboosted Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 WOW Awesome stuff here. I am just now starting to really delve into photography so this info is great. Just bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ30K, as it is plenty for my needs. Pugwash, you mentioned earlier about TWG's pics having alot of reflections because of his use of autofocus. What's the difference if I use AF or focus manually? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eunomians Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 I have both systems. And I've had both systems for 20+ years. Both are great. Somehow, they differ, but they both deliver. Buy according to lens array preference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Awesome stuff here. I am just now starting to really delve into photography so this info is great. Just bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ30K, as it is plenty for my needs. Pugwash, you mentioned earlier about TWG's pics having alot of reflections because of his use of autofocus. What's the difference if I use AF or focus manually? I like reflections as they show the smoothness of the sapphire, and you can play with it as a light source and all sorts. My observation wasn't about the reflections, but about the fact auto-focus will focus on the reflection instead of the watch face behind the reflection. If you manually focus (and on the FZ30, it works just as you'd expect), you can focus on the detail behind the reflection which ... well, you'll see. It diffuses and neutralises the reflection a bit and allows the brain to ignore the reflective surface. Nice camera, you're going to love it. The problems I find with the FZ20, the predecessor to the 30, are that it's crappy in low light conditions if you don't have a tripod. Not a party-night camera. Don't try to spoof it by setting it to ASA400 as it just introduces noise. You'll get used to it, but that lens is totally, totally amazing. Best non-SLR on the market, unless you like taking snapshots at parties or are chasing elusive fading light shots. Oh, and it's not a high-speed instant camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest overboosted Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 What are the benefits of ISO80, 100, 200 and so forth? Sorry if it's a really newbie question, but I can't seem to find any clear cut answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) ISO..( or to give it the name us 'old timers' use...ASA )......is really a term that is "probably" more applicable to emulsion film....it was a reference for the films sensitivity to light......the lower the ISO / ASA number the less sensitive to light but the higher the quality when transferring to print.....the higher the sensitivity the lower the light level you could shoot in....e:g....100 ASA shot at f8 @ 1/60 second...if you raised the ASA to 200 then you would gain one stop in EV ( exposure value )....so theoretically and practically you could achieve correct exposure at f11 @ 1/60 ( smaller aperture = more light = more DOF) or f8 @ 1/90 ( higher shutter speed ..same depth of field ....but the ability to capture moving objects better without bluuur...).........bumping up the ISO / ASA level simply offers more ability to 'capture' available light....at the expense of 'grain' in emulsion film or 'noise' in digital film.......similarly if you used a 'slower' film...e:g......Kodachrome 64 transparency fillm....you would sacrifice both apertuer and shutter values....but the quality of final print is much higher.....hence the reason most 'pros' shoot trannies......but NONE of that matters nowadays because digital is king....( right up until you start shooting commercially.....then it turns tail and runs )......! Next lesson......."reciprocity law and reciprocity failure'.........are youz guys getting all this....... ...then we'll come to that hallowed place in watch photography......"differential focussing"....and "exposure latitude"....... Edited March 21, 2006 by TTK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pugwash Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 (edited) Next lesson......."reciprocity law and reciprocity failure'.........are youz guys getting all this....... ...then we'll come to that hallowed place in watch photography......"differential focussing"....and "exposure latitude"....... Then, and only then, will you be able to take pictures of your missus in the skud. (edit for spelling) Edited March 21, 2006 by Pugwash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TTK Posted March 21, 2006 Report Share Posted March 21, 2006 Wrong.....then and only then will you be able to take kwality pictures of your missus in the scuddy.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.