chip

Hi,

This chart looks like it came from http://www.DPReview.com go and check out the reviews there they are generally good and have insight to the way the cameras perform. They have standardized their testing lately and a noise test in included that's good to use to compare cameras at different ISO settings but ONLY FOR THE TEST CONDITIONS GIVEN.

The problem with these tests is that in the real world nobdy shoots at high ISO settings in bright light so these test results are misleading in the real world. For many cameras that use CCD sensors their performance is rated IMO incorrectly at high ISO settings due to testing with bright light testing conditions. Under low light conditions at high ISO settings some CCD sensor cameras will perform MUCH better than these tests seem to indicate.

Rember, these tests are only a relative gauge for comparison testing under these conditions and may not be a good indicator in the real world.

HTH

Hi Tom,

There are more than a zillion ways to get good to excellent print output. The trick is to find the balance in image quality that meets the needs of the image vs. time necessarry to produce this level of print quality.

I shoot mainly with an EOS 1D though I also use D60 and 10D bodies If I have to. I'm also using C1, but I use the Pro DSLR version for the time savings that the multiple output files give me and batching many prints at a time. For small prints up to 5x7 I find that C1 output is really all I need for the hundreds of family images that I print out to pass around and give to my very large family. I simply run a batch off and burn them to CD-R and give them to Samy's for output.

For more personal work that I sell or give to friends I use C1 Pro for conversion, touch up in PS-CS, if it needs it I'll use Noise Ninja and then output to printer using Qimage (BTW, Qimage is an amazing printing program). It can take a little bit of time but the image quality is much better than any digital mini-lab output and better than most pro digital labs can achive doing custom editing and printing. Of course I know what I want and to them its just another job.

HTH

Hi Rene,

Here is something I've been doing for many years now. Sometimes will go ultralight (YIKES, only if you can call an EOS 1D and EF 16-35 2.8L or EF 28-70 2.8L light), and pack a lens and body in a rucksack or waistpack. What I do is make one pouch for the lens of the day and another pouch for the body using Domke Wraps. There are copies out now that are very inexpensive these days.

Domke's Wraps are basically foam padded "pile" material on one side with a water resistant nylon material (like a wind breaker would be made out of), on the other side. There is velco "hook" material sewn into the corners and you can basically make all kinds of bags or pouches just by sticking the "hook" and "pile" together to form a pocket. Wrap pouches provide just enough padding and prevent any scrapes from the gear rattling around in the rucksack. They are compact and light and can be adjusted to protect most anything you want to take in your day bag.

HTH

Ouch!

Puppy Face, that's harsh. Sigma has much improved their products and support for the EOS bodies since the HSM lenses became available. I can see where you would have a problem with Sigma lenses but when you bought your Sigma lenses they were probably already older models. It was well known that Sigma lenses had problems with their EF mount lens firmware very early on. You took your chances early on and saved a small bundle of cash in the short haul only to get burned in the long haul.

I've been talking (OKAY, complaining), about the firmware problems with Sigma lenses on EF mounts and the false economy of buying third party lenses for what, the last 7 or 8 years but even I've come to see the basic goodness of Sigma's newer lens designs and improved customer support policies. I've even seriously considered several Sigma lenses in the last year.

Many people had the same experience that you had and basically hate Sigma for what they did but still respected them for their glass. It's hard to argue with the fact that the current HSM based Sigma lenses are pretty good optically (Sigma's top shelf lenses have always been pretty good optically), and that their support policy is pretty fair these days.

Suman, even though I'd seriously consider a Sigma these days you have a problem. The lightly built consummer EOS body you have is not a good match for the heavy Sigma f/2.8 zoom you mention. The problem is one of balance and the ugly stress you'll place on the lens mount of the body. You may have a nearly comperable lens in the EX 70-200 2.8HSM to the EF 70-200 4L but the weight very awkward balance of the f/2.8 lens will kill any joy you get from using the lens. Buy the EF 70-200 4L you won't be sorry. You can always upgrade to a faster lens if and when you get a pro class body to support it.

HTH

Hi Eric,

Most LCD and TFT displays are not really good for color correction even the very best are only good at very narrow viewing angles and have limited gammut. I use a PanTone/ColorVision Spyder PRO and OptiCAL for calibration and profiling (this works great BTW). I use both CRT and LCD monitors and twp of the LCD panels were the best models at the time I bought them last year. All three of the LCD monitors I have are weak in one way or another even after careful, calibration and profiling.

So seeing this I decided to continue using the large 19" CRT's for actual color correction and editing work and using a second, smaller CRT or LCD panel to park my PS-CS tool pallets and other photo editing tools. This way my image is not obscured with tools and windows all over the place and I can work better and keep all of the tools out at the same time.

You DON'T need to spend $1,000 on a new monitor to use PS with your laptop. There are excellent CRT monitors in the 19" range that are available for well under $400. I bought my first non Pro Series ViewSonic monitor a few months ago, a 19" LaCie Electron Blue IV. This monitor is a bargin in terms of price and color accuracy and even comes with a good deep hood! They're available for $350 or so from Samy's Camera here in L.A. and I imagine you could find it for the same price in your town. There is also a larger 21" model that I wanted to buy but I could not fit it in the space I had for my main photo editing system monitor and keep the second 19" "tools" monitor. Sigh, so I had to make due with the 19" LaCie EB IV but it works very well!

HTH

Hi TJ,

I have a bunch of systems here. To see how well the oldest Sony Trinitrons I had worked I connected them to one of my ColorVision calibrated systems and gave them a go. These are really old but top of the line back Sony Trinitron tubed monitors from 1996! These have been in continuous use 24x7 for about 6 years when they got replaced with larger LCD screens. The surprise was that both of them were plenty bright and calibrated very easily!

So based on my experience with better Sony monitors I'd say go for it, you never know if you will get the calibration to work or not. At the very least you will have a good monitor to hook up so you can use PS in a dual monitor configuration and put all of your tool pallets and other editing tools on it!

HTH

Hi Brian,

I think you're mixed up a bit. If your monitor is not capable of setting the indivdual RGB gun levels you cannot use PreCAL and the normal OptiCAL routines are used. If your monitor is a good one and the RGB guns can be set individually PreCAL is a MUST for the best possible calibration and profiling.

You don't need to use PreCAL unless you want to get what you paid for with Spyder PRO and OptiCAL, the best possible monitor accuracy your monitor is capable of for a given color space, gamma and whitepoint setting. Isn't this why you paid a lot of money for Spyder PRO and OptiCAL in the first place?

The whole point of using PreCAL is to maximize the the potential of your monitor to accurately display as much gammut as the monitor is capable of. If the monitor is capable of having its RGB guns set indivdually you will get a much better performance out of your monitor if you use PreCAL.

To maximize the display's capability to accurately display as much of the target color space's gammut, using PreCAL is the best way to set up your monitor before running the normal OptiCAL calibration and profile routines.

In practical terms I skip the inital steps of Optical's precision calibration because the monitor's levels are already set in PreCAL and reset later in OptiCAL's precision calibration routine.

HTH

Hi Sam,

I bought a new an EF 70-210 3.5-4.5USM when I bought my first EOS body and it was a fairly good lens. IMO capable of comperable image quality and a very good match for Canon's EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM and EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM zooms. These lenses are all about the same in terms of build and image quality which on film is pretty good actually. The 70-210 3.5-4.5USM is no 70-200 4/2.8L but pretty good really.

HTH

Hi Rene,

I don't actually use them (I toss them in the closet and put the glass in one of my bags), but I've owned a few lenses with the Canon supplied case and the hoods always fit inside. Some of the lenses I can remember include: EF 15 2.8, EF 16-35 2.8L soft leather(?) pouch, EF 17-35 2.8L, EF 28-70 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L, EF 70-200 2.8L IS grey 2-zip nylon, EF 135 2L, EF 300 2.8L, EF 300 4L, EF 300 4L IS.

HTH

Hi Bill,

The new manual is weak, download the OLD manual that does not have the screen shots from their website, print it out and follow the directions.

You have the right luminance points, use a white point of D6500/6500K and a Gamma of 2.2 even if you have a Mac. A 2.2 Gamma is the standard used by most everyone, you will even see better images in your webrowser and people will stop complaining about the way your images look on their monitor.

First be sure to turn off all lights and block any light sources that hit your monitor screen before calibration and profiling your monitor. Trust me, this will screw up your calibration and profiling and you won't even know it! Also make sure that the Spyder stays in FULL contact with the screen for the whole process or you will have to do it all over again! The Spyder suction cups are not the most sticky so be sure the screen is clean and that the Spyder is stuck down all the way!

Next install OptiCAL and make sure your Spyder is being seen by the computer. Next you need to set your luminace levels for black and white and select the Curve for a level of Gamma 2.2 and Whitepoint of D6500/6500K.

Before running PreCAL, be sure that the "calibration enabled" box is not checked. Now run PreCAL by selecting File and clicking on PreCAL, just go by the book here and follow the prompts, set your monitor to its preset whitepoint/color temp of D6500/6500K, your contrast to MAX. and brightness to barely visible, all of this will be reset later in OptiCAL. Once PreCAL is running you have set the contrast and brightness levels of the monitor. You are told to set you monitor's RGB guns to match up with the target luminace levels you will need to go back and change the monitor's color temp. to the USER or whatever your monitor calls the setting where you can set each RGB gun's level individually. This allows you to set each of the RGB gun's output to match the target level lumiance of 90.0. Take your time here to get as close to a perfect match between the RGB guns as your monitor is capable of, a smaller error level here makes for a MUCH tighter level or profiling accuracy later!

Make sure that you allow at least 10-15 seconds after changing a monitor RGB level and clearing the screen of the monitor's setup menu before telling OptiCAL to update (resample the screen with the Spyder), or the reading will not be accurate. The CRT takes time to stablize after changing any of the monitor settings and you must wait before pressing the update button. PreCAL sets your monitor into a known state before OptiCAL's Calibration and Profiler are run.

Next run Calibrate from OptiCAL's File button and follow the directions. Even if you got it perfect in PreCAL you will need to alter the monitor's contrast and brightness settings in OptCAL's calibration to get a Precision calibration. You may have to go around a few times to get the luminance black and white points to settle down and to get them as close to your targets as possible. As above take yout time and get as close to the target value as your monitor can get, wait 10-15 seconds for the CRT to settle down when making these changes and resampling.

Next run the Profile option from the File button in OptiCAL. Again, you need to be sure that the Spyder is well attached to the monitor and that is has not popped one corner off the screen. If it has your last procedure will more than likely be invalid and you will need to run it again.

Next look at the Curves window from the Tools button. This shows you how close you got to the target values. The "Calibrated" and "Target" curves should line up nearly perfectly if you followed the procedure as described. In the Graph Mode box select each RGB color and look at the curves, they should all overlap the target curve perfectly or nearly so.

Last step is to Validate your calibration and profile. Click on the "Validate Calibration" in the File button and follow the screen prompts. You should see good results if the monitor is a good one and you follow these instructions. Print this page out for reference and note the date. You should comeback and repeat the OptiCAL steps by first running "Calibrate" and then "Profile" in a couple of weeks. Once the system has been sucessfully validated do not change ANY of the monitor settings in ANY way or you will need to run it all over again!

HTH

Hi Peter,

Brent, I went out last night and shot a couple of frames yesterday with my EF 300 2.8L and EF 2XII on a monopod and find that I don't know how to post them here. Where is this discussed? How do you do it?

David B., With the 1D's much better handling, higher AF speed, higher frame rate option, more responsive control feel, better dynamic range and comperable noise in the real world there's no doubt that the EOS 1D is a better DSLR camera body. The other reason I rarely use the D60 or 10D is that I found that with reasonable care I can get large prints out of the 1D that are comperable to the D60/10D in resolution. The small differences in resolution (DPReview measured it, about 10% less than the 10D, which seems about right based on my own printer output and testing using RAW format files), is not obvious even on large 30x50 LightJet output so I use the body I like best, you should too.

HTH

Hi Latham,

There can be a big difference in image quality but you may not see it if you are getting prints made on a digital minilab. For many people who are making small prints to pass out or toss into a shoe box, this makes no difference and they don't care. Where the differnce will show is on larger prints where you want a high quality image. Most people have no idea what they are missing untill they get a good print made on a good inkjet, LightJet or Iris printer.

The difference between 8bit and 16bit files is in the smoothness of transitions in tonality. If you know what posterization looks like you know what too look for. Steep or sudden changes in tone, 16bit files reduce the likelyhood of this showing up on a print. This can also be seen in the histograms of 8bit and 16bit image files in PS when changing the image curve as having fewer gaps or combing in the histograms of altered files.

HTH

Hi Peter,

Once the 1D MkII bodies are available you should be able to download it for free from Canon's website. As to how it compares with PS-CS's ACR we'll just have to wait and see unless someone has an early copy for review and testing and has a review waiting for release. It won't take long to compare them and have feedback from the troops here. It will be interestedin to see, I'm very interested myself having used and tested the major RAW conversion programs with the files I got from EOS 1D, D60 and 10D bodies.

HTH

Hi Joseph,

The answer is YES! I've used and owned an EF 135 2L for several years and also own the sister to the EF 100 2USM the EF 85 1.8USM and will tell you that there is no comparison whan shooting on film. On tranny films the EF 135 2L is spectacularly sharp and contrasty. This is a near perfect lens for head shots on film but is brutally honest. Every flaw will be shown in detail so most women over 16 or 17 will need perfect make up application for head shots with this lens. For less than full frame digital EOS (EOS 1Ds), I have not seen as big a difference in image quality as on film between the EF 135 2L and EF 100 2USM or EF 85 1.8USM lenses though they lack the absolutly creamy background that the EF 135 2L can produce when used wide open.

It's well worth the little bit of extra money it takes to buy the EF 135 2L if you are shooting on a film body. If price is an issue buy a used one, well if you can find one. Like most of the best Canon primes they are usually not easy to find and when you do find one it will no go for much less than a new one.

HTH

Hi James,

I shoot with an EOS 1D, D60 and 10D but the camera I use for about 90% of my work is the 1D. I shoot and save only in RAW format and use C1 Pro DSLR for RAW conversions along with PS-CS for editing duties. Digital works great if you take the time to learn the camera's traits, study the processing programs and tools and develop the workflows you need to get to where you need to go in terms of output.

What DSLR camera are you using and what are you using for RAW conversion? You are shooting RAW no? If not this is a large part of the problem if you are using in camera automatic white balancing and saving to JPEGs. If you are using a Canon body and saving as JPEG files you can shoot a white card and use it as your custom WB but this can be a pain if shooting under different lighting or lighting that is changing or where you are changing your relationship with light and subject. Just shoot and save in RAW format, it does not have this problem though you will need to convert the files to use them in PS. Unless of course you have PS-CS and a camera that is supported by the latest ACR v2.1. Then just use ACR for conversion, The new updated ACR v2.1 is pretty good if slower and weak in volume onversion capability.

A sample of the problem image would be a help as others have mentioned.

David said it very well and I agree with what his post said and I actually do something similar in that I send out any high volume prints I need. Usually smaller high volume prints to 5x7 I just run through C1 to convert and in the process of corrections I add some minor sharpening to the output files for proofs or small prints. then I burn a CD-R and off to the Noritzu 3100 they go!

I have been shooting film for over 35 years and had a B&W darkroom from about 8th grade on. I loved processing film and printing my B&W images but color got in the way. With digital I have regained complete control of the process of creating images and printing what I envisioned. I still enjoy the shooting a little bit more than the editing and printing even though like David I'm a computer geek (I do UNIX/WinDoze/networking consulting), but nothing feels like seeing a gorgous print coming out of one of my printers or the look on a friend's face as they see an image I've printed for them the first time!

HTH

Hi Dan,

It take 24 minutes for 1GB? I can copy a full 512MB Transcend 40X card through a Lexar Firewire CF card reader to my computer in about 3 minutes or so.

HTH

Hi Vivienne,

Canon has never produced an EF mount 16-35mm lens that did not have a USM AF motor. This is a recent "L" class lens and has pretty much the best Canon technology built-in. If some saleman tells you that the USM version is extra hang up immediately!

HTH

Hi James,

I use both an outside lab and print in the office on Epson 1280 and 2200 printers. The reason is that for small prints in volume the local pro lab (they have a Noritsu 3100), is faster, cheaper, very good quality and doesn't tie up my own printers which I use for prints up to 13"x19". I also use the Noritsu machine for output up to 8"x12" if I need prints that I need a lot of quickly or that are not critical but with very good print quality. For work I really want to represent as my best I output on my own printers or get LightJet prints if going larger than 13"x19".

Print film is much worse than using a digital SLR if you want control of the final output unless you are printing them yourself or get custom hand prints. At least with trannys your printer has an original image to base color corrections on, with negs it's a crap shoot.

Digital output that you have photoedited yourself can easily beat the pants off most any hand print even if you are paying a TON of money for them. Also, once you have a good image file finished it can be output exactly the same over and over exactly the same vs. the variability of even expensive, excellent pro lab hand printing. The cost differences are nil if you count your time but you will have produced an image file that can be used over and over and will look better than a custom hand print.

The fact is that if you are getting PhotoCD's at the time of processing your film you are getting at best moderate quality scans not even as good as you can get with a $500 scanner. Look up Kodak's Photo CD specs on their web site, you'll be surprised to learn how low res. even Pro PhotoCD scans are. The other problem with PhotoCD is that scan quality is highly dependant on the machine operator. Some operators are better than others and even the best have bad days and time pressure.

If you are a serious photographer you know that many of the greatest photographers were established with great prints and then were made popular by being published by the great magazines of their time. Those great prints were not produced by simply pressing the shutter and handing the film over to some lab to process and print. They were processed carefully and printed with equal care usually by the photographer or his assistant. Learn and practice the complete process including printmaking, without it you are taking snapshots and will remain an incomplete photographer.

HTH

Hi Anirban,

The type (DDR, SDRAM etc.), of RAM you need is dependent on the motherboard and chipset. These factors also determine how much RAM and what configuration the RAM sticks need to be in order to operate correctly. Find your motherboard or computer manual and look to see what you need and the max. capacity that will work.

HTH

Hi Peter,

The people who think that the 1D is overkill and more camera than you need are full of it. They just want to justify their own purchase and most likely have little or no real world experience shooting with a 1D or processing the images that come out of it.

I have a 1D, a D60 and also use a 10D and own about $10K worth of Canon's best glass. The body I generally will reach for first is the 1D. Once you have used one of Canon's top pro camera bodies (EOS 1 is always Canon's top body), you won't go back to a consummer camera unless forced at gun point.

The jump from the 10D/D60 to the 1D is HUGE, the 1D works like a camera should and you will know it once you use one. The EOS 1D is extremely responsive and works as it should and needs no excuses. If you cannot get the shot with an EOS 1D the failings are all yours.

Of course the EOS 1D is going to require the best lenses to get the best out of it and you have to consider the road you are going down. You will also need to buy other bits that you might not buy if you kept your 10D. This is the truth, once you have a 1D you will find that other items you have may not be up to snuff and you will desire the good stuff. It's kind of like tools or printers...

You will never hear an EOS 1D shooter say "it was the camera, it's AF is too slow" or "I was waiting for the buffer to write to the CF card and missed the shot" or "I couldn't get the 1D to focus" or "there was too much lag to get the shot"... if you hear these from an EOS 1D shooter it's pure B.S. and both you and he will know the truth of it.

An EOS 1 designated body will never hold you back in image quality, AF speed or frame rate. The same cannot be said of the 10D/D60 and that is why they are not named EOS 1.

What do you think a makes a GREAT PJ camera? I can tell you, the ability to reliably shoot under any conditions and get the best possible shot under good or bad conditions while on the run. Doesn't this sound like what you need?

HTH

Hi Hazel,

There is a better alternative from Canon, the G3! Less noise, lower cost now and better images in these small print sizes.

HTH

Hi Hazel,

There is a better alternative from Canon, the G3! Less noise, lower cost now and better images in these small print sizes.

HTH

Hi Claude,

I've owned an used both verisons for some time and can tell you without a doubt, there is NOTHING like the EF 70-200 2.8L IS lens available from any other lens or SLR maker. This is the finest 35mm format 70-200mm zoom period.

Sure, some will say that the non-IS version is just as good and it's close but not as good optically. Turn on the IS feature and there is no comparison when shooting from a tripod or handheld.

That said, mounting the EF 70-200 2.8L IS on a DRebel you will have a very poor handling rig because the lens is so much heavier than the camera body and the DReble is so small. A better balanced rig would be the EF 70-200 4L. I've used all of my lenses on my old Rebel G, from EF 15 2.8 and EF 16-35 2.8L to EF 400 2.8L with an EF 2X II and the body makes a big difference in handling. Try the 2.8L IS on your DRebel, chances are you will hate the way it feels so unbalanced.

HTH

Hi Bogdan,

While Giampiero has posted his opinion regarding C1's RAW conversions as being the best many people who have extensively used and tested C1 and ACR will agree. Specifically C1's RAW conversion quality is generally better than even the newest ACR v2.1 plug-in update for PS-CS.

I've recently finished testing the latest ACR v2.1 PS-CS plug-in update to compare what Adobe improved between the as shipped PS-CS ACR 2.0 and the new v2.1 update. I was also interested in a fresh comparison with the latest release of C1 Pro DSLR v1.31 and compared the results from this version of C1 with the ACR v2.0 and ACR v2.1 plug-ins for PS-CS.

I also own and tested the latest versions of Breeze Browser v2.8 and YARC+ 2.3a7 as the baselines for the Canon SDK converters. I routinely use YARC+ for mass RAW conversions that will only go to small size prints, 5x7 or 4x6. BB I use as a file browser for very low volume conversions of small size prints. These Canon SDK based converters were the leaders early on (before C1 Pro shipped), but are clearly well back of the leaders C1 Pro DSLR v1.31 and PS-CS ACR v2.1 at this point. Canon's FVU is nearly unusable though the resulting files are O.K. if still dead last due to noise, color shifts and slow conversion times.

The inital as shipped PS-CS ACR v2.0 made a mess of shadow areas and suffered from severe noise, color shifts and artifacts and liked to blow the highlights out. The recent ACR v2.1 update for PS-CS has massively improved these problems with a much improved noise filter that seems to work pretty well when turned up a bit and combined with a little lumenance noise filtering. If you're careful you can almost get to the same low level of noise as C1 can.

Another problem that I've seen is that ACR seems to produce slightly softer less saturated converted files when trying to get to the same level of noise free shadow area as C1 can produce.

Another problem I've had with ACR v2.1 is that if over used ACR's color noise filtering can remove small areas where color is supposed to be. ACR v2.1 also appears to have addressed the shadow and hightlight problems by altering the tone curve shape internally. I say internally because ACR lacks this handy C1 feature, direct access to the tone curves within the conversion tool interface. Less combing and better tone, that's what I'm talking about!

Between filtering out color that is intended to be in the picture when turning up the color noise filtering to get clean enough files and the softness problem ACR is still not at the top of the chart for RAW conversion quality. But in all honesty ACR v2.1's conversion image quality has closed the gap significantly. So unless you want or need the absolute BEST RAW conversion image quality or are attracted by the much higher level of control and high volume capable workflow that C1 offers many will be very happy with PS-CS's ACR v2.1 RAW conversion image quality.

HTH

Hi David,

I had an EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM for several years and was happy with the images I got out of it. This very underated lens is one of the best kept secrets in Canon's zoom lens line up. It compares well with the EF 20-35 2.8L (older but still sharp!), and EF 17-35 2.8L (IMO it's better than an EF 17-35 2.8L due to the 17-35's linear distortion below 20mm and slightly soft edges), which I bought for the ultrawide angle views only a 17mm lens can offer. BUT after replacing the EF 17-35 2.8L with an EF 16-35 2.8L (VERY good BTW), I'd say that the EF 17-35 2.8L is not a great lens, a good, but not great lens.

The EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM is similar in performance (slightly better actually), to the EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM and EF 28-1354.5-5.6IS and EF 100-210 3.5-4.5USM and EF 100-300 4.5-5.6USM zooms. These lenses can be seen to form a fine family and are considered good if not as glamourous as the faster comperable F/L "L" class zoom lenses. They are not primes by any means but nothing can beat a prime really.

I've owned a lot of lenses including the EF 20-35 3.5-4.5USM, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5USM (I've owned several and still keep one!), and EF 100-300 4.5-5.6USM zooms and they are good, solid lenses when used on Canon's non-pro SLR bodys. When used on Canon's pro class bodies these lenses are holding back the camera body's AF performance. But the AF issue (this limitation was designed into the Canon SLR system from the begining), is the only reason I don't recomend them for use on Canon pro bodies, optically they are fine.

HTH