mark_muse

<p>Oh, view camera lenses (and other tilt shift lenses) are made specifically for that application. Can you name one with a group of floating elements? How about a zoom view camera lens? Of course not.</p>

<p>Well I had this nice long series of examples just about completed when it got blown out, and I lost it. It is simply not worth my time to write it all again to attempt to convince someone who has already made up their mind. Believe me or not Sarah, and frankly I don't really care if you do. <br>

My advice to you Sarah is to scrutinize your images. If you are happy with what you see then that is all you need concern yourself with. Go out and take some pictures.</p>

No, this is not the problem. There are primes with floating elements in addition to zooms. A poorly executed or designed

adapter can put the lens out of center, out of square, and/or with the incorrect flange back, all of which will affect image

quality to some extent. The results can be significantly worse on a full frame, and a high res full frame is worse yet.

<p>A couple of points I haven't seen expressed:<br>

• The 5D2 has more mirror clearance than the original 5D, so don't use 5D1 experiences to decide.<br>

• Live View on the 5D2 is vital for me and I think this body has the best implementation on a full frame, however you can calibrate the back focus for each lens provided you use a separate chipped adapter (the latest versions). See <em>Big Is</em> on ebay, though there are others just as good. This allows accurate focus confirmation in the viewfinder.<br>

• I believe accurate adapters are very important for good results. As I understand it lenses with floating elements require precise positioning from the sensor, not just thin enough to allow for focus at infinity.<br>

• The 1Ds Mk IV shouldn't be far off.<br>

• The issue of no lens metadata with unchipped adapters is for me significant.<br>

I have had the 5D2 since it was introduced. I started off with a couple of L lenses, but I was used to Zeiss lenses and good view camera lenses. So I started purchasing Zeiss Contax, Pentax 645, some Pentax M42 lenses. Ahh, mo betta! The L lenses are sharp, but otherwise I was disappointed. <br>

But the 5D2 shows lens weaknesses (and lens mount, and lens adapter, and sensor positioning, and sensor microlens) problems like you will not believe. You will see shortcomings in your lenses that you were not aware of with film, probably even with the very excellent lenses you have.<br>

Good luck!</p>

<p>Zeiss ZE 21mm. It is lovely on my 5D2. My 17-40 now collects dust.</p>

<p>Live view, live view, live view... Are you listening Sony? The lack of live view cost you a sale to me. I bought the 5D2 and have a love hate relationship with it. I have also used an a900 (a friend bought one), I see images from it all the time, and I have worked up a number of raw files from it. <br>

For landscapes I don't think there is a comparison—the a900 wins hands down. But for shooting interiors, weddings, or portraits I think the 5D2 does better. It is a smooth rendering camera, and the 14bit raw files come in really handy when you have to dig out the shadows. And they make Zeiss glass for EOS too. I bought the 21... egads its good! Would love to have the 100mm macro too, but as soon as Sony comes out with live view on a successor to the a900 I'm jumping ship. So I'm not investing seriously until then.<br>

On the other hand, Canon's quality control really sucks. I bought 2 L zooms, and they both were awful out of the box and had to go back for fixing. One has been back to Canon for adjustments twice in a year. My experiences here are not unique. While both are quite sharp, they both have serious chromatic aberration problems. Also, I seriously dislike Canon's approach to menus and physical interface. It is like they are designed by engineers who do not use the cameras they design. But, then again, their implementation of live view is quite good. Higher ISO settings are a little noisy, but the nature of the noise is well controlled and it cleans up nicely. <br>

The raw files from the a900 are quite resilient. I can pound them pretty hard for several rounds of sharpening without them getting nasty, but the 5D2 are much less so. Lens artifacts, where a sharp lens starts to go out of focus in fine and contrasty detail (a distant tree line or trees on the horizon), as is often necessary shooting landscapes, tend to get really nasty as you sharpen the file, sometimes with a magenta halo and often breaking into sections of RGB. Branches tend to get webby and coarse at their intersections under these circumstances, something I don't know how to deal with. If they are in optimum focus, I have much less of it, but that isn't always possible. I used to think it was just the lens doing it, but I have come to believe that it is a combination of lens and sensor, since I have seen the same kind of things coming from a 5D2 with a Zeiss 100mm Macro. But oddly, I don't have that problem with my 21mm Zeiss. It goes out of focus quite gracefully on the 5D2.<br>

That should give you some ideas. I miss my Sony R1. I always wished they made an instrument grade or pro grade version of that camera.<br>

Cheers, Mark Muse</p>

<p>Do any of you lucky 5D2 owners have a couple of landscape out-takes you would be willing to share as raw files? I am trying to decide between the 5D2 and the A900 for which there are many raw files available. Any help (in the form of raw files) appreciated. </p>

<p>Well Chad, to each his or her own.<br>

Those who shoot sports, dance, fashion, or any other form of moving subject most likely can't use live view regularly even if they want to. </p>

<p>I use it exclusively (landscapes). And a tripod too. Anybody coming from a view camera to a DSLR will feel right at home. Err... except for the lack of movements. I just can imagine spending the day with my face smushed up against the back of a camera.<br>

I'm about to place an order for a 5D2 plus lenses. The only reason I am not getting the Sony A900 is the lack of live view. </p>

<p>Have any of you lucky 5D2 owners shot with live view for several hours yet? My concern is the possibility of noise, banding, reduced dynamic range, or other artifacts/changes that might occur if the sensor and amps heat up.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Mark Muse</p>

Several points:

 

The Ebony is user adjustable for any slight swelling or shrinking that might occur in the wood due to humidity. I believe

this +/- is less with ebony wood than mahogany, but not certain. I have a 23S and live in the US Mid Atlantic region

where humidity is typically very high in summer, less so in winter. In the house during the heating season it can be quite

low. I can feel the difference in the camera and can adjust it if I want to (and have) but it is really not necessary. The

23S is ebony wood.

 

I have an Ebony adapted Horseman monocular reflex viewer for my camera (the same one shown in the first Arca photo

above) that I have not been using. You can have it if you want, but I have found it to be nearly useless for all but normal

to long focal lengths. And bulky to carry around.

 

I have been looking for that Rodenstock 100mm Sironar S, since it is small, sharp, and I hike with my kit. Interested in

selling it? I have a superb Fujinon CM-W 105mm ƒ5.6 that is too big and heavy due to Fuji's effort to have a common

filter size (67mm).

 

If you are using mostly wide lenses I would get the wide angle GG from Ebony (if you buy the Ebony, which by the way

is a great little camera). Shooting architecture with a wide lens and considerable front rise will make GG viewing difficult

at best, so don't make it harder for yourself.

 

Ebony also makes a hybrid between the SW23 and the 23S which I believe gives full movements on the rear standard

too. I would personally get that one.

 

You might also want to buy the Sylvestri 6x tilt loupe for focusing. The ability to tilt into the angle of a wide lens or

extreme movement is very helpful. I took the tilt base off of mine so I can get into the corners with it but it still tilts fine

because 1/3 of the barrel is cut away.

 

One more thing: recessed lens boards are a genuine pain to use unless you have child sized fingers and can see around

corners.

Anyone know if there are spikes for a 1325 yet? If so, how would i get the plug feet out?

I have one I am not using. It is 22551 Angle Viewer. I will contact you off-line.

I was given one a few years ago... and recycled it. The colorgetter was not a bad little

scanner for a desktop drum. I believe you can get the RGB data to disk - much of the big

iron scanners of that era converted to CMYK on the fly.

 

One big problem not mentioned yet is the interface: I believe it is a GPIB (if I have that

right it is General Purpose Interface Bus) which predates even SCSI. You will have to use

the ancient Nubus Mac and one of the Classic flavors of the OS that is compatible with the

card and software, and hope the darn thing never breaks down. I doubt you can find a

newer card that will work in a modern computer. Software support, as mentioned, will be

another big problem.

There is a 9+ rated 180 mm Fujinon A for $400 at Midwest now. I have one and I can't

imagine someone not being completely happy with it's performance for landscapes. It is a

fraction of the weight of the plasmat designs of this focal length and sharp as can be. Also

I see no color balance difference between my Fujinon A's and my Sironar S.

Talcum powder is finely powdered marble. Though it is very fine it will be abrasive over

time. Will the camera live long enough to abraded and the action loosened? Dunno, but I

think I will stick with bees wax.

 

Is anyone using graphite? Or is it too messy?

I am with Hogarth, but I want a 6 x 7 cm sensor to fit my 2 x 3 Ebony for field use

(backpacking). And I sure don't want to buy another set of lenses.

 

I am not holding my breath either.

I shoot 6 x 9. I have a multicoated Super Angulon f5.6 that I purchased for a very

reasonable price. It's as sharp as my APO Sironar S. It allows for plenty of movement for

landscapes but maybe not be enough for more extreme architecture needs. This

lens will cover 4 x 5 but not with any movements to speak of. So maybe one of the newer

Schneiders would be better depending on how you work.

 

I had a Fuji GSW III 690 (rangefinder) with a fixed 65mm Fujinon for a while, and that was a

sharp lens too, FWIW.

Thanks for the ideas.

Anyone know of a site or other source of information on C41 processing problems from

the perspective of purchasing processing services? I have been using Portra 160 and

having it processed locally. I am scanning the negatives and printing on an inkjet. I am not

getting the highlight through quarter tone (zone IX-IV) value separation that I want. Also

my images could be sharper and I have a bit more grain than I think I should have.

 

I am "overexposing" a bit (indexed at 100) to get the shadow values I want but I think this

small amount should not, if the processing is correct, create these other problems. I did

have a few rolls processed by another lab and things seemed a little improved, though if

so it was not dramatic.

 

If I were making color prints on an enlarger what kind of density would I want for zone

VIII?

 

All of my lenses are modern multicoated and well respected brands/designs. I am using a

tripod that exceeds my needs.

 

Any info and insight appreciated. Thanks.

Hi Ake. I am not sure exactly what you are describing. The frame of my Horseman viewer

was modified by Ebony to fit onto the Ebony GG frame. It uses the same mechanism that

holds the Ebony GG cover (flat black plastic) in place. The Horseman GG was removed.

There has been no alteration of, or addition to, any of the Ebony parts.

 

If I want to view the GG directly I simply remove the viewer to expose the GG. Is that not

how yours is set up? I assume the backs are the same between the 23S and the SW23.

 

By the way I use the back movements all the time.... For this reason I am glad I got the

23S. But I do wish I had purchased the 45S instead for the increased format flexibility.

There is little difference in weight.

 

How is your 180mm lens with the WA fresnel? In speaking with Ian Wilson I got the

impression that it would not work well with my 200mm.

I have the Horseman 6 x 9 RFH for a 2 x 3 camera. For your concerns it will be identical.

 

The info already given is correct. With 6 x 9 I look for a group of arrows to show up on the

unrolling paper back as an indication that I am almost there. It is about another half

advance for the single arrow to show up in the hole.

 

I also keep tension on the film with my thumb while advancing it to this point so it is

wound tightly on the take-up spool. I think this helps with film flatness and with even

spacing in the subsequent advances through the roll.

Terry - I started off with my Ebony trying to use the Horseman viewer. I finally and

reluctantly came to the conclusion that it is unworkable unless I am willing to stick in the

middle of the range with one or two lenses. The problem with the fresnel and short lenses

is only made worse with a monocular viewer. And the same problem starts to materialize

with longer lenses buy the time you hit 200 mm.

I have an Ebony 23S and use a 65mm SA. I first had it mounted in a flat lensboard but it

seriously restricted movements. So I got a recessed board and aside from squeezing my

fingers into the recess to set the aperture, exposure time, etc., life is good. Well almost.

 

It is still hard to see the image well on the GG due to the fresnel being for normal to long

lenses (Ebony standard issue). This is especially true when using the movements. And this

is a �5.6. I can't imagine trying to use a �8.

 

I know how to cure this problem. If you are only going to use wide to normal lenses buy

Ebony's 6 x 9 wide angle fresnel. They do make very good fresnel and ground glass. My

problem is that I use several lenses from the 65 up to (so far) a 200, and there is no single

fresnel lens that I am aware of that works well with that kind of range. And that does

include Maxwell's... a rather expensive lesson.

 

I looked into buying a second back with a WA fresnel/GG but it was prohibitively

expensive. Maybe some day.

 

One thing I have not tried and am curious about is the Boss Screen (?) which, if I have the

name right, is a wax-like sandwich focusing screen without a fresnel. This might be a one

size fits all solution. But the trade off will probably be a less bright screen at all focal

lengths.

 

So you have two problems to solve. I hope this helps.

 

By the way, that Schneider 65mm multicoated SA is a really nice, really sharp lens. And it is

Wiiiiiiide on the 6 x 9 format.

I realize the Nikon 8000 and 9000 were not mentioned as options, presumably because of

cost. But they would be my strong recommendation. They offer effective digital ICE in

a high quality dedicated film scanner. In addition to dust/dirt removal they also provide

very good noise/grain suppression at very little to no cost in image sharpness, depending

on the degree applied.

 

I shoot 6 x 9 negs and have had an 8000 for quite a while and I am very pleased with it.

 

Though I have not used one the reports of the Minolta at the time I bought my Nikon were

that while it was sharp it was quite noisy. Noise, if you are not familiar with it, is sort of

the digital equivalent of film grain.

 

Just don't expect production speeds with any of these scanners. They might offer

professional quality results (I can only speak for the image quality of the Nikons and the

Epsons) but you would have to spend a great deal more money, say 5 figures, to get

professional production speed too.

 

And as with any piece of gear/software you will have to learn how to use it properly to get

the best results.