squareframe

comparing the AF specs for the EOS-3 and EOS-5II, what are the differences? I sense that the AF (using center sensor) on my 40D is as fast as my EOS-3 and EOS-1v. admittedly, I haven't taken them into a darkened closet. I just take photos .. and with no complaints fowards either camera. as I recall, my EOS-3 doesn't even have any built-in AF assist. the key is to understand, recognize, and avoid conditions where the AF begins to falter. of course .. there is also an olde technique called manual-focusing.

tillerman

I was basing my response on the fact that colour negative film scans better than silver B&W films. the other

issue was simply the control and range of manipulation. if I want to render a blue-sky darker, I can use a

red-filter. my point was, that it makes more sense to use colour negative film, and do the Photoshop mapping of

colours to gray-scale with far more control. again, even though you might be a B&W purist, ultimately you have

more control using colour film. I say this with a goodly amount of B&W negative films in the refrigerator and all

the chemistry to develop them myself. however, from a pragmatic perspective ... scanning, colour mapping

(manipulation ... the horrors), scanning Kodak 160VC is probably as cheap, better scanned, and affords a better

B&W print. and this .. is what the subject line refers to. the print.

and of course, the same thesis applies to digital. many cameras have the capability of storing an image as B&W.

this is limiting, considering the control we now have in Photoshop to segregate colours and translate them into

gray tones.

considering new options .. we might find B&W films rather limiting now. since my cat just ate my negatives, your

argument of permanence escapes me at present!

cheers,

tillerman

consider full-frame 'a state of mind' ... and just be happy with something smaller and considerably cheaper. make it work for you. soon, the 'larger-than-full-frame' folks will be crying for more. slap a lens on the camera, compose in the view-finder and suck the image in. since full-frame is an arbitrary definition, really, ignore it. you might have to adjust your lens selection somewhat .. but I am betting you won't. in fact, it might force you to look at an old theme with new eyes. make lemonade!

don't worry ... be happy!

cheers ...

> Will my photos now be pretty bad?

if your images were poor before, they most likely will be as poor (though more highly-resolved) with your new 5DII.

if your images were good before, they most likely will be as good (though more highly-resolved) with your new 5DII.

...

most of these types of threads have little to do with photography, and much to do about a compulsion to own the latest.

I believe there is a strong underlying correlation at work here ...

dt

"I'm no longer constrained by sigmoidal response curves. I can shape response curves however I like, to emphasize or de-emphasize different elements of the image." --Sarah Fox

CS4 (and perhaps CS3) has a 'black & white' adjustment mode where you can map any colour to any shade of gray. quite radical if desired .. and yet, the same arguments surface about digital being less 'noble' than film. in reality, we can now do so simply what used to take a myriad of filters and techniques .. to garner a very small percentage of control and range that can now be done in Photoshop. and so the argument continues ... is it 'manipulation'. of course it is.

this same level control now begs the question, at least to me, why would you want to ever use B&W film anymore? though I have a $1000 worth of Tmax in the refrigerator .. it makes far more sense to use colour-negative film and then explore the extreme translational capabilities of Photoshop colour-mapping to a gray-scale.

what was the question?

cheers ...

tillerman

this is silly ... the poster asked if the G10 feels as good, and ostensibly, is as well-built as a larger sensor camera.

in my opinion .. yes. others will differ. it feels a lot better, truth be told, than my $6000 Hasselblad. what does that really mean? nothing .. different cameras and different objectives. it is disingenuous to invoke the 'what about ISO 25600' argument. yeah .. it's noisy. for the photo-schmuck like most of us, the G10 is an amazing camera. even Michael Reichmann had the stones to admit that there wasn't ALL THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE, from a realistic photographic-metric,between the G10 and his gazillion dollar Phase PXX+ gazillion-pixel behemoth digital back. not that I think Michael is always objective .. but here, he turns tail and almost admits to the absurdity of these arguments and the fact that pixel-count doesn't equate to magic.

dt

I know nothing of, or care of, anything but what I see on the screen.

if the world wants to stir this pot, and make it into something negative .. fine.

quit looking at the specs and the labels, and the latest dpreview commentary, and how you think it should be

vis-a-vis other cameras.

look at the images and ask yourself did you get your monies worth?

if not .. spend another $7500 and buy yourself a Nikon D3x.

if you are interested in making images, and can forgo pixel-peeping .. you might find good value in this little

$434 camera. if you wish to transmogrify it into a 5DII or 1DsIII ... well, that's your problem.

I don't care if the sensor is 6meg or 60meg ... as long as at the end of the day I am pleased with what I garnered.

tillerman

hello? who says the G10 is competing with the 1Ds's of the world? it's small, it's light, it's perfect for some

things and not so for others it is what it is .. and for me, for $430 it is perfect for what I require. later I

can do a simple head-to-head with my 40D, my Hasselblad, and my Linhof 4x5. the 4x5 doesn't have flash, isn't all

that light. the lens-cap on my Hasselblad cost about the same as the G10. and my 40D, as nice as it is, is a

monster compared to the svelte G10 that actually has many more features. for me .. the ND (built-in

neutral-density filter) is a huge feature, no lens-cap, blah blah blah. why would I compare it to a 1D* or Nikon

D3? for what it cost, for what it does .. it's perfect.

the question is about look and feel .. and I am sure both the G10 and XSI are both excellent cameras. the

question, as posited, is subjective ... I like the G10. and it goes underwater ... so sweetly!

tillerman

I have two, mint EOS-3's for sale. $3500 each. I'll let both go for $6000 and take the loss.

dt

I'll admit that the high-ISO performance pales compared to the 40D, and for low-light environments I would not

reach for the G10. I wouldn't use a 4x5 camera for underwater photography either! so let's agree that matching

the camera for the task is where our concerns lie.<br><br>

yesterday I sailed to Port Townsend and will be taking the G10 to the fish market. I have done this before and

always feel uncomfortable with my EOS1-v or 40D and a large lens. enough so, that I was constrained by how I felt

in the market with customers. with the G10, I can get better images, albeit with more noise I suspect, than I

could with the 40D simply because it fits the task better and allows me to express myself more fully.<br><br>

I'll post some of the images later ..<br><br>

daniel taylor<br>

www.doublereef.net

well Jamie .. my new G10 must be a lemon. I received it yesterday, and though I own Linhof' 4x5, Hasselblads, and way too many Canon film and DSLR's .. I am knocked-out by this little camera. the image quality is well within expectations, and the layout and feature set is stellar. what I like about this camera, and as I mentioned before, in instances where a modicum of stealth can make the real difference between the image taken and the image not-taken, is how beautifully engineered it is. built-in Image Stabilization, Live view, a gorgeous LCD, no lens-cap, dedicated exposure-compensation and ISO setting knobs, movie-mode, diopter (though no use required with the bodacious LCD), small, light-weight, beautiful built. in black and miniature enough to be a great street-camera ... and then of all things, it has an underwater-case option that is quite affordable.

honestly, I don't see much difference between my G10 and 40D images. no differences that are deal-breaking. noise at high-ISO when I use it underwater? you bet, but I love that look. check out Ryuijie's Kanchi underwater series.I am thrilled to be able to use the G10 in conditions and situations where I might not feel comfortable with the 40D and 28-70mm. then again, as I said, I would rather be looking at a lesser-quality image in Photoshop, than the perfect one that was never taken.

G10 - five stars.

daniel taylor

it's a great observation juan. you'll find in general, that good photographers use whatever camera is available and know that it is the camera used and not the one sitting on the shelf or in the camera bag, that gets the image and is the better camera. lesser photographers still learning ... generally sit on forums debating the merits of CMOS and CCD, or the absurdities of gauging camera performance on their professional aspirations of printing four-foot prints at ISO3200.

having said that, my G10 is on the UPS truck and should be delivered within the hour .. so perhaps I am unduly biased.

for many types of photography, I think the large DSLR and intimidating lenses are a burden and detract from the chances of getting that great image. you get a sense of it on the street .. where I see tourists with their 1Ds's and 70-200mm lens strung around their necks ... almost paralyzed, and the young girl with just a G10 unobtrusively finding the opportunities and the better image. sure .. when they all return to the workshop they can boast about lack of chroma noise and corner resolution ... where the young girl blows the doors off their 'perfect' images, with poignant images that no one knew she was taking.

sorry .. this is a trend I find disturbing - when the hardware trumps emotion.

daniel taylor

Brad,

Bravo! much deserved.

dt

thank you for a very informative thread .. and kudos to those that took the time to post their scans.

this thread exemplifies what photo.net is all about .. helping everyone become better at what they love.

daniel taylor

Jeff,

I am dressed as a man .. the bigger question is if I have the Leica glow about me?

dt

Brad ... your problem is you are gauging the camera based on your personal metrics and requirements.

you should know that it isn't about that at all.<br><br>

it is ... how can the camera that I <u><b>don't</b> have</u> improve my photography? <br><br>

hope springs eternal.<br><br>

cheers ...

Brad,

I used the EX550EX strobes with the ST-E2, outdoors, without problems in conditions as you have proposed. the only issue is Canon mounted the IR sensor on the front-face of the flash, so you have to rotate the flash-head to illuminate your subject and also align the sensor with the ST-E2. indoors this is never a problem due to reflections but outdoors it could be problematic. not from the sun .. purely alignment.

I'll look up your flash and see if you can configure the same way. in fact, I was going to experiment with the ST-E2 and my 40D today, but decided to go sailing. I was able, a few hours ago, coming home .. to experiment with evaluative-metering and FEL to get the effects I wanted. using the 550EX or your 430EX and the ST-E2 is a good approach. it also really helps in low-light AF focusing as it has an IR pattern generator for focus-assist as I recall.

captain dan

Robin,

just teasing. I am just as guilty. going digital affords a photographer with so many more choices to go nuts!

daniel taylor

Robin Sibson,

a nice posting but I must ask. when do you get any time to photograph? you've bought more cameras than B&H lately. do you wear the cameras out? does one prevent you from taking good imagery? nothing against buying cameras .. but golly-gee-whiz, how many exposures do you make a year?

I see a 60D in your future as well ..

dt

I must admit the tent-peg option was a good one to have. the composite body, hated by many, actually seemed to work out rather well. I was once attacked by dozen hoodlums in a dark alley in San Miguel de Allende, and used my two EOS-3's on a bola to defend myself.

having said that, I did wish along with the ten-peg option Canon had offered a diopter-adjustment and viewfinder-blockout. yes I know .. ECF, which was great as a novelty until reality settled in regarding acutally 'photographing', where I went to the sensitive central-sensor only and never looked back.

having said that, I had more pleasure photographing with my EOS-3 than any other camera other than my Hasselblad (which is a labour of love .. fun, in a perverse sense). I rarely used my EOS-1v when I got it. still loved the '3' ... probably for the focus screen. I don't really know .. but it was a good time.

bola usage not recommended and not honoured by Canon warranty.

dt

"So at the risk of getting the verbal tilt shift kicked out of me, here it goes:" --Michael Axel

Michael, you led off pre-disposed to some grief, so you should hardly be surprised to find it here. your basic premise was that Leica lenses have a 'glow' and that justifies their insane pricing. unfortunately, though not unexpected, there were no submissions that showed this 'glow'. in fact, the submissions showed really poor photography and processing in my opinion. Tirta submitted a beautiful picture resplendent in 'glow' but as we all know it was because of the gorgeous evening golden light. my Canon G2 would have glowed all evening.

it was a good discussion. been discussed many, many times before. next time you make an assertion, you might want to provide an example and have some technical substantiation behind your proposition. I think the distillation of this thread, is that it is NOT the lens, but the combination of good positioning, great light, luck, a worthy subject, and finding yourself in the right place at the right time.

daniel taylor

my finger is on the 'Buy Now' key!

I don't like these types of questions, as they are generally submitted without sufficient vetting. however, my

Epson 1270 needs to be retired, and it seems everyone raves about their R2400. not so many reviews of the latest

R2880, and with the great holiday rebates .. my finger is poised!

any caveats other than limited ink capacity? mostly B&W printing & duotones.

my only real issue is size and ink availability. I live on a sailboat so space is limited, and I am about to head

around the world and need reasonable assurance that I can buy inks. I don't see this as much of a problem, since

I can pre-buy inks and papers before I leave. I suppose the reality these days, is that you can get anything you

want in Bora Bora or Tonga, if you have the time and patience.

any salient reasons for not buying the R2880 that might have eluded me?

thanks to all ...

captain dan

<br>Brad,

don't despair. I have a bottle of Kodak Photo-<u>Glo</u> right here!<br><br>

uh oh .. my bad. it's only Photo-<u>Flo</u> not <s>Photo-Glo</s>.<br><br>

drat .. foiled again!<br><br>

dt

are we looking at the same thread? David Goldenberg posted three images, ostensibly the same, scanned on two different scanners. the Coolscan V scan is far superior. just look at the brick detail in the background. no amount of sharpening is going to make that Epson scan approach the Coolscan V. there just isn't the resolution or data there to work with. in fact, to my estimation, the Epson 500 + USB scan is unacceptable.

I am purchasing an Epson V700 this week, and am confident it will do a fine job with my 6x6 and 4x5 negatives.

daniel taylor

"I do predict eventually seeing a pic of someone's kid or girlfriend's face by candlelight with only two eyelashes in perfect, creamy focus."

ah man ... you owe me a new keyboard!

dt