martin_patek_strutsky

Just read at the german dslr forum that a large portion of currently

sold 70-200/4L lenses have a backfocus problem at 70mm. It is also

stated that all serious dealers have stopped selling the lens until

Canon will have fixed this problem.

 

Have you heard of this problem in other countries too?

 

Link: http://www.dslr-forum.de/showthread.php?t=14914

any opinions on the Billingham 206/306?

I am sure the marketing guys at Canon are aware that something like a EF-S 17-55/2.8 L would sell extremely well. Maybe they are just afraid of cannibalizing their higher end cameras.

What shoulder bag would you recommend for the following kit: 20d, 17-

40/4, 70-200/4 + generous space for papers, food, etc.?

 

It is important for me, that the 17-40/4 could stay on the body while

stored in the bag.

 

In general I like Billingham and Lowepro but their websites are not

very helpful for making a decision.

 

Thanks

Yakim,

 

thanks a lot for clarifing my prejudice regarding weight. The 17-40 (500g) weights almost the same as the 17-85 (475g) and the 18-50 is only a little below that (445g).

 

For now the 17-40 is my favourite but still it would be very interesting how the 17-85 compares to it.

Another <A HREF="http://www.jasonlivingston.com/sigma-review/">review</A> comparing the Sigma 18-50 and the Canon 17-40.

 

The barrel distortion at 18mm look pretty hefty.

Just found the following <A HREF="http://topicpoint.com/sigma_18-50mm/">review </A> on the Sigma 18-50. Would you agree that it is only useful at f/5.6 and above?

Contemplate about buying a 20D (besides my little S100 this would be

my first digital and my first Canon camera). Plan to use the camera

with only one lens that covers my most used focal lengths from 28mm

to about 85mm. Large prints will be made regularly so the lens should

be of decent quality.

 

My preferred lens would be an EF-S 17-55/2.8 L but unfortunately it

does not exist. After some initial research I shortlisted the

following candidates

 

Sigma 18-50/2.8 EX

 

Seems to be the lens I look for but I have never touched a third

party lens before. On the other hand the EX line has a good

reputation and Sigma makes OEM lenses for brands like Leica, so they

can't be that bad.

 

Canon 17-40L/4.0

 

Probably the best performer but I don't like the idea of buying a

bulky full frame lens that I don't need

 

Canon EF-S 17-85 mm/4.5-5.6

 

Would the performance be adequate? Isn't 4.5/5.6 a little dim even

for an excellent ISO 1600 camera like the 20D?

 

Which one would you choose? Thanks a lot.

Mark,

 

have seen the excellent dpreview review already. Its a pitty that it compares only cameras with 2/3" sensors and shows no comparison with DSLRS.

Apparently almost everyone agrees that the Olympus 8080 offers the

best image quality possible within the prosumer (2/3" sensor) class.

At least set at ISO 50 the 8080 seems to match the performance of 6

MP DSLRs equipped with much larger sensors. Also it seems to be

common sense that the 8080 is almost useless at ISO 400 according to

too much noise.

 

I wonder how much noise the 8080 produces at ISO 100 or 200? Are the

results significantly worser than with ISO 50?

 

If the 8080 offers its full potential only at ISO 50 I would have to

change my priorities and think about a DSLR instead.

For scanning 4x5 an Epson 4870 should serve you well under most circumstances. For MF it depends on the print size you have in mind. I get good results from 6x7 slides printed at 30x40cm (11"x15").

The wording of the mentioned press release is not 100% clear. I guess it talks just about the software based dust removal of Silverfast. ICE is not at all mentioned.

 

799 EUR is a lot of money for a scanner that does not even offer ICE.

Plan to buy a new film scanner and short listed the Minolta 5400 and

the Nikon Coolscan V.

 

By reading through the information available it seems obvious that

there is (or at least has been) a reliability issue with the Minolta

5400. A lot of people reported that the hardware was faulty,

installation was difficult and the bundled software was not really

mature.

 

Are these issues solved if you buy a new sample from current

production?

 

Or is the Nikon Coolscan V the better bet for people without a degree

in computer science?

Both scanners have been tested by the german computer magazine C'T, which is usually one of the few reliable sources.

 

According to their tests Dmax is 3.9 for the Epson 4870 and 3.6 for the Epson 3200. Optical resolution is 1650dpi for the 4870 and 1180dpi for the 3200.

To me the modern successor of the 1972 Vietnam picture above are the amateur shoots taken in Abu Ghraib.

 

It's no accident that some blurred amateurish pictures took over the role of once reputed war photography. Today it is almost impossible to be directly affected by any picture circulated by the mass media. Instead everyone asks to what degree pictures might be staged or pre selected and for whom the underlying message might be advantageous.

John,

 

thanks a lot for the clear answer. For now I will go for the following settings:

 

35mm 4800dpi

MF 2400dpi

4x5 1200dpi

I use a flatbed scanner (Epson 4870) with good results but I am still

confused about what resolution settings I should use. The goal is to

get the best master scans possible with this scanner and adjust for

different print sizes and printer resolutions later when the scan

gets prepared in Photoshop.

 

Several reviews have stated that the Epson 4870 has a real optical

resolution of around 1650dpi and that the published 4800x9600dpi are

nothing but snake oil.

 

Does this mean I could always use 1650dpi as a standard setting and

up sample the pic with Photoshop or other software only if necessary?

This approach would save a lot of scanning time and disc space but

would it have any shortcomings?

If I would be forced do own only one 50mm lens, it would be my old 50/2.

 

However in reality it gets no use at all as I always take my 50/1.2 or 55/2.8 Micro.

The Photokina fair is about to start on Sept. 28. Personally I would postpone buying digital bodies for the next 3 weeks.

C.,

 

Silverfast offers free updates every few weeks. I have downloaded the last one about two weeks ago and the problems described above were not fixed in that release.

Just saw the current work of Esser in a gallery in Hamburg (see <A HREF="http://www.sfeir-semmler.de/sites/Esser/startesser.htm">here</A>).

 

Currently he doesn't seem to photograph but scans details of historical postcards and plays a little with photoshop.

 

Personally I was not very impressed but the larger prints still sell for about 24,000 USD (20,000 EUR).

Have a 4870 since some months. Overall I am very satisfied.

 

However be aware that ICE is not always working smoothly if you try to scan MF or LF with resolutions above 1200dpi on a Windows OS. Up to now ICE is only working with Silverfast at unacceptable low resolutions. With the Epson Scan software it is working but be prepared to wait more than 1 hour for a 4x5 scan!

 

With a Mac you should have no problems as I have heart from several sources.

Essers prints are made by Grieger lab in Duesseldorf, Germany. Would be very surprised if there are no labs in NYC being able to deliver comparable quality. If a lab is not willing to go in 'partner mode' when you order and pay for 60"x80" prints I guess they will not be in business for long.

 

However Grieger is using a special patented laminating process. To my knowledge this process is not available in the U.S. yet.

John,

 

got your point. The current Provia 400 is probably not the best film for grainy retro style shots.

 

BTW read somewhere that Bailey used Tri-X rated at 800 ASA and developed in Rodinal to get the grainy effect typical for his style in the 60ies.

John,

 

the old Provia 400 is less sharp, has more grain and the colors are quite flat compared to the new one.

 

Comparing the two on a light table the new Provia 400 looks more like a 100 ASA film while the old Provia 400 looks like a grainy old school 400 ASA film.