Primes vs zooms

In article 2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...tography-camer
a
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-Fuji.jsp

that's just a camera that's omits the ir cut filter from the factory
and marketed specifically *for* infrared. consider it already modified.

fuji used to sell an slr that required signing a release to buy it:
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/02/fuji-makes-you-sign.html

On 2015-12-16 22:50:38 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...tography-camer
a
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-Fuji.jsp

that's

just a camera that's omits the ir cut filter from the factory
and marketed specifically *for* infrared. consider it already modified.

Exactly. I just don't get the premium $1700 price for the body. I know
that modifying my D70 would cost considerably less. The amount I would
actually use an IR or UV camera is not a number high enough for me to
consider going to those lengths.


fuji used to sell an slr that required signing a release to buy it:
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/02/fuji-makes-you-sign.html

That is rather odd. It must be a Japnese thing.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015121615050995429-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...photography-ca
mer
a

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/new...Newsletter-Fuj
i.jsp


just a camera that's omits the ir cut filter from the factory
and marketed specifically *for* infrared. consider it already modified.

Exactly. I just don't get the premium $1700 price for the body. I know
that modifying my D70 would cost considerably less.

that new fuji is quite a bit better than a d70, and only $400 premium
over a non-infrared version, which is in line with how much modifying a
camera would cost. it's a special purpose tool and priced accordingly.

a decade ago, fuji sold an infrared slr, the fuji s3 uvir, for $1800:
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6931090115/fujifilms3prouvir

The amount I would
actually use an IR or UV camera is not a number high enough for me to
consider going to those lengths.

a more cost effective option is look on ebay for already modified
cameras. if you aren't in a rush, you can snag a very good deal,
sometimes under $100.

a non-slr is preferable because of live view, and they also tend to be
less expensive, which is ideal for experimenting with it.

fuji used to sell an slr that required signing a release to buy it:
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/02/fuji-makes-you-sign.html

That is rather odd. It must be a Japnese thing.

originally, fuji marketed their infrared cameras only to law
enforcement and other special purpose customers. later, they started
offering it to the public with that silly eula.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

i'm *very* familiar with infrared photography.

What a surprise! nospam claiming to be an expert in yet another
subject!

what a surprise, tony being a condescending asshole.

On 16/12/2015 22:44, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-12-16 22:04:06 +0000, newshound said:

On 13/12/2015 18:07, Savageduck wrote:

Just another point to consider.

In my 35mm days I only had one zoom, a Tokina 80-200mm f/4.5 MF K-mount
for my K1000. Otherwise my working prime was the 50mm f/2. Then I had my
Yashica Electro 35 with a Yashinon 45mm f/1.7.

Currently my only primes are my Nikkor 35mm f/2, and my Fujinon XF 35mm
f/1.4. I am seriously looking at adding either the Fujinon XF 18mm f/2,
or the Fujinon XF 14mm f/2.8 to my bag.

Currently I am a two system shooter with both Nikon and Fuji, and I am
leaning toward a complete move to all Fuji.



Ah, the Yashica Electro 35. I couldn't afford one of them, but I had
the 35 cc with the 35 mm f/1.8 lens, and what a superb camera that
was. I have it in front of me now.

I still have mine, though I had to have the battery chamber converted as
the original battery became history over 20 years ago. I didn't think
the Electro 35 was over priced, though mine was a PX purchase in 1970.

The only thing I wished it had was an ASA setting going a couple of
stops below 25 ASA to help compensate for reciprocity failure with
Kodachrome II (the best film in the world, IMHO).

In many ways the Fuju XE-1 is its spiritual successor.

The Fujifilm X-E1 is leaps and bounds beyond those late 60's - early
70's Yashicas. There were a few issues with the Electro 35 the most
important was the inability to go full manual, or shutter priority. You
were locked into aperture priority with the metering controlling shutter
speed. You could fool the processor by setting your chosen aperture and
then tweaking the ASA setting. There was no ISO or DIN setting on mine.
However, it never failed me and I always got good images with a whole
mix of film types. I have no doubt that I will still be able to get
images I would be pleased with today.


Oh of course the XE-1 has much more capability. What I meant was that
they are both compact and robust cameras giving you something like Leica
quality images for a fraction of the price, very easy to use with
minimal intervention, and able to tackle a huge range of image types and
exposure conditions only really limited by focal length of the lens.
It's probably the X100 which is really the one to compare with, but (to
go back to the original topic) my feeling is that lenses like the 18-55
are so good that only the really serious purist needs to collect and
carry around a series of primes. (That said, I do have the 18mm).

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-12-16 21:10:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That's the key you can, you can take yuor tri-x out and put in Pan
F or
any other film including I.R something you can't do as easily with
a
digital camera,
as yuo have to change the whole sensor not something yuo can do in
a few
mniutes and not something most people can do.

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your
lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji-x-t1-ir-infrared-video-photography-camera
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-Fuji.jsp

....or if it has a removable IR filter.

In article , "PAS"
wrote:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-12-16 21:10:21 +0000, nospam said:

In article , PeterN
wrote:

That's the key you can, you can take yuor tri-x out and put in Pan
F or
any other film including I.R something you can't do as easily with
a
digital camera,
as yuo have to change the whole sensor not something yuo can do in
a few
mniutes and not something most people can do.

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your
lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...hotography-cam
era
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/new...ewsletter-Fuji
.jsp

...or if it has a removable IR filter.

You can do as Peter says but the spectrum utilized will be very narrow.
I've done it with the EOS M. Kinda funky! :-)
--
teleportation kills

On 12/16/2015 6:05 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-12-16 22:50:38 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your
lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...tography-camer

a
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-Fuji.jsp


that's

just a camera that's omits the ir cut filter from the factory
and marketed specifically *for* infrared. consider it already modified.

Exactly. I just don't get the premium $1700 price for the body. I know
that modifying my D70 would cost considerably less. The amount I would
actually use an IR or UV camera is not a number high enough for me to
consider going to those lengths.


fuji used to sell an slr that required signing a release to buy it:
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/02/fuji-makes-you-sign.html

That is rather odd. It must be a Japnese thing.



Don't know if it would work with a D70. But try an R72 filter, and put
the camera on a tripod. It works great for landscapes, when there are no
breezes. Most likely yo can get one with a right of return. i know I
said this earlier, and it works on some Nikons.

--
PeterN

On 12/17/2015 5:19 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015 15:06:38 UTC, peterN wrote:
On 12/16/2015 8:24 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 December 2015 12:27:57 UTC, nospam wrote:
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

I believe it's worth noting that back then the "sensor" was the
film, and it was effectively changed for every shot.

no it wasn't.

In the context, it was. For every shot, the film is advanced,
revealing a
new
"sensor", and if you did get dust on the preceding "sensor" it
wouldn't
carry
over to the new.

it's just another part of the same roll.

the claim that dust gets cleared on each frame is a myth.

did anyone say that dust gets cleared ?

yes, and that's wrong.

I see you've never used film.

plenty, and dust was a huge problem with film.

Plenty of people managed to get good pictures without needing to worry about it to much. The possibility of scratches was a far greater problem, suprised you didn't know that.



it's possible
that it might and it's possible that it might not. it's also possible
that new dust might appear. it's completely unrelated.

The only thing you can be reasonabley sure of is that each frame of film
isn't completely identical unless you've taken serious steps to make sure
they are.

each frame of film is identical per roll, without any effort needed.

except it isn't.

of course it is. if you put a roll of tri-x in, every frame is going to
be tri-x. it doesn't change mid-roll.

That's the key you can, you can take yuor tri-x out and put in Pan F or any other film including I.R something you can't do as easily with a digital camera,
as yuo have to change the whole sensor not something yuo can do in a few mniutes and not something most people can do.


IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your lens.
You may Google for the technique.



You've obviously never done IR.

Slapping a filter over your lens doesn;t give you IR it just eliminates certain visible wavelenghs that aren;t IR.

True. It's not forensic IR and technically it's near IR. But, it works
well for photography.

BTW I do some near IR and unlike other's here, have posted some examples.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/4infra%20red%202.jpg

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/bow%20bridge.jpg

Obviously, the second could only be taken with a converted camera,
unless the boat was firmly anchored.
--
PeterN

On 2015-12-17 17:14:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 12/16/2015 6:05 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-12-16 22:50:38 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015121614282284308-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

IR is easier. Just slap an R72 or R87 filter on the front of your
lens.
You may Google for the technique.

only after the camera is modified.

...or if it is a dedicated IR camera;

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/08/fuji...tography-camer

a
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/newsLetter/Digital-Cameras-Newsletter-Fuji.jsp


that's

just

a camera that's omits the ir cut filter from the factory
and marketed specifically *for* infrared. consider it already modified.

Exactly. I just don't get the premium $1700 price for the body. I know
that modifying my D70 would cost considerably less. The amount I would
actually use an IR or UV camera is not a number high enough for me to
consider going to those lengths.


fuji used to sell an slr that required signing a release to buy it:
http://boingboing.net/2008/04/02/fuji-makes-you-sign.html

That is rather odd. It must be a Japnese thing.



Don't know if it would work with a D70. But try an R72 filter, and put
the camera on a tripod. It works great for landscapes, when there are
no breezes. Most likely yo can get one with a right of return. i know I
said this earlier, and it works on some Nikons.

Well the D70 is sitting there gathering dust. So...
http://www.lifepixel.com

--
Regards,

Savageduck