donald_choi

What's up with all this senseless brand-bashing? Companies like Nikon, Canon, Olympus....etc.....are all heroes in my books. Each of these companies are producing innovative and outstanding products. And they do it for YOU!

 

So before you guys start mouthing off on why this company is lagging on this, or why this company is lagging on that.... just remind yourself that these guys are spending billions in research and development to bring you the best....and that should be commendable!

I think a better and more viable idea is to have a digital camera with the capability of taking an instantaneous (or almost instantaneous) double exposure for each shot with the difference in exposures of about 1.5 to 2 stops. The in-camera processing can then "merge" the two exposures together to find a way to "fill in" the blown out highlights as well as brighten shadows. Or, if shooting in RAW mode, you can do this yourself in Photoshop.

 

I know that people do that now for limited (non-action) applications, however, wouldn't it be nice to be able to do this for all applications?

 

Just my thought....

Print sizes generally depends on resolution and really has nothing to do with zoom range. With that said, however, I think I understand the point you are trying to make. I believe what you are trying to get at is this:

 

Let's hypothesize that the 8MP Sony F828 with 7X zoom also has a capability of a 1.71X digital zoom for a total zoom power of 12X (optical + digital). The 1.71X digital zoom would be equivalent to your statement of cropping the image in PS.

 

So basically, what you are asking if the hypothetical 8MP Sony 828 with 12X zoom (7X optical, 1.71X digital) is equal to the 4MP Lumix DMC-FZ10K 12X zoom in terms of print quality up to 13X19 inches.

 

Hmmmm....I can't put any numbers on this, but I would have to guess that in the situation that you have no legs and cannot simply walk closer to your subject to take the shot and need to crop in photoshop, I would say that the Lumix would be more ideal and can make prints up to 13 X 19 inches.

 

But I have legs and would probably choose the Sony.

"I have seen people using the Canon 1Ds a couple of times, but there sure are a lot more 10D's and D Rebels."

 

And there are even greater numbers of point-and-shoot digital cameras with even smaller sensors! I can appreciate the previous post about not fixating on pure numbers.... but numbers aren't totally without merit.

 

It's a plain and simple fact (and please forgive my generalizations). The larger the megapixels, the larger the potential print. The larger the image sensor, the better the quality of the image in terms of signal-to-noise.

 

Obviously, if cost is no object, and all else being equal, everyone would buy the biggest damned sensor with the highest resolution they can get their hands on.

 

But, alas, not all is equal and cost IS an object. I believe that current sensor sizes are all going to change in the near future. As costs go down and technology goes up, we will hit an equilibrium sensor size and resolution and I can guarantee you that the sensor size will be bigger than "full frame". There will be a new standard in lens design that will not be constrained by the 35mm format.

 

Heck, call me an idealist. (did I mention the camera will have driver side air bags?)

I also have the S2 and hated using the RAW converter. I now have Photoshop CS and can conclude that it is far superior. Works flawlessly with the S2 RAW files......and works in 16-bit although the RAW files are only 12-bit.

 

To answer your questions, your RAW files should have 12-bits per channel and, in my opinion, you should always work with the highest information available, even if you eventually plan to reduce to 8-bits.

Brett,

 

I'm serious. If you read the OptiCAL instructions more carefully, you will find that you can set OptiCAL to "precision mode" and would be able to set your brightness and contrast levels separately. Also included in "precision mode" are more rigorious measurements to fine tune your calibration and eventual profile.

 

So please....in the future... before you hack away at the reputation of a wonderful product, read the DAMN INSTRUCTIONS.

hmmm...maybe you should read the instructions more carefully.

Hi Vishal,

 

I also have the Spyder with both the PhotoCAL and the OptiCAL programs. I must say that OptiCAL is a much better program. It allows you to make more precise calibrations/profiles. I've also noticed that the programs make you crank up the contrast, however, if you set the Optical to "precision" mode, it will calibrate your monitor by measuring the brightness and contrast settings separately along with other additional measurements.

 

I, too, felt uncomfortable setting the contrast to max, but after using the "precision" mode in Optical, I feel better with my contrast setting at around 75%.

 

Donald

I have an i9100 and use primarily the Epson Premium Lustre papers. Nice paper. Also try some of the Ilford Classic Pearl paper....very nice and produces deep blacks.

Raymond,

 

That was very helpful and informative. Thank you very much for sharing.

F100 + 17-35mm 2.8. An unbeatable combination for landscape and street photography. I'm willing to bet that you would use that combo 90-95% of the time. For the other 5%, I would supplement your system with the 80-200 2.8.

I use the Nikon 60mm 2.8D Micro-Nikkor. It goes to down to 1:1 very easily with no extension tubes. For your needs, I highly recommend it. Super sharp and contrasty. Keep in mind, tho, at 1:1, the tip of your lens will only be a few inches away from your subject. If you want greater working distance, I suggest you look into the other micro-nikkors like the 105mm or the 200mm.

I checked out the above link with the Sony sample images. Those awful images reminded me of a recurring nightmare I used to have of amateur night at JoJo's House of Laughs. I almost feel embarassed for Sony.....tsk tsk.

Another vote for the S2 + AFS 17-35mm F2.8. A superb combo if you want only one lens. Maybe you want consider the 12-24mm DX lens if you want ultra-wide angle.

 

If you want more than one lens, then go with the 10D combo mentioned above with the slower lenses that Peter Phan suggested. The problem with Canon is that there aren't too many wide angle choices out there for you. Canon seems fixated on full-frame sensor size in their lens designs. Nikon, at least, has their DX lens lineup.

Thanks, guys. I looked at the reviews and it sounds like a pretty decent lens. I went out today at lunch to buy one, but it seems like it's backordered in Canada. I'm wondering if this is currently the case in the US. Maybe I should consider the 17-35mm lens instead, but I fear this would not be wide enough for me in digital.

There doesn't seem to be too many reviews on this lens. I was

wondering if someone can point me to some detailed reviews on the

Internet, or better yet, if they can share their own experiences and

thoughts of the lens. Thanks!

Nothing beats a macro prime lens. They are the optically superior choice. And they are also the easiest and most convenient choice (TTL metering). Unfortunately, macro lenses are pricey. You can either go with Nikon's expensive 60mm or 105mm micro-nikkors, or you can go with the cheaper Tamron 90mm 2.8 macro. Don't let the Tamron name fool you....this is one awesome lens.

The formula for sensor cleaning is easy:

 

Add 1 part Eclipse Cleaning Solution,

Add 1 part sensor swabs

Add a touch of patience

Add a lot of gentleness

 

It can be done in less than 1 minute. Make sure you do it in a low-dust zone....and watch out that you don't accidently trip the shutter close (that would be a disaster).

 

I used to use my S2 only with primes, but now I primarily shoot with zooms. I find that I have to clean my sensor with equal frequency between the two types of lenses (about once every 1.5 months).

I second the Eclipse lens cleaner solution and Pec Pads. Works exceptionally well and is safe. Contrary to popular belief, methonol is actually quite a gentle solvent.

Who cares? There's no such thing as an apples-to-apples test. There are so many more factors that will affect the objectivity of the test you are looking for. Not all S2 pros are made equal. Not all Provia 100F's are made equal. Sample-to-sample variations will totally make everything meaningless under a test of this exacting nature.

 

Try not to get to involved with the theory and mathematics of it all, because at the end of the day, it's not as important as how an image looks on a qualitative basis.

 

Sheesh. When I read your question, an image pops into my mind of an old man decorating his house with beautifully framed pictures of ISO 12233 resolution charts. I mean....give me a break.

The D2H has a nice buffer. 40 Frames of 2464 x 1632 pixels at 8 frames per second. This is a pretty decent digital camera.

 

Check it out: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6269-6285

 

Just remember: you not only need patience in this field....you also need money.

It's inevitable that all photographers will be switching to digital, so you might as well do it now and get it over with. I would go out on a limb and say that a digital image from a 10D would produce a much cleaner image than a scan, even though they may be at the same resolution.

 

Your only problem would be at the wide angles. It's too bad that Canon is not following Nikon's lead in developing DX format wide angle lenses. It leaves people with the 1.6X crop factor with very little options.

"NiMH batteries typically need 4-5 full cycles before they will give full capacity. That's the reason they quit early"

 

Manufacturers never give us these useful tid-bits of information....

Maybe I just didn't read the fine print.

At least I know that I don't have to replace my charger! Thanks for the info!

I recently bought a set of Ansmann 2200 mAh NiMH AA batteries. I

charged them overnight and used them the next day. To my horror, I

found out that, after about a hundred shots, the batteries were

drained! Normally, under the same conditions, a set of 1800 mAh

batteries would last me three times as long! What the heck

happened? I have to admit, I don't know much about batteries, but I

had the feeling that, in general, a larger mAh rating should be

longer lasting.

 

I used FujiFilm's charger (model V-1000) that is rated at 700mA for

AA's. Is this charger capable of providing these 2200 mAh monsters

with a full charge?

 

Thanks for your responses.

I must say that there must be something wrong with what you are doing with your D100, because I think that the 28-105mm AFD is a great lens.... and will definately outperform any P&S digital. Period.

 

You better check your camera settings before you start blaming the lens.