Search results

No, you're correct. I'm calling "grain" here to what is actually dye clouds. But they get a grainy appearance. Ever optically printed some Superia 1600, HG 1600 or Royal Gold 1000? You would definitely call the results "grainy".

Here's a scaled down image of the full 35mm frame, for reference. Again, no additional sharpenning aplied. Cubic algorithm for resizing.

If grain is way smaller than what your scanner can resolve, then you don't see it. If the grain is bigger, at a certain point, the size of the grain gives away to the problem of "grain aliasing" which will give an artificial, exaggerated representation of the grain. Throw in the big levels of...

Ok, i understand and agree on being an unfair comparison. But a regular macro lens taking a picture of the full medium format frame of a MF negative still gives better results than an epson flatbeds, as the tests show. Much better results.

I already did the experiment, as described, by comparing a V700 scan vs a enlarged MF negative, both scan and enlargements done by the same professional lab. A very professional lab that has been around here since 1982. Basically the top professional lab here. No contest, the "normal" enlarger...

Yep, night and day.

Yes, this is my main point, and i previously spoke of doing exactly that test; the optical enlargement was so much better it really seemed like coming from a different camera and lens. Again, it might be OK for many applications (i.e. internet posts). But for me it defeats one of the purposes...

Only the Pentax LX qualifies with all criterias. If you drop the "relatively low weight & size", i'd add the Canon New F-1 to the list. And the Nikon F4/5/6 and Canon EOS-1 series! If you drop the "something more advanced" requirement too, I'd add the Nikon F2 and Leicaflex models.

Best reply !

At 1200g sans lens, I'd rather carry my Bronica ETRSi and get the huge increase in image quality. That said, I owned a Nikon D1x, which is based on the F5, and loved it.

But I don't. I have good vision. And I can focus in low light easily with my F2, Canon New F-1, Pentax MX, KX, ME... however the F3 was much harder to focus on the exact same subject using the same 35/2 Nikkor I like so much to use. Unless I fit the special G2 screen, which then only works fine...

I'd say it's the only Nikon manual focus era SLR with a tolerable photo taking sound. Although I like how a good Nikkormat sounds. The FM, FM2, FE, FE2 all have an ugly sound. How about a Pentax MX? I like its sound. Leicaflex?

I would say the F3 succeeded despite its shortcomings. You also forgot to mention that the F4 was a much more expensive camera. In 1989, a F3 with 50/1.4 costed $1602. A F4 with the 50/1.4 costed $2735. Source: Pop Photo Dec. 1989 guide. So the F3 had good sales for two decades because it also...

It's not a comparable figure. The "6x magnification" is the loupe's power. The "0.80" figure is relative to the life-size subject you're looking through the finder.

Care to explain more of the double jointed mirror? I once serviced a SR-7S and the mirror appear to have a swingback mechanism. This allows larger mirrors. The Pentax 6x7 has a swingback mirror too, the K2 too.

Yeah! I want to know where to buy this improved Foma 400 with smaller grain than ever!!

I forgot to mention that i'm outside the USA. My point of view is the one of an international buyer.

No, i'm using hyperbole. But I really don't understand why Nikon went with that viewfinder, having had a really good viewfinder on the F2. And subsequent machines (i.e. N8008) had good viewfinders as well.

Indeed it sounds beautiful. And it feels so solid in the hand!!

Just to illustrate my point -- Image sourced from the internet, but there are quite a few articles out there that do similar tests and reach similar conclusions.

You example is typical of epson flatbed scans -- i can see the loss of quality there. Again, to each its own -- if this is good enough for your application then all is fine.

Brother Mohmad, I don't understand how these rolls are giving such bad results on E6 or even on C41 processes. Have you tried bringing them to other lab? Those films should give better images, even despite them being outdated.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

I do repair cameras too, and I hate bad technicians. If you send out a camera for repair and it returns with other issues, then that's a very bad camera tech, don't you think? Suggesting to blame the tech and not the camera is helpful. Because some people think electronic cameras like the RZ67...

The triumph of FORM over FUNCTION. The downfall of Nikon.

Replace your technician, not your camera.

This. Exactly my experience. And i have the F2SB so I get SPD meter cells and LED display.

F2 is overall a better camera: Better viewfinder, better metering display, better built, more versatile with metering options (you can get full aperture metering with rabbit-ears pre-AI or with AI lenses). The F3 is more ergonomic and lighter. Balances better. Has TTL flash too. But it has a...

I have used USPS many times but i don't like it. In japan a shipping using FedEx International Priority or DHL costs about the same price (or less!) than the same item shipped with USPS Intl' Priority from the US. And it's far faster.

This.