mattb1

<p>Well, shooting video is really different. And, I'm no expert. Go to www.cinema5d.com or vimeo for info. Tripod is the best, any 'rig' will take skill to use. Practice a lot with whatever you get, I actually have had some success with the cheap$20 shoulder supports (I found one that looks like a stock for a rifle, at b&H maybe?). And, IS lenses really help a lot. For exposure, your shutter speed will pretty much be fixed to minimize flicker. Choose a f-stop that will get you the most DOF, and use ISO speed to control exposure Pre focus and use DOF as a tool, the auto focus does not work. Focusing manually during video takes a lot of skill, for example on movies and TV shows they will have a person who's only job is to focus. Also, pan slowly, fast movements will give a jello effect.</p>

<p>Sounds terrible? Not really, you will get some great video, just practice some. Practice is better than buying really expensive support equipment at this point for you. </p>

<p>The7D is capable of taking breath taking video, so get it and have fun with it!</p>

<p>JD, you seem to do a lot of landscape type work, so my suggestion would be that the 5D II is the better choice because of overall image quality. The things that make the 7D a great camera may not be tools you use, like AF and high frame rate. If you were a sports or bird photog then I would say the 5D II is peraps not the best choice.</p>

<p>If you are not in a hurry, I'd wait until the 5D III comes out next year.</p>

<p>It would seem like you asked a simple question, but there are a lot of people around that have to try and prove they made a better purchase than everyone else. If it were solely to help you make a good decision it would be great, but too many seem just to want to prove that they made the best choice. Sort of a need for positive re-enforcement of their purchase choice. I'm glad they like their cameras, but look at a lot of posts with a critical eye. Both are great cameras, just not the same tools. </p>

 

<p>IMO, set the camera to Adobe rgb. Take RAW photos, as even with jpgs they will need to be converted, so stick with RAW only to simplify the process. Taking RAW&jpg can confuse things a little. Lightroom can handle either format easily and it can be setup to export the photos into the file types and sizes they need. You have the tools to do the task with minimal effort once you learn how to use them.</p>

<p>For film, a dedicated scanner is the best option for DIY, flatbeds are a distant second IMO. I have only a few files from the several years I tried to use a flatbed, so I do not endorse them. The best overall is sending the film out. You will have an enormous task just organizing the photos, identifying all the people and places, and figuring out how best to share them. Spending time scanning them sounds like a good idea, but it takes a lot of skill and time. If you really want them digitized you are going to need some division of labor to finish the project. For example, I'm sure you,or your family, did not develop the film yourself, probably because of time, skill, equipment you or your family did not have. Think of scanning as the same kind thing, pay someone who has the skill and equipment to save you time. </p>

<p>For prints, IMO you have to realize that your potential digital images of them are a little more limited than film. Still, very much worth it. Dust, scratches, folds, mold, fading and such damage make it really hard to scan prints. IMO you are much better off using a good point and shoot or DSLR to take photos of them, reflections and getting the camera square are the biggest issues. I like the results better and the time savings is great.</p>

<p>Good luck with the project.</p>

<p>David, have you considered using you Nikon lenses on a canon body? Maybe just get a 7D body and some adapters and start trading. You may find one or more of you Nikon lenses do better than its canon counter part. Each brand has its strengths. If it were me, I'd really look at keeping the Nikon lenses that I really like, and there is a chance your friends may like them as well. </p>

<p>IMO work with your printer, they can give you great advice. They know their machines pretty well, if they don't then you are better of going somewhere else. I do not know these printers but depending on the source 200 ppi is not bad at all at those print sizes, IMO.</p>

<p>Because apparently we all have to agree what a great shopper DLT is and how he made a better choice than anyone who likes their full frame camera. It is tiresome, but I kind of understand it a little. $1000 is a good amount of money and a lot of photographers wouldn't be able to see a difference, so they should save their money. But. come on, having to 'prove' your point is getting more than boring.</p>

<p>To the OP, nothing wrong with a 30D, keep taking photos that is what it is about. Don't think about it until the 30D dies.</p>

<p>I'd stay away from the Atom processors, I have an eeePC with a 1.3 ghz Atom and it is painfully slow even with it SSHD. Even making this post is frustrating. Otherwise a netbook can be a great option, better than a laptop for me. </p>

<p>Dupe post, really funny it happened after a few days LOL....</p>

<p>Id hold off on sending it in. Had you noticed any focusing issues with the camera before the tests? Did you test the lenses at the distances you use them at? Is the focusing any better? I couldn't tell what target you used from that link. I'd suggest using the one from northernights, it is easier to use and gave me better results. </p>

<p>I have one lens that I have focusing issues with, none of the test targets/'procedures worked. Mainly because it is a long focal length, 100-400. I have dialed it in better out in the field, just carefully took some test shots and evaluated them and adjusted as I needed. I seem to be a little closer now.</p>

<p>IMO I'd really review the results and really identify which lenses had issues in the first place. And, compare the results to manual focus. Before deciding that this one result is correct. I think it takes some skill to perform micro adjustments and some procedures work better than others. I know I struggled with it and got some bad results. </p>

<p>Mark please leave politics out of photo net. Especially since you do not seem to be well informed on the subject.<br>

IMO the OP may be causing some of his own problems. To the OP, I would suggest scanning at the scanners sweet spot for resolution (about 1800 to 2400 ppi) and not the highest setting in the software. The reason being that the scanner software is just interpolating data after the sweet spot. I have no suggestions about bit depth on the epsons, but 48 bit may not be optimal. Also, you want to make sure you are using a good color space, like Adobe RGB. In these cases your scanning software may not be doing the best job of providing what you are asking of it. </p>

<p>Next, I like to scan based upon the histogram, try to get as even as possible along both axises. Spikes in either axises mean less variation and tones. IMO leave the color correction and 'exposure' to post scan.</p>

<p>I'm not a fan of epsons, IMO if at all possible I'd suggest getting a better scanner. </p>

<p>Tony, IMO a flatbed scanner works, as stated above, on well preserved prints. If the prints have scratches, even minor ones, or mold or any other imperfection a flatbed scanner at 300 dpi will recreate and make the imperfections more apparent. A copy type camera will minimize the imperfections or at least keep them at their current levels. So, for most prints I would say skip flatbed scanner. At least that is my experience with low cost consumer scanners.</p>

<p>I do not think the 130 can print on canvas. I would also suggest in getting a sample of the papers it supports to see if they meet your needs. All inkjet printers work best with papers developed for that specific model/ink set. 3rd party papers can work well, they just have to be compatible. That is for the130 they have to be porous. </p>

<p>The colors of the 130 are good, blues lack a little. B&W is stunning. The issue is that the dye will run with the smallest amount of water. Think accidental spittle ruining a large print. Otherwise very good display life.</p>

<p>Nope.</p>

<p>The coolscans are some of the best home scanners available. I have not used the plustek but my assumption would be that their dpi claims are way over inflated marketing statements and not backed by any real examples. </p>

<p>Are you sure about the model number? It sounds like a really old one and I can't say what the specs are for it. or if you will have issues finding drivers or a working scanner. The latter coolscans do scan at a real 4000 dpi/ppi. </p>

<p>However, film dpi/ppi scans do not equate to DSLR ppi. IMO you will need a lot more pixels from film to print large or for heavy cropping, than you will from a digital capture. If you stated your goals of your project someone with similar goals could give you some insight. Like print sizes, or you plan to work in film rather than DSLR or that you have a film library you want to digitize.</p>

<p>In all, my advice would be to use a film scanning service like scancafe.com if you have to scan film. Scanning is not easy, and takes a lot of time. Time better spent elsewhere for most people. </p>

<p>Not even close. IMO saying the Epson delivers 35mm quality from MF is being more than kind, maybe even boarding untrue. IMO MF on an Epson is a waste of my time, I got worse results than 35mm film. No amount of sharpening can make up the difference, no amount of processing tricks can make up the differences. With an Epson you will need to put in a lot of work to get 'ok' results, some of the work will be in holding the film flat, some will be post scan to clean up the images.</p>

<p>Epsons are OK if you want web output or small prints. And some do good work with them. However, their capabilities are definitely not why I shoot MF. I did not shoot MF to print 5x7s. </p>

<p>I do have a few scans of 35mm that are 'ok', not great. I re-scanned all when I got a Nikon scanner and was much happier, had less work to do, and better results. The caviate is that even with the Nikon 9000 some MF film still has flatness issues. This is an issue for all scanners, it was a lot less for me with the Nikon.</p>

 

<p>I'd look at LR (lightroom) it is a good tool for building a database of photos, photoshop and elements are not really concerned with organizing photos. </p>

<p>How many photos are you talking about? I'd give a try to using a good point and shoot and taking a photo of each print. Scanning prints at a high dpi value introduces a lot of issues, like dust and scratches. Color balance is also an issue. And, you will need a trained eye to resolve color balance issues. It is not a trivial task, thats why I like the photo of the prints approach. </p>

<p>IMO skip optical disks for backup, too fragile for me. External hard disks are fairly cheep, get more than one and duplicate the data. IMO that is the best approach. If you have a small enough library of photos then one of the on-line photo sharing sites are a great option as well.</p>

<p>TIFFs are the favorite file format for those who scan and want a lossless format. It is a great format. The only issue is that if you want to share the file with someone who has no digital photo skills then you will most likely have to convert it to jpg in order to share it.</p>

<p>IMO this and the last high MP chip are great news. Maybe LF isn't dead, maybe MF will become more affordable sooner. Very cool. Glad to see they are interested in pushing the limits of engineering, should prove to be a good business move for them.</p>

<p>Lens, no question. Primes are very good and relatively inexpensive. If you have a definate focal range you work with then a prime around that range may be the way to go and the T2i maybe? Honestly the only things my old XTI lacked was spot metering and low light performance, and upgrading did help me in those situations. If you find yourself limited by missing features then a new body in the future may be a good idea, but get good glass first. Its still amazing how well my old XTI competes with my 5dII.</p>

<p>Not having the exact model on you lens I can't say 100% or not if you can do this, but I would get an adapter to mount your lieca lens on your new Ti2. The issues that you would need to overcome are not too bad; first the apparent focal length would change, next you would need to work in aperture priority mode, and you might not have focus confirmation. Otherwise it would be a lot like working with your leica. Just an option, using canon lenses would get you a lot more automated tools to work with and they have some good ones.

 

<br>

 

 

<br>

Good luck and have fun with the Ti2. </p>

 

Check out www.cinema5d.com and vimeo.com, a lot of info there about lenses.

 

Yes, they do favor Zeiss, but some other lenses as well. And, search the auction sites, there are a lot of adapters available, and many do use Nikon lenses on the 5D II. That said, I have not used a Zeiss lens and do not have a direct opinion on it.

<p>I agree with Brad, a lot of misinformation here. </p>

<p>RAID is not very easy to implement, but it does offer a lot. If you are not experienced with building systems and RAID, I do not think I would suggest you build one. They will take a lot of time and knowledge to setup. It would be better to buy an external RAID drive or NAS. www.newegg.com has good user reviews of items they sell, I try and stay away from stuff that has a recent negative history.</p>

<p>If you really want to build a RAID array, I'd suggest looking at making a home server with one of the Linux versions. I'm looking at that right now, and almost have all the components together. The advantage is that it will have a long life and be sharable. You do not need the latest and greatest CPU, RAM, and video to have a good file server. It may not be as fast, but given the utility of it, it may be worth while to me.</p>

<p>I like RAID 1+0, also called 10. It is both mirrored and striped. It has saved me from drive failure, and it makes my system run MUCH faster. Implementing the striping was one of the biggest performance boosts to my system in years. </p>

<p>Is it worth it? For me yes, if just for the insurance against a hard drive failure. Is it a total backup solution? No.</p>

<p>Could have been a video card issue as well. Lots of points of failure unfortunately. </p>

<p>Erwin, unfortunately you don't have any photos posted to photo net. You success at scanning MF with an Epson is very much dependent upon both the subject matter and your intended use of the digital file. IMO very detailed subjects will not be rendered very well by an Epson, and IMO 8x10 is pushing the limits of image quality for an Epson. I have to confess that I did not try the labor intensive task of building or buying a specialized film holder to ensure that the film is flat, or tried the equally labor intensive wet mounting. I just did not see the point with an Epson, there just would not be enough detail captured to be of any use to me. But, just like every other piece of equipment, there are some who can do good work with it. Just be careful to not belive a word of marketing material on the Epsons and be sure to evaluate other opions on the Epsons abilities and make sure it meets your needs. </p>

<p>To be honest I would rather suggest sending the film out to a service like scancafe. You will end up with more than enough quality time with your images, if you leave the scanning to someone else. Learning scanning and spending time on it can take a way time taking photos and editing/printing your photos.</p>

<p>That is my understanding as well. I doubt it would do much for dust.</p>