JamesT

St Emilion The vineyards of St Emilion from the top of the castle. SOOC jpeg from 2003.

Sir John in his own words.

From Friday on DPReview https://www.dpreview.com/news/7832098651/selfies-we-don-t-like-to-seem-them-but-we-want-to-take-them

Dead Oak Wytham Woods

I use a Canon 70D with the Sigma 150-600C lens, but started out about 12 years ago with a 350D and a Cosina 100-400. On the Canon side I'd say that the 80D is probably the best bet currently, but a secondhand 70D from a reputable source would be a more economical option, I don't know what the 750D and 760D are like but I had a 700D briefly and found it extremely fiddly to use (have to go into the menus for far too many things). I get the impression that the Sigma and Tamron 150-600s are pretty similar in performance (and much cheaper than any other really long lenses). (As for why I use Canons -- the 350D was streets ahead of the competition in 2005, and changing system is a major upheaval).

But only 35mm.

This is a quick scan of a 35mm contact print with the 9000F at 600dpi -- I think the print must be from the 40's or 50's (certainly not a dog that I knew).

Unfortunately I don't know of any site with good analyses of flatbed scanners (as flatbeds) with data similar to scandig for film scanners. The impression I got when enquiring around about a year ago is that the Canon 9000F is a bit better than the Epson V550, but not as good as the V800 and V850 (but those are a lot more expensive).

It's not quite clear to me whether you are looking to scan prints or negatives/slides. In either case: the resolution numbers on the box are generated by the marketing department not the engineering department. So while the output may have the number of pixels stated, they may not be independent. Flatbeds with a film mode are especially egregious in this area. For example, the Canon 9000F which I have has an optical resolution for film of 9600dpi, but the effective resolution is about 2000dpi (which requires scanning at 4800 and rebinning---9600dpi scanning is a complete waste of time and disk space!). For film scanners, the Nikons are very good, but pricey (especially the ones which support medium format -- the 8000 [firewire only] runs about £1000 while the 9000 can be twice that). From the Coolscan V onward they claim 4000dpi and actually achieve it. If you want something capable of film and paper scanning then some of the recent Epsons or the Canon 9000F are probably the best bet if you don't want to spend a fortune, and don't need 4000dpi film scanning.

Welcome. You're not the only film user hanging out around here.

Flag at Flag Fen

Clear browser / display program issue here: Viewed in the forum using Vivaldi -- nada even in view full size. Download and open in gwenview -- clear as day. Open in gimp -- offers to convert colour space (to gimp sRGB) -- if I accept the pattern shows momentarily and then vanishes, if I decline it never shows.

Roman Wall -- Silchester

An oldie reprocessed

Or newer. I think mine dates from the early 1950's (quite a bit before me). The top scale is Scheinergrade.

What speeds does it cover? The Leudi that I inherited only goes up to DIN 21 (ISO 100/21). P.S. The Leudi has a scale going 1,2,4,8,16,32 rather than 1,2,3,4...

St Stephen's Bures, Suffolk (aka the Barn Church) To be honest, probably more of interest for the story than the architecture or the photography. The church is early 13th century, and the West end is a barn. It is the reputed site of Edmund's (later St Edmund) coronation, presumably after he crossed the Stour from Essex -- though there is precious little evidence (except that the present church was consecrated by the then Archbishop of Canterbury).

Very definitely in the past tense. The remains of a fishing boat near Blakeney.

My own favourite is the Minolta X500, with my current favourite lens being the 35-70mm F3.5. It was the first serious camera I owned, I bought it secondhand just over 20 years ago on a trip to Guernsey, but I've had the 35-70 lens less than a year. It's just a really comfortable camera to use, as it has all that you really need (if not everything you might possibly want) -- Aperture priority mode and a proper guided manual mode. While the digital kit is great for wildlife, where taking a string of shots in the hope that the bird will turn it's head the right way is a viable option; for landscapes, buildings, trains etc. I like the fact that film makes me think a bit more, rather than "shoot first and ask questions after".

Since there's a huge range of styles and approaches here I might be fun to collect people's favourite cameras or camera/lens combinations. So go ahead describe your favourite and why. Whether it's a current camera, something that you got your start with or any other reason why you like it. Please no "Manufacturer X is great, manufacturer Y is rubbish" trolling.

Probably no surprise that it's analogue. The ford on Lock's Lane Wantage.