All Forum Comments
Comment by Tooks posted on Cheap Gimball Type Head... at 29/09/2009 - 12:01
ChrisA wrote:
The area, then, of a 120 square negative, is 3266 square mm, compared with 864 (= 24 x 36) for 35mm.
That's 3.8 times the area of a 120 negative.
When I scan a 35mm colour negative at 8 bits, I get a 68 Mb TIFF file. At 16 bits, I get 138 Mb.
Are your negs colour or black and white?
645 120 film is 56 x 41.5mm (or 6 x 4.5cm) so the surface area is 2324 or 2.68 times 35mm film?Tooks wrote:
All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
120 film is 2 1/4 inches square, isn't it? That's 57.15mm (is that the '6', of '645'?)All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
The area, then, of a 120 square negative, is 3266 square mm, compared with 864 (= 24 x 36) for 35mm.
That's 3.8 times the area of a 120 negative.
When I scan a 35mm colour negative at 8 bits, I get a 68 Mb TIFF file. At 16 bits, I get 138 Mb.
Are your negs colour or black and white?
The scans I have are mainly black and white landscapes, in 8 bit. Checking through some of the colour 16 bit scans, they are actually quite a bit bigger (approx 300MB).
I will await a 645D with interest, but it's not likely something I will be able to afford unfortunately! Meanwhile, I'm still having a bit of fun with the Pentax 645!
Comment by Tooks posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 11:08
ChrisA wrote:
6 x 4.5 isn't even as much as twice the linear dimensions of 35mm - it's only 1 2/3 = 1.67 times as big (ok, it's very nearly twice as big in the 4.5 dimension).
Given that, then with a 645 lens of less resolving power than a 35mm counterpart, wouldn't you expect the maximum size of a 645 print to be less than 1.67 times the maximum size of a 35mm print, all other things being equal?
Not sure what I'm missing here - I don't see why, if very large enlargements is the goal, MF lenses don't have to be at least as good as 35mm ones.
Edit: and how does the quality of the enlarger optics get factored into all this - presumably it's no good having an amazingly sharp negative if the enlarger isn't equally good.
I've only really started musing on this since I blew the dust of my old negative folders, and it's making my head hurt already!
That's an interesting question!Malo1961 wrote:
And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.
I understand this logic, but I thought the whole point of medium format was for producing enormous enlargements.And we already know the resolving power of 645/6x6 and 6x7 lenses is much lower as their 24x36 counterparts. Simple physics. The could because the film format was bigger, so they could do with less.
6 x 4.5 isn't even as much as twice the linear dimensions of 35mm - it's only 1 2/3 = 1.67 times as big (ok, it's very nearly twice as big in the 4.5 dimension).
Given that, then with a 645 lens of less resolving power than a 35mm counterpart, wouldn't you expect the maximum size of a 645 print to be less than 1.67 times the maximum size of a 35mm print, all other things being equal?
Not sure what I'm missing here - I don't see why, if very large enlargements is the goal, MF lenses don't have to be at least as good as 35mm ones.
Edit: and how does the quality of the enlarger optics get factored into all this - presumably it's no good having an amazingly sharp negative if the enlarger isn't equally good.
I've only really started musing on this since I blew the dust of my old negative folders, and it's making my head hurt already!
Quote:
Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?
What's the theoretical number of megapixels from a 645 negative?Now...put a 35MB or higher digital back behind that old glass. What do you expect?
I've read a few debates on this, and the general consensus (dependant on many variables such as film speed etc) is that 35mm film is equivalent to 4 to 12 Megapixels, and Medium Format (120 film) equivalent to approx 50 Megapixels.
All I know is that when my scanned 120 negatives come back to me as a digital file, each image is approximately 220 Megabytes...
Comment by Tooks posted on Another 645 Digital at 29/09/2009 - 10:15
Like most people who get into wildlife or aviation photography, and after acquiring a reasonably sized/heavy zoom lens, thoughts soon turn to supporting the thing.
One thing I've learnt over the last few years is that even a 300mm lens needs proper support if you're going to get results anywhere near what we we would hope for...
The other thing I've learnt is the phrase 'Buy cheap, buy twice'...
So, I started researching Gimball heads etc and sat down to price up what I'd need. After selecting a sidekick, arca swiss ballhead, and a lens plate, I was soon up to about £600, and that's without buying a decent set of tripod legs!
I don't know about anybody else, but I do baulk a little at paying that kind of money for a head, especially when for the same cash I can get a very decent lens! I understand the importance of a good support though, and also that a support that can't do the job is a waste of money, no matter the price. Off to eBay I headed then!
A quick search soon found a company in India churning out what can only be described as Kirk Cobra clones, supplied with a lens plate and a couple of adaptors to fit 1/4 or 3/8 fittings.
So, for approx £93 delivered (including the lens plate), I thought I'd give one a go. The worst case scenario was that it would be a pile of rubbish and that I'd only end up going out and buying a Wimberley/Kirk setup anyway, but for the cash I thought it was worth a go.
So, after about a week, the head turned up and I've set it up and had a play around with it, so thought I'd share a few pics/comments with you guys in case any of you were thinking along similar lines. (Excuse the pics, I received a Fuji S5 Pro in the post this morning too for a try out, so thought this was as good an excuse as any, but I don't know my way around it yet!)
First up, the finish is not anywhere near as good as the Wimberley/Kirk stuff, but then I guess this is why they are priced as they are. It's a powder coated finish that looks pretty tough, but clearly the metal underneath isn't all that nicely finished. My view on this is that as long as it does the job, I will forgive it the aesthetics!
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3506309895_0339bd24e3.jpg[/IMG]
The longest/heaviest lens I have at the moment is a 300mm f4, which is pictured below with a 2x converter. With the lens plate pushed all the way forward in the clamp, it balances as shown, and you can move the camera/lens very easily with the two knobs backed off. The action is really quite smooth, which surprised me. The body is fitted with grip/AA's, so probably as heavy as you're going to get body wise, but with the grip removed you can slide the lens plate further back to balance it out.
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3507117052_6fa9008719.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3507117606_92cedb9608.jpg[/IMG]
The next shot is a close up of the lens clamp/lens plate assembly. It looks worse than it is due to harsh flash/dust (I was using a Fuji S5 Pro which I was trying out for a few days so didn't know my way around it properly!), but it's really to show that it does all fit together nicely. The lens plate has two additional allen bolts that stop the lens plate sliding all the way out of the clamp forwards or backwards, but it's basically a clone of the Wimberley plate, albeit a less well finished one.
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3506310061_aa8bb556a7.jpg[/IMG]
The whole setup is quite solid, and I have to say I'm quite impressed. The two big round tension knobs are smooth in use, and they also only wind out so far that there is no chance of you detaching the lens clamp and crashing your kit to the ground. Once you find the balance point, it works just the same as a Wimberley Sidekick/Kirk Cobra setup.
This is not meant as an advertorial, and I have no connection with the company concerned, it's just that I see lots of discussion on heads of this sort and I thought this would help some people make up their mind, and perhaps be reassured that alternative lower cost solutions exist.
I have no idea how long this head will last, it may fall apart after 6 months occassional use, but I will report back if that happens! Looking at its construction, and the simple and proven tech involved (ie clamps/screws/bolts/welds) I don't fear that will happen.
I have no idea of any copyright issues involved with this, as although it is like a sidekick, it is different, and I'm not sure if it's possible to patent such a relatively simple device anyway, certainly outside the US. I'll leave the ethics of that one up to you good folks, so please take this as the helpful post it was intended to be!
One thing I've learnt over the last few years is that even a 300mm lens needs proper support if you're going to get results anywhere near what we we would hope for...
The other thing I've learnt is the phrase 'Buy cheap, buy twice'...
So, I started researching Gimball heads etc and sat down to price up what I'd need. After selecting a sidekick, arca swiss ballhead, and a lens plate, I was soon up to about £600, and that's without buying a decent set of tripod legs!
I don't know about anybody else, but I do baulk a little at paying that kind of money for a head, especially when for the same cash I can get a very decent lens! I understand the importance of a good support though, and also that a support that can't do the job is a waste of money, no matter the price. Off to eBay I headed then!
A quick search soon found a company in India churning out what can only be described as Kirk Cobra clones, supplied with a lens plate and a couple of adaptors to fit 1/4 or 3/8 fittings.
So, for approx £93 delivered (including the lens plate), I thought I'd give one a go. The worst case scenario was that it would be a pile of rubbish and that I'd only end up going out and buying a Wimberley/Kirk setup anyway, but for the cash I thought it was worth a go.
So, after about a week, the head turned up and I've set it up and had a play around with it, so thought I'd share a few pics/comments with you guys in case any of you were thinking along similar lines. (Excuse the pics, I received a Fuji S5 Pro in the post this morning too for a try out, so thought this was as good an excuse as any, but I don't know my way around it yet!)
First up, the finish is not anywhere near as good as the Wimberley/Kirk stuff, but then I guess this is why they are priced as they are. It's a powder coated finish that looks pretty tough, but clearly the metal underneath isn't all that nicely finished. My view on this is that as long as it does the job, I will forgive it the aesthetics!
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3364/3506309895_0339bd24e3.jpg[/IMG]
The longest/heaviest lens I have at the moment is a 300mm f4, which is pictured below with a 2x converter. With the lens plate pushed all the way forward in the clamp, it balances as shown, and you can move the camera/lens very easily with the two knobs backed off. The action is really quite smooth, which surprised me. The body is fitted with grip/AA's, so probably as heavy as you're going to get body wise, but with the grip removed you can slide the lens plate further back to balance it out.
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3322/3507117052_6fa9008719.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3659/3507117606_92cedb9608.jpg[/IMG]
The next shot is a close up of the lens clamp/lens plate assembly. It looks worse than it is due to harsh flash/dust (I was using a Fuji S5 Pro which I was trying out for a few days so didn't know my way around it properly!), but it's really to show that it does all fit together nicely. The lens plate has two additional allen bolts that stop the lens plate sliding all the way out of the clamp forwards or backwards, but it's basically a clone of the Wimberley plate, albeit a less well finished one.
[IMG]http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3506310061_aa8bb556a7.jpg[/IMG]
The whole setup is quite solid, and I have to say I'm quite impressed. The two big round tension knobs are smooth in use, and they also only wind out so far that there is no chance of you detaching the lens clamp and crashing your kit to the ground. Once you find the balance point, it works just the same as a Wimberley Sidekick/Kirk Cobra setup.
This is not meant as an advertorial, and I have no connection with the company concerned, it's just that I see lots of discussion on heads of this sort and I thought this would help some people make up their mind, and perhaps be reassured that alternative lower cost solutions exist.
I have no idea how long this head will last, it may fall apart after 6 months occassional use, but I will report back if that happens! Looking at its construction, and the simple and proven tech involved (ie clamps/screws/bolts/welds) I don't fear that will happen.
I have no idea of any copyright issues involved with this, as although it is like a sidekick, it is different, and I'm not sure if it's possible to patent such a relatively simple device anyway, certainly outside the US. I'll leave the ethics of that one up to you good folks, so please take this as the helpful post it was intended to be!
Comment by Tooks posted on Cheap Gimball Type Head... at 29/09/2009 - 09:35
ChrisA wrote:
I use a Slik AF2100.
It was £50 when I bought it (nearly double that now, but I bet it's still worth every penny), some 20 years ago, and it's just as good as it ever was. It's never off the tripod, except when it's on the monopod.
It's fab - convenient, and strong - it'll support the tripod (collapsed) held horizontal without the ball slipping.
It also has a very convenient quick release plate:
You unlock 'B', press the button 'A', unlatch and rotate - and the camera comes straight off. Reverse to lock.
You do have to make sure it's latched though. I didn't, once, but fortunately caught the camera as it fell. Never made that mistake again.
I have one of these, and it is indeed a fine piece of kit! I use a Slik AF2100.
It was £50 when I bought it (nearly double that now, but I bet it's still worth every penny), some 20 years ago, and it's just as good as it ever was. It's never off the tripod, except when it's on the monopod.
It's fab - convenient, and strong - it'll support the tripod (collapsed) held horizontal without the ball slipping.
It also has a very convenient quick release plate:
You unlock 'B', press the button 'A', unlatch and rotate - and the camera comes straight off. Reverse to lock.
You do have to make sure it's latched though. I didn't, once, but fortunately caught the camera as it fell. Never made that mistake again.
It would be perfect but for one annoying oversight in my view, and that is it only fits 1/4" threaded tripods/monopods. If only it could be adapted to fit 3/8" as well...
It always amazes me how well it grips even heavy kit wherever you release the trigger though!
Comment by Tooks posted on Which Tripod Ball Head? at 29/09/2009 - 09:14
simonarthurs wrote:
I'm looking to upgrade from my manfrotto pan and tilt to a ball head
I've got a 190xprob series tripod, I use a K10D with battery grip and sigma 10-20, sigma macro 70 and tamron 70-300 lenses..... I shoot landscape and macro and use the quick release plate to shoot hand held from time to time.
Does anyone have any views on the Manfrotto 468MGRC4 Hydrostatic Ball head with RC4 or the Manfrotto 468MGRC5 Hydrostatic Ball Head or the Manfrotto 468MGRC3 Hydrostatic Ball Head
What about any other brands?
any comments would be appreciated.
You don't mention a budget, although if you're looking at the ones you linked to then it's quite big! I'm looking to upgrade from my manfrotto pan and tilt to a ball head
I've got a 190xprob series tripod, I use a K10D with battery grip and sigma 10-20, sigma macro 70 and tamron 70-300 lenses..... I shoot landscape and macro and use the quick release plate to shoot hand held from time to time.
Does anyone have any views on the Manfrotto 468MGRC4 Hydrostatic Ball head with RC4 or the Manfrotto 468MGRC5 Hydrostatic Ball Head or the Manfrotto 468MGRC3 Hydrostatic Ball Head
What about any other brands?
any comments would be appreciated.
However, I'll throw you a curve ball, I have one of these;
link
I purchased it after buying one of their excellent tripods, and I think it's superb for the cash. It will easily hold the kit you list, with spare capacity. Check out some reviews via Google/other photo sites, and see what they say...
The Manfrotto stuff is lovely though.
Comment by Tooks posted on Which Tripod Ball Head? at 28/09/2009 - 23:12
You could do a lot worse than look at the Red Snapper range of tripods and heads.
link
I own the 283C version, and with a Gimbal type head it supports a large DSLR/Grip/and 300mm+ lenses rock solid. I also have the RSH-12 Ball Head for landscape/other work.
The kit is amazing for the price, and customer service is top notch too.
I also have a Slik Pro 400 DX and head, which is also a very sturdy tripod for general photography work, but it's heavier than the Red Snapper Carbon, so generally gets left behind!
link
I own the 283C version, and with a Gimbal type head it supports a large DSLR/Grip/and 300mm+ lenses rock solid. I also have the RSH-12 Ball Head for landscape/other work.
The kit is amazing for the price, and customer service is top notch too.
I also have a Slik Pro 400 DX and head, which is also a very sturdy tripod for general photography work, but it's heavier than the Red Snapper Carbon, so generally gets left behind!
Comment by Tooks posted on I'm after a tripod! at 20/09/2009 - 11:24
I voted yes also.
As Photography is a visual medium, it makes perfect sense to show what your talking about via a posted picture in the thread.
Personally, I've learnt a great deal about post processing and composition when folks have done this with my pics.
My only additional point would be to explain what has been changed and how along with the re-posted picture so that the OP can benefit from it, and that it's not just seen as 'show-boating' on behalf of the re-poster.
As Photography is a visual medium, it makes perfect sense to show what your talking about via a posted picture in the thread.
Personally, I've learnt a great deal about post processing and composition when folks have done this with my pics.
My only additional point would be to explain what has been changed and how along with the re-posted picture so that the OP can benefit from it, and that it's not just seen as 'show-boating' on behalf of the re-poster.
Comment by Tooks posted on Re-editing others' pictures at 11/09/2009 - 15:01
Forums sometimes bring out the best, but quite often the worst in people.
Why some people write what they write from behind a keyboard and monitor, when clearly it would be the height of rudeness said in, say, a pub or cafe, is one of those questions I'll probably never find an answer to!
Is this thread all done now as well?
Why some people write what they write from behind a keyboard and monitor, when clearly it would be the height of rudeness said in, say, a pub or cafe, is one of those questions I'll probably never find an answer to!
Is this thread all done now as well?
Comment by Tooks posted on And it's goodbye from me at 08/09/2009 - 12:13
True, Britain didn't get the moniker 'Treasure Island' by a lot of exporters for nothing!
I've imported quite a bit of stuff, but on balance (and after a couple of bits went wrong which necessitated all manner of trouble trying to get them fixed) I would rather stump up the extra for the reassurance of a UK shop to help me out.
I've imported quite a bit of stuff, but on balance (and after a couple of bits went wrong which necessitated all manner of trouble trying to get them fixed) I would rather stump up the extra for the reassurance of a UK shop to help me out.
Comment by Tooks posted on No More Samsung GX at 08/09/2009 - 11:33
It's a Nikon camera, naughty boy