Jump to content

scottelly

Members
  • Posts

    764
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. <p>I'd say that if Canon really wanted to load those cameras up with features, they'd make them do everything the 70 D does and more. Frankly I'm not sure why they don't. The Nikon D750 seems like a VERY popular camera, and that thing ain't cheap. I have no doubt that if Canon made their answer to the D750 and the D810 in one big, loaded camera, they could probably charge $5,000 for it, and it would be considered the ultimate camera for someone who doesn't care about shooting fast. Sony did something like this in the mid-range market (these Canons are high-end in their range) with the A77, which WAS loaded. It had GPS. It had a fold-out screen. Like most high-end Sony cameras at that time it had in-body image stabilization. It had super high resolution for its day. It had weather seals, like Sony's high-end cameras. It could even shoot at 12 fps (faster than any Sony before it). The truly amazing thing was that camera cost less than $2,000. And I think it sold quite well. If Canon really wanted to sell these 5Ds and 5Dsr cameras, they would have included all the extras. It's not as if they couldn't do it. Nikon can do it in their little D5300, so it's really not an issue of having enough space. I think they are penny wise and pound foolish. It's dumb, bean-counter thinking. It's not as if people aren't going to buy extras for these cameras! There's the powerful flash units, the lenses, the battery grip, spare batteries, and a whole lot more. It's just dumb that they crippled these cameras, and it's going to cost them sales of camera, which will cost them customers. Some of the Nikon shooters who might have switched if the cameras were truly loaded will wait and see what Nikon makes instead.</p>
  2. <p>I'm sure they'll put the new 24 MP sensor in the 80d, and then drop the price of the 70d to $999, sell this new T6s for 849 or even 799, and sell the new 80d for $1,299. Right now the 70d body is $1,099. They only have to drop it $100 to do what I'm talking about, and with the introduction of a new body like the T6s, I'd say something like this is coming. The 70d is not old, but it's been on the market long enough that it could be refreshed. I just wonder what they're going to do after the 90d has been on the market for a year. Maybe they'll stop making DSLR bodies by then and go completely mirrorless by that time.</p>
  3. <p>Hey Richard, just in case you didn't find a place where there are samples from the Wolverine F2D 20 MP scanner, here is a gallery of photos that were scanned with the 14 MP version of that scanner:<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/mfunnell/sets/72157631774509984/<br> I was actually pretty surprised how good they look. For example, the spokes on the bicycle are quite visible in this shot, where the bike is pretty small in the bottom right corner of the photo here:<br> https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8183/8089787059_fc348e9756_o.jpg<br> Here's another example I think is good:<br> https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8043/8089820156_eb63902436_o.jpg<br> I don't know if those were sharpened, but they look like they could use a little sharpening. I also suspect the 20 MP version of the scanner will do a slightly better job. I suspect that until we get much higher resolution sensors, these will be about as good as you can get from a really cheap, really fast, home scanner. The alternative solution would be to get yourself a high resolution flatbed scanner, which will take about half an hour or more to scan a roll of film, rather than about five or ten minutes (and if you're fast, I have no doubt you could scan a 24 exposure roll with the Wolverine scanner in about two or three minutes). Here's a flatbed you should look at:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/985630-REG/epson_b11b210201_perfection_v550_photo_scanner.html<br> I'm considering getting this HP, because I can scan large format film with it (I have a Toyo 4x5):<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/496397-REG/HP_Hewlett_Packard_L1957A_Scanjet_G4050_Photo_Flatbed.html<br> I've read that the HP is very slow, but I have no doubt that is only at the highest resolution settings, and I will do preview scans at 1,200 ppi (pixels per inch - similar to dpi, but they are full color vs. what a typical, non-Foveon digital camera outputs or shoots at, which ends up being interpolated to full color ppi). The 1200 ppi scans should go in very fast, and then I'll scan to 4800 ppi 48 bit TIFF for best quality results. I'll probably sharpen a little at that point and then downsize to 10,000 pixels across (the originals will be about twice that resolution I suspect - 4,800 x 5). From a 4,800 ppi optical scan of a 35mm negative or slide, you would get scans a little more than 24 MP. With the Epson at highest optical resolution of 6,400 ppi, you will get scans from 35mm slides that are a little over 50 MP (about 8850 x 5,900). As with just about any scan, you will get better final images if you sharpen them some (maybe a lot), but sharpening can cause the grain to become more visible, so it takes some experimenting to get best results.<br> Again, the flatbed scanners, at their top optical resolution settings, will take a long time to scan the film - probably a minute or more per frame of 35mm (some people report 2 to 3 minutes per 35mm negative, which would mean that a 24 exposure roll would take over an hour to scan). Certainly the scan times with flatbed scanners depend on the resolution you choose, other settings, like sharpening, dust removal, etc., and the speed of your computer. Apparently the HP G4050 is a pretty slow scanner - probably because it scans the film twice (once with each color of light, which is why it is called a six-color, 96 bit scanner). This is why I suggested you look at the less-expensive Epson first. Epson has a great reputation for color. I have found their printers to produce the best, most pleasing color in the past. (I once compared an Epson printer against an HP and a Canon of comparable price at a computer store, using glossy paper and a photo I had on a memory card.)<br> This is an interesting old article about scanning film:<br> http://www.clarkvision.com/photoinfo/drum.vs.flatbed-scanners/index.html<br> Something you might consider experimenting with, if you get a flatbed scanner, is wet mounting (dripping some liquid, like Kami wet mount solution) on the glass and laying your strip/sheet of film on that. The process of wet mounting reduces optical issues caused by having two separated surfaces (the top surface of the glass and the bottom surface of the film). You need to place your film the right way up/down, so the emulsion is on top or bottom, from what I've read. I'm not sure which will work better. Certainly wet mounting puts the film as close to the glass as possible, which is what flatbed scanners are made for (sheets of paper with print or photos printed). The typical, cheap flatbed scanner is pre-set at the factory to be focused on the top surface of the glass, or maybe a few microns above that, so a printed photo will be perfectly in focus. Using a film holder that places your negative more than a few microns above the surface of the glass will actually make the film go out of focus a little, I believe . . . but I may be wrong about this. I guess it depends on the scanner. Certainly wet mounting improves the image quality in some of the comparisons I have seen. I have yet to try this myself, but when I get a flatbed scanner, I will be experimenting with placing film in the film holder, on the glass, and wet mounting.<br> Good luck!<br> :)</p>
  4. <p>For about a hundred bucks in the U.S. you can get a Wolverine Super F2D scanner that is super fast and easy to use, and that will allow him to scan 35mm slides and negatives in a reasonable amount of time and at 20 MP, for viewing, posting, and printing small. No, it won't let him scan at super high quality for making 16x20 inch or 20x30 inch prints or even for making fine art prints at 8x10 size, but it will let him see a reasonable amount of detail and print at 8x10 for cheap prints, and it may even give reasonable quality up to 13x19 (probably not for show quality printing though). The word "professional" has many meanings. He is probably using medium format cameras if he is a professional who still shoots film (though he might just like the look of film - I do, and I've been shooting with an old Nikon F3 lately). If this is the case, the Wolverine scanner will not do, because it will not scan medium format film. You should get him a flatbed scanner, like the new Epson V850 scanner if he is shooting film larger than 35mm (also called 135 film). They are just coming out on the market now, to replace the V750 scanner. There is a cheaper one called the V800, but if you can afford it, the V850 will be appreciated.<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1083201-REG/epson_b11b224201_perfection_v850_pro_scanner.html<br> Some people say flatbed scanners are no good for scanning 35mm film, and for some uses, that is true, but the new Epson V850 (or V800 or even the older Epson V750 or V700) would surely be good enough for scanning film to make prints up to 16x20. That is an opinion thing though. Certainly to print really big prints, or for entries to competitions, where large prints are required, I would suggest sending 35mm film out to a professional scanning service, where they scan using a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner at 8,000 ppi or something like that. That is very expensive though (both the service, and of course that huge monster scanner).<br> Here's the Wolverine (a great little gift that might be a complete waste of money, but fun to use):<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1018538-REG/wolverine_f2d20super_super_f2d_4_in_1_film.html<br> Has he ever use a large format camera? You could get him one, and he might find it a wonderful gift.<br> If he likes to shoot in the studio, you might get him this:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/221234-REG/Toyo_View_180_109_45CX_4x5_View_Camera.html<br> If he likes to shoot still subjects outdoors (like flowers or landscapes), you might get him this:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/257305-REG/Toyo_View_180_106_4x5_45CF_Field_Camera.html<br> The cheaper camera can be taken outdoors, but it is very bulky and not convenient for walking around with. If he shoots in the back yard a lot though, it would work just fine.<br> He will need to buy himself a lens, some accessories, and some film for those cameras.<br> Here's a good place in the U.S. to find used lenses for around $200 to $500:<br> https://www.keh.com/search/list?n=151<br> Presumably he has talked about getting a scanner, but just in case he has not, you might think about these other options, because large format is a wonderful world, and no reasonably priced digital camera will ever reach the level of quality achievable with 4x5 film . . . in our lifetime anyway. I've been waiting 10 years for it to happen, and even today the new $25,000 medium format 60 megapixel digital cameras are not there yet, and it looks like it will be many years before they match the quality from 4x5 with such expensive cameras, if ever.<br> Just so you know, large format film is much more expensive than the film he is probably using now:<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/759411-USA/Kodak_1710516_4_x_5_Portra.html</p>
  5. <p>I am restarting this thread, because I am looking for a flatbed scanner to replace the HP 4890 that I had years ago. I figure the G4050 would be a little better, and it's a good price. The results I got with the 4890 were plenty good . . . but the color could have been better. I figure that was because I didn't scan at 48 bit (too intensive for the computer I had at that time). Now that I have a dual-core computer with a really fast hard drive and 4 GB of RAM (instead of 1 GB, like I used to have), I figure I can start scanning film again. I'm going to do lots of testing with 35mm at first, but I will be scanning 4x5 too. I plan to experiment with wet mounting, because that appears to give far better scanning results. It will allow me to vary the focus too, using various thicknesses of mylar or other plastic wet-mount sheets. (I plan to try mounting on the glass directly using a drop or two of distilled water too.)<br> Anyone with experience with an HP G4050, who can give some advice for best practices and tell of some experiences with results, now that there has been a few years for software upgrades and such, please let me know what you think!<br> :)<br> <br />Thank you, in advance, for your help.</p> <p>Scott</p> <p>..</p>
  6. <p>Well, if it is broken and you would rather have a like-new 45 CX, I'm selling mine. It's in excellent condition. Here's my add for the lens.</p> <p>http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/pho/4462578624.html</p> <p>Here's my e-mail address, if you're interested: scottelly@yahoo.com</p> <p>..</p>
  7. <p>Actually Sam, if you can afford the new 18-200mm VR II it is incredibly sharp. It is probably the lens to get. If you get the 18-140mm VR in a kit though, you can get it for about $300, so you can't beat the value.</p> <p>Check out the 18-200mm VR II here:</p> <p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1281/cat/13</p> <p>Too bad they haven't tested the 18-140 yet, but the 18-105mm VR has very similar performance, so you can compare that one. Here: </p> <p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1221/cat/13</p> <p>DxOMark has some information that might help:</p> <p> </p>
  8. <p>I can't believe some of the comments I have read in here. Stuff like, "If you add a tripod you have now lost the advantage of the Nikon 1 sytem." WTF? So if you take a tripod your system is now as heavy as a D4s with 800mm f5.6 lens with the tripod. Am I reading that right? <i>(Mod note: Personal insult deleted.)</i></p> <p>On top of that . . . do you think that low weight is the only thing a Nikon 1 system has as an advantage? What about the 60 fps shooting speed? What about the 20 fps auto-focus tracking shooting speed? What about the ability to put a $1,000 lens on your camera and get performance almost as good as the D4s with a $20,000 lens? http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918849-REG/nikon_2205_af_s_nikkor_800mm_f_5_6e.html<br> One more thing I have to say about you whiners that say the V3 is priced too high . . . <br> Currently the V3 is $1,196.95. That includes a $296.95 lens and a $236.95 adapter. Take those away and you have a new camera body that is available for $663.05 before it has even launched. No doubt the price will come down in a few months, once the channel is full. $663.05 is actually $83.90 LESS THAN A V2 body sells for right now!<br> Maybe you don't want the lens or the adapter or both. Sell them for $40 less than they cost new, and you'll have the new V3 for the same price as a new V2. It's a no-brainer.<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1038908-REG/nikon_27695_1_v3_mirrorless_digital.html<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/897576-REG/Nikon_27603_Nikon_1_V2_Mirrorless.html<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1038909-REG/nikon_3367_1_nikkor_vr_10_30mm.html<br> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon+ft1&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ta</p>
  9. <p>Soon there will be 20 MP sensors in m4/3 cameras. That's only 25% more pixels, so the step up will hardy make any difference in noise levels. Sigma could make a 25 MP equiv. Foveon sensor m4/3 camera right now. They already make some lenses. They could add an 8-16 based on their current design and a 17-70mm f2.8-4 OS based on their current 17-70mm f2.8-4 lens. Then they could make a 70-300mm f3.5-5.6 based on their current design. All these lenses would be stellar performers, and if they are made in the current C quality they would be really nice additions to their m4/3 line. They can use their new Quattro APS-C sensor (just not use the whole thing for making pictures - though they could use the full width with a special 1:3 panoramic photo mode). I'd LOVE to see a m4/3 Sigma camera with Foveon sensor! THAT is something I would definitely buy. Then it would be time to save up for the Noktons! I'd also like to see Sigma make a 9-100mm f3.5-5.6 OS C lens based on their new 18-200mm f3.5-6.3 OS C. Think they could make it for $399, like the current lens costs? Wouldn't THAT be something? What I'd like even better though would be a sharp 12-100mm f2.8-4 OS C in m4/3 format for $499.</p> <p>Oh, wishes wishes.</p>
  10. scottelly

    Calm Sunrise

    Exposure Date: 2011:10:01 07:17:21; Make: SIGMA; Model: SIGMA SD14; ExposureTime: 1/250 s; FNumber: f/8; ISOSpeedRatings: 100; ExposureProgram: Manual; ExposureBiasValue: 0/10; MeteringMode: Spot; Flash: Flash did not fire; FocalLength: 50 mm; FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 85 mm; Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Macintosh;
  11. © Copyright © 2013 Scott Barton Kennelly

  12. © Copyright 2005 by Scott Kennelly

×
×
  • Create New...