Ansel Adams commonly used both 4x5" and 8x10" view cameras. Use varied through the years. In the photos I've seen of this darkroom and reading in his books he commonly used a 4x5" Enlarger.

Edward Weston generally contact printed 11x14" negatives, no enlarger. (per Brett Weston, Edward's eldest son).

Personally when I have the time or interest I'll shoot film, 35mm or 4x5", but 99% of the time I shoot digital now. I theoretically prefer film for B&W so I can have real silver prints. But for color, I'm all digital now.

Comparing "small or medium" format digital to large format (4x5", 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20" ) film is like an Apples to Oranges comparison.

From I conversation I once had over the phone with a Kodak technician we estimated that 35mm film (say Kodacolor) would be equivalent to about 11 to 12 MP (1/1.7 sensor) camera. But it is not clear how to compare dpi (or ppi) to lpi. If a full frame 35mm is 24x36=864 mm^2, and 4x5" is 101.6x127.0=12,903 mm^2. A ratio of 1:14.9. So a full frame Canon or Nikon (24MP) sensor camera would instead have to be 358MP to equal the resolution of 4x5" film. I've heard of 40 to 80 MP medium format (4.5x6 cm to 6x7 cm) digital cameras. Care to compare to Edward's 11x14" negatives?

Now of course digital has other advantages, one reason I use it overwhelmingly. And I am not saying film is 15 time better than digital or even twice, they are different tools and media. "What is the resolution or oil or acrylic paint?" A meaningless question.

I have no comment on the issue of grips other than to say I rarely use mine that I have for one of my DSLR's (so I would not get one for the other two). For me with arthritis the added weight to an already heavy DSLR is too much most days. In fact all my DSLR's weigh a lot more than any of my film SLRs.

As for Mirrorless Cameras. I second that the main reason for a mirrorless is not just weight. Think of all the moving and shaking parts "missing" -- a penta-prism is a precision piece of optical glass. And eventual lower cost for higher quality. I've been watching the market and talking to my classmates who have them. Most seem very happy with them. Personally from being an old school film shooter I'd want a Mirrorless that also has a viewfinder with LiveView in addition to a LiveView screen. My old point-n-shoot Kodak has both so why not a pro camera with changeable lenses and the works. Also I'm probably waiting for a Full Frame Mirrorless.

"I purchased LR 11, but never installed it."

Did you mean LR = LightRoom? If so no wonder you did not install it, it is only up to version Lr 5.6 currently (or something like that). It's so new it's from the future. :-)

Short and to the point. I gave a long winded answer (to at least give him some information). LOL :wink:

As an example above. Yes, people do assume you are lazy or don't like a product just because you don't upgrade every 6 months or something. And there is always a learning curve and some "upgrades" introduce new bugs.

I'd rather spend money on lenses and cameras than software as well. I'm still using Office 2000 on Vista Ultimate 64-bit.

You should be able to update your Camera Raw importer all by it self. When I installed Ps CS6 it came with Raw 8.1, I immediately upgraded to v. 8.3. I believe the current Ps CC Raw version is 8.4. Also there at least used to be a way of getting new camera profiles for new camera models that come on the market.

As it turns out I don't have to really be concerned for my cameras because Pentax uses the Adobe DNG format as its native Raw format. You can use the Nikon to DNG converter too. One of my instructors has a newish Nikon Df (the retro looking one). It is not quite as new as your Nikon D610. And she in a pinch had to use the converter and go to DNG. From there you can go TIFF or PSD. Though personally I have not done any of this from with in Lr4 or Lr5, only Ps CS6. I've barely begun playing with Lr.

Windows and MAC O/S don't open Raw or Photoshop or Lightroom files either. JPG / JPEG and TIF / TIFF are standard files formats that virtually all computers and programs can handle. Also do be aware that you must PROCESS your Raw files to make them look good or superior. JPGs are corrected right out of the camera (as far as they can be).

P.S. I know what you mean about people jumping on you. also I might have opted for the D800E ;-)

Hi again Don:

I'm now curious, what camera(s) is this lens for and what do you plan to do with it?

Yes, obviously the camera does not recognize the lens. Interesting it even mounts. Older "film" lenses don't usually work on Canon (Canon keeps changing their mounts even for digitals), so I suspect you are using a Nikon or Pentax. I never found out if older Minolta Lens attach to Sony Digitals.

I use a lot of oldish Pentax "film" lenses on my Pentax DSLRs, even screw mount Takumar Lenses, mainly prime lenses, 19mm to 135mm (I have a few zooms shorter and longer as well). And I know plenty of Nikon users that use old lenses as well.

I hope you are not planning to introduce yourself to wildlife photography with that massively slow Vivitar. Close-ups of insects is fine with any conventional lens (moderate WA to short Tele). But for running Lions, Antelope, flying Hawks you really need a Fast lens, f/2.8 and auto exposure and auto focus and good anti-shake (might be in body though). Look at f/2.8 ~70-210mm, f/2.8 100-400mm, fast single number for wide open models, avoid f/3.5-4.8 or similar.

I'll admit that I do not even do Wildlife action photography but I have had an instructor who is a professional and excellent wildlife photographer. I'll probably PO a few people with my next statement. Even though I have been a lifelong Pentax user, having owned 10 bodies for film and digital, I'll have to recommend what my instructor uses for fast action animals. A highish end Canon with a fast modern zoom lens. The autofocus in Canon seems to lock faster and more accurately than other focusing systems. Pentax, Nikon, Sony, etc. DSLRs are great for landscapes, portraits, scenics, macro, may be sports, everything else. I rarely even use autofocus with my lenses that have it. And I have otherwise never been a Canon fan. When in sales, I thought Minolta was a good value and recommended it even though I owned Pentax (I try to give an honest opinion). And yes, I own several Nikon large format and enlarging lenses as well as Schneider for same.

Slow lenses blow. I used to have a Vivitar f/5.6 400mm lens, never used the thing. It was like looking down a dark tunnel. Finally sold it on ebay.

Your giant zoom might be good for some moon photographs.

Here is what I could find, there is more via GOOGLE. These are a few years old, some from a Pentax Blog, but the mount for a T-mount Series 1 Vivitar does not matter.

06-02-2010, 12:09 PM
KerrTexas
Location: Hill Country of Texas

Vivitar Series 1 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens
This is my first post here, so if it is in the wrong section, my apologies. Also, if this lens has already been discussed...once again, my apologies.

In looking on-line for a telephoto zoom lens, this Vivitar Lens keeps popping up. In looking for any customer reviews, can't find any.

Was curious if anyone here purchased and has used the Vivitar Series 1 650-1300mm f/8-16 Telephoto Zoom Lens and whether it is worth buying.

I have the Pentax *istDL. Any input would be greatly appreciated.


06-02-2010, 12:38 PM
Quicksand
Pentaxian
Location: San Mateo, California

You're in the right section, and welcome!

I ran across this lens about a year ago and couldn't find much, but I did come to suspect that it's a re-label of the same lens that is also sold as an Opteka:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-slr-lens-discussion/56604-vivitar-...50-1300mm.html

I can't confirm it's identical to the Opteka, but I strongly believe it is. Other lenses (such as the reasonably well-regarded 85mm f/1.4) are sold under Samyang, Vivitar, Opteka, Bower, and Rokinon names at the same time, while being the exact same product optically with only superficial external changes to distinguish them.


06-02-2010, 01:00 PM
KerrTexas
Location: Hill Country of Texas
Photos: Gallery

Thank-you Quicksand...the link you provided answered my questions. As a newbie with all this, have alot to learn, and don't really want to invest alot of cash into high-end equipment, yet. Figure to play around with something like this for the learning experience more than anything else at this point.

06-02-2010, 01:04 PM
omega leader
Veteran Member
Location: Niagara Region, Ontario Canada

My understanding of the lens is that it is a 650mm f/8 prime lens with a dedicated 2x teleconverter to produce the 1300mm f/16 (two stops slower).

[Actually the 2x give a whopping 1300mm f/16 to 2600mm f/32 Zoom. Sounds more like a telescope. It could be useful with a digital camera at high ISO. I have no idea how it was useful with film cameras in its day. – Lamiaceae]

Read more at: http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/103458-vivitar-series-1-650-1300mm-f-8-16-telephoto-zoom-lens.html#ixzz39ESYiJrL


08-08-2014
Me (Lamiaceae)
UHH Member

Here is something from Vivitar:

650-1300MM
650mm-1300mm Telephoto Zoom Lens

The Vivitar 650-1300mm Telephoto Zoom Lens is perfect for both amateur and professionals looking to expand into wildlife and nature photography. It gives you incredible range at an affordable price. The lens features 8 multi-coated elements, which reduce flare and increase light transmission. The built-in rotating tripod mount allows you to easily attach a tripod or monopod to increase stability in your shots. It will attach to any SLR camera with a T Mount adapter. Also included is a padded pouch with adjustable shoulder strap, for easy portability, and front and rear lens caps.

Incredible zoom range
Multi coated elements for reduced flare and increased light transmission
Tripod mount
Uses T mount adapter(not included)
Front & rear lens caps
Can be used with film and digital SLR cameras

Technical Specifications

Aperture Rangef8.0-16
Filter Size95mm screw-in
Min/Max Focus Distance16ft (5m) to infinity
Zoom/Focus ControlTwo-Touch
Angle of View3.8 to 2 degrees
Groups/Elements5/8
Length18.2in (462.9mm)
UPC6-81066-57833-9
Dimensions19.75" x 5.00" x 5.00"
Weight4.92lbs
CoatingMulti

and on ebay:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vivitar-650mm-2600mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Lens-Nikon-1-Series-1-V1-J1-J2-S1-1-V2-1-J3-/151298566079?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item233a18e7bf

(Download)


(Download)

I'll check those sites out. Too much reading though keeps me from actually doing photography. I know what you mean about room thought. I have two 4x5" enlargers, a Beseler and an Omega. They are both disassembled though and in storage. If I wanted to I could print at my photo school. It is lonely back there in the wet labs, virtually no one prints negative anymore. Everyone is on computers doing Photoshop or Lightroom. Since I am not seeing a lot of classes for the Fall that will interest me I may spend some time in the darkroom. I have negatives that I've shot recently and processed but never seen as prints. And it might prompt me to pull out the 4x5" view cameras.

GeargeH: Quite right. 127 yielded so called "super slides;" and that they were! The mounted slides would feed through an ordinary 35mm projector. I processed 127 Ektachrome E2, I think it was (reversal accomplished with a photoflood exposure - really!) and the results were stellar, especially if following ordinary 35 mm slides. Wowzer!"

I thought I was a bit old school retro by still having two 4x5" view cameras. All my personal digital pals just shoot digital. These days virtually no one even knows what a slide projector is. I've shot a few 4x5" Ektachromes and seen a few 8x10" ones. I wonder, did they make 8x10" Kodachrome sheet film? What would be awesome.

I never really liked my color photography until I went digital. I used to shoot mainly B&W film, Plus-x & Tri-x. Now I still "see" some shots as black & white and people wonder what I'm talking about.

Now I need to find a way to go from digital b&w to silver prints. I don't really like b&w ink or chromogenic prints. If I could get my digital files to B&W film I could print them my self. Some many wishes and time just keeps marching on.

Probably why I'm a biologist and work better with phonetic Latin words.

Do note that the spell checker in the interface here tags both "Zeiss" and "Ziess" as misspellings. So to some extant all of us are going to have problems from time to time.

Oh crap, I misspelled Leica once too. I have a Leitz Ortholux Microscope. I better stick to Japanese cameras. E-I, I-E, English (and German) are crazy languages, Spanish is a better language as far as spellings go. All letters except the rare strange silent ones are pronounced. Guess how my screen name Lamiaceae is pronounced (botanical Latin)?

Richard,

Thanks for the additional information but I did kind of meant Reflex and Single Lens at the same time and Pentaprism; SLR in the modern sense*. Meaning eye level not waist level shooting. A Rollieflex or Rolliecord was and is a twin lens camera (mirror, but no prism). Yes, later models could have a prism head as an option. I definitely know what a Graflex is. My wife's uncle was using one like a 4x5" view camera up until he died in the 1990's. I had hoped to get it but one of my wife's cousins ended up with the remainder of uncle's camera equipment. Grrr. And I was referring to old. Like music pre-WWII. 1954 is modern (film era) to me. I was born in 1954. The Nikon F dates from 1959. And I know that was not nearly the first SLR. The Lieca M3 1954 (Range Finder), Leica R 1964 (SLR). The *Ziess Contax S came out as a retail product in 1949 (initial work from 1936, interrupted by WWII). *Pentax Asahiflex from 1952. Peace :)

Yes, that is a good idea. And is there a plate with a name and model number. Post that too.

Yup. :-)

I have Firefox on my Windows PC and I get something similar. It is not accurate but it gives you a rough idea if you have a 5 second DL or a 45 minute DL.