Archive for the 'hardware' Category

While I’m working on my comeback post(s)

‍‍ד׳ ניסן ה׳ תשע״ד - Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

Here’s what the last 7 months looks like, just from the hardware side.  No idea why I obsessively did this now (well I do, outgrowth of one long explanatory Facebook PM and one phonecall about a potential future project/endeavour) because I have had three places to be.  Hardware for site 2 is only partly deployed (but assembled and 90% configured) but will be done next week and site 3 hardware (other than the AP/routers which were done three years ago) is built but is being used for testing and will deployed sometime in the next few months.  Travel is difficult with Athena.

Making this rundown a page rather than a post as it’s in flux and it, like life, are always subject to and the subject of change.
Traditional photo equipment (think enlargers and development, not cameras and lenses) and fabrication/power tools which come after this is done have seen some work and a month or two of time, but are excluded for now.

A Nikon system for all bodies, all focusing methods, all lighting situations (or: how to get me to post here – write long answers to Facebook questions.)

‍‍כ״ג סיון ה׳ תשע״ג - Friday, May 31st, 2013

In response to this question in the F2 group on Facebook.

Did a quick run up through that list, and his price would be consistent with dealers selling those items used (without adding in smaller items, prices on the MD2+MB-1 and PB/PS-6 can vary a lot, didn’t bother with the Vivitar; it’s not really worth much) at roughly Adorama’s Ex- or bettter cosmetic KEH BGN items my running tally on my calculator was 3050. Of course, you would get a 3 or 6 month warranty there, respectively, plus grace return, but you would not likely get boxes.

It’s neither here nor there – much will depend on what you want. I own much of these, have tried, rejected some. Here are some notes, FWIW, Bjorn Rorslett is a good subjective resource; I only disagree with one or two of his assessments. (I ended up reordering these by focal length to consider overlap.)

20 2.8 AIS I’ve handled it, some in store images, played with a freind’s copy; never felt the desire for it. While Rockwell and Rorslett end up giving it a similar “rating,” I think Rockwell’s description of it as “typical wide Nikkor prime” (barrel distortion, veiling flare wide open, etc.) is dead on; better “technical” performance will be found in later designs.

24/2.0 AIS This feels a lot like the 35/1.4 to me, only it take even longer to sharpen up and dispose of flare; it is a lens I’ve tried and don’t own.

28/2.8 AI It’s a dated, albeit fine lens, but the AIS close focus is better (for my purposes) and other than price ($150), I would skip both of these and go for the real gem of the MF Nikkor wides – the 28/2.0 AIS.

35/1.4 AI (mine is AIS; identical as far as I know, other than the standard mechanical change of focus throw/grease and 7 vs 9 (AIS) blades.) I use this lens out of necessity; had the Samyang or Zeiss been out at the time, I would own those. Very bad CA on FF digital. AIS copies I’ve seen tend to have Schneideritis, haven’t seen enough AI copies to speak to that.

50/1.4 AF(D?) Nothing specific to say about this; it’s very much a typical post AI 50/1.4. Manual focus will be a weakness. With respect to other options, it doesn’t have the technical distorion flatness of the 50/2.0 AI, the low light abilities of a 58/1.2, the romance and sheer T/stop of the 55/1.2, the modern utility of the CV 58/1.4 SLII, the unique formula of the 5.8cm/1.4, the pastels of the 50/1.4 non-AI SC, the modern abilities of the 50/1.4G or (and fantastic non-vignetting of the) Sigma 50/1.4 – of course, these would be useless on all but the last AF film bodies. Yes, I have a lot of normal lenses for 35mm.

85/2.0 AI (I think I have the AIS) Bjorn is correct on his claims of a “grey” rendition; Ken Rockwell is correct about the handling of this lens; it’s almost exactly the same barrel, size, and weight of the K style non-AI 50/1.4. If you need a compact 85 to go with a FG or FM bodies, this is your one choice. But it has a rendering style that doesn’t do much for me.

85mm/1.8 AF If this is the non AF-D version, then this is the first AF Nikkor I ever owned, bought from B&H used, I think just after they moved into the “new” store on 9th Ave. It is really a nice lens, I think formally better than any of the other slow 85mm options and a 9 blade AF lens at that. However, this really is ever slightly larger than the worst AF focus rings Nikon has made (70-210/4, I’m looking at you) and it is pretty bulky given the maximum aperture; this also makes the screwdriver AF particularly slow.

80-200mm/2.8 AF-ED If this is the one ring/push pull version, I hate it. Whether 1 or 2 ring zoom designs are better for manual focus, that one ring design is not. Now the 2 ring version, well, consider that in 1996 that was the top of the line tele zoom and remains for sale today, unchanged, outlasting numerous successor models. Even by the standards of manual lenses, this is a decent manual focus feel. I haven’t used this on my D800E, so I don’t know how well it holds up there, but if you want to avoid G lenses, what else are you going to use – often for $500 used?
***NOTE*** The M / A ring on the 2-ring tends to slightly fracture and can completely break. Be gentle with it; you may need to encircle and support the ring with your thumb and index finger to properly rotate it.

Wow, I just meant to write the 1st paragraph. If you knew all this, well, I hope it’s useful to someone. I don’t know if you are using this to jump start a working Nikon collection on an F2 body, (this doesn’t feel like a shelf collector’s set) whether you plan to use this on MF and AF film bodies, digital Nikons and/or Canons (I do all those). Now, this is obviously in light of my use (tending towards available light, MF, and avoiding G lenses), but I think there is too much overlap here; and some more modern, cheaper options. For that person, well, I would spend my money today on some combination of these:

Nikkor 17-35/2.8 AFS – $800 and forget about the below
Zeiss 24/2.8 – 500(ZF)-800(ZF2) though not a huge fan, no CRC but close focus
*Nikkor 28/2.0 AIS -$500 CRC and really good at it.
Samyang 35/1.4 – $450 certainly over my 35/1.4 AIS
Nikkor 35/2.0 AIS – $250 budget option, no CRC

40-58mm – Depends on purpose.  Always keep one of the AI/AIS 1.8 low distortion ones around for “in the field” copy type work $100.

*Samyang 85/1.4 – $260 (Yes, really.  One lives on one of my F2AS bodies.)
*Nikkor 105/2.0 DC – $700-$1000 (watch for decentering – may be wise to buy new, best manual focus on an AF lens, very misunderstood)
Nikkor 80-200/2.8D – As needed, above.

Some other older notes from a while back (though considered for a 5DII, many Nikkors though).

Facebook Q & A, June 3, 2012

‍‍י״ד סיון ה׳ תשע״ב - Sunday, June 3rd, 2012

Tonight, Shirley Roberson asked about the work posted to Facebook and the Public Rotation album in particular :

I really like the ones where the subject is in the back and very sharp and the people or things up front are muted. How do get this look, if I may ask. And do you ask the people for permission or are these candid shots?

I had written up an answer that was going up as a Facebook comment, but it got so long, I decided to move it here for the ability to provide links and edit text.

Answer:   The area in space that is rendered as sharp is called “depth of field” and is often the marker of so-called professional work for a number of reasons and (not exhaustively) these are some good ones: lenses or mechanisms that provide for shallow and/or controllable fields are typically expensive, and the camera sensor/film size must larger than common cameras for it to be distinctly notable, and the thinner and more complex the shape of the plane the more skill is required.

The shape of that area is effectively controlled by three things: the magnification ratio – the ratio of the object in reality to the object as recorded by film/sensor, the aperture of the lens, and the lens position and (focus, tilts, swings, etc.) relative to the film/sensor. Also, you have to realize (as you implied) that what’s important in terms of composing for human perception is the contrast between sharpness and unsharpness. You only begin to see unsharpness once you go below the weakest link in the chain – for example, it doesn’t matter if you have sharpest lens in the world – you won’t see it if you are printing to newspaper (which has very coarse, dithered dots). It’s actually a moderately complicated subject.

As far as permission or candid – that too is complicated. In general, in the US so long as one is in public and a person’s likeness is not used commercially – think in an advertisement, not a sold fine art piece, permission is not needed. Much of my work is wholly surreptitious even though my cameras – which usually weigh at least 4 lbs – are worn openly. Nevertheless, to call it candid is inaccurate. People are generally predictable and actually are controllable. Eye contact, shifting equipment or limbs, changing the angle of your path on the street, and so forth can not just elicit responses, but actually induce people to move to the desired part of the frame for purely compositional reasons, e.g. to control weighting of areas or to present color and luminous contrast to a chosen background.

You might not realize that I need to use manual focus lenses for these techniques and have to have my lens set well before I even get to the time, place, and angle I intend to use… and I usually can’t be looking in the direction of my subject. In short, I usually have 1-6 inches of error, have to predict the future, envision the camera’s perspective from another point in space (and time), and not have the subject (or sometimes anyone) notice what I am doing. The last two mean, that in effect, I work with my eyes closed (sometimes less than effect – I have worked that way). I find that most times people assume – to the point of not asking – that a motor drive is used, that I shoot many frames per second. In fact, to keep the mechanism of my usual digital camera quiet, my 5DII is set to an advance mode where I can release the shutter once every two or three seconds at most – and that maximum doesn’t usually work either, because that begins to give away your interest in the subject. The film cameras typically don’t have motor drives.

That process isn’t magic and can be taught, but it does require time and exercises and I know of no one who has written this down.  (Yet.  Maybe.)  I also don’t know of many “photographers” who would put in the time to develop the ability.  A related concept (minus the surreptitious prediction and manipulation bit) is called blocking, but being a cinematography  concept, usually needs to be explained to still photographers.  (Not that “DP”s are any better.  They suck too.  Except for the ones that don’t.)

So as to stop repeating myself, let me say

‍‍ו׳ ניסן ה׳ תשע״ב - Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

I’ve made a few additions to my ever neglected site.

I decided that rough is better than none, so I posted a preliminary write up of the Hasselblad 2000 FCW. Fortunately, I can cut and paste much of that V body’s review into other pages, so hopfully it will speed up the 500 ELX and 500 C(/M) reviews.

Also, I found I tend to repeat the same damn pearls of wisdom in one too many conversations, so I figured I’d make a running list and expand on each one of them in a blog post. I don’t think there is any particular order for them, but we’ll see. It might even get me to write more.

Again, we’ll see.

There oughta be a word

‍‍י״ג שבט ה׳ תשע״ב - Sunday, February 5th, 2012

There oughta be a word to describe a word which results in the exact opposite response than it should at first glance. Stripped screws are not as fun as they sound. Actually, one of my least favorite things.

The benefits of having a brain: being brighter.

‍‍י״ב טבת ה׳ תשע״ב - Friday, January 6th, 2012

Cool article (based on the abstract and source – I haven’t gotten a chance to read it yet).  Another benefit to being smarter and more technical that 95% of photographers is to realize how abjectly dumb you are and how relevant some of those unknowns (and unknown unknowns) are… which means you go out and read the work of really smart people.

I will say this again-

There is no “too technical,” only “not artistic enough.”