chris.platten

<p>If you happen to be at IPEX at the Birmingham NEC this week, Canon have the whole range lined up on a table. This includes the 1 series bodies so you can feel just how heavy they are. The cameras are sort of tacked on the end of the print displays and they are not taking orders, just showing them off. I was able to spend half an hour investigating without feeling I was getting in the way of a sale. They also have a podium with the big L series telephotos attached to 1 series bodies.</p>

<p>I work for a print and mail company and have no connection to Canon (other than having bought equipment from them for my hobby). I just chanced on the display while I had a couple of hours 'off duty' to see the rest of the show.</p>

<p>Unfortunately no giveaways other than sample prints.</p>

<p>As an FD shooter wanting to go digital in 2006 I looked seriously at all the manufacturers. Although inclined towards Canon, I had no prior EOS investment that would be lost if I went to another manufacturer. In the end, it came down to a choice between Canon and Pentax. I ended up with a EOS 350D, but gave serious consideration to the Pentax *istDS. One of the attractions to the Pentax was the ultra slim 40mm F2.8 pancake lens that was released about the same time. While the combination won't fit in many pockets, it would fit in the map pocket of my Paramo waterproof jacket. I use the bulkier combination of my 350D with EF 28mm F2.8 in this way. I find this to be very useful when hiking as it gives quick access to the camera, but does not get in the way when I scramble up a rocky section.<br /> The EF 28mm F2.8 with a polariser and lens cap attached projects 40mm beyond the popup flash housing which is the 'most forward' part of the 350D body. The popup flash housing projects 15mm from the lens mount, so a pancake lens would make the combination more pocketable.<br /> There is a post on Photo.net with the title "Pentax K mount lens to EOS body adapters" which may help you get a pancake lens onto a crop sensor EOS.There is even a picture of an older Pentax 40mm pancake on an EOS400D on forum.mflenses.com titled "SMC PENTAX-M 1:2.8 40mm "Pancake"<a href="http://forum.mflenses.com/smc-pentax-m-12-8-40mm-pancake-t4847.html"></a> <br /> Despite more years with manual focus than with autofocus, I would find using a manual combination hard. Especially without the help an old style split screen gives.<br /> If Canon ever made one....and I am sure they won't, it would be a niche item, but there would be buyers</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A previous poster used the example of 50mm on APS-C and 80mm on FF taking a picture of a person infront of a distant background. In this example the photographer, subject and background all stay in the same position. The combination of 50mm on APS-C and 80mm on FF gives the same angle of view and you see just as much background in each shot.</p>

<p>If instead you use the 50mm on BOTH the APS-C and the FF. Start with the photographer, subject and background in the same positions as the previous example and take a picture with the 50mm on the APS-C camera. Now using the 50mm on the FF camera walk towards the subject until the subject fills as much of the frame on the FF camera as it did on the APS-C camera and take another picture. In this picture there will be more background visible. Parts of the background that were out of shot with the 50mm and APS-C will now be in shot.</p>

<p>One other consequence of moving closer to the subject is that although parts of the background previously out of shot are now in shot, some of the background previously visible just to the left and right of the subject is now hidden by the subject. In effect you lose some background as well as gain.</p>

<p>Thanks for your comments so far. I have spent the evening reading the Strobist "Lighting 101" as suggested by more than one. I need to digest this a bit, read it again and digest some more. Just going back and looking at photos from last year, I can already see how I could have taken them better. I think Angel has it right. Once my 7D arrives, spend some time using it and the 430EX I already have, before I spend any more money.</p>

<p>If I do buy anything, it will be the cactus type to use with my two old flash units that just sit in a drawer at the moment.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I currently have an EOS 350D, EF-S 10-22, EF 28 F2.8, EF 24-105 F4L, 430EX. Following a recent family and friends baby boom, I find I am shooting a lot of informal portraits indoors in a home environment using the 430EX for bounce flash. This often works well, but I have to adjust the flash when I change camera orientation and in cluttered rooms there is not always a clear wall for a combined wall/ceiling bounce.</p>

<p>I plan to upgrade to a 7D for my outdoor photographic interests, but I am also interested in the wireless flash control. I have previously looked at getting an ST-E2 to get my 430EX off my 350D and positioned in a convenient location in the room so I can move round freely, but I never got around to it. The remote flash control feature on the 7D gives me a way to experiment with wireless flash.</p>

<p>Now to the point. After purchasing the 7D and also a 70-200 F4L IS that I want for my outdoor interests, I will have very little budget left for extra flash units. My existing 430EX and the built in flash will allow me to experiment with two extra light sources. I would also like to try using the multiple groups feature with additional flash units. This is not a priority for me, so I do not want to commit a great deal of my budget here, but is something I think I would enjoy.</p>

<p>I wondered if anyone had tried, or has any comments on the following options.........</p>

<p>1) Using two of the ~$100 Ebay ETTL II flash units as slaves. Are they cheap and cheerful, or more likely cheap and frustrating. If it turns out to be the latter then this is $200 that could have gone towards a real Speedlite.</p>

<p>2) I have an old Vivitar 283 and also a Canon 300TL which could be used with optical slaves and manually preset, or they could be used with digital slaves which are not really cheaper than the cloned ETTL II units and there are a lot of posts in forums about compatibility problems.</p>

<p>3) Get a second speedlite (probably a 580EX) and make do with just groups A+B. This gets attractive as I sometimes shoot in very dark places where I would like the 'red lines' focus assist from a hotshoe mounted Speedlite as well as extra power from from a second flash. As I understand it the 7D focus assist is the same as my 350D, by pulsing the flash to give some extra light.</p>

<p>Nice to see the price relative to the 5dmk2 being more realistic. Not long ago the 7d was £1700 while the 5dmk2 was £1800.The camerapricebuster link was very useful.<br>

I can recomend Bristol Cameras as that is where I bought my 24-105F4LIS from. This was at the height of the supply problems following the flare issue and they were very clear as to when they had stock and when they didn't. They also shipped the lens as a part order while waiting for a flash to come into stock. At the time there was no extra charge for the double shipment. That sort of customer care inclines me to go back if/when I buy a 7d.<br>

Having said that, the Jessops price for local collect is very keen. If you have one local not only can you collect easily, but you also have somewhere easy to reach if there is a warantee issue. Always worth checking the local options once you know the realistic web price.</p>

I am very happy with the 24-105 F4 on a 350D, I have paired mine with a EFS 10-22. The 17-40 is not wide enough for my use. I wanted to have 24mm equivalent or wider on 1.6 crop and the 17-40 does not give this. The only downside is the lack of overlap between the ranges with 10-22 and 24-105. I find I swap between them frequently. However since there is no option to have 10-35 I just get on and use what I have.

I do not worry about the 10-22 being EFS. If I upgrade to full frame I will just sell it on. Yes I will lose some money, but I will have had a lot of use out of it.

Another thought for macro on the cheap after you have spent all your money on the 24-105.

 

When you shoot macro, do you find that you manually set the focus as close as you can, then move the camera to get the focus point where you need it (often with DOF preview set). I certainly worked like that when I used film on Canon FD.

 

If this is the case, then you can get away without autofocus for macro. You can now look at (almost) any brand macro lens and use it with an adapter. If you want to stay with Canon, this is the one time you get to use an FD lens, just buy a cheap and nasty adapter and remove the glass element. You won't be needing to focus at infinity anyway. Alternatively, the tamron SP90 is highly rated. There will be lots of threads to help you choose (or confuse you over) which manual macro lens to pick.

 

I plan to do this with my old FD bellows, but have not found time to do it yet. It's amazing how much time babies absorb.

The 24-105 actually works quite well for baby portraits. My experience is with a crop body, but with the 5d, just move a bit closer. I find that in rooms of 3mx3m to 3mx5m (the range in my house) the 24-105 on a 1.6 (350d) body matches the room/subject size. It helps, of course, that babies are small. You can use full zoom and still get a full length (for a sitting baby at least) portrait. At full zoom the you get a very smooth background blur, but it is not actually that blurred.

Early on babies don't move much, so IS is a help. Once they do get mobile, pair it with a bounce flash (I use the 430ex). With both the 24-105 and a 430ex, my XT does creak a bit if you hold it in one hand between shots, but with two hands and most of the weight on the 'lens' hand it is fine. The 24-105 focusses very fast, so crawling babies are OK. they crawl fast too, so the zoom is handy vs a 100mm fixed focal length.

 

You can also use the 24-105 as a borderline macro. On a crop body it is even better for this. With the 1.6 multiplier, the .23 x lifesize equates to 0.37 x lifesize. For flowers/butterflies this is quite good. IS helps you handhold with a slower shutter speed, so you get a smaller aperture and more DOF.

 

For travel on the 5d it makes a good 'one lens' solution, but lots has already been written about that.

 

Don't discount the 24-105 because of your portrait requirements. It is not a portrait lens, but that does not mean you cannot use it for portraits and still get good results.

I suspect you would not often carry the 35 f2 and the 24-105 F4L at the same time, but they do still complement each other.

 

If wide angle is a requirement, then on a 1.6 crop the 10-22 makes more sense than 17-40 as 17 is approx 29 and not really wide.

 

I have the 350D body and 10-22, 28 2.8 (I traded slightly wider for slightly slower, but did also consider the 35 f2) and the 24-105 F4L.

 

I never carry all three as the 28 f2.8 only gains me one stop (you would get two stops with the 35 f2 which may tip the balance to carrying all three)

 

My heavy setup uses the 10-22 and the 24-105, the medium setup just the 24-105 and the light option just the 28 2.8.

 

I really like the 24-105 for all round use. Yes it is heavy on a 350D, but I find that I hold the weight lens with my left hand and just steady and shoot with the right. However, there are times when a very light setup is desirable and I find that the 350D with a compact prime is a better (although bigger) option to a point and shoot. I also find IS very useful, more useful to me than 1 stop on an f2.8 zoom

 

So, the 24-105 F4L is a sensible 'next lens', but it is not the only option. For general use, I would say it is top of the zoom list. However, there is also a good argument for getting....

 

One of the 50 primes and either an 85 or 100 prime.

 

One of the 50 primes and 70-200 F4 L (with or without IS)

 

The EF-S 17-85, but if you have the budget for the 24-105 I would be (and was) tempted to spend it.

 

Another cheaper option could be the old 28-135 IS at half the cost of the 24-105, but again if you have the budget for the 24-105....

A good compromise for cost/quality is a USED 28 f2.8. I picked one up on the proverbial auction site for the same price a new 50 f1.8 would have cost. If after using it for a while, it is not what is required, just sell it on.

 

Combined with the XT it makes a very light travel combination. It is also pretty good indoors. The FOV on a 1.6 crop is good for babies in a typical living room. You have plenty of space in which to work, although for older children/adults you start running out of space to back up. Despite the lack of USM it still focusses quickly (although it is noisy)

 

It also takes cheap 52mm filters

 

The 24 2.8 or 35 2 are probably also good options, but I have never used them. It all comes down to what FOV you want. The 28 on 1.6 fitted, my needs, but you may want to consider the others. They are more expensive USED, but you can probably still re-sell for what you paid if you need to.

UPDATE - Bought a 28 f2.8 used for �60. It's not bad for the price. Even without USM, it still focuses quickly (if noisily). It is certainly light to carry with the 350D.

I apologise for the double post. I am not sure how that happened!

The feedback from those of you that have the 24-105 seems to be that you would not want to be without it. It is a lens that I would really like to own. I did some pricing/availability research today and the best UK price seems to be 680GBP. However, they were good enough to inform me that they had no stock and over 30 orders awaiting any stock that came in. It is the same story at other outlets. Some such as Bristol Cameras have removed this item from their website as their staff were spending too much time telling folks 'sorry we do not have any'. If I find anywhere with stock I am sure they will be charging full list price or even higher. I am just not so desparate to have this lens that I will pay a premium price.

 

Fortunately at just 2 months, my son wriggles a lot, but generally stays in one place. I do not need the flexibility of 24-105 just yet - Good point though from Iori Suzuki.

 

Robin Sibson makes a very good suggestion in the EF-S 60 F2.8 Macro as an alternative to the EF 50 F2.5 Macro.

The effective length would go up from 80mm to 96mm which is both a plus and a minus to me. I do find the 80mm field of view works well in UK mountains. The size and spacing of the scenery fits well. 100mm is a bit tight. I formed this opinion because the first two lenses I carried with my T90 were the 50 F1.4 and 100 F2.8. When I started using the 80-200 F4, I found that I used it at 80mm a lot and rarely at 100mm.

I would gain USM and 1:1 with a slight increase in weight/bulk and a 50% increase in price. The pluses and minuses are finely balanced here. I do not mind it being EF-S as I have no great desire to move up to FF. If Canon ever made a rugged (ie sealed) 1.6 crop camera I might upgrade. I find the benefits of 1.6 at the long end outweigh the difficulties at the wide end. Anyway, I already have the EF-S 10-22, so I have already 'solved' my wide problem.

 

If Robin (or anyone else who has both macros) could comment on the contrast shown by each lens for the same subject, that might sway my decision. There is a very good review on this site of the 50 1.8 vs 50 1.4 and the most striking difference was the increased contrast shown by the 50 1.4. I really do want macro, so the two fast 50s are off my list.

 

I have also looked again at the 28 F1.8 and considered the 28 F2.8. Here I would lose USM and some speed, but gain sharpness, reduced weight/bulk and a significant price reduction. I would also get a common 52mm filter size with either of the Macros and I already have filters this size from my FD lenses. I will mostly use the 28 as an effective 45 outdoors stopped down, so the smaller maximum aperture is not a problem. I am also attracted by the size it is alsmost as small and light as the 50 F1.8 (and on a 1.6 crop gives close to the same field of view). I could use this when I wanted a very minimal setup. I often used an AE1 and 50 1.8 for winter climbing when the weather was closed in. That way, if the weather improved, I would still be able to get some great shots, but if not, the weight penalty was not that high. I now use my Rollei 35 for this function..but it means more scanning.

 

Even when I finally get a 24-105, I would still want to keep whichever macro I choose. This means that the 28 F2.8 is the only 'extra' that I would have paid for and it is cheaper than the price premium that the 25-105 carries now. If I delay buying the zoom until the supply catches up with demand and the price falls back to where it was last year, I can have my cake and eat it!

 

Finally, there has been some mention of the 70-200 F4L as an alternative to the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS. While the 70-200 is undoubtedly a superb lens, it does not have IS. I am not prpared to either carry or pay for the F2.8 version with IS, so the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS stays on the shopping list.

 

The order of purchae now is probably 28 F2.8 and one of the macros now, then the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS, then when the price settles (or my son starts moving too quickly) the 24-105 F4 L. At that point I can stop reading gear reviews and concentrate on taking photos.

 

Please feel free to comment further

The feedback from those of you that have the 24-105 seems to be that you would not want to be without it. It is a lens that I would really like to own. I did some pricing/availability research today and the best UK price seems to be 680GBP. However, they were good enough to inform me that they had no stock and over 30 orders awaiting any stock that came in. It is the same story at other outlets. Some such as Bristol Cameras have removed this item from their website as their staff were spending too much time telling folks 'sorry we do not have any'. If I find anywhere with stock I am sure they will be charging full list price or even higher. I am just not so desparate to have this lens that I will pay a premium price.

 

Fortunately at just 2 months, my son wriggles a lot, but generally stays in one place. I do not need the flexibility of 24-105 just yet - Good point though from Iori Suzuki.

 

Robin Sibson makes a very good suggestion in the EF-S 60 F2.8 Macro as an alternative to the EF 50 F2.5 Macro.

The effective length would go up from 80mm to 96mm which is both a plus and a minus to me. I do find the 80mm field of view works well in UK mountains. The size and spacing of the scenery fits well. 100mm is a bit tight. I formed this opinion because the first two lenses I carried with my T90 were the 50 F1.4 and 100 F2.8. When I started using the 80-200 F4, I found that I used it at 80mm a lot and rarely at 100mm.

I would gain USM and 1:1 with a slight increase in weight/bulk and a 50% increase in price. The pluses and minuses are finely balanced here. I do not mind it being EF-S as I have no great desire to move up to FF. If Canon ever made a rugged (ie sealed) 1.6 crop camera I might upgrade. I find the benefits of 1.6 at the long end outweigh the difficulties at the wide end. Anyway, I already have the EF-S 10-22, so I have already 'solved' my wide problem.

 

If Robin (or anyone else who has both macros) could comment on the contrast shown by each lens for the same subject, that might sway my decision. There is a very good review on this site of the 50 1.8 vs 50 1.4 and the most striking difference was the increased contrast shown by the 50 1.4. I really do want macro, so the two fast 50s are off my list.

 

I have also looked again at the 28 F1.8 and considered the 28 F2.8. Here I would lose USM and some speed, but gain sharpness, reduced weight/bulk and a significant price reduction. I would also get a common 52mm filter size with either of the Macros and I already have filters this size from my FD lenses. I will mostly use the 28 as an effective 45 outdoors stopped down, so the smaller maximum aperture is not a problem. I am also attracted by the size it is alsmost as small and light as the 50 F1.8 (and on a 1.6 crop gives close to the same field of view). I could use this when I wanted a very minimal setup. I often used an AE1 and 50 1.8 for winter climbing when the weather was closed in. That way, if the weather improved, I would still be able to get some great shots, but if not, the weight penalty was not that high. I now use my Rollei 35 for this function..but it means more scanning.

 

Even when I finally get a 24-105, I would still want to keep whichever macro I choose. This means that the 28 F2.8 is the only 'extra' that I would have paid for and it is cheaper than the price premium that the 25-105 carries now. If I delay buying the zoom until the supply catches up with demand and the price falls back to where it was last year, I can have my cake and eat it!

 

Finally, there has been some mention of the 70-200 F4L as an alternative to the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS. While the 70-200 is undoubtedly a superb lens, it does not have IS. I am not prpared to either carry or pay for the F2.8 version with IS, so the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS stays on the shopping list.

 

The order of purchae now is probably 28 F2.8 and one of the macros now, then the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS, then when the price settles (or my son starts moving too quickly) the 24-105 F4 L. At that point I can stop reading gear reviews and concentrate on taking photos.

 

Please feel free to comment further

Sometimes just writing things down clarifies the issue. Other times the comments

help. Either way, here goes.

I am transitioning from an old manual focus setup (Canon FD - T90, 24 F2.8 SSC,

50 F1.4 SSC, 100 F2.8 SSC, 80-200 F4 FDn, Speedlite 300TL) to digital. Although

I previously used Canon and had a free choice manufacturer, for a variety of

reasons I chose to stay with Canon. The total budget for the transition was

�2000 (or $3500) spent in stages over a year

 

Most of my photography is outdoors and secondary to another activity

(Mountaineering, Caving, Cycling, Canoeing etc). I also have a two month old son

and I cannot stop taking pictures of him (Indoors, outdoors, wherever). Whilst

photography is secondary, quality is not. I generally prefer to wait until I can

afford quality rather than compromise and regret it later.

 

My choice of body was easy - EOS350D. A 20d was in budget, but the extra weight

and bulk did not (for me at least) justify the extra features it offered.

 

For lenses, I considered 17-40 F4L + 50 F1.4 (I loved my FD equivalent) + 28-135

F3.5/5.6 IS - However I wanted to be able to get the field of view given by my

24mm and the 17-40 did not give that. I wanted something longer than the 28-135,

the 70-200 F4L does not have IS and the 75-300 with IS did not meet my quality

requirement.

 

New products were launched and I set a target of EFS 10-22, 24-105 F4 L, 70-300

F4.5/5.6 IS (it just scraped the quality, but barely). And yes these three do

exceed the budget. To date I have purchased the 350D and EFS 10-22 and have no

regrets. However, it is the 24-105 F4 L that is troubling me. I was all set to

purchase last year, when the flare problem - well - flared up (groan). Now I

find myself looking at an extra �150 on the 2005 price to purchase this lens

even assuming I can find a vendor that has one in stock.

 

In a free market it is the perogative of the vendor to raise the price when

supply is low, but that doesn't mean I have to pay. I can choose not to buy, or

buy something else and here we get to the point.

 

Rather than buy the 24-105, I am tempted to go off at a tangent and instead buy

two primes.

 

My reasoning is that with my previous setup I used the 50 most all and after

that the 80-200 at 80 or fully zoomed to 200. Since the long end will be taken

care of when I buy the 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS, the two primes hit (well nearly hit)

the focal lengths I expect to use most. I do lose IS, but I get larger maximum

apertures and less bulk. I was kind of shocked with how large the EFS 10-22 was

and the 24-105 is even bigger.

 

The 28 F1.8 - Gives me 44.8mm on the 350D. I always found my 50 just a touch too

long and when playing with Rollei 35's on backpacking trips found that 40 was to

wide. 44.8 could be just right.

 

and the

 

50 F2.5 Macro - Gives me 80mm on the 350D. I dabble a bit in macro. More botany

than entomology, so half life size is fine for me.

 

I will be off on a Scotland backpack soon and would like to use my new camera

and need more length than I currently have, so I need to buy something (I know I

could use my old gear, but however much I love chromes, I am fed up with

scanning). The way I see it is that I will enjoy using these two lenses. They

are different from my original plan, and I will be giving away 80mm at the long

end untill I buy the 70-300 later in the year, but I think they will fit my

needs well. If in a years time I decide I really did want the 24-105, they are

both quality lenses that should hold their value well, I may find that after

selling, I have not lost much more than the �150 premium that the 24-105 is

currently carrying.

 

Please feel free to comment on my sanity in snubbing so fine a lens as the 24-105

 

At least it makes a change from all the 24-105 vs 24-70 discussions!

Cut and paste failure..... the last paragraph should have read

 

Please note: At present I have just the 350D and the EFS 10-22. The 24-105 F4 L IS and 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS are what I plan to get based on research (paper/web not handling real kit) and my previous useage with film. These lenses (by description) fit my needs and budget. Yours may be different.

You could just auction the kit lens after you have purchased its replacement. There seems to be a steady stream of them.

 

I will be doing this soon as I now have the EFS 10-22 and will shortly purchase EF 24-105 L.

 

My actual experience so far has been with just the EFS 10-22 which I like a lot. I bought it for the 22-35mm equivalent range on my 350D, but I find I use the 16-22 equivalent range more often than I thought.

 

I used to travel with an old T90 and 24 2.8, 50 1.4 and 80-200 F4 non L and a Rollei 35 as a backup camera

 

What I am building up to after a digital transition is 350D with EFS 10-22, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS. I would probably also get the 50 1.8.

 

Now to the holiday part....One lens only, 24-105 F4 L, two lenses urban EFS 10-22 / 24-105 F4 L IS, two lenses rural 24-105 F4 L IS / 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS, three lenses urban EFS 10-22 / 50 1.8 / 24-105 F4 L IS, three lenses rural EFS 10-22, 24-105 F4 L IS, 70-300 F4.5/5.6 IS.

 

Please note: At present I have just the 350D and the EFS 10-22. The other are what I plan to get and and my previous useage with film. These lenses (by description) fit my needs and budget. Yours may be different.

If your camera is capable of simultaneous RAW+JPG shoot both. Do the best you can with custom white balance (sheet of white card with a matt finish can be good) for the JPG.

After the event, any JPGs that are not good enough try processing the RAW file.

That way you only spend time re-balancing those shots that need it...

 

You will need a big CF card though. From a 350D I get 500+ JPG at max quality on 2GB, but only 130 shots with RAW+JPG

The preview available in a digicam helps considerably with alignment. Without the preview (ie SLR). The biggest problem is not remembering how far you have panned to get a good overlap between frames, but keeping the plane of rotation horizontal. A tripod and a hotshoe mounted spirit level help considerably. When you have no tripod, try keeping your arms locked and rotate your body at the waist. With a bit of practice it works quite well.

 

If you find panoramas interesting, another fun trick is to take two pictures of the same scene, one with your weight concentrated on your left foot and another with your weight concentrated on your right foot. The two images can then be viewed as a stereo pair for an impressive 3D effect. The balance technique gives a good approximation to the horizontal separation required to match the view from each eye. If you don't have a stereo viewer just look at the pictures side by side with your eyes crossed to get the same effect (requires some practice and usually results in a headache).

There are two resolutions that apply to printers. The native resolution of the device is how many dots of ink/toner fit into one inch of the print media. Typically these dots are made from four ink/toner colours (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black) although some systems use 6 or 8 colours.

The second resolution is the screen (this is a printing term - nothing to do with a monitor screen) frequency (again a printing term - akin to resolution). The screen frequency is derived from the way groups of dots in a limited number of colours are arranged on the page to fool the human eye into seeing a large range of colours. The more printer dots that are used in a group to represent a single data point from the digital image, the greater the aparent number of colours the eye is tricked into seeing.

 

The following simplistic example helps illustrate the effect. A 4x4 grid of printer dots can be used to represent one data point from the original file. If the printer is physically capable of printing 300 dpi, the actual data dpi will be 75.

 

There is a trade off between the number of colours that can be represented and the spacial detail that can be represented. More colours gives smoother colour changes, but less spacial detail.

 

There are many ways to build these dot patterns (look up haltoning screens for examples) and for any given pattern and printer resolution, you will get a screen frequency which is usually quoted in lines per inch or LPI to distinguish it from the physical DPI of the device.

 

For basic quality you need one data point in the original image for each virtual dot in the printer screen. For best quality you sould aim for a data resolution twice the screen frequency. There is a halfway house of 'standard quality' used in printing with a data resolution 1.5 times the screen frequency. The reason 'extra' dots are required, is because the grid in the screen is commonly 45, 75 or 105 degrees to the physical print grid and information is lost mapping one to the other.

 

For example, you want to print 8 by 10 on a printer with a screen frequency of 71 LPI. You need 8x71x2=1136 by 10x71x2=1420 data points or 1.2 megapixels. Not a a big challenge.

Now 71 LPI is not exactly the high end of printing screen resolutions. Think 85 LPI for newsprint and either 133 or 150 LPI for magazines. Fine art prints are much higher

 

Time for another example. In this case we have 8 by 10 as the target size and the printer has a screen frequency of 150 LPI. For best quality, we need 8x150x2=2400 by 10x150x2=3000. The 350D gives (figures from a previous poster) 2304 by 3456. Not quite a match, but pretty close. Crop a bit from the height and accept some additional border at the sides. This example also illustrates where the often quoted 300dpi for 8 by 10 comes from. It is in fact 300 LPI in the printer giving 300 data points required per inch from the source file.

 

What does this mean in practice? Well, if your desktop inkjet has a maximum screen resolution of 150 LPI and can print up to A4/USLetter paper, the 350D is a good match. More mega-pixels just gives you the option to selectively crop without reducing the final printed image quality. If the same printer was capable of A3/11x17(not sure of the US name for this size) then the 350D will not give you enough for the maximum quality the printer is capable of, but may still be acceptable to you (an 'eye of the beholder' decision). Quite often the maximum screen frequency on a printer is achieved at the expense of colour detail. You may actually get a more pleasing print from a screen frquency of 133 LPI even if the printer is capable of 150 LPI. You may also find that for your needs, 1.5 times the screen frequency (or standard quality) is enough. In this case the 350D will give you A4/11x17.

 

Now that you know how the numbers work, you can make your own decisions based on the printer screen capability, target print size and quality you want.

 

Two further points

 

1) Choosing where to hang your prints can make a big difference. If the print hangs across a stairwell and the closest anyone can get to it is 10 feet away, you can go quite large and get away with it! The same print close up will not be so good!

 

2) If you send your files to a commercial printer, make sure you know what the printer capabilities are. Some print processes will resample the image to match the virtual dots that will be placed on the page. Create your files to avoid this where possible. In effect research the service you are about to pay for to make sure you get the most out of your money.

Has anybody actually bought anything from this vendor? If so, were they reliable. The price is cheap, but not so cheap to suspect a fraud (ie its NOT a 75% off e**y sale)

I have not heard of them before all the 5D posts started appearing. Although I won't be buying the 5D, I am looking to buy a 350D and 17-40F4L and their price is attractive. Still, before I part with a little over #1000 it would be nice to hear some background on the seller.

Just as I thought I was settled with the 17-40 and 28-135, along comes the 24-105F4L. This is a very tempting proposition. Yes it is more expensive, but it covers the range I use for 80% of my shooting. I suspect I succumb to temptation. If I want moderate wide, I can use the kit lens, If I want wider, a film body with this lens will give me 24mm.

Thanks for the answers so far. Despite all efforts to type a clear description, I still managed be ambiguous. When I said I that had 33 shots indicated, I really had taken 32 frames and wound on to frame 33. I then took frame 33 and tried to wind to frame 34. It was at this point the problem occured. The winding mechanism had performed correctly up to this point.

I suspect that I need to test another film and see if the failure repeats. Assuming my first test film indicates it is worth proceeding with this camera.

 

I also have a Rollei 35 from the same lot. I tested the 35SE first as it has the higher specification lens. I will run a film through this as well. I have no battery for the meter, but with print film I should be able to estimate exposure.

 

If all else fails, I have a Petri 35 that I know works (including the meter). It is almost as small as the Rollei(s).

I have a Rollei 35 SE (I know this particular model is a bit recent,

but the product family is pre 1970) purchased as a fully manual backup

camera for when a modern SLR runs out of batteries.

 

The camera appeared in good mechanical order. The diaphragm stopped

down and the shutter sounded like it was faster each time I increased

the speed.

 

The next step was a test film and this is where the problem occured. I

had 33 shots indicated after taking a picture. I then tried to wind on

(you have to do this to be able to collapse the lens). The lever moved

about half way then became totally free. It was no longer winding the

film. As this was shot 34, I rewound and removed the film. There was

plenty of drag as I rewound indicating that the film had beem winding

on ok. With the film out, I gently pushed the now empty takeup spool

and there was a click. The winder was once again engaged and appeared

to be working normally.

 

Is this a known problem or possibly a protection mechanism if the film

on the takeup spool gets too bulky and the winder disengages to

prevent the damage to the film or cammera?

 

Obviously to be a backup camera, it has to be reliable. Have I got a

problem , or is this normal.

 

The test film is being developed, so this question is 'mechanical'

rather than 'image' based