The "New Gear/Willy Waving" thread

An Exception · 27 Mar 2015 at 08:28

Raymond Lin said:
It's a chemical product and has an expiry date. The lower temperature extends that expiry date. It depends how long he intends to keep them for I guess.

I guess it gives you an incentive to go out and shoot something..

dannyjo22 · 27 Mar 2015 at 10:18

I'm going to pick up a 24-70 this month in prep for going FF and sell on my 17-55. I just can't decide whether to get the 5dmark3 or wait until the autumn. I past the limits of my body long ago. I find it frustrating, but on the other hand I have put up with it for long enough now that would a few more months matter? After all the UK price on a 5D3 hasn't dropped that much over 3 years to worry about paying launch price on a next iteration. The higher MP cameras don't interest me.

Phal · 27 Mar 2015 at 10:30

dannyjo22 said:
I'm going to pick up a 24-70 this month in prep for going FF and sell on my 17-55. I just can't decide whether to get the 5dmark3 or wait until the autumn. I past the limits of my body long ago. I find it frustrating, but on the other hand I have put up with it for long enough now that would a few more months matter? After all the UK price on a 5D3 hasn't dropped that much over 3 years to worry about paying launch price on a next iteration. The higher MP cameras don't interest me.

Just buy it now

gogogo

GTRacer · 27 Mar 2015 at 10:59

Raymond Lin said:
It's a chemical product and has an expiry date. The lower temperature extends that expiry date. It depends how long he intends to keep them for I guess.

This. Keeping it in a dark, cool place should suffice but for longer term storage keeping them chilled (or even frozen) is better. Additionally, it slows the image degradation after you've exposed the film (but haven't developed it). Film is very robust (see Vivian Maier's undeveloped rolls from the 50's/60's, Garry Winogrand's from the 80's), but it's good practice to keep everything as fresh as possible. Plus seeing a wall of film when you open your fridge is just awesome imo. I have about 90 rolls in total at the moment, at my current rate I'll be done with them by the time August rolls around.

The expiry dates on the boxes are 2017/2018/2019 (fresh batches from Ilford) so I have time.

bastic · 27 Mar 2015 at 10:59

GTRacer said:
Hopefully this lasts the rest of the year...

OMG !!!!
Nice !!!

Above&Beyond · 27 Mar 2015 at 12:46

GTRacer said:
This. Keeping it in a dark, cool place should suffice but for longer term storage keeping them chilled (or even frozen) is better. Additionally, it slows the image degradation after you've exposed the film (but haven't developed it). Film is very robust (see Vivian Maier's undeveloped rolls from the 50's/60's, Garry Winogrand's from the 80's), but it's good practice to keep everything as fresh as possible. Plus seeing a wall of film when you open your fridge is just awesome imo. I have about 90 rolls in total at the moment, at my current rate I'll be done with them by the time August rolls around.

The expiry dates on the boxes are 2017/2018/2019 (fresh batches from Ilford) so I have time.

Did you get it from Harman and save 20%? Also what scanner do you use?

GTRacer · 27 Mar 2015 at 13:18

Above&Beyond said:
Did you get it from Harman and save 20%? Also what scanner do you use?

Yeah, got it from them. Really quick delivery as well, hopefully the 20% off is a regular/seasonal thing. I use a Epson V700 + Vuescan with Betterscanning holders for medium format, but I sometimes use it for 35mm too if I'm just making proofs. I have a Plustek 7600 for 35mm.

Raymond Lin · 27 Mar 2015 at 13:24

I have some film in the freezer from 2002...way out of date now but interested to see how the turn out if I use them. I still have a Canon EOS....and a load of glass that I didn't have back then.

Above&Beyond · 27 Mar 2015 at 14:32

GTRacer said:
Yeah, got it from them. Really quick delivery as well, hopefully the 20% off is a regular/seasonal thing. I use a Epson V700 + Vuescan with Betterscanning holders for medium format, but I sometimes use it for 35mm too if I'm just making proofs. I have a Plustek 7600 for 35mm.

What camera are you using?

Kei · 27 Mar 2015 at 14:34

GTRacer said:
Yeah, got it from them. Really quick delivery as well, hopefully the 20% off is a regular/seasonal thing. I use a Epson V700 + Vuescan with Betterscanning holders for medium format, but I sometimes use it for 35mm too if I'm just making proofs. I have a Plustek 7600 for 35mm.

How good does a flat bed scan look? I've been using a nikon coolscan V and a minolta dimage III for my 35mm work but I have nothing for larger formats as yet.

Raymond Lin said:
I have some film in the freezer from 2002...way out of date now but interested to see how the turn out if I use them. I still have a Canon EOS....and a load of glass that I didn't have back then.

I've got some agfa optima 200 dated 1997 that has lived in the freezer from new. Results looked good when I had some processed recently.

GTRacer · 27 Mar 2015 at 14:51

Above&Beyond said:
What camera are you using?

MF: Pentax 67 + 105/2.4 and 75/4.5, Rolleiflex 2.8F
35mm: Leica M4 + 35/2 and 50/2, Hexar AF, and Nikon FM2/F3HP + Voigtlander 20/3.5 and 28/2.8 AIS

Kei said:
How good does a flat bed scan look? I've been using a nikon coolscan V and a minolta dimage III for my 35mm work but I have nothing for larger formats as yet.

A 2400 dpi scan looks good on my retina Macbook Pro screen (which is about 200dpi), it doesn't have the pixel-level sharpness of digital but it's enough for 8x10s. I'm going to start wet printing so I can actually see how the negatives compare to my scans.

Kei · 27 Mar 2015 at 15:25

Wet print B&W done right utterly blows digital away. Good as I can get digital B&W to look, it has nothing on proper silver halide prints. Digital prints don't even look black when put side by side, mine tend to have a purple cast. (that I couldn't see until I stuck a proper B&W print beside it) This is using a fuji frontier minilab with proper photographic paper and chemical processing. The problem is that the paper isn't monochrome and is susceptible to minute colour casts.

Steve M · 27 Mar 2015 at 15:43

Ignore.

JRJ · 28 Mar 2015 at 10:11

jonneymendoza said:
527A7911.jpg by jonneymendoza, on Flickr

What camera have you come from? do you notice a massive difference in bulk?

D.P. · 28 Mar 2015 at 11:28

There isn't really a massive difference in bulk to be had, just look at the lens weights and sizes, the 70-200mm f/4.0 is heavier than canons.

Columbo · 28 Mar 2015 at 12:24

D.P. said:
There isn't really a massive difference in bulk to be had, just look at the lens weights and sizes, the 70-200mm f/4.0 is heavier than canons.

Another issue is Zeiss.
Make small, compactly designed lenses they do not and there really is no reason for that 55mm to be that big.

CGrieves · 28 Mar 2015 at 15:34

Finally caved in and went for the 23mm. The 12mm f2, 23mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 make a nice compact kit that covers pretty much everything I feel like shooting.

antc · 28 Mar 2015 at 16:27

CGrieves said:
Finally caved in and went for the 23mm. The 12mm f2, 23mm f1.4 and 35mm f1.4 make a nice compact kit that covers pretty much everything I feel like shooting.

Its an excellent lens thats for sure! You will enjoy it no doubt.

An Exception · 28 Mar 2015 at 22:44

Additional SSD storage added to internals of iMac. 1tb Samsung 850 Pro.

D.P. · 28 Mar 2015 at 23:56

Columbo said:
Another issue is Zeiss.
Make small, compactly designed lenses they do not and there really is no reason for that 55mm to be that big.

It's that big likely to achieve certain optical qualitiies.

As has been divulged a million times, loosing the mirror doesn't magically make lenses smaller, except with the potential of a 35mm prime (doesn't have to be made retrofocus).

What does magicallly make lenses small is diffraction optics, which I so far limited nikon and canon. That alone pretty much makes the A7 redundant for me the nikon 300mm PF is tiny!