tapas_maiti5

Mary

The Canon 5D is limited by Canon Wide Angle lenses far more than anything in the camera.

I've tried most of them and the biggest image quality upgrade that Canon could make would be to bring out a range of slower, ultra high quality lenses.

Tapas

Hi Craig

I was there a couple of years ago, the whole area is amazing but avoid the floating village

near Siem Riep; a much better one is Komponh Phluk (may have spelt it wrong). I had to

leave my scooter at 4am until I ran out a road and then found a fisherman and paid him to

take me to the village - worth every penny.

You can see my pictures on:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11992077@N00/sets/72157594467906377/

Tapas

Hi Joe

I have a 5D and I owned the 17-40L lens, it is a great lens for candid work but I didn't

think it was particularly good for landscape work. The distortion is high and the sharpness

in the corners was appalling. The lens is also much better at 17mm than at 35mm.

I terms of comparison my Contax 28mm distagon is better in every way at F2.8 than the

Canon was at F8 - thats for a lens that cost me ?180 second hand.

The image quality possible from the 5D is absolutely amazing, it is also way better than

Medium Format on a cheap scanner though about the same as medium format on a good

scanner.

I also have a Phase One P20 fopr my blad kit which I got much cheaper than the Canon

1DS MK11 and I think it is a considerable step up from the Canon 5D but it is not a fast

solution, if you can mount a 28/35mm digitar lens onto your 6x9 it would the best

solution possible for landscapes.

I would recommend that you invest about ?200 on a zeiss lens (e.g. zeiss 35mm 2.8) and

adaptor for critical landscape work and use Canon zooms for convenience. Alternatively

for lanscape work stopped down the 35 F2 is probably no worse than the 35 1.4 and 1/5

of the price.

Tapas

Massimo

I have just upgraded my old G4 system to a MacPro, I seriously considered the Imac 24"

and I'm sure it would be just fine but the flexibility and option of the MacPro swung it. I

have gone for 2GB to begin with and it works fine but I would like to move upto 4GB when

I can afford to.

I have the coolscan 9000 and Nikon Scan works fine on my MacPro, I don't know whether it

is native or not but it seems to work pretty quick.

I switched to Macs from PCs about 5 years ago and have not regretted the decision once.

My G4 ran perfectly for 5years and is still going strong as a family computer, no crashes,

no issues at all. My PCs needed changing every 18months and were hassle - I know its

probably because I don't know how to manage a PC. My work laptop has no problems but

I don't see why I should need to understand computers intimately, I just want to work

photoshop and for this the Mac is great.

Regards

Tapas

Hi Tim

I went through the same as questions as you and bought the PhaseOne P20.

I agree the lack of a cable on the CFV was very enticing but against that I had to weigh up the following:

- In the UK I was able to pick up a refurb Phaseone for 2/3 price of a CFV (and Hasselblad are too cheap to even give you a battery for that money.)

- The Phaseone Back has no fan/no moving parts and feels more robust, Phaseone are happy to recommend the back for field use whereas Hasselblad were very reluctant. The CFV does have a fan.

- The PhaseOne battery is integral to the body whereas on the CFV it hangs off the bottom.

- I thought the menu system was easy and intuitive on the P20.

- Phaseone have a much larger range of backs and have upgrade offers on all of them. Hasselblad only provide upgrade offers on the H backs.

- I already used Capture One and I am very happy with it, wasn't that keen on Flexcolor, however, I do like the option to create a DNG file which Capture cannot yet do (Phase One will support DNG from version 4.0)

- The PhaseOne back takes a standard sync cable

I bought the PhaseOne P20 and am very happy, the cable is a bit annoying (I once took the back out but forgot to take a cable) but the other factors outweigh it.

Tapas

I think the Phase One P20 is the best buy for the V system. I got a refurb for less than 2/3 price of a CFV. It has an upgrade path, better build and a more intuitive design in my view. Cost me the same as a Canon 1DS MK II and significantly less than replacing my Blads which have given me years of service with a completely new Canon system.

16MP is enough for me, the crop factor is more of a problem, a P25 would solve that but it needs to come down in price.

The reason the CFV hasn't been a runaway success may be the price and the existence of Phase One. I have a ton of Hasselblad equipment and looked at digital backs given the cost of getting top range Canon lenses. I have used hasselblads for 10 years and have just got used to them.

I rented a V96 back and it was awful from the use of the imagebank that cannot be backed up without flexcolour to the software itself and the menu system on the back.

Phase One in the UK have reduced the price of a refurb P20 to the same as a Canon 1Ds Mk II (?4,200 ex VAT); this come in a Peli Case with batteries chargers etc. The P20 has a standard sync socket and they are happy to declare it suitability for field work, it has no moving parts, fans etc. The menu system is really intuitive to use. Phase One also have an upgrade path for all their backs. To cap it all Capture One is brilliant software and the files are usable in other raw converters. The upgrade path was a big consideration just in case a P25 every hits my affordability criterion.

Hasselblad want nearly ?7,000 exc Vat for the CFV - a lot to pay for wireless triggering. The are too cheap to provide a battery and charger for that price. The battery sticks out under the back whereas the Phase One battery is integral. There is no upgrade path because Hasselblad would prefer to kill the V system.

My local dealer who sell Imacon backs and Teamwork where I got the P20 both say that they sell more backs for the V system than anything else. My local dealer seems to think that Hasselblad may be reappraising its desire to kill the V system, I hope so.

Whilst I am an amateur, the P20 was the same price as a Canon 1DS MK II (I think is a very important tipping point) but cheaper that buying a whole Canon system and lets me work the way I am used to. I only ever worked as wide as 60mm so perhaps a 40mm will get be back there at some point.

Until it sensor blew, the Fuji S2 Pro was my favourite digital camera. I went to Canon but have never been totally satisifed. The chance to use a Fuji sensor in a decent camera and then buy Zeiss ZF lenses to go with it is really tempting.

Tapas

Actually fast lenses are also about depth of field control, not everybody only considers resolution. You gain depth of field with the smaller sensors which is a bad thing for some types of photography. A really fast 50mm / 85mm lens has a look that can't be replicated by simply bumping up the iso.

Tapas

"John, 5 grand is not the baseline you should use, rather the price difference between a M7 and a M8, $1500 or so. That covers about one year's film and processing for me."

Actually as much as I would like an M8, I already have an M6 & 35mm Asph. I've been looking at a 75mm or 50mm and the problem I would have is that the crop factor means buying a whole new system, probably a 28 & 50 therefore the cost is pretty high and makes my current gear which is paid for pretty defunct.

Of course if I was buying in from scratch...

Tapas

Michael

I have the 350D, have had the 5D and also use a Hasselblad and I certaintly think that they all have sufficient quality (from a resolution perspective) at your desired output size but what people skim over is that different formats look different and this is more apparent with portraits than landscape where maximising depth of field is more important.

For example using something like a lens baby or tilt lens works much better on a 5D than a 350D because there is more surface area of sensor to capture gradual changes in depth of field. Medium format would be better still.

Looking at challenging light situations, I still think negative film handles harsh lighting better than digital. On pure resolution though I think my old 5D was better than the Blad and the image clarity can be amazing but I prefer the look of film, reduced depth of field, grain and all.

Composing is harder with the 350D due to the poor viewfinder but you get more depth of field.

My eventual decision was to keep the 350D which I love for its small size and fund a new blad outfit with the proceeds from my 5D (in a dream world I will be able to afford a digital back...)

Tapas

easy - 75mm Apo Summicron

if I was going to be silly, perhaps replace my M6ttl with and M7 and get an Imacon scanner.

Francois - lovely portrait, you may be right, I need a 50mm anyway to go between my 35 & 90 so perhaps an old 50 instead to 2 90mm might be the way to go.

Tapas

Hi

Thanks to everyone, a lot of very useful info. There are some 90 screw mounts that I can try out nearby, don't know anyone that's got a Hektor, I will look out for one though. Thambar is well outside what is useful.

Tapas

Hi

Thanks for the answers - I already have a 90 Apo Asp; layers in photoshop and vaseline are not the answer - they look crap.

I use lensbabies and tilt lenses on my 5D but was hoping for something for my M6.

The thambar is a lot more than I thought of paying.

Regards

Tapas

Hi

Can anyone suggest a portrait lens to use on a Leica M6 that is very, very

soft in the corners but quite sharp in the centre. Something like a 75mm or

90mm.

I presume I need to find a very fast, old lens with lots of spherical

aberrations but don't know where to start looking.

Thanks

Tapas

If you've got time to manually change the settings, you've got time to think and check. If it's a fleeting moment you have to go with what you've got ar at least anticipate.

I suppose I do use manual focus Zeiss lenses on my 5D, only got one Canon lens and it doesn't get much use.

Sign of a really, really good camera if that's all you're complaining about?

I've not even noticed the issue. I know what ISO & Aperure I'm shooting at and it must be pretty obvious what the shutter speed is more or less going to be by the lighting conditions?

A set of small manual focus ultra high quality primes so that I didn't have to use my Contax

lenses: 24 2.8; 35 1.4; 45 2.8 pancake; 85 2.0. Of course I'd want them to be chipped to

allow auto aperture metering and work exceptionally well with my 5D.

Alternatively a Canon 5D in a contax mount would do.

Tapas

The 17-40 is crap, I tested it on my Canon 5D against a 28mm Zeiss distagon and the Zeiss lens at 2.8 was better than the Canon Zoom at 5.6, the edges of a landscape image were shocking.

What is the point of have such a good camera with such poor lenses whilst I like the feel and quality of my Zeiss 28 & 45 lenses, stop down metering is just not practical except for landscape shots.

Tapas

I tested my Contax 28 2.8 against the Canon 17-40L on my 5D.

The Canon lens has been sold, the Zeiss at 2.8 was better than the Canon at F4/F5.6 and this was noticeable on A3 prints.

Hi Guys

Thanks for the extra responses, I'm not sure they are quite there because if the two areas of the histogram that you are intereted in are the two ends, then with neg/b&w film you can expose for the shadows and then allow the film's shoulder to manage with grace.

The problem with going for the highlight is that important information is compressed into a very small range with a huge midrange gap but if I expose into the shadows then the sensor will bloom on the highlight end and give to my eyes a very unpleasant response whereas the response of film is more natural.

I'll try doing two raw developments of the same file though it does seem quite a tedious piece of work. Maybe you have to light the shadows with flash and ambient meter for the highlights? I would prefer no to use flash but maybe better than fussing in photoshop.

Regards

Tapas

Sean

Have you checked out Paul Roark's site www.paulroark.com he has tried using differential

filters to change the capture for black and white.

Tapas

Hi

Thanks for the responses; I am shooting RAW but that doesn't do it. Digital seems to be

amazing in the middle but poor at the extremes. I've got some stuff off the 5D in soft

lighting that is really good.

Flash is not the way I like to work except in a studio, it lacks discretion, with something

like

XP2 you just expose for the shadows and the film's shoulder will take care of the

highlights.

Using filters is interesting - Paul Roark has tried differential filters and has an article on

his site.

Seems like it might be back to film for these situations.

Tapas