Always happy to provide information that is helpful but not practical.

Team Sky kit?

I am hoping it gets locked before then.

I saw that this morning and thought, "Really?! We're on this again?" I clicked on it and saw the usual suspects. Such is the 41.

[MENTION=303015]Mumonkan[/MENTION] I did get around to reading your blog, two day ago actually. :lol: I've actually been busy for a change at work and evenings have been packed. But yeah, it was a good read. I can concur the "Why the Eff am I out here?" refrain. Especially on long cold rides. I'm totally jealous of all these sweet foliage shots from the north.

Well, I finally went off the deep end and put the Bianchi on the evil Bay. I had been talking about selling it for over a year now, but only posted on some local FB groups. Mostly, I want more for it than most people want to pay. We'll see how it goes on the auction site.

I'm also on the hunt for a new camera, which means I'm in full online review overload. So much information. The last good camera I bought was a Canon 30D, which tells you how far I am out of the game. That's also on the auction site. :lol:

You're no fun.

Man, trying to find cheap trials stems is tough. The stock stoker stem on the tandem was about 190mm, but I figure a 180 will work. But $50+shipping. Ouch. The most I've paid for a stem was $30, I think. I was hoping I'd never pay more than that for one.

mine is just about as old (nikon d80), but im looking to replace it with a hasselblad

wait thats not how timelines work.

ps: thanks for checking it out :thumb:

I've got some stem lying around, but nothing in that length. Mine are in the 80 to 120 range. If a 120 will help, I'll send it to you.

With the resolutions available today, what does a 2 1/4" square camera do for you? Do you need more than 25 megapixels. The size of the camera has become irrelevant with the demise of film. Or am I wrong? Smaller glass is so much cheaper. Why adopt a system that requires such big and heavy lenses.

I have a Nikon D200. I really like it a lot. I need to take more photos with it, but I usually end up with a small level of disappointment with the photos I take. I think that if I could spend a week with Billy I could get it figgered out.

Are you shooting RAW? That is an important factor for making the best photos.

Currently, No.

In the past, Yes.

My issue is that enjoy taking photos, but, I don't do it enough to really get the full capability of the D200. It's an operator issue. Do't get me wrong, when I was taking a lot of photos, I got some great shots. Lighting correct, exposure correct, focus correct. Everything hit. But, lately I've just been setting it on Auto and shooting.

I think the main driver for me was basically getting so far away from the photography world, and now I find myself wanting a camera similar to the Minolta X70 film camera I started with. My main problem is that I initially wanted to get away from an interchangeable lens system and go towards a fixed zoom camera, but I'm starting to wonder if I can accept the compromises made for a compact camera.

For the compact, I've narrowed it down to the Panasonic LX100, and for another interchangeable lens I think I like the FujiFilm X-T10.

Damn it. I knew I shouldn't click on this thread.

Medium format film is still relevant in the sense that you'll need to spend a whole bunch of money on digital to come close to matching or equal it, and large format film is still untouchable for those willing to shoot it.

While camera body size may be irrelevant with digital, sensor size most certainly is not. If you want to cover a large sensor with a fast lense, you (still) need a big lense. Reference the Sony A7 and something like a Nikon D750, both with a variable aperture standard zoom (28-70 for the Sony and 24-85 for the Nikon). The Sony body is tiny but that doesn't make its lenses any smaller because they are still trying to cover a 24x36mm sensor.

Been there, done that. I know what you mean.

Shooting raw allows more lattitide in manipulating an image. And while I shoot raw for anything that matters, good light, interesting subject, and careful composition still matter way more than anything else (including the camera) for making a good image. A good camera and lenses sure helps though (Nikon D3s and a few f/1.4 primes in my bag).

Totally agreed, but that is a lot smaller than 2 1/4" square or 6 X 9 cm. Do you need a bigger (resolution) sensor than can be had in 24 X 36 mm? Is 24 megapixels too crowded in 24 X 36 mm? Is it not enough?

Megapixels isn't everything. In addition to some of the reasons already mentioned, all other things equal, sensor size will also affect DoF considerations, final print size quality/capability, and ISO/noise handling.

24 MP is definitely not too crowded, or enough for everyone, on a 24x36mm sensor. The new-ish Canon 5DS puts 51 MP in that space and Nikon has been putting 36 MP there for years. As far as how much resolution is enough, it depends. However, shooting with a medium format film Hasselblad isn't just about resolution. It is a whole different (and enjoyable, for some) process than shooting digital. I am not into that in the least but I can't fault those who are.

Thanks man, already got 120 and I think a 130 around here somewhere.

My mistake. I thought you meant a Hasselblad only with a digital back. My own prejudice I suppose.

I'm taking the D200 on the cruise. I'll take a bunch of photos. I'll work with the settings and by the end of the cruise I'll have things figgered out. I'll get some great photos where everything pops. But, I'll have a bunch of auto and crummy, I messed with the settings photos that I will have to doctor in PS to get looking decent.

I just assume that basically no one actually shoots digital medium format. The cost is ridiculous for what you get and while a few can somehow manage to justify it, I think there's only about two of those people in the world. Full frame with fast lenses comes so close for so, so much less.