jim schwaiger

I have read that the number that all flatbed makers publish are theoritical maximums. In other words, DMAX <= 3.3, and if you notice on film scanners, they'll even publish DMAX = 4.2 which probably isn't possible in the theoritical world. <br><br>

 

Those numbers come from these calculations:<br>

log(2^11) = 3.31 (Scanner with 11 effective bits)<br>

log(2^14) = 4.21 (Scanner with 14 effective bits)<br><br>

 

The 11-bit scanner probably has a 14-bit A/D, but the lower 3 bits are considered noise. Likewise the 14-bit scanner probably had a good 16-bit A/D where the lower 2 bits are considered noise. But, the number of effective bits is really just a property internal to the A/D, so that doesn't factor in many of the real parameters, like the light source stability, stray reflected light, etc. Essentially there are other sources of noise, that limit the DMAX more than the A/D device.

I would recommend Epson, Microtek, or Canon. You can get 48-bit output as low as about $100, but it may be worth it to go ahead and get a $400 scanner that can do a decent job with film. First of all, you'll be getting a better built scanner and if you ever go to MF or LF, the transparency options might matter.<br><br>

 

And higher resolution is better even if you don't use it all. I would go with 1200ppi or higher. <br><br>

 

From a recent comparison I did, the following models might suit your needs:<br>

$250 Epson Perfection 1650 Photo, 1600ppi, 48-bit output, DMAX=3.2 <br>

$400 Epson Perfection 2450 Photo, 2400ppi, 48-bit output, DMAX=3.3 <br>

$450 Canon CanoScan D2400UF, 2400ppi, 48-bit output, DMAX=3.3 <br>

$150 Microtek ScanMaker 5600, 2400ppi, 48 bit output <br>

$400 Microtek ScanMaker 5700, 1200ppi, 48 bit output, DMAX=3.3 <br><br>

 

The Perfection 2450 and Scanmaker 5700 have built in TMAs and have faster interfaces (Firewire). I think Microtek and Epson have newer models now too, so check out their sites. I also noticed that I had HPs in my comparison, but eliminated them because I couldn't find how many bits they exported in their specs.

It appears that photo.net doesn't strictly enforce any of their limits for image dimensions or file size. They state that they may delete any image over 100KB, but I've seen some as much as 200KB that have not been deleted.

Owning a Nikon body doesn't force you to buy their lenses. Sigma and others make decent lenses at reduced prices and you can always buy used lenses. And it seems that you already have a decent set of lenses, so why not plan to buy the one or two additional lenses and wear them out over the next decade or so?

Doug,

 

I have to disagree. The scanner is really 48-bit, even though it only exports 24 bits. That is still very much superior than a true 24-bit scanner. As long as you can adjust the curves/histogram in the scanner software, you can get the detail you want.

 

Scanner makers have used that trick for several years now as many scanners were 32, 42, or 48 bits, but only exported 24 bits because most software couldn't handle the extra data anyway.

 

I understand your purpose. You want to get all 48 bits into a file and then have the ability to adjust curves after the scan. I wanted the exact same thing when I selected my last scanner, so I checked the spec's to make sure the scanner actually exported 48 bits.

 

So, HP was not dishonest in proclaiming it a 48 bit scanner. It would help if they listed the output bit depth like many other manufacturers do.

 

Their documentation is a little ambiguous:

http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/document.jhtml?lc=en&docName=bps05307

They mention Setting Maximum Pixel Depth and talk about transferring 48-bits while showings a Windows screenshot. That's what I would complain about. In that text, it sounds like 48-bit mode is disabled by default, but can be turned on. But right above it, it says you can't access 48 bit data on a PC.

 

I wish you well.

Well, the scanner is truly 48 bit, it appears that you just can't get software that will give you access to all of it. This really isn't a big deal IF the HP Precisionscan Pro software does a good job. The only thing you can't really do after the scan is select how the 48-bits get placed into 24-bits (which can be a critical step). You may have to adjust the curves in the scanner software to get optimal results. For web, printing, etc. you have to go to 24-bit anyway, so why not try it out and see if it meets your needs.

The G series lack an aperture ring which means that you can't use them on manual focus bodies (and possibly some older Nikon AF bodies?). The G series also takes in about half the light at the 100mm end (1 stop less). The D lens is probably better (or less) glass.

 

If you are taking snapshots, you may never notice the difference, but if you want great quality, the 28-105 D is probably worth the difference in price.

Simply opening the file does not change it, but what if you open and then save it without modifications. If you use the exact same compression level, the size _should_ not change. But if you use a different (more or less) compression level, the file will more than likely change. Even if you save at the maximum quality, it is likely that it will degrade the image.

I agree that she needs to try them out and tell you which one feels good in her hands. Unless she has very specialized interests, either system will be fine (for a while at least). If she gets serious, she'll eventually want a better body, but she can collect a few lenses in the meantime. I second Jim's idea of getting her one 50mm f1.8 lens and let her learn with it for a year or so. Then she can get a zoom, longer prime, wide angle prime, or whatever fits here interest the best.

 

Nikon and Canon have a very complete set of lenses that people have to go to great effort to find something to complain about (other than price). I have the N65, a 50mm f1.8 and a 28-105mm zoom and could go quite a while before I really need anything more. The only other suggestion I have is to avoid the cheap zooms to start with and try to stay away from poor lenses in general.

Same response here. They must have a server down or something.

Looks like it's a problem with your software or your connection. Evey image loaded fine from my PC using IE 5.0.

I have the 28-105. It is a great lens.

I'd suggest an N80 or an N65 if you really want a cheap/light camera and AF. Then get a 50mm prime (inexpensive) and/or a 80-200 f/2.8 (a bit expensive). I have a 28-105mm that is pretty decent too, but is a little slow.

I started with the N65 and a 50/1.8 last year and it is a great lens (and inexpensive as well). It may be the best lens you ever own. It works great for everything you want. I would get the new "D" version of the 50/1.8 and keep it on the camera most of the time.

 

Experiment with the 28-70mm as well. The 28mm end is nice for landscapes and the 70mm end will work well for close portraits. If you get the 50mm lens, experiment a little by using both lenses at 50mm on the same subject (at the same aperture) to see the difference.

 

I don't think Nikon makes the 100-300mm lens, but it will be much more difficult to learn to use. If you are hand-holding the camera, the 50mm will allow on the order of 8 to 16 times as much light to get to the film. Basically this means you need bright sunny days to learn to use the 100-300mm. You can use the 50mm in almost any light. In a nutshell, it is a great beginner lens that you'll find useful for many years to come.

I can say that the color management that comes with every Mac (ColorSync) is very mature. iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD may be reason enough to lean towards the Mac as well. I personally like clean simple interfaces.

 

I don't think you'll be limited by either system. See what the service bureau uses and ask them if they have problems with files from the other platform.

I bought my fist SLR last year (N65 with 50/1.8 lens). I wanted Nikon or Canon for the nice variety of lenses, and the low end Nikons felt a lot nicer than the low end Canons. The Rebels felt like a plastic kids toy to me. If Nikon puts that much more care into their cheap body, I figure the high end stuff will be wonderful.

 

I also like the fact that I could regress to an all manual camera with the same lenses if I ever want to (I am carefully avoiding the G series lenses). So, once I have a few great lenses, I can upgrade to a better AF body, go all manual, or go digital. And Nikon already has an incredible selection of lenses, so I'm not worried that I'll be left wanting more.

Find an SLR body that lets you go completely manual, but has some auto modes as well. In the Nikon world, I'm talking the N65 or N80 at a minimum. I'd avoid the Nikon N55 and low end Canon Rebels. Then get one fast (prime) normal lens, like the 50/1.8 and learn to use it well. For sports, you probably want a fast telephoto, like a 200/2.8 or similar. If the sport is always outdoors in bright sunshine, a zoom might work well (ie 70-300 or 80-200).

 

If you have limited funds, research any system quite a bit before purchase because you will have to live with its limitations for a while. For the stuff you mentioned, the lens speed seems like the only important consideration. And find a place that will let you hold the body in your hands to see if it is comfortable.

I want to combine ND grad filters and a polarizer on my N65 with 2

different lenses (50/1.8, 28-105/3.5-5.6).

 

The filter sizes are 52mm and 62mm. I'd like to be able to use the

same filters with both, so I was looking at the Cokin P system for

the ND Grads and planned to get the 62mm Nikon Circular Polarizer

(and use a step-up ring for the 50/1.8). But it appears that the

front threads of the CP are larger than 62mm. I can't find that info

online, so I don't know if I can get an adapter to work with the

Cokin system.

 

What is the best approach here? Is it critical to polarize before an

ND grad? If I get a Cokin P type circular polarizer, which brand

should I get (I hear the Cokins aren't great)? I want to plan for

everything to work as wide as 28mm without vignetting.

I have the N65 and it is nice, but does lack spot-metering and AE lock which you might find useful. The N80 has everything you want. Sounds like you might want a wide angle prime and a telephoto prime. A fast zoom for sports photography won't be cheap.

I recently bought the 28-105mm and I keep it on my N65 all the time now. I love being able to go from wide to tele to macro mode with the same lens. I can't recommend it enough. I've avoided the G series because I may "upgrade" to a camera that doesn't require batteries one day (that, and something tells me I'll regret it one day).

There are only 2 cases I can think of where you might see a fine scratch on the front glass of a lens. First, if you are doing Macro photography. The scratch may be in focus enough to make the image slightly unsharp. Focusing beyond a foot or so will place the lens and anything right in front of it completely out of focus and you'll never know the scratch exists. You can experiment with placing a scratched piece of glass right in front of the lens -- see if you can tell it's there.

 

The other case is when you are shooting into or nearly into the sun. If the sun hits the scratch just right, it could show up on film. Maybe someone with a scratched up UV filter can tell us if they ever have real problems with that.

The N65 does have a center-weighted mode, but no spot metering.

 

The N65 has a few limitations, but overall a very nice (and lightweight) body.

The real quesion is "how much distortion can you take?" And that partly depends on the subject matter. It seems like the wider you go, the more difficult it is to get a pleasing result. At the extreme, think of how many pleasing fisheye shots you've seen...

The numbers are the bits per channel. So they are really 24-bit and 48-bit images with all 3 channels (Red, Green, Blue).

 

Photoshop allows you to adjust the "levels" or "curves" before reducing to 8-bits per channel. That should fix your dynamic range problems (assuming you know how to use them). 8 bits/channel is enough once you adjust the levels -- your eyes can't distinguish 16.7 million colors (24-bit), much less 281 trillion (48-bit).

 

 

 

JPEG is 24-bit (8 bits/channel) and is lossy (not good for archiving).

Ritwik,

 

I bought an N65 with a 50mm f/1.8 last year and bought the 28-105mm zoom a couple of weeks ago (both Nikkor).

 

The 50mm is a great lens, fast and sharp. The 28-105mm is fun. From macro mode to wide angle in seconds and fast enough for most lighting.

 

They are two very practical lenses.