mike_lepp1

Go back and look at most of your old (e.g. film) family portraits and you'll find often that the "dot" from fill light was "removed" from the print with a touchup pen. You can still buy these for this purpose. Nowadays, they're often just left in. Look through fashion/glamour magazines and you'll see the extra cl's. The extra cl's don't really bother me.

 

Also, by making the main light larger (softer), by moving it closer, the light will wrap around more and produce softer shadows. Then you may not even need any fill.Even if you do use some, as the main light gets bigger you'll often want to use less fill.

I have a 10d and a 1d. There is no comparison for sports. The 1d is in a different league (even than the 20d too). It has CFn's for using the sensors and tracking so you can customize for the sport you're shooting. It's af is much faster, it has more crosspoint sensors, much better sensitivity, etc. The bright near 100% vf is especially good.

 

With a good image I've squeezed very good 13x19" prints out of the 1d. With sports you can afford to lose a little in resolution. Nobody will miss it. Still, this is near it's limit.

 

Why not keep the 10d? I keep a wide® angle lens on the 10d and use the 1d for action. I shoot college sports and this is a good combo. The coaches tell me the 13x19's I made for them with the 1d are the sharpest and cleanest they ever seen and it overexceeds what the media folks need.

 

The 20d isn't a big enough step over the 10d to warrant an upgrade. You might as well wait 18 months for its replacement and upgrade then. The 1d easily meets my requirements for sports. If I was to upgrade the 10d anytime soon it would be with a 1ds or 1dsII.

 

Don't underestemate the 1 series cameras. Most who do never used one.

http://www.lyson.com/includes/frames.html

>If your final picture is an 8 x 10 and you have 8 million px vs 6 million px all those px don't have to be quite as perfect to get the same result. Of course if your looking to get bigger pictures you got to get the bigger sensor

 

 

Sure they do. Why would you think otherwise? For 4x6" prints, you can't tell the difference between my 3mp a70 and my 10d. Any movement will be translated equally. And, my 4Mp 1d makes as good of an 8x10 as my 6Mp 10d. In each of these cases there is ample resolution to make these prints sizes without noticable differences.

 

The only difference you can argue for is a larger format doesn't need as sharp of a lens. Beyond that there is no reason a smaller format will produce worse results. Especially with newer technologies. Consider canon increased the same size sensor by 2Mp and reduced the noise.

After looking at results from the kodak, I have been considering updating my 10d with one when the kodak starts appearing on the used market. It will probably be after the next euphoria from a newly released camera.

 

I'm not impressed with it's high iso results. However, the artifacts that people who say "looks like shit" just plain aren't going to be visible in even large prints. It's akin to my film scanning days. I would see grain in 4000dpi scans even with films like velvia in clear blue skies when looked at at 100%. However, this grain never tranlated to prints up to 13x19 (as large as I print).

 

Therefore, I feel the the kodak for studio and landscape coupled with my 1d for sports or anywhere else I need speed should be a great combo.

The best part of the 20d compared to the 10d is its power up time. Still, I don't see a need to upgrade. If you look at the numbers, the 20d offers approximately 300 extra pixels in both directions. Good for about an extra inch in print or a little extra margin in cropping.

 

Honestly, I've had no problems making 11x17" prints with my 10d. I've even made very good prints to this size with my 1d (4Mp). Even with minor cropping. Check out the "size matters" article on this site. Also, because of the low noise and high accutance, many people prefer my 10d prints over my 35mm film images.

 

Still, if I was about to buy a new dslr I would get the 20d over a 10d. Why not? It is an improvement no matter how you cut it.

 

However, you may be able to get a great deal on a 10d now. I picked up a demo 1d for 1/3 the price of a 1dII (or 1/3 it's original price). For the type of shooting I'll be doing with the 1d nobody will miss a little loss of resolution in even 11x17 prints.

 

Maybe in a year or so I'll be able to pick up a hardly used 1ds (or even a kodak 14c) on the cheap. I'm sure the techno chasers will _need_ the next version. Both of these would be great for studio or landscapes.

Hi Sam,

 

I have an A70. The G3's af is bad compared to this. The A70 in decent light is good. My wife will use it! It still suffers in low light. By low light, I mean "normal" household lighting conditions in the evening (or not a lot of light coming in the windows). I also like that it fits in a shirt pocket. Another thing to realize is for standard size prints, 4x6, print quality is comparable to my 10d. With a good image you can get OK 8x10's too.

 

I'm not sure what these people keep talking about with prefocusing. Doing this negates the point of a P&S camera. My wife, probably like your mum, wants to take pictures at get-togethers, parties, events, etc. Places where she would use her film oly epic and just point and shoot, catch the moment, and get in focus piictures. She's really not interested in still life.

 

However, if all she wants to do is take scenics and stills, the G3 does have very good image quality.

Can your mom handle a camera that can't P&S? My wife hated it and refused to use it. I finally gave sold it because I wanted a light carry around camera. I just missed too many shots because of it's poor af and shutter lag. Then add in its near pathetic low light focusing.

 

Image quality was good though....

Is this your first digicam? Most of these CAN'T P&S. Thus, if you just push and hold down the shutter button, it will fire whether or not it's in focus or not. Instead, hold the button half way down until the camera lets you know it's in focus. Then push the rest of the way.

I agree with all the setiments listed. There's no depth or substance. And, it read like a big advertisement with every other article explaining why you should go digital and why whatever is available is perfect for your needs.

 

Still, I found that if you keep throwing away all their renewal "deals" until your very last months issue arives, the renewal offer that comes around this time is the best one and dirt cheap at that. I'll resign then. I suppose when this doesn't happen is when I'll quit.

The way I like to explain this is with a simple point light source. First, put a period, "." (dot), in the upper center of a page. Second, draw perpendicular lines, rays, projecting out from this dot.

 

Now, draw a simple face, circle with a V nose, close to the source and notice the angles the light rays are hitting the object. At this close distance they come in from different directions. Because of this, the shadows are softer.

 

Then, draw this face at the other end of the paper. You will notice that the rays are now hitting this face almost completely perpendicular. Thus, the shadows are harder.

 

You can extrapolate this line of thought to cover larger vs. small sources too. Consider a large softbox. The light coming out of the front of the soft box goes in all directions. Therefore, if the object is close, about 1/2 the diameter of the box, the rays will hit the subject in many angles creating a very soft light. If you move this box far enough away, it basically becomes a point source and will create hard shadows. In between far away and close the results will vary as with Brooks' images.

 

Thanks for Brooks' and Gary's efforts!<div></div>

Brooks,

 

One thing I would like to point out is that by taking the "still life" approach you and Gary are avoiding people getting enamored by the subject. Instead, this approach allows one to focus on the lighting itself. Thereby, learning cause and effect.

 

I point this out because I often see people asking how some photographer made some shots. When I go to look at those shots, they're quite often relatively simple. Not that they're not well done. But, the person is confusing a great subject for great lighting.

 

Similarly, when I look through critiques on the web I see people tend to critique the subject instead of the photogragpher/photograph. A beautiful model nude in front of a northern window is sure to get great reviews. While a non-attractive subject will get nill. There's often more to learn from the non-attractive shot.

 

Conversely, just like what has been discussed here with butterfly lighting, it takes a little more understanding of lighting to make an average subject look great in a photograph.

 

What I'm trying to point out is that by showing examples with still life, or a mask, you're emphasizing the actual lighting as opposed to the subject. The emphasis becomes on technique and understanding without being enamored by the subject. Some may not get this! Hopefully most do. I, for one, tend to feel I'm being more creative when I'm trying to make an average subject look great.

 

Thanks for your effort!

Sorry, but over the years I went through a couple of epics. The problem is with the digi's people have recomended, besides size of some of them, is their poor shutter lag or low (standard room lighting) light focus.

 

My canon G2 was pathetic. I have an A70 which has improved some and is much smaller than the A80. The A70 focuses fast and well in bright light but severely suffers in low light. Low light that my epic just points and shoots in.

 

I've also had the opportunity to try out other canons and oly digitial. Still, they can't P&S. The new leica does well, but it's rather large and pricey.

First, I agree with ellis. I'm usually gone before tourists get there. For $50 you can arrange with most parks to be in before they open. Second, I would never ask somone to move. If they ask, I'll say thanks and work fast. Third, being I don't do stock photography, I would rather get off the beaten path and find something less photographed and more original. It's maybe why I live a couple of hours from antelope but never photographed there.

 

However, I have had some bad experiences with other photographers. I had one guy setup right in front of me; a couple of yards. Granted, it was dark and he _may_ not have saw me, but once I said good morning and he saw I had my tripod set up and my camera perched on it, you'd think they would be polite and move? No! It was so-and-so and I should have been happy about his presence. This was right out the backdoor of a cottage I was renting!

I shoot depending on the situation and the intended use of the images.

 

If I'm taking fun, snapshot, or vacation "like" pictures the camera is usually in jpeg and standard. In these cases I don't even want to take a picture into photoshop. I leave the rest of the parameters on their standard default positions. I use Breezebrowser to resize, do levels, and sharpen to share and print.

 

When I'm doing landscapes or studio work it's usually raw and smallest jpeg. In these cases I usually take into considereation that I'll probably fine-tune/optimize in PS prior to printing.

 

There's no gospel here as some people make it out to be. It's just like with film. On vacation I shot with negative film and dropped it off at the local store. Then my wife uses here Creative Memory stuff and fills photo albums. That's not to say I brought a few rolls of velvia with me and planned some scenic trips with my tripod and all. With portraits I used kodak portra and brought the film to the pro lab for developing and printing.

 

One size doesn't fit all.

Yes I do as recently spent time in tokyo, osaka, and kioto. There's no such thing as a good deal on camera equipment in japan. It, like most everything else there, is very expensive.

 

About the only good deal I could find was that you can by film for US mail order prices, and maybe a little less, at the strores.

 

mike

Manuel,

 

I read this right after I ordered a newtech clamp. Here's my impressions of it compared to my arcra-tech and kirk.

 

First, I find the acra tech the best by a long way. It has a captured knob, brass washer where the knob contacts the clamp for smoothnes, a fast tightening (double speed). It also has all the excess trimmed off it. So it's light. This is on my heavy duty tripod.

 

Second is the kirk. Design wise it's almost identical to the Newteck. The finish is nicer and they use a set screw to help hold int the screw. This in on my lightwieght tripod now.

 

Third is the Newteck. Nothing is wrong with this at all. It's a little heavy and maybe slightly bulkier than the kirk (both this one and the kirk are the small size with the 1/4" tapped threads). This is why I put the kirk on my lightwieght tripod (I just bought) and this on my monopod. I have also managed to scratch the anadized coating allready.

 

For plates I use the acratech. They seem to work equally well in all the clamps. I doubt I'll try any other manufactureres plates as I'm quite pleased with the acratech. Plus, the owner, and his wife, at acratech are extremely nice and helping people. They even recomended me to get the clamp from kirk for my monopod. Now how's that for service!?

I agree with "the macman." Plus, if they ever took the 300d out of any of the auto modes, there's no way they would conclude the 300d is better than the 10d.

You're comparing an ultra wide zoom to a standard zoom to something in between on the 10d. At a 35eq wide end a 20 vs 22 vs 26 is a huge difference. Yeah they overlap, but I don't see that as a problem.

 

I own the sigma 12-24ex and sold my 17-35/2.8L. Sure the canon was sharper (at least at the center when comparing same fov for full frame vs 1.6x), but, at least my my 12-24, produces very sharp 11x17's and I wouldn't have an problem going to 13x19.

 

As someone else pointed out (it would be nice if we could see the thread while replying) what really matters is what you intend to do with the lens. I bought the 17-35L for an ultra wide with 35mm. When I got the 10d it became a "standard" zoom which I rarely use. So I was always carrying two bodies into the field; 17-35 w/film, a 10d for most the rest. Then the sigma came out and I've been happier with it the my 17-35L w/film; honestly.

Let's clear this up. Of course X-rays can put a high vt cell into a low vt state (we'll call this erased). Just like enough UV light can too.

 

The key question is what's enough? In other words how long can you leave the card in an x-ray machine before a cell is erased? The answer is a long enough time that it's unlikely that you'll ever have a problem. Even if you keep it on your person while getting an x-ray.

 

After 911 sandisk actually issued a statement telling people to keep cards on their person while traveling. I'm sure this was an sya until they figured out what dose it takes to erase the card.

Hi Scott,

 

I think I've tried every paper available (and am sickened by how much money I've wasted in ink and paper when I consider how much processing I could have gotten of the dursk). I went as far to purchase printfix. What a joke that was! BTW, colorvision doesn't back their products. Luckily I bought it with a cc.

 

Right now my paper of choice is red river polar satin and I'm using it with their color profiles. I must admit I'm getting the best and most consistent results to date. I've never been a glossy fan...

 

Now if I could figure out a way to get better shadow gradiations in my high contrast studio work! I have a friend printing out "troubled" images for me on his 2200 to see first hand if there is an improvement. If there is, I'm considering purchasing one and converting the 1280 to a quad tone using lyson black inks.

 

Still, at this point an updated 2200 should be along pretty soon. Maybe one with a couple of more black cartridges...

 

Cheers, Mike

Yep, I agree with you totally. I've posted before and got all the BS answers. I do everything right, from color managing to monitor calibration.

 

The worst part about the 1280 is it's like opening pandora's box! Scenics, in general print great. Snap shots our of my digicam print good. High key portraits print good to. Now go for a very contrasty and dark rembrant type lighting and it does just what you say. The shadows suck as you say! What's even wierder is I have one image that prints the flower pedals dark blue instead of light transparent fucia. Now, in this case, they ARE fucia on EVERY stinking monitor I use to show people. How could it be this far off? From years of shooting film I could live with slight variations, but this is ridiculous. This is a gross failure of the epson printer and has nothing to do with color management!

 

Prints like these off my HP do much better and are more consistant. The flip side is the colors are flat compared to the Epson. The HP does much better B&W for the same reason. Still.... Moreover, the lab I use prints them GREAT off a dursk lambda. Even when I download images to a fuji frontiers they don't have this problem. All point to the printer be it epson's SW or HW.

 

The strange part, and the one I can't figure out, is why I know many people who have this issue, and so many that claim they don't? Is it a SW glitch that doesn't like some machines configs? Or is it some people just don't do images like I do? And therefore, don't see the problem?

 

Now people tell me to get a 2200! Why should I believe them or trust epson? If it really matters it goes to the lab. Amen

I don't believe there are any ethics in taking pictures; at least for art. Art is art. However, from a classification point of view I believe there is a line. "Optimizing" or "enhancing" photos, to me, is no different than when I used different types of film or filter.

 

The question, I feel, is when is the photograph not a photograph and an illustration? This is not just with digital, it's been done with film since day one. I AM NOT SAYING it's not art and I wouldn't hang on the wall. My argument is more along the lines of you can't enter a watercolor in an oil painting contest. Just a classification.

 

For me, I believe a lot of people have gone overboard editing images. They stare at them at 100% on the monitor and remove any little iota they can see that the don't like. In the end I don't believe it really improved the image. Just take a look at pop photo's "the fix." Besides the deleting of items, they crop to the point that getting even a quality 8x10 out of the image is useless.

Yes, there is a lifetime to the sensor. But, this lifetime is based use. With CMOS, they measure degradation at worst case condition; Ib-max. Then they apply a duty cycle because cmos is on or off. Finally, this is extrapolated to the point where the devices won't work correctly. Usually, about 20yrs.

 

While manufactureing they also make measements like TDDB, TZDB, time dependant/zero dialectric to determine the quality and longeveity of the devices.

 

The only way a device will fail by non-use (ingnoring ESD or something someone did) is by diffusion. Well, even at high junction temperatures, you'll be dead for a long time before this comes into play.

 

There is also a failure rates, or the bathtub curve. A percentage of devices wil fail to infant mortality, the rest will last a long time (20 years or so). There are also package related tests, corrosion related test, ESD and LU tests, etc...

 

The bottom line is more than likely the mechanical parts will fail long before the electronics.

I've been interested in the FLM ballheads. I'm putting together a lightweight and small setup for travel and hiking/backpacking using the gitzo 1128.

 

The FLM ballheads look to have great specs. Moreover, they're small and light. Now, I'd like to know if they live up to their specs.

 

I can't seem to find any reviews on them, however. It leaves me leary as I've tried giotto's bh's that couldn't hold near what they claimed.

 

If anybody knows of reviews on FLM's, please post the links.