[rdenney]

I think you may be enjoying yourself....I'm interested in that UV treatment for fungus. But all of your new stuff is going to be very useful, I think.

FWIW, I just went on my own spending spree for 2018: several lenses for my K1, handy ones, 2 used 1 new. But today I await the big prize: a DA 25 645 from Lens Authority (the seller for Lens Rentals). Very expensive, but the best price I've seen for this now rare lens, save for one other guy who basically got the deal of this new century. Anyway, I'm very close to fully kitted out. Now, attention turns to the computer and storage side of things. Finally must get a RAID, and the computer needs a big upgrade.

Yes, I’m having fun.

I built a tower server to provide a place to make routine backups. I used Unraid, from Lime Technologies, as the OS for the server. The motherboard is from an old Dell computer, and I used an IBM M1013 (or something like that) as a disk controller. It uses an 8-lane PCIe bus to provide 8 parallel SATA controllers. My version of Unraid lets me control six disks, one of which is a parity disk. With 4T drives in all slots, one can have 20T of storage. I don’t have 4T drives in all slots, and my capacity is 13T.

The Unraid OS goes on a thumb drive, and I set the BIOS to boot from the USB first.

I put it all in a tower case.





Unraid is NOT RAID. It does not stripe files across multiple drives, and it does not mirror. It builds a share folder across all drives, but each written file is put on one discrete disk. The parity disk provides the bit total for each bit position for each disk on the array, either even or odd. It can use that to reconstruct any one failed disk in the array. If two disks fail at once, it can’t reconstruct them, but it doesn’t affect what is stored on the other disks, which minimizes the damage. I have already replaced two of the disks in the server with no data loss, and I have used the backup to reconstruct my wife’s computer with no data loss.

The network interface is 1000baseT, and my backups write to the server at 70-100 MB/s.

I doubt I have more than $400 in the server, including Unraid.

I keep my primary photos on my computer hard disk, with no redundancy, and back up to the server every day (full image backups monthly, and incremental backups daily), using Macrium Reflect. I have three months’ worth of backups for both our computers at any one moment.

This was the replacement for two different pre-packaged network attached storage servers, both of which were an order of magnitude slower and each of which only held two disks.

I also fill up a couple of 4T USB drives and put them in the safety deposit box at the back, once in a while, to minimize risk in case of total loss (fire, etc.).

Rick “whose digital photos are mostly vulnerable to software obsolescence” Denney

[texandrews]

Yes, I’m having fun.

I built a tower server to provide a place to make routine backups. I used Unraid, from Lime Technologies, as the OS for the server. The motherboard is from an old Dell computer, and I used an IBM M1013 (or something like that) as a disk controller. It uses an 8-lane PCIe bus to provide 8 parallel SATA controllers. My version of Unraid lets me control six disks, one of which is a parity disk. With 4T drives in all slots, one can have 20T of storage. I don’t have 4T drives in all slots, and my capacity is 13T.

The Unraid OS goes on a thumb drive, and I set the BIOS to boot from the USB first.

I put it all in a tower case.





Unraid is NOT RAID. It does not stripe files across multiple drives, and it does not mirror. It builds a share folder across all drives, but each written file is put on one discrete disk. The parity disk provides the bit total for each bit position for each disk on the array, either even or odd. It can use that to reconstruct any one failed disk in the array. If two disks fail at once, it can’t reconstruct them, but it doesn’t affect what is stored on the other disks, which minimizes the damage. I have already replaced two of the disks in the server with no data loss, and I have used the backup to reconstruct my wife’s computer with no data loss.

The network interface is 1000baseT, and my backups write to the server at 70-100 MB/s.

I doubt I have more than $400 in the server, including Unraid.

I keep my primary photos on my computer hard disk, with no redundancy, and back up to the server every day (full image backups monthly, and incremental backups daily), using Macrium Reflect. I have three months’ worth of backups for both our computers at any one moment.

This was the replacement for two different pre-packaged network attached storage servers, both of which were an order of magnitude slower and each of which only held two disks.

I also fill up a couple of 4T USB drives and put them in the safety deposit box at the back, once in a while, to minimize risk in case of total loss (fire, etc.).

Rick “whose digital photos are mostly vulnerable to software obsolescence” Denney

Thank you!

[Lacunapratum]

I use the following lenses for such a trip: FA ED 400mm/5.6, FA 200mm/4, A Macro 120mm/4, an adapted Imagon 120mm H=4.5, D FA 55mm/2.8, HD 35mm/3.5, DA 25mm/4, and the 1.4x teleconverter. The 400mm/5.6 is a great and compact medium photo telephoto, which still works with the 1.4x teleconverter the 200mm is a much underappreciated lens that doubles up for portraits and environmental details, the A version of the 120 is much more compact than the FA, and for macro I don't need autofocus anyway, the Imagon can work as a wonderful portrait lens, the 55 and the 35 are excellent allrounders in their respective focal lengths, and the 25mm is a jewel IMHO. I must confess that during film years and when I was younger, I carried a 600mm/5.6 A through Katmai and along the shores of the Shelikof Strait, and that was just wonderful for bears and wildlife. It's weight though limits the number of other lenses on such a trip.

[texandrews]

I must confess that during film years and when I was younger, I carried a 600mm/5.6 A through Katmai and along the shores of the Shelikof Strait, and that was just wonderful for bears ....

....because if attacked you could defend yourself with it.

[rdenney]

....because if attacked you could defend yourself with it.

Give it something to chew on while you escape.

Rick “600 isn’t far enough from bears to suit me” Denney

[texandrews]

Give it something to chew on while you escape.

Rick “600 isn’t far enough from bears to suit me” Denney

Yeah, you kinda got that right, "not far enough away". When I was in Alaska floating the Kanektok, one day we were fishing out of the rafts in this section of braided river with willow breaks all around. They were 7 feet high on the banks, so down in the water it was maybe 10-12. Thta's where the grayling were though, and I was determined to catch some (and I did...). But it sure was spooky. Even my brother, a pro fisherman with his own TV show who has fished all over the world, was creeped out. And he fishes for sharks on the flats....

[mattb123]

Update:

I went ahead and picked up a 200/4, which was quite cheap in the FA version. Perhaps a bit too cheap—it has some fungus spots. I don’t think they are severe, but the lens is going to get a very strong dose of ultraviolet. I can test it’s sharpness, and if it can be coaxed into performing well, I’ll look for a better example in the fullness of time. It is vastly more compact than any of the alternatives I was considering.

I have the A version of this lens, also with some fungus which doesn't seem to make much if any impact on image quality.
In my case it is on the edges and may be completely outside the crop 645 image circle.

[Sarnian]

I have the A version of this lens, also with some fungus which doesn't seem to make much if any impact on image quality.

That's my findings, too. I recently - knowingly - bought a 35mm A lens and a 75mm FA lens with mould on the front element and I'm hard pressed to tell that they have this issue. That suits me as I got them for half of the usual prices!

[Lacunapratum]

You guys got it all wrong. The 600mm A is for the pictures. The 800mm/4 with the big Pentax 6x7 is to knock them bears over the head. Either end works by the way.

[texandrews]

You guys got it all wrong. The 600mm A is for the pictures. The 800mm/4 with the big Pentax 6x7 is to knock them bears over the head. Either end works by the way.

Yeah, but you have to be able to swing the thing. Not sure I'm that manly.

[KDINDC]

My wife and I are planning a trip to Alaska, and I was planning to take my Canon digital stuff and my 67 kit. Normally, I would take the 35 fisheye, 45, 55, 105, 135, and 200, and save the long lens choices for the Canon. If there was an architectural subject, I might also bring along the 75PCS (and there will be architectural subjects on this trip, as it turns out). But I would leave the 300 at home. All that will fit in a full-size carryon (an old-but-large LowePro Photo Trekker Classic), with part of the Canon kit stuffed into my briefcase. The tripod and Arca Monoball goes in the checked bag with the clothes.

But my wife has announced that I have a 645z coming for my birthday, and the future availability of the Zed changes everything. I have a 645 N and NII and can put together a lens kit, but possibly with gaps I would regret.

I’ll be leaving the briefcase at home on this trip, and will stuff the essentials into my rolling carryon. I’m planning to use a ThinkTank Streetwalker Pro as my “personal item”, with the overflow in my rolling bag.

The Zed will be my only camera for this trip, unless I have space in the checked bag and throw in a Travelwide and a box of 4x5 Quickloads from the freezer. So, I need 645 lenses for everything from mountain ranges to distant fauna.

I am therefore pondering the 30mm Arsat fisheye (a real beast), 35mm FA, 55mm Arsat PCS (a superb optic despite its provenance), 45-85mm FA zoom, 120mm macro, P67 165mm f/2.8, 1.4 converter, and 400mm FA ED(IF). The ThinkTank will hold the body (I’m testing that theory with my NII as a standin) with attached 400, the 35, 45-85, and 120, plus the AF540FGZ.



The fisheye is a must. I usually have wider lenses than 63% of the diagonal, and I just can’t seem to do without one in the bag:


(Juneau, Arsat 30)


(Bigelow Point, near Nantucket, P67 plus 35mm fisheye)

And I need a macro and a portrait lens.

But I’m trying to think of how to fill that gap between 165 and 400, and the 1.4 converter is all I’ve come up with. I have a 300/4 (not ED) for the 67, but it’s just too big and the image quality of that lens on the smaller format isn’t worth the weight and bulk.

What about a 300/4 ED(IF) in the A mount? I think I can afford a pre-FA example with what little is left of my budget. What about the 150-300 zoom, instead of the 165?

Rick “sorry for all the backstory” Denney

I have the 150-300. I'm not crazy about the image quality. I would take the 67 105mm with me. Love that lens. For mid-range, think about the 200mm FA. It's light weight, and sharp. BTW, I was in Alaska and the Yukon in the fall. I took the Hartblei 45mm super rotator, 45-85mm, the 105mm, 120mm FA Macro200mm, 1.4 converter and the 300mm FA 5.6. I came home wishing that I would've had a better tele solution. The FA 5.6 is just a stop too slow for bears evening feeding. I don't need a real wide angle because I stitch. Sold my 35mm FA. Also, I'm not sure that I used the 45-85mm at all. It is great for group portraits and street photography.

[Thomas]

Rick:
I highly recommend you consider the FA 150-300mm. It's light, fairly compact and allows perfect framing between 150 and 300mm. The lens hasn't gotten great reviews here (one of which is silly bad), but my copy is excellent. I have the 645 150mm A and FA, the 200mm FA and the 67 30mm M*; whatever the zoom loses to the primes is made up by its framing ability. You need not take my word alone, in a recent interview with Charles Cramer on LuLa, he indicates he loves the lens. Enjoy your trip.

Tom

[rdenney]

Further Update: I couldn't resist the 300/4 A*, in addition to the 200/4. The 200/4, in hand and so far, looks great, despite some coating flaws that I suspect are fungus. I can usually tell a soft lens even on the ground glass, though, of course, not to pixel-peeping standards.

I may have to thaw out some film--I'm impatient for my birthday!

The 150-300 seems to draw polarized opinions. I might end up with one someday just to settle it in my own mind.

Rick "who buys a significant camera rarely enough any more to enjoy the process" Denney

[formercanuck]

Alaska, depending on what time of year, and where exactly you're going can be quite damp/humid.
I took a trip a long time back with my red Pentax K-x on Princess Cruises (late June), and my lens fogged up a bit during the glacier inlets.
It did drizzle a lot (I had a cheap 18-200 Sigma).
The craziest thing happened - I was actually lent a Sigma bigma to take a few shots (there were other Pentaxians!!)
and the most unusual - in the rain, I got a shot of a Pentaxian shooting off the bow with a 645D.

[yurihuta]

Denney,

If your location is NoVA = Norther Virginia, then I might have some lenses you can try out. Specifically at the long end and also the FA 45-85mm.
For the long glass I have:
A* 300mm f/4 ED-IF
FA 150-300mm f/5.6
And a long shot because of its massive size would be the 67 M* 400mm f/4 ED-IF

One adapter to consider if you have lots of 67 glass is the Zork/Zoerk ProSA-P67 - I have one of these and it is useable on the 645 bodies with several of the 67 lenses.
Here is a link - Zörk Pro Shift adapter which I also have a nice copy of.

I live in DC.

Yuri

---------- Post added 03-26-2018 at 08:50 PM ----------

PS For the A* 300mm f/4 - I found a nice tripod mount solution thanks to a clever Pentax 645 shooter. There is a telescope tripod adapter that fits around the A* 300mm perfectly.