Gear discussion thread v. "I got some new gear and I got to post it here" - General

Can a hobbyist negative scanner be had for under £50? Plenty on eBay but they're probably pretty shit. Is there a budget brand I should look out for? Just want to be able to scan and look over my negs real quick rather than meeting my buddy with an archive scanner. [editline]1st April 2014[/editline] I mean shit, I've got a spare iPhone4 kicking around, would it be worth getting one of those iPhone scanners?

if you have a DSLR just make a ghetto set-up and 'scan' your negatives with your DSLR

^DigitalRev did a video on how to do it with coffee cups, it works okay. Probably could be really good but I only spent about an hour or two doing it.

i think i've come up with a p good system, not very quick but is good for that one shot you want in good quality: 1) scan in prints 1.5) take macro photo of negative 1.75) invert negative, [I]roughly[/I] correct colours 1.875) get print scan to where you want it 1.9375) get print scan and negative photo into photoshop, use the print scan for colours and the negative photo for the luminance 2) throw it all away and just use the print scan because cba I find that the prints have the colour that I want whereas the negative photos are sharper and less smeared and stuff, and since colour resolution can be a lot less than luma resolution this approach works surpisingly well

I don't have a DSLR. Hobbyist through and through. I could try using my Fuji X10's 'super macro' mode haha. There are Epson V330 scanners at uni but the little plastic neg adaptors are looooooong gone.

Look what I picked up at ye ol thrift store [img]http://catchmypicture.com/u6rp2X.jpg[/img] I can't believe people sell this cam for $800!!!

I was looking for one of those at some point but only saw them around 75 euro, which was too expensive for me.

i got it for 3 bux [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] its needs a new battery, of course [editline]2nd April 2014[/editline] the shutter wont fire [img]http://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/negativeman-55f.png[/img] it was so cheap, i might just get it repaired

-snip- More than often the spring which drives this camera snaps also rendering the camera unusable. Real world value lies around 50 usd/euro/gbp FYI. Though I also have seen them for crazy money online. EDIT: It does use batteries, I was still under the impression that the ring around the lens would be a Selenium metering cell. But it's actually a CDs meter. Uses old mercury type batteries though.

So I was handed down a Nikon FA The batteries still work after being in there 20 years I haven't done film photography in about 10 years, I assumed after I set the film speed, all I need to do is adjust shutter speed/aperture until I get the metering to say "-+" in manual mode.

[QUOTE=frag4life;44427975]-snip- More than often the spring which drives this camera snaps also rendering the camera unusable. Real world value lies around 50 usd/euro/gbp FYI. Though I also have seen them for crazy money online. EDIT: It does use batteries, I was still under the impression that the ring around the lens would be a Selenium metering cell. But it's actually a CDs meter. Uses old mercury type batteries though.[/QUOTE] its true that the battery is only used for the meter, however, the spring drive does work, because i put a roll of film in the camera and twisted it and it wound up tight, and when the shutter didn't fire, i used the rewind feature, and it rewound, so the spring drive does work, its just the shutter or the firing mechanism that's screwed up.

it's probably the lubricants in it migrating and separating, try removing any grease and replacing it with graphite lubricant

I put my Contaflex Beta in the oven to un-stiffen the focus ring. Can't believe it actually worked.

[QUOTE=roflcakes;44430759]I put my Contaflex Beta in the oven to un-stiffen the focus ring. Can't believe it actually worked.[/QUOTE] That sounds like one of those faux "life hacks" that really end up setting your house on fire or something... :v

A photography buddy of mine recommended it. He shoots a lot of medium format and is constantly dealing with old ass cameras. Put your oven on it's lowest setting for 10 minutes, turn it off and throw your camera in. Check on it every few minutes until it loosens up.

Sounds about right. It's loosening the lubricants which were probably dried up. Make sure they didn't loosen into the aperture though, then you would have a much worse problem

I've never heard of that one but the most common one I have heard of is lighter fluid.

Bought myself one of these as an early birthday present (not my photo). A Tokina 28-70mm f2.6-2.8 [img]http://www.dyxum.com/images/Lenses/182/182_1.jpg[/img] There's some dirt on the inner element but overall the image quality seems quite decent especially for $140. Going to use it on my 9xi for the 8 remaining shots on my roll and see how it works out, and if it's good then I'm going to do a set of it and Portra 400. A film camera I can use in lowlight and daylight!!!!!!

what's the point of constant aperture zooms like wouldn't it be worthwhile having a faster aperture on the wide end whilst still maintaining the old constant one on the long (like a 2.8 24-70 is capable of something like f/1.2 on the 24 end if it uses the same aperture as 2.8 on the 70 end)

what cables/programs do people doing studio work use to get the image to pop up on their computer the second they take the image

the usb cable connecting ur camera to the computer for tethered capture

None because 1D mark 2 has a broke firewire port :(

[QUOTE=Eltro102;44443191]what's the point of constant aperture zooms like wouldn't it be worthwhile having a faster aperture on the wide end whilst still maintaining the old constant one on the long (like a 2.8 24-70 is capable of something like f/1.2 on the 24 end if it uses the same aperture as 2.8 on the 70 end)[/QUOTE] I think it's done to maintain image quality, and something about the effective limiting aperture being the tube itself and not the actual aperture mechanism. I would need to look into it more though Here's a better explanation of it [quote]I will attempt to explain why constant aperture is more complex. First of all, for those really interested, Pierre Toscani's website ( [url]http://www.pierretoscani.com/annexeGB.html[/url] ) has a number of pages that have some of the best animations of lens principles ever seen on the web. But let me summarize to a point. Almost all zoom lenses are actually made up of three distinct groups of lens elements: at the rear, we have a regular lens, corrected for all the good stuff, like spherical aberration, coma, image plane planarity, colour aberrations and everything else that comes to mind. That lens usually contains the diaphragm, so that it can be stopped down. As we know from Nikon's lens catalogue, a half-decent prime lens contains at least six elements, consisting of two Cook-triplets, sometimes broken up into additional elements to obtain additional benefits. In front of this sits the "variator". Pierre Toscani explains this better than anyone, and you can play with mouse-over animations that illustrate this principle [url]http://www.pierretoscani.com/echo_telezooms_english.html[/url] . The variator can only work, if it consists of two lens groups, which move in relation to each other. The front one is a "positive" group, i.e. it concentrates rays, while the second group is a negative one, i.e. it makes rays diverge. When the light exits the variator, parallel rays are parallel again, but the variator has managed to make those ray bundles converge or diverge, to create larger or smaller images on a sliding scale. These images are now projected onto the sensor by the regular lens at the back. If we only make the variator big enough in diameter (there are limits when it comes to wide-angle constructions, but I leave this aside), the whole zoom lens will be of constant aperture, namely the aperture f-value of that proper lens. The elements of the variator are ideally Cook triplets into themselves, so that we arrive at a construction of at least 12 elements. It gets more complicated now: Such a zoom as described above still has a number of limitations. For VR, add another Cook triplet. Also, every one of these groups moves, if focusing and zooming is carried out. We have become a demanding lot: we want the front element to be stationary (add another three elements or so), we want internal focusing (add some more) and we want wide-angle zooms, which complicate the construction even more, because we cannot use the space which is occupied by the mirror box. Of course, the lens designers look for short cuts, to achieve zoom constructions for consumer lenses that do not have 18 or more elements, plus exceedingly complicated gears to move the groups, and to retain focus when we zoom through the range. One of the possible short cuts: let the second part of the variator be a part of the actual lens. The rays that come out of the variator are now no longer parallel; rather they look like a ray bundle somewhere inside a prime lens. If the rays are so compromised, the aperture now becomes variable, because we cannot make the inside elements big enough that they catch all of a diverging bundle at the extremes, thus limiting the f-number as the bundle opens up to emulate a tele lens. The most dumbed-down zoom lens construction I have ever seen is the old 18-55 DX (not to be confused with the fairly decent 18-55VR that is the only lens of this range now), which uses every short-cut in the book to get down to just 7 elements. The actual lens is a Tessar-type (no triplets); out front is a large negative lens to achieve retrofocus, and two more elements make up the variator. More precisely, the negative front element does double duty as retrofocus diverger and being one half of the front variator. The rays after the variator are not parallel. Since that abominable lens, the pendulum has swung back towards more quality. Pierre Toscani has a good rendition of the 70-300mm VR (which closes from 4.5 to 5.6 as you zoom through the range), but has otherwise fairly decent qualities. Of course, you pay for additional luxuries, and the present 70-200VRII is one of the most elegant constructions anywhere. It does cost 4 times as much for a reason... Summing up: Constant aperture zooms have a complex construction that separates variator from lens. They cannot be opened up on the short end, because they are "lens-limited". Variable-aperture zooms are less complex, they are "variator-limited". [/quote]

Quietly impressed that my X10 is F2.0 at 28 and F2.8 at 112. Also my lens hood arrived the other day. Look at this handsome motherfucker (apologies for the smartphone snapshit): [img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2016622/x10hood.jpg[/img] Just a shame the lens extends so much when you're actually using the camera though. It's like, imagine if Ryan Gosling jutted his jaw out like a cave man every time he talked.

Got this handsome mo-fo in the mail today. Yesss. [url=https://flic.kr/p/mK5QQy][img]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/13614689424_4bd86680e4_c.jpg[/img][/url]

[QUOTE=blarghith;44446129]Got this handsome mo-fo in the mail today. Yesss. [url=https://flic.kr/p/mK5QQy][img]https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7082/13614689424_4bd86680e4_c.jpg[/img][/url][/QUOTE] What is the focal length of the lens and effective aperture? It's possible to use it as a photo lens, I've seen it done before but you would need to make calculations based on the focal length.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;44446160]What is the focal length of the lens and effective aperture? It's possible to use it as a photo lens, I've seen it done before but you would need to make calculations based on the focal length.[/QUOTE] I've already got a clamp comin' in the mail, gonna try it with my 50mm. I tried flipping it around and taking some macro shots with it and they turned out AMAZING. :b EDIT: Oh, right, focal length- 60mm. EDIT-EDIT: Just realized I can't do wide angle shots with this one. Oh well. :/

[QUOTE=blarghith;44446169]I've already got a clamp comin' in the mail, gonna try it with my 50mm. I tried flipping it around and taking some macro shots with it and they turned out AMAZING. :b EDIT: Oh, right, focal length- 60mm. EDIT-EDIT: Just realized I can't do wide angle shots with this one. Oh well. :/[/QUOTE] Yeah I think you ordered a projector lens, not an anamorphic lens. Projector lenses work similarly to enlarging lenses, where their focal length is at what distance they achieve infinity focus (in your case 60mm from the film plane will achieve infinity). I don't think it works as an auxiliary add on like an anamorphic would.

[QUOTE=Trogdon;44446269]Yeah I think you ordered a projector lens, not an anamorphic lens. Projector lenses work similarly to enlarging lenses, where their focal length is at what distance they achieve infinity focus (in your case 60mm from the film plane will achieve infinity). I don't think it works as an auxiliary add on like an anamorphic would.[/QUOTE] Hahaaa, yup...guess so. Welp, moral of the story kids, do your research before getting super excited and ordering the cheapest one. :/ It still takes kick-ass macro shots, though. And...I guess I can take super awesome portraits if I tried...right?

[QUOTE=blarghith;44446340]Hahaaa, yup...guess so. Welp, moral of the story kids, do your research before getting super excited and ordering the cheapest one. :/ It still takes kick-ass macro shots, though. And...I guess I can take super awesome portraits if I tried...right?[/QUOTE] It could, I guess it mostly just depends on if it was intended for 35mm projection or 70mm projection. Here's a bit of a read if you are interested in trying to make a photo lens with it [url]http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/projector-lens-first-pictures_topic105704.html[/url] I would suggest trying to free lens it using liveview (hold it in front of your camera with no lens on and see if you can get it to make an image on your sensor) and see what that looks like.