john_clare1

I'm switching too, after years of battling with crappy QC and AF issues. A shame, 'cos some of their lenses are sweet,

partticularly the 135mm f2. The 16-35 (both versions) aren't a patch on the 14-24mm though.

 

What's the point in having a great sensor when they can't make cameras that focus reliably, time after time? I got sick of

pictures where the camera locked onto the background even when focus point was over subject (5D, 1D mk II, 30D....)

Sold mine and got the older 28-70.

 

Mine was very sharp, *when* it was in focus, but it mis-focussed like crazy it just wasn't funny. Loved locking onto

background even though focus point was on subject's face/eyes.

 

Test shots worked fine at home, it was during real-world jobs it would mess up.

 

28-70mm not perfect either, but much better!

 

Switching to Nikon soon, but that's another thread...

Thanks for all your replies.

 

It's a much tougher decision than I thought! I'm leaning towrds the 5D, I have yet to hear a

bad word about it!

 

I know the weather sealing isn't up to 1 series standards, but will it stand up to usual UK

weather/rain?

Hi all,

 

I already own an original 1D body which I love (having previously owned EOS 3 and 1V).

 

I'm looking to buy a newer body for higher resolution/better high ISO performance. I will

keep the 1D as a second body/backup. I don't want to rely on one body and have to keep

chaning lenses!

 

My question is, should I get a 5D, a 1D mark II n, or a used Mark II?

 

I love the idea of full frame, but will swapping between two body styles be an issue, or do

you get used to it? I used to own a D60 and much prefer the 1 series layout/handling.

 

Saying that, I like the fact that the vertical grip is removeable when you want to travel

light.

 

Also, will there be a noticable quality difference between the 1D IIn and 5D in practice at

A3 size (max) prints? I'm not sure the 5D's resolution would be worth it for the type of

stuff I shoot: mainly press/premieres, music/gigs, journalism, occasional PJ-style

weddings.

 

I favour available light over flash, and already own 16-35 f2.8L, 70-200 f2.8L, 50 f1.4,

100 f2, 100 Macro (non USM).

 

I aim to start submitting to picture agencies soon - will there be too much of a quality

difference if shooting original 1D and 5D together? I'm not even sure how many press

agencies in the UK will accept 4 Megapixel images these days?

 

I was talking to a pap guy I know and he suggests buying another used 1D and use the

savings to invest in better L series primes, which will allow the use of lower ISOs on the 1D

thus reducing noise...

 

Any help and advice welcomed!

Photoshop runs pretty much the same on both PC and Mac - it doesn't really matter. What is

important is pofiling your system for accurate colour.

 

Many like the Mac because of OS X - it's certainly the reason I switched recently. No spyware,

virii, Spotlight Search (can search on camera meta-data!), ExposeﾁL... I haven't looked back.

Hi there,

 

Get another 550EX and the Canon wireless transmitter. Will enable you to set various flash

ratios using ETTL (presuming you have the original 1D, if the mark II then you'd be better

off with the 580EX so you can use the new E-TTL II technology).

 

Umbrellas are the way to go if you want portability and soft light, and yes you'll need

stands for these too. Alternatively get a friend to hold a reflector and bounce the flash off

that.

 

The 550 and 580 will give you more than enough power for head and shoulder portraits as

you'll generally be positioning the flashes close to the subject and you'll generally use a

wide aperture to blur the background.

 

Hope this helps

 

John

In response to Mary's comment:

 

I'm always confused why people say digital is best for low light. I shoot a lot of gigs and I

think film blows away digital at high ISOs. Granted, I have an original 1D, I know things have

improved a lot in this area, but still, to me, film grain looks WAY better than digital noise,

and neg film has much higher latitude for tricky exposure situations (which low light work

usually is).

 

Just my humble opinion!

I use both, depending on the image!

 

I start with Levels to set the points - what I love about Levels, and what keeps me from

using Curves for this task, is that you get get a visual indication of how much hightlight

and shadow is being clipped by holding don the ALT key (mac) or equivalent on PC.

 

For me, 60-70% of images will be looking good at this point. But some just won't

cooperate! In these cases I create another adjustment layer for Curves, This allows you to

adjust contrast in various parts of the curve, without blowing out highlight or shadow

detail as was pointed out earlier.

 

If you're a fan of the shadow/highliight tool, it is essentially doing the same this, adjusting

the curve in different parts of the image without affecting the other parts.

 

What would be nice is a combined Levels/Curves tool, like in my scanner software. The

curve is superimposed over the histogram and you get the best of both worlds in one

control!

I'm actually very interested in the DLSR option. In fact, I recently read that Jeff Ascough now uses 1DIIs! I wonder how he manages to remain discreet with those!

 

Thanks for all the help.

 

Still deciding...

Hi all,

 

I've recently sold my MF and LF gear, so my only film gear now is

35mm, which I scan with my Nikon LS-40.

 

I have an Epson 4870 that I used to use for MF/LF. I'm now thinking

it's time to sell it, and use the money towards an upgrade of my Nikon

LS-40.

 

I don't really shoot slide film - mainly colour and b&w neg, and I

print mainly up to A3 size. Shall I upgrade my Nikon to one of the

4000+ dpi scanners (would I see a noticable difference at A3?), or

keep it and put the money from the Epson towards my rent? ;-)

 

Thanks

Thanks for all your swift and helpful replies.

 

I too am puzzled by the cropping of feet. It's something I've never done in my life before, even when I began taking pictures! So it is with embarassment that I admit to doing it now, given my experience and education. I'm going to take everyone's suggestions and do some test rolls.

 

I do my own printing, and the cropping is on the neg itself...

 

LES - I don't think nervousness is an issue, but maybe rushing too much before the subjects get bored?

 

VOLKER - 20D - very tempted. If I sell the M6 and lens, and my 1n RS, I could prob afford a used 24-70L and a 20D.... I already have 70-200L and 16-35L.

 

DAMIR and others - Yes, on this occasion I may have just been rushing and not paying attention!

 

BEN Z - I rotate camera anti-clockwise for verticals. This led me to believe that because the lens is now higher than the finder, this would increase chance of feet-chopping. As others have quite rightly pointed out, I should be getting MORE on the neg, not less....

 

ROGER - I have an investment in Canon gear and glass so switching to Nikon at this stage really isn't the best solution! IMHO, Canon lead the digi-SLR race, and I prefer the ergonomics of Canon bodies.

 

 

So, my next step is a few days re-learning my M6 and really paying attention with my framing and what corresponding image I get on the neg. When I get the results back I will in a better position to make my decision!

 

Thanks again.

Hi there,

 

I'm hoping you guys can help me make an informed decision as my brain

is a bit of a mess at the moment and I simply cannot decide or think

rationally...!

 

First a bit of background: I have just finished a Photography HND and

am persuing a career as a freelance press photographer. I shoot mainly

documentary/jounralism/available light portraits/music. I want to do

this on a freelance basis to suppliment my part time teaching work.

 

I have a lovely M6 with 35mm Summicron (pre-ASPH) lens. I love the

camera, I have sold one before and regretted it so bought this one.

However, I have a feeling that I'm letting emotion/mystique get in the

way of practicality.

 

In the autumn, I'm shooting my first paid wedding, and the couple want

PJ style, so I feel that my M6 would be ideal. I've even considered

buying a second body and a 90mm lens! I will use my 1D for the

formals/flash work.

 

I love all the benefits that the Leica M offers... quietness,

compactness, ruggedness etc, and the lens quality isn't debateable. I

love the camera for travel and as my "carry everywhere" camera.

 

HOWEVER... I'm beginning to doubt that I have the sufficient skills to

operate the camera effectively in terms of framing. I'm sick of the

fact that what I frame in the viewfinder is different to what I get on

the negative (most recently: full length people shots framed

vertically have had chopped off feet - I'm SURE I didn't do that when

I composed the picture...)

 

I'm fully aware that parallax is an issue with rangefinder cameras but

didn't expect the difference to be THIS much, especially on a camera

of this calibre. Not only that, but I find the difference in coverage

at different focussing distances an annoyance too. I can accept

getting slightly more on the neg that what I framed - but chopped off

body parts is unacceptable!

 

What's the point of having the framelines if they are so inaccurate?!

Is there some secret technique Leica shooters use to overcome this?

 

I also use a Canon 1D (first version) and 1n RS for the bulk of my

work, and there are items I feel I need more SLR gear if I'm going to

persue a press photography career: quantum flash pack, second digi

body, second flash...

 

So, should it stay or should it go? I can always get a voigtlander

body and lens for any discreet/personal work I need to do, at a

substantially smaller cost. Is the frameline accuracy on these cameras

any better (R2/R3 etc)?

 

Failing that, maybe one or two OM1n bodies for my discreet film work...

 

Thanks for your help - I need it!

Thanks for your responses.

 

I have no problem centering the image when the "Center Image" box is checked, it's when I uncheck this and enter a value for Left (say 0.5 inches). The resulting gap is usually *more* than 0.5 inches, and the error is on the Left (when printing landscape), so the first end of the paper to emerge from the printer.

 

This really is infuriating - I've tried printing with Borderless on and off, same thing.

 

Can anyone with a R1800 try this and see if the same thing happens?

 

Cheers

Hi there,

 

Have recently acquired an Epson R1800 which I'm very happy with except

for the following niggle...

 

When printing on A3 paper, I usually leave the "Centre Image" checkbox

checked in the Photoshop Print With Preview dialog. No probs... but

lately I've had to print images with borders for frames which are 2cm

short of A3, so I've unchecked the box, performed the arithmetic and

entered values manually so that I can chop 2cm off the bottom after

printing and have even borders.

 

HOWEVER... Photoshop/the printer seems to ignore this value and the

actual border width I get is at least 2mm different. This sounds like

a small amount but believe me it's visible! The image is NOT central

after trimming the 2cm off the end, and I know I've performed the

correct calculations.

 

So what gives? Is this a Photoshop bug? The printer drive? Or the

printer itself not detecting the paper edge correctly?

 

Help much appreciated!

Guy - straight off the neg, standard contrast adjustments.

 

Will certainly be experimenting with this technique again!

Forgot to mention: above was the 33 min technique described in Berk's link.

Just tried this recently at a gig - pretty amazing really considering that Rodinal isn't known for its speed capabilities and the film was three stops undeexposed!<div></div>

Hmmm... I have the 50 1.4 and apart from obvious barrel distortion I have never had any problems regarding sharpness - even wide open (I shoot a lot of low-light gigs). Maybe I have a good sample!

 

To eliminate the obvious - maybe your lenses (heavens - even your sensor?) were dirty? Check rear elements for fingerprints/grease.

 

John

Further to Andrew's comment - the new Slideshow mode is fantastic for editing/deleting/ranking images, as you can see each one full screen and use hotkeys to perfoem operations. It's great!

Hi there,

 

A while ago I stumbled across this web site: www.aim-dtp.net.

 

It seems to contain a lot of useful info, albeit the site design is

not exactly easy to navigate.

 

I've been trying editing using the downloadable linear colour spaces

and I can definately see a difference when extreme colour adjustments

are made, as per his examples. I'm also converting images to his

nativePC 2.5 profile for display rather than sRGB, as apparently this

is more accurate for uncalibrated monitors.

 

However, I noticed that somewhere he recommends using Microsoft's ICM

conversion engine rather than Adobe's. I can't remember why, but I

tried it anyway, and didn't get the greatest results (i seemed to get

posterisation in some images). I've switched back to Adobe's engine,

but am still using his linear workflow.

 

Is anyone else using this guy's (Timo?) linear workflow? I've heard a

lot of pros do, but that's debatable judging by posters on this forum!

 

I've also heard this guy's theories are not strictly true.

 

Any thoughts or comments?

 

John

Did you set the correct ISO speed on the meter?

 

Regards,

 

John

I keep thinking of things - flash is daylight balanced colour-tempertaure wise so you'll be able to use a greater range of colour film than you would be able to with tungsten lights.

 

You can use a filter over the lens to correct tungsten light but you will lose some light, so you'll have to use faster film, wider apertures, or slower shutter speeds, which may not give the effect you want.

 

Of course, if you shoot digi you can just change the white balance setting, but you'll still have to shoot higher ISOs than you would with flash.

Oh, and you'll also have the ability to freeze subject motion too, and you dont generally need to have the camera on a tripod, Just remember to set your camera's max flash-synch speed!

Hi there,

 

There are a number of reasons to use flash over tungsten lights:

 

1) The lights run cooler, so your model won't get uncomfortable and sweaty, and won't be squinting.

 

2) The lights are much more powerdul than a continuous source, so you can use narrower apertures to increase DOF/slower ISOs for better quality

 

3) The subject's irises will be wider, compared to narrower if using hotlights, a lot of people prefer this look.

 

4) You can attach a far wider range of light modifiers (a softbox on a hot light would probably catch fire!)

 

With regard to being able to pre-visualise the lighting, most flash heads will have a low-powered tungsten modelling light whose output can also usually be adjusted alongside the main flash output to get an idea of lighting ratios.

 

Flash is definately the more versatile of the two types.

 

Hope this helps!

 

John

Hi there,

 

Yes, you can get the same effect. How are you converting to black and white at present?

 

Using the Channel Mixer in Photoshop, select the Red Channel, leave Red at 100%, and Green and Blue at 0&, then click the Monochrome box.

 

Using the channel mixer to convert to black and white will give you far more control than doing a simple desaturate or convert to greyscale! You can experiment with different values for R G and B, generally you want all three to add up to 100% to preserve the original image brightness.

 

Hope this helps!

 

John