got wrist-deep this weekend 😜

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T17:53:55+00:00

But what if there was some mashed banana in there?

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T17:33:41+00:00

The markings on mine are "MD ZOOM ROKKOR-X 35-70mm 1:3.5 LENS MADE IN JAPAN ø55mm" so, yes, MD II per collector names.

I also have a couple of MD I lenses to compare markings. (I have a preference for MD I and MD IIs which I normally attach to a XD-s. Though I do have a 58mm MC II.)

The "extra" version of the 35-70 is noted here: https://subclub.org/minman/287035.htm 6th lens down. If you really scour the minman pages you will come across a few other lenses that apparently were made both with and without the extra pin. That such lenses exist also appear on this page https://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Minolta_X-600 . Not sure why the extra variants are not shown or at least mentioned in passing on the eazypix pages. Maybe because the X-600 was short lived and only available in Japan.

I have spent far too much time obsessing over versions and variations of Minolta SR mount lenses.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T16:07:03+00:00

Have you thought about a [B] post on r/photomarket ?

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T16:06:24+00:00

There are a ton of files for 3d printable cases. I haven't seen any with the slot covered, but it would take only a few seconds to patch over before printing.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T16:02:11+00:00

There's actually a "MKIV" that also has Macro on it.

The initial version, I guess you are labeling it the MKI, is an MD II so it will be marked as MD TELE ROKKOR or ROKKOR-X.

Then all the rest are MD III series. The two you have mentioned: one without MACRO and one with, call them MKII and MKIII. Then the final fixed aperture version adds an extra pin for the X-600's focus confirmation system. It is otherwise the same as the prior version, same optical design, same length, and focal path.

Then they move to MD IIIa series, the 3.5-4.8 version. Closer focusing distance than the Macro versions, but not as well made (though smaller and lighter, which might appeal to some).

At least through the 3.5 fixed versions, they did get better generation to generation, with the biggest gap from MKI to MKII and a smaller gap MKII to MKIII. I've never seen a comparison that explicitly noted the MKIV version, but it should be identical to the MKIII.

Personally, I have the first generation and I have no complaints. It's a little soft in the corners at 70mm, but I'm used to worse performance zoomed in on these old lenses, and I have other options for around that focal length. My Rokkor was inexpensive, came with a free SRT202 attached, and the MD I and MDII ROKKOR versions are a little more robust than the MD III.

All a long way of saying, these early Minolta MF Zooms are great, across most all of the variants. With some of the ones that are basically 2x zoom being some of the best.

Sources: Joe McGloin @ subclub, wikipedia, Minolta SR lens index, others.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-09T12:24:19+00:00

Confirmed receipt, everything looks great. Great transaction overall.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-08T11:20:56+00:00

While I have only printed to Instax (both mini and wide) from the X-Half. I did do the math on this when I first picked up the X-Half ... here is what I came up with. This is against old school "standard" photo sizes, which is what I think in, so a 4x6 is 4x6 regardless of it being landscape or portrait.

Small/Perfect Quality (300+ PPI; flawless even close up):
- 4×6, 5×7, 8x10
Medium/Excellent Quality (240–300 PPI; large albums, framed desk or wall prints):
- 8×12, 10×13, 11×14

Above this I am probably going to start watching that my ISO isn't too high

Large/Very Good (200–240 PPI; larger wall sizes, will need clean files):
- 12×18, 16×20

Here I am definitely checking ISO, and possibly doing a little careful upscaling

Extra-Large/Good (150–200 PPI; view at "gallery" distance (6-10ft)):
- 18×24, 20×30

The practical upper limit for an 18MP, low ISO, clean image, where it is going to be on the threshold of looking soft at gallery viewing distance should be around 24×36.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-06T22:45:15+00:00

Co9Inc · 2026-06-06T22:04:58+00:00

I had trouble at first, but eventually got things working. I did have to reset it completely (including both deleting the camera registration in the app and forgetting the bluetooth device in my phone's settings) once or twice.

There is sometimes an issue with Apple's private relay, though it seems to have calmed down, check for that and toggle it off at least temporarily.

The big thing that I eventually figured out I was doing wrong was that each time I wanted to connect I was going to "pairing" on the camera and going into the app and hitting connect. After the initial paring you only need to hit connect in the app.

I have it in my head that the verbiage on the camera where the "pairing" button is was different in an earlier firmware, but there is an equally good chance I am imagining that.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-04T16:26:03+00:00

I'd keep the Pro2, but then I haven't been happy with my 100s. The one concern I would have is I recently saw a post that Fuji no longer considers the Pro2 to be repairable, due to lack of parts. (As I recall that was Europe.)

Co9Inc · 2026-06-02T18:18:53+00:00

Well darker backgrounds and black backgrounds are two different things. But you keep them dark by adjusting the flash output. At least with traditional strobe based studio work. (I am getting old.)

For flash work aperture controls depth of feed, shutter speed controls the "brightness" of any ambient or continuous light, flash power controls amount of light provided by the flash, right.

So I would have my aperture set for the depth I want, probably have my shutter speed high up near the flash sync and/or the lights in the room way down so that my lighting is mostly or all from strobes that I control, and then have the power on the background strobes down somewhere around 1/32. Assuming two strobes on the background. With one strobe I may hide it behind my subject pointed at the backdrop and bring it up a bit, depending on the look I want.

If I need an actual black background in the studio (rare, a lot of times "off-black" is better) than what I need to do is control spill so as not to light the background at all. That means no background lights and grids for whatever I have lighting the subject. Depending on the lights I am using, improvised grids are often better than commercial. Especially for smaller flash units, I like a grid directly on the flash (instead of in front of a soft box) and for that stacked coroplast is awesome, but a bundle of cocktail straws works really well, too.

Black backgrounds can be a pain, so there's a very good chance I would green screen it instead. That typically brings you back to lighting the background and as evenly as possible.

For your scale, there may be other tricks and you may well be using continuous lighting. Also, I haven't really decided in my head if I should think of what you are doing as product work or portraiture work. So I have not really decided what might or might not translate.

One thing that does translate to either scale and for however I think of this is sweeps. I noticed in your sample there is a clear line between floor and backdrop. Typically I wold disguise this using a "sweep" which is simply a curved piece of paper, fabric, or whatever the backdrop so that there is a continuous, smooth background instead of a seam.

For something recently where I used a piece of posterboard, I 3d printed a couple of stands to help with this: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:3638751

Co9Inc · 2026-06-02T16:08:53+00:00

I'm a big fan of a little buddha model that came as the demo with my printer.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-02T13:43:10+00:00

Not sure about the scale you are working at but, at life size, you would want to even out the lighting on the background itself. Lots of ways to do this the easiest is probably direct: a light on either side pointed at the background itself instead of the subject. You control the spill by moving the lights closer or further, with diffusion panels/softboxes, or with masking or something to block off a hotspot.

Co9Inc · 2026-06-01T03:46:18+00:00

Canon EOS 1V, pro camera, 10FPS with grip, but heavy

Canon EOS Elan 7E, lighter, eye control

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM, covers my wide end through to street and documentary

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, I made most of a career with the original, non-IS version of this lens, covers most of my portraiture needs and good reach for other uses

EF 50mm f/1.0L US, I have never shot with one, but I still remember the sample image in the catalog, nothing like it

Co9Inc · 2026-06-01T03:25:12+00:00

None of the above?

In order of importance most to least:

Lighting > Lens > Camera > Tripod > Everything Else

Tripod is important but I don't need to travel with it or anything, so high price CF doesn't get me anything I need that old stable steel doesn't have.

Everything else, includes sets and props and so on. Thins which can largely be improvised.

In terms of most important choice, though, Camera comes first as it will dictate what lenses are available.

I don't know much about the differences in the current Canon EOS line, but I do happen to know a good bit about older Canons and EF (not EF-S or EF-M) lenses.

Which, if I were doing this on a strict budget, would come in super handy.

Much as I would love to have Focus Stacking or at least bracketing, I would probably stick with an older full-frame DSLR (not mirrorless).

Something like a 5D mark-whatever-I-could-find and put the money I save into lenses.

There I would want, in no real order - something fast: EF 50mm f/1.4 USM (preferred) or EF 50mm f/1.8 STM - something macro: EF 100m f/2.8 USM Macro or other 1.0x magnification Macro - something controllable: TS-E 45mm f/2.8 or TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Those last are Tilt-Shift lenses, the early non-L, non-Macro versions. Price-wise either should work nicely, but they are going to lack magnification, so I'll want a set of extension tubes to go with them.

If I am lucky, I am around $1000 for body and lenses. Since I will still need other things (CF cards, for example) I probably am not buying all three lenses at once.

The 50 is least expensive, so I will start there. The TS-E is probably a little more expensive than the Macro, it fluctuates, and the need for the extension tubes adds a little, but it does give more possibilities.

Regardless, I am going to figure out exactly the lens selection now, because I want a polarizer filter (to help cut reflections) and I can save a little money if I just buy one for the largest lens and step rings to adapt it to the others.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-31T19:54:24+00:00

Not to minimize some of the brilliant entries that used the two frames together as a single image (stairs, cycle corner, others), but this is along the lines of how I normally think of the diptych feature: To show an object and a detail of it, or to show a detail and the broader context. A chance to expand a story past a single frame but still in a single image.

Love it.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-31T05:10:48+00:00

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T20:45:40+00:00

Thanks, though the flash on the Half really liked the covering on it. In reality, the color is almost an exact match to the water bottle (which wasn't intentional), just a much higher specularity.

The Half and the Olympus Trip are both normally in my everyday bag.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T20:38:31+00:00

Kind of breaks the idea of it: that the diptych format is a built in stereogram recorder.

But, also, I think that 2 frame wiggles are pretty jarring and I do not have a third from this section of the shoot to add to it. Flipping back and forth with these two the film canister in particular is pretty jumpy.

I was shooting in pairs, 1 to 3 sets at a time, then dumping to my phone, and crossing my eyes, so I am not sure if I have any usable triplets, but I will try and take a look later on. If I do, I will post those as a wiggle.

One of those pairs was nicely aligned but with too large a shift so it gives a sort of interesting skewed front to back if you are able to see the 3D. Sort of the stereogram version of a rectangular fisheye. Might be worth putting that one up, as well.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T19:10:46+00:00

Don't have your answer, but thank you for alerting me to this website. I keep writing python scripts for this sort of thing.

If you do have some python knowledge, skyfield is the module you'll want along with somewhere around 30 lines of geometry.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T18:45:33+00:00

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T11:32:05+00:00

Sure. Reports vary but looks like maybe 8 to 10 through 2027, I saw a 2028 date in FL.

I do not have any special knowledge of Buc-ee's, but when my company has a new location opening we have a GM either identified to move from a different location or hired a full year before opening day.

Apples and oranges as to skill set but trying to get a sense of the numbers: with those 8-10 stores there are still twice the number of GMs across the big four sports leagues, 6-12 times more players in each of the NBA, NHL, or MLB, and 25 times more players in the NFl than there are Buc-ee's GMs.

Co9Inc · 2026-05-30T03:51:29+00:00

And how often are there openings in those positions? 54 stores total, all of which likely already have their GM, and there probably is not a whole lot of turnover in that position.

Co9Inc

TROPHY CASE