david_littleboy__tokyo__ja

<p>"my edited images are sometimes professionally printed to much larger dimensions."</p>

<p>I'd suggest actually comparing* larger prints from your scans, the professional scans, and wet projection printed 35mm at similar dimensions. My guess is that what you see will be very similar. My darkroom experience was a long time ago, but I was never happy with 11x14 prints from Panatomic X, whereas Plus X in 120 was gorgeous at that size. More recently, what came out of my Nikon 9000 looked a lot like what I saw in the film with a 30x microscope. When grain aliasing was first discussed, it looked to me to only be a problem with certain (but widely used) consumer films. So my opinion here is that what you are seeing actually is the grain clumping. Still, scans of even ISO 100 color negative films could be pretty gritty, so I just stuck to Provia 100F.</p>

<p>*: This is because looking at a 4000 ppi scan on screen is a very detailed view of the film: it's more than a 20x loupe, probably less than a 40x microscope.</p>

<p>I'm real happy with mine. At 24mm on a 5DII it's just as good as the (unshifted) TSE 24 II from f/5.6 to f/16, even in the corners at print sizes up to 16x24. IMHO, it's the first normal zoom that's good enough for serious landscape work. I can't speak for portrait and other work, though.</p>

<p>I never saw anything but mush from the 2450. The V700, on a good day in a good mood, was surprisingly close to the 9000. Even away from perfect focus, the V700 is much better than anything I saw from _my_ 2450. Again, I'm reporting what I saw, and it wasn't nice.</p>

<p>The V700 has some color fringing problems that the 9000 doesn't have, so in real life, it's a long way from the 9000. But the 9000 is a pain, too. I couldn't persuade the standard MF holder to ever hold a piece of film flat, but the stupid glass holder requires that most films be held above the lower (non-anti-Newton) glass to prevent Newton's rings. But once you did that, it was very nice.</p>

<p>Again, my experience was that the V700 was a lot better than the 2450. I didn't find the 2450 adequate at all. The V700, with some effort, could be persuaded to get some sharp scans if the film was at the exact right height. Finding that height and getting it set up so you are scanning there regularly was such a bear that I never got there. But some of my better scans were OK. My 2450 scans were all mush.</p>

<p>The problem with 8x10 from 35mm is that except for the very best films scanned on the very best scanners, it looks like crap. In my experience, on a good day, the best films hold up to about a 7x enlargement. On a good day, the V700 gets fairly close to that. The good news is that 7" x 10.5" printed on an A4 sheet has nice even borders. But if a family photo taken on 8x10 film appears in your family attic, you'll be able to scan it on the V700. E.g.<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/original</a> (Taken in 1920 or so.)</p>

<p>The experience here was that the 2450 was pretty poor, the V700 pretty good, the 9000 better. YMMV, of course. Vuescan does better IR cleaning than Epson Scan (artifacts were ugly with Epson Scan), FWIW.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Uh, I thought this thread was about non-pro FF dSLRs. Which have gotten cheaper. As a user of non-pro FF dSLRs, I like the trend. I suspect that if Canon comes out with a new version of the 6D in 2015 or so, I'll be buying it, after getting 6 years of use from my 5DII. But I don't expect it'll be under US$2,000.</p>

<p>But the APS-C dSLRs aren't consumer products in the sense TVs, MP3 players, computers are. By multiple orders of magnitude. So expecting that sort of behavior in prices isn't justified. And not everything gets cheaper. Aren't cars still expensive? (I don't own one, so I wouldn't know.)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Camera stuff doesn't get cheaper."</p>

<p>Huh? FF started out in the US$10,000 range. The 5D, 5DII, 5DIII, D700, D800, Sony 24MP FF were all US$3,000 cameras. The new guys are US$2,000. That's cheaper. A lot cheaper. Not cheap enough according to the OP, of course. But cheaper.</p>

<p>"Second, the market supports it."</p>

<p>This would be my theory. The sensors have enormous features in an age where clean rooms support insanely fine features and they've had a full decade to figure out how to do it, with only a slight increase in devices/unit area (11MP to 22MP and now 36MP is nothing like Moore's Law). I wouldn't be surprised if the original FF Canon was a loss leader, but by the time the 5D came out (now 6 years ago) I'm sure they were making money, and by now, they can't not be making a killing. (My intuition; your theory may vary.)</p>

<p>"<strong>But in reality, what makes any of these +$2000 cameras worth their suggested retail prices?"</strong></p>

<p>US$2000 for a camera that womps all over 645 and gives 6x7 a run for its money in a 35mm SLR size package is a seriously amazing deal. If you aren't using the capabilities of these cameras, then it isn't worth it, of course.</p>

<p>"I wonder about..."<br>

Yep. ROFL. Not the most reliable source for a Canon review. But the folks at LensRentals have a glowing to the point of being hagiography review of the new lens up. They love it. If it's anywhere near as good as they claim, it'll be worth every penny (again, to crazed pixel-peeping landascape wannabes such as myself).<br>

<a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l">http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/normal-range/canon-24-70mm-f2.8l</a></p>

<p>There is one enormous difference between the lenses: the old lens extended as the focal length is reduced, whereas the new lens extends as the focal length is increased. That means that the lens hood on the old lens is somewhat useful at all focal lengths, whereas the hood on the new lens is only useful at 24mm. Sigh. But this might also have the effect that the magnification at closest focus at 70mm is different between the lenses. The specs for the lenses have the close focus distance being the same, but the new lens having a _smaller_ maximum magnification. If that were listed for the 24mm focal length, then it might mean that there's an opposite difference at 70mm. Maybe, I'm just guessing.</p>

<p>Another possible disadvantage to the new lens is that it has slightly more barrel distortion at 24mm. This is easily and automagically fixed in RAW conversion, but it means that the lens becomes somewhat less wide at 24mm. (If done sensibly, distortion correction should not reduce resolution noticeably.)</p>

<p>With a backlit subject, unless your camera's spot meter is very tight, it may "see" some of the background if you use a wide angle lens. As long as you are close enough to the subject that the face (or whatever you want to meter from) is larger than the area seen by the meter, you are fine.</p>

<p>Remember that the spot meter "places" the area it sees at "middle gray", which is quite dark. You need to compensate by how far above (or below!) middle gray you want the subject's face to be rendered. For a generic portrait of a Caucasian, that would be at least 1 stop, maybe 1.5 or 2 stops plus compensation. For backlit portrait, you may actually want the subject to apear quite dark, so no compensation or even -1 compensation might work. Depends on how you want the subject rendered.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Not a character lens"<br>

Well, as before, it's the only zoom that looks to be an acceptable alternative to primes. I don't need character, I need prints that aren't soft. At 24mm and f/8 (where I'd shoot a lot), the Canon MTF charts show it being marginally better than the 24/2.8 prime and a lot better than either the 24-105 or the old version. That's a big deal. (And, yes, I realize those are calculated, not measured, MTFs, but that doesn't make them not a valid comparison between each other.)</p>

<p>Here are the MTF charts (lifted from the Canon Japan site) for these four lenses (top to bottom: new, old, 24-105, 24 prime). Either Canon is on drugs, or it's a seriously amazing lens.<br>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/145971044/original">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/145971044/original</a></p>

<p>"primarly for outdoor use and that is portable, and not in dire need of a tripod."</p>

<p>At this point, were there nothing else in the post, the answer would be Mamiya 7. It has the best lenses in MF, and the weight is such that you'll actually use it. And 6x7 is glorious. But it's a rangefinder, doesn't focus close, even using a polarizer is a pain, not remembering to remove the lens cap is going to bite you, etc. etc. etc. If you are thinking about an SLR, it's a world's worth of pain. But the glorious slides/negatives are worth it.</p>

<p>I have a Maxwell screen in a 50s Rolleiflex (f/3.5 Tessar) and a Brightscreen in a 60s 3.5F (Planar). The Maxwell screen is noticeably brighter and more even, but the frame lines on the Brightscreen are more usable (2x2 dark lines (Brightscreen "#3 crop lines") vs. 4x4 thin lines) and the big microprism blob in the center of the Brightscreen is easier to focus with than the assist-free Maxwell screen. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Both are much nicer than the screen that the 3.5F arrived with.</p>

<p>Sheesh! The crappy (and very expensive in Tokyo) Rollei strap on the 3.5F just failed: the clip at one end exploded into four pieces (that I could find). And the stupid pin in the middle of the fitting on the camera means that a modern strap won't work. Yuck. At least it failed at home without resulting in a camera drop.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm (essentially) with Mark P. on this. The 24-70/2.8 II looks to be the first normal zoom that competes with primes for landscape work, where the detail needs to hold out all the way out to the corners. I just came back from a trip lugging 21/2.8, 40/2.0, and 100/2.0 around summer-heat Japan. Would have been nice to have done it with just one lens.</p>

<p>Much of the price difference is due to the change in the Yen/USD exchange rates over the last few years. In Japan, the 24-70 II is only slightly more expensive than the old version, at least at the MRP level. And I expect prices will come down somewhat once initial demand has been met. Still, that's cold comfort for folks who work solely in USD or Euros. The massively improved MTF performance has me enthused; finally a normal zoom that makes not lugging all the primes an option. Given the quality that the Zeiss 21/2.8 coughs up, there currently isn't a normal zoom I'm willing to use. Your mileage and pocket depth will vary, of course.</p>

<p>"not to start another protection filter argument,"<br>

You just did<g>. YMMV, but I find that protection filters get filthy and I don't notice how gross they are until after it's way too late. So I don't use protection filters. If you can keep your filters clean, yer a better man than I. So I'll take my chances with taking lens cap photos, which I'm sure I will.</p>

<p>I'm amazed at how few (none so far) shots I've take of my Mamiya 7's lens cap. Probably next time out.</p>

<p>FWIW, I really like Provia 100F. It's much easier to get good exposure with it (vs. the Velvias) and it scans easily. But still has lots of punch. But in real life, real men shoot Velvia. You'll figure it out soon enough. Try both classic Velvia 50 and Velvia 100F.</p>

<p>Sheesh. I'm completely, 100% dead wrong: 36MP FF (and high-end AF!) for US$3000. Good show, Nikon. Canon must be freaking out. Grumble. I was hoping to limp along on my current peecee for a couple more years, but dealing with that large files with anything less than a quad-core 3.4 GHz i7 isn't going to be fun (assuming Canon comes out with a similar pixel count 5D3). Sigh.</p>

<p>Ditto on KEH and 500CM. Were I to do 'blad again, I'd look at the 60/3.5 and 100/3.5 lenses. Slower, but the MTF charts indicate better edge performance for landscapey things (and I like a slightly wider view than 80mm for normal). If you are made of money, the SWC's seriously kewl, too, giving you a 38/60/100 kit.</p>

<p>One other thing. There's at least one newer 500-series body (503CX) that's much cheaper used (KEH had one the other day). It apparently doesn't have the larger mirror that's a nicety for longer lenses. Sounded like a good option. (Flame me if this is bad advice, QB.) Ouch, prices are currently steep for used 'blad stuff at KEH.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The IS on the 70-200/4.0 IS is seriously amazing. With care (and my left arm's elbow on a solid surface), I get consistently sharp images at 1/30 at all focal lengths. Which would be unthinkable at any focal length in that range. Heck, 1/60 would be hit and mostly miss. So unless you desperately need motion stopping, the f/4.0 IS lens would be my strong recommendation.</p>

<p>"I am not trusting the veracity of this French site's info"<br>

IMHO, that's the right idea. Both the Canonistas and Nikonistas are going nuts over silly 5D3/D800 rumors. And they all sound real silly to me. IMHO, a lot of 35mm glass won't be up to producing 38MP images, if you are expecting your 38MP images to look as good at the pixel level as MF digital images do.</p>

<p>Personally, I don't see much need for improvements in either of them. Maybe 24MP would be nice so I could remember how big my images are (5616 x 3744 pixels isn't a pair of numbers I've succeeded in memorizing, and I've been producing that size image for 3 years now) and the Nikonistas might like to make larger prints. (12MP blows 35mm film out of the water, but it's really no better than 645. 21MP makes 6x7 quite pointless.)</p>

<p>Unfortunately, the one thing that won't happen is an under US$1800 FF camera: the D700 and 5D2 came out when one US4 got you 115 or so yen, and nowadays it'll only get you 76 yen. I'd love a light, 24MP, FF Rebel. But it ain't gonna happen soon. (Canon manufactures camera bodies in Japan, so we're scrod on price, but Nikon may have offshored to Thailand, although parts from Japan and costs of refurbishing the flooded factories may offset lower mfg costs.)</p>

<p>Whatever. At some time in the next two or three years, both Canon and Nikon will have new models, and we'll have a new round of Canonista/Nikonista sniping at each other. Viva la differance!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The 5DII price has already dropped: Amazon is selling the body for US$ 2,175.00. (This is actually rather old news.)</p>

<p>FWIW, all the talk about 30+MP FF cameras is pure rumor. In the mean time, US$ 2,175.00 gets you a seriously nice camera that makes amazing prints that compete with the best that can be done with 6x7 film. If you are into image quality in landscape, portrait, or art photography, the 5DII's a real nice camera that will continue to produce great images long after the 5DIII comes out, whenever that is.</p>

<p>I don't know what other photographers used for the Kodak Colorama, but St. Ansel used one 8x10 and two 5x7 cameras for one, two 8x10 overlapping transparencies for another, and a 7x17" camera (on 4 3/4 x 16 1/2 inch film) with a 13-inch Zeiss Protar lens for a third.</p>

<p>There's no snow here in Tokyo, but if you just look at things in the right wavelength band...</p>