jason_cheng2

<p>I just received my Konica Hexanon AR to micro four thirds adapter today. It's made by RJ Camera and seems well machined. However when I attach it to my Panasonic G1, I get an error message asking me to "Please check that the lens is attached correctly". I do not get any image displayed either on the LCD or on the Electronic Viewfinder. I have tried setting the camera to Manual Focus but this doesn't make any difference. Changing from Aperture priority to Manual also doesn't make any difference. Is my adapter defective or is there some other camera setting I need to change. The adapter didn't come with any instructions at all. Thanks for any tips.<br>

Jason</p>

As a long time user of Contax 35mm slrs, I would caution you that the Sonnar 135/2.8, while a very good lens especially for the cost, has a somewhat long minimum focus distance. For that reason I would not recommend it if you are aiming to get tight head and shoulder type shots. I like both the Contax 85/1.4 and 100/2 lenses but they have somewhat different characteristics. The 85/1.4 is a bit soft and creates a sort of dreamy sort of look wide open and at f2 becoming critically sharp at f2.8 and smaller apertures. The 100/2 is very very sharp even wide open. While both excellent I would agree that the 100/2 is the sharper of the two and a superb lens. I personally prefer it to the 85/1.4. I know many other people prefer the look of the 85/1.4. While both the Contax 85/1.4 and 100/2 are superb lenses, the Canon 135/2L is a fantastic lens as well. In practice I find my results from the 135/2L to be every bit as good or probably better than with the Contax lenses in part because I find the Contax lenses a bit hard to focus critically on the 5D (when used on Contax slrs designed to be optimized for manual focusing this isn't a problem). This may be partly a function of my aging eyes so your experience may vary. When I get the focus right, the results from using the Contax lenses on the 5D can be very good.

BTW, one lens that I really like a lot on my 5D is the Contax 100mm f2.8 Makro. Very very good performance and with macro shots I usually focus manually anyway. With the lens and camera on a tripod, taking a bit of time to meter stopped down etc isn't much of an issue. While obviously designed as a macro lens, I find it makes a very good portrait lens provided you don't have a subject with a lot of skin blemishes!

Lastly, I agree with Adam, that I much prefer the look and feel of the Contax lenses to that of Canon lenses (even the L series lenses of which I own quite a few).

Jason

I recently purchased 100 disk spindles of Delkin's scratch resistant Archival

Gold DVDs and CDRs because I have been concerned about the longevity of standard

disks. Much to my surprise and dismay, I get error messages when I try to verify

that the files burned to the disk correspond to the intended files on my hard

disk. When I try to open the burned files, many will open fine but others will

not open at all and sometimes cause my computer to freeze up. I have not had

this problem with DVDs and CDRs from other manufacturers such as TDK, Imation,

Maxell and even no name cheap disks. Delkin has been good about trying to solve

the problem but was unable to find the problem. They had me ship the unused

disks as well as the ones that had errors to them for testing. They found no

problems with either the unused disks (when they burned and verified, they got

no errors) and even more bizarre, they had no problem reading the same disks

that I had burned, gotten error messages with and had trouble opening.

This doesn't seem to be a hardware specific problem. I've tried the disks on

three different computers - an older desktop, a 1 year old Toshiba laptop and a

2 month old Gateway laptop. They each use different software to burn disks. They

all have the same problem. Neither I nor the Dell tech rep can figure out what

is going on. Any ideas?

Jason

Hi Joe and Arlen,

I am pretty sure I will go ahead and try the Brightscreen. I know they make a number of different variants. I'm thinking of either a large central microprism or one with the split screen in the middle and a microprism collar. Do you guys know the model number of the ones you bought for use with your 5D's? I think I read somewhere that they also make a proscreen which is presumably more expensive. I'm not sure what the advantages are.

Jason

Thank you all for your input. I think I will stick with the Canon. The AF assist and the high speed flash synch are features that I think would be useful to have even at the expense of having a larger heavier flash.

Jason

The Brightscreen split image with microprism sounds ideal. I was wondering though, when you use autofocus do the focus points still light up in red as with the standard Canon screen or do you lose that information? Does it throw off the exposure or autofocus? Is there any functionality that you lose when going to the Brightscreen? Does it work equally well in both bright and dim environments? Is the viewfinder image contrast higher or lower than the standard screen? Thanks in advance.

Jason

Hi Steven,

I was interested to read about your Brightscreen on your 5D. Does this affect exposure? Is this something you can install yourself or does this have to be installed by a repair shop. I've used some of my Contax lenses on my 5D but found it a bit hard to focus accurately with the standard screen. Does the Brightscreen still show the autofocus points selected when you are using it with Canon autofocus lenses? How much do they cost? Sorry about the long list of questions but this intrigues me and is something I may want to do.

Jason

I was disappointed that Canon did not include a built in flash with the 5D. I

had gotten used to having a flash available at all times, mostly for fill flash,

with my 20D. With larger separate flash units, I tend not to bring them along

and never have them when I need them. I don't want a large, powerful flash unit

but a small compact unit that is completely integrated with the electronics of

the 5D. Any suggestions? Someone recommended the Metz 28AF-3C to me. I'm not

sure if the E TTL it uses is as good as the latest Canon E TTL II. Any advice?

Jason

Mark,

Keep up to good work! I hope you don't get discouraged by the negative commments of some on this thread. I find your results very interesting. As a long time user of Contax 35mm film cameras, one reason I chose a Canon digital SLR over a Nikon is the possibility of using my Zeiss lenses on the Canon with an adapter. Currently I use a 20D but I am looking to upgrade to a full frame sensor hopefully in the next six months or so.

Unfortunately, using manual focus lenses on the Canon digital slrs you do give up features such as autofocus and have to stop down manually. It's a trade off. I don't find it a problem with macro photography or with landscapes. These are applications where I'm likely to have my camera on a tripod and stopping down manually is not a big deal. For portraits where I am likely be using a lens wide open or at a fairly wide aperture using manual focus lenses is also not much of a problem. I just focus and compose at shooting aperture. However for travel, action and most general photography, I definitely prefer the convenience of lenses in the EOS mount.

I would agree by the way with your reviews of the Zeiss 21/2.8, 18/4 and 35-70/3.4 based on my experience with them on film cameras. The 18/4 was one of the oldest of the Contax designs. I've gotten some very nice shots with this lens but it is not in the same category as some of the other best Contax lenses.

I just sent a roll of 36 exposure Fuji RVP 100 to them about a week and a half ago. I mailed the film in on a Monday and got the slides back the following Monday. I live in SF Bay Area and I find my turn around time with them is pretty consistently 1 week. Fuji's lab takes 2-2.5 weeks and Kodak about 2 weeks.

When I first started using A&I a few years ago, the slides came back in plastic mounts which I prefer. Now they use cardboard mounts. I have a problem with the type they use. I don't like the slightly rounded corners of the images but more importantly, I find that with the mounts they use, there are often little fibers from the mount protruding into the image area. There is also often fine dust or cardboard particles on the slides even when I first take them out of the box. This really a pain when I scan the slides. It takes much more cleaning of the slides than with plastic mounts. Interestingly, I find that the cardboard slide mounts that Fuji uses aren't as much of a problem in this regard. Nevertheless, I now primarily use Kodak because of their plastic mounts. I just wish the turn around time were faster....

Jason

I have sent Kodak Fuji E6 films for years with no problem (including Velvia). I prefer Kodak to Fuji prepaid mailers because I like the plastic slide mounts that Kodak uses. Fuji used to use plastic but switched to cardboard. I find you get more lint with the cardboard mounts and the edges are not as clean when scanned.

I just got off the phone with Kodak and they told me all film sent to Fair Lawn is forwarded to their facility in MD. Sending it directly to Maryland is faster. The address is:

PO Box 3022

Beltsville, MD 20705

I just got back a roll of slide film from them which I sent to Fair Lawn. The turn around time was 2 1/2 weeks. Hopefully sending it directly to Beltsville will cut down turnaround time in the future. The woman who helped me claimed that sending it directly to MD should cut down the turn around time to a week. That would be great if true. We'll see......

Jason

Thanks so much. You guys are great! You were exactly right. I was working in 16 bit and once I converted to 8 bit, the additional save as file formats showed up. Thanks again.

Jason

I noticed tonight that some of my TIFF files when opened in

Photoshop CS, cannot be saved in JPEG format. There are only a few

options such as PSD, TIFF and one or two others (usually there are

many more options). These particular files were all from a Canon 20D

processed with Canon's Digital Photo Pro RAW convertor. Any idea why

this is causing a problem? Is there a way to convert these files

over to JPEG? Thanks

Jason

Robert,

Thanks for your comments, particularly the direct comparison of the Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000 vs the Minolta Elite 5400. Eliminating the flare problem alone would make the upgrade worthwhile for me. It seems to me that the flare has gotten worse with age so perhaps it does in fact have something to do with dirty mirrors. Now my only question is whether to get the original 5400 or the newer version II. I look forward to any direct comparisons.

Jason

I've found that slide films tend to show less grain than equivalent speed negative film and produce superior scans provided the exposure on the slide is right on (at least with the scanner I use, a 4000 dpi Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000). With slides you have less exposure latitude. I find the sharpest lowest grain scans are the ones I make from Velvia 50, Provia 100F, Ektachrome 100G and Sensia 100 pretty much in that order. Velvia 100F is also very good in this regard. If you want an inexpensive slide option consider buying a slide film called Porst 100. It is often available on ebay or directly from B&H for $1-1.50 per 36 exposure roll. This is for outdated film that has been cold stored. I've used many many rolls of film that expired 10/2003 with excellent results. The film is basically private label repackaged Sensia 100. You can buy Kodak slide processing mailers for I believe $5 per roll. Fuji's prepaid mailers are cheaper but use cardboard mounts. I prefer the cleaner edges you get with plastic mounts.

Negative films do tend to show more grain although much may be a function of so called grain aliasing. In any case, the perceived grain of a straight up scan out of my scanner is noticeably more than with an equivalent speed slide film in most cases. I've found Kodak's UC100 and UC400 to be quite good though. I like the inexpensive Fuji Superia 400. Very sharp but somewhat grainy. I use a free program called Neat Image to reduce the grain and end up with very nice images that I often print at about 11x16 inch size. Many software programs include some sort of grain reduction programs. The Silverfast 6 that I use does contain options to reduce grain when scanning negatives or slides. I usually avoid this because it does reduce grain but also reduces fine detail to some extent. I prefer to scan the negs or slides straight up and then reduce grain if necessary in Neat Image after the fact, often trying some different settings to see what I like best.

Thanks Matt and everyone else who have responded for sharing your experiences.

I have been using a Polaroid Sprint Scan 4000 film scanner (a 4000 dpi scanner) with Silverfast 6 software for many years. The one major issue I have with the scanner is that areas of high contrast (eg white flowers on a dark background) lead to flare in the scanned images. Sometimes this is quite artistic looking and people have asked me how I achieve that effect but othertimes it is annoying. Have you guys noticed a flare problem with either the Nikon or Minolta scanners? Again this only occurs in the specific case of a very light object against a dark, especially black background.

The other question is how much of an advantage is 5400 dpi vs 4000 dpi. With my current scanner and software, I find I can make very detailed 11x17 inch enlargements that approach medium format detail from slow, fine grained slide film. I have friends who shoot medium format and think the prints are from a medium format camera. With negatives, I find what appears to be grain can become prominent and I have to use something like Neat Image to reduce the grain. Does a pretty good job and I've gotten nice 11x17 prints from even ISO 400 film (Superia 400). However, I wonder if a higher resolution would make the grain problem more pronounced. Someone else told me though that the apparent grain in scans of negative film is often largely an artifact of the scanning process (perhaps the so called "grain aliasing" effect) and that with the higher resolution newer scanner I am actually likely to end up with less perceived grain. Any comments?

BTW I recently purchased one of the highly rated Canon 20D digital SLRs. I find that 35mm slide film scanned at 4000 dpi is sharper and more pleasing to my eye than the files from the 20D. The 20D files do have the advantage of being almost grain free. Apparently the dSLRs deliberately blur images a bit to avoid some sort of artifact in the processing. You can then sharpen the output files but the net result is not as good as what I get from scanning slide film. I know many people claim the exact opposite so take this with a grain of salt. Maybe I just need to learn how to post process the files from my digital SLR better.

Jason

Hi Peter,

I've been a long time user of 35mm equipment and recently purchased a Canon 20D. I too find that images with my 35mm equipment (Contax lenses on ISO 50-100 slide film and ISO 100 print film scanned with a dedicated film scanner at 4000 dpi) appear much sharper than my digital images when viewed on screen at "actual pixel" setting in photoshop. Even after sharpening the RAW files, they still look a bit soft to me. On the other hand compared with negative film, the absence of grain is a plus. So far I haven't made any 11x16 inch enlargements so I don't have a real answer to the question of final image quality with the 20D. The apparent softness on screen though is a bit discouraging (PS I am using the Tamron 28-75/2.8 SP that many users seem to find comparable to the Canon 24-70/2.8 L, and a Tamron SP 17-35/2.8-4 SP along with some Contax prime lenses mounted on the 20D via adapters. I don't have experience with the two Tamrons on film but the Contax lenses give outstanding results on my film cameras).

Jason

Hi Jim,

Thanks for posting your experience. I have been using Contax 35mm equipment for about 20 years and have an assortment of Contax lenses that I would like to use with a Canon 20D that I am planning to purchase. I was wondering how the image quality of photos taken with the Zeiss lenses on the Canon dSLR compare with those taken with the Canon lenses you've used. Some people claim that the extra resolution, contrast etc of Zeiss lenses is wasted to some extent on a digital sensor. Do you see a noticeable improvement?

One of the lenses I would like to use with the dSLR is the Distagon 18/4. How is the image quality with this lens?

Jason

I've been trying to set up color management in Photoshop Elements 2.

I've used Adobe Gamma to generate a ICC profile. It seems to be in

the appropriate folder (Windows/Windows32/Spool/Color) with my other

ICC profiles. However when I go to save my images in Photoshop

Elements 2, the only ICC profile option to associate with the file

is the default sRGB profile. My new profile is not offered as an

option. How do I fix this? Thanks Jason

I would agree with Arthur's comments regarding the RTS 2. I own most of the various manual focus Contax bodies but find I like the RTS 2 the best because of its very sensitive shutter release. It is so sensitive that a mere touch of the button fires the shutter. Once you get used to it, it is amazing. It is as if the camera becomes hardwired to your brain. The camera also has a mirror lock up feature that I like but is limited in its metering options and shutter speeds compared with the newer bodies. Nevertheless, I love mine.

As far as lenses go, all three of the lenses you have mentioned are superb. Which focal length do you prefer - 85 vs 100mm? How close do you like to be to your subjects? If you are only planning on one lens, the 85mm focal length might be preferable. If you also want to use it for candids the longer 100mm focal length may be better. Since I tend to carry a wide angle (24 or 28mm), a 50/1.4 and a telephoto for general photography, I like the Planar 100/2 the best. It is one of the later Zeiss designs and a great performer even wide open. The 100/2.8 Makro is really superb but is heavier and a stop slower than the 100/2. If you aren't interested in macro photography, I'd recommend the 100/2 over the Makro.

The Planar 85/1.4 is a bit soft for my tastes at f1.4 but that can be nice for portraits. By f2.8 it is extremely sharp.

Lastly, don't overlook the less expensive, slower 85/2.8 and 100/3.5 lenses. They are both small and compact, about the size and weight of a normal lens. They are superb even wide open. I used the 85/2.8 for years and was very happy with it. The only reason I eventually moved to the 85/1.4 is that I find I like the look of shots with the 85/1.4 taken at f2.0.

Jason

Thanks for your comments. Barry's comment about the hemispheres changing over time is interesting since I've never had a problem with my meter up until recently making this explanation tempting. However, I did get another light meter (unfortunately an even older Sekonic meter) and checked the readings. The two meters agree exactly. I read a comment from someone on the internet that his Sekonic light meters consistently gave readings 0.7 f stops less than his Minolta meter. I'm not sure what this all means but since my slides are coming out underexposed I guess I will recalibrate my L508 using the custom function.

Jason

I recently noticed that my Sekonic L508 lightmeter seems to give

recommended exposures that are less than I would expect based on

the "sunny f16 rule". On a sunny day, rather than f16 at 1/125 sec as

I would expect for ISO 100 film, I get readings of f16 plus .7 of a

stop towards f22. I don't remember noticing this before and recently

my slides do seem to be underexposed. Do meters tend to drift over

time? I also thought that perhaps the meter is more accurate and the

sunny f16 rule only an approximation however my slides do seem to be

coming out on the underexposed side lately.... Thanks in advance for

any comments.

Jason

I'm intrigued by the comments about film grain or lack thereof. My personal experience now that I scan my own negatives and slides for enlargments (I scan at 4000 dpi), is that what appears to be film grain quite often is very noticeable. However, I think this is may be due to the film being scanned. I've had enlargements made traditionally where there is no visible grain. Enlargements I make myself from scans of the same negative or slide are sharper but show more grain if I don't use a grain reduction/noise reduction software. For what it is worth, I find Velvia 50, Konica Impresa 50 and some of the newer 100 speed slide films show almost no grain when scans are used to produce 11x16 inch prints. In general negative film shows more grain but the noise reduction software programs can really help clean this up quite a bit. I've been surprised at how sharp Fuji's Superia Xtra 400 is (it is a bit grainy but after running Neat Image on it, I've gotten far better results than I would have thought possible from 400 speed film a few years ago) and disappointed in how much grain I see with Agfa's Vista 100 film.

One of the things I like about my Sony F717 (the 5 MP precursor to the Sony F828) is the very sharp images and lack of grain (I shoot almost exclusively at ISO 100 though). I've made beautiful 11x16 prints from it. In theory at least, the 5 MP F717 should have less digital noise than the 8 MP F828 since they use the same size sensor. More pixels with the same size sensor means fewer photons per pixel and more noise unless this is compensated for by more sophisticated image processing algorithms. For the same reason, a digital SLR will typically show less noise because the imaging chip is larger. If you are thinking about the F717, the main drawbacks are the slow refresh rate of the EVF (using it while panning will give you a headache), shutter lag and optical distortion particularly at the wide end of the zoom.

Jason

Thank you all for your comments. I had been thinking that I would probably go with a Canon digital SLR because I've heard very good things about the L series lenses and because I understand Canon has some of the best longer telephoto lenses. (I have to admit though that I personally find the white lenses rather ugly - I know it is supposed to be better for hot weather conditions). The availabilty of IS would also seem to be a major plus although I know Nikon now is offering VR on some of their lenses. I'm currently a manual focus Contax user and there are adapters that let one use Contax lenses on EOS bodies but unfortunately require a manual stop down of the aperture to shooting aperture which I think is rather awkward and tedious.

As far as manual focusing vs autofocus accuracy, I find that with my manual focus cameras, I almost never have problems with focus accuracy. I have had much more problems with inaccurate manual focusing with the S2. I should stress that most of the photos are not grossly out of focus but the point of maximum sharpness is not exactly where I intended. In this respect I think digital SLRs are probably similar to autofocus SLRs in that the focusing screens and viewing images are not optimized for manual focusing.

I went and checked out the new Nikon N70 in a local shop and was quite impressed with the rapid image recall and viewing. Much faster than the Fuji Finepix S2. I didn't have the S2 anymore for a side by side comparison of focusing screens and brightness. If anyone has compared them I would be interested in your impressions. I've also read that the Pentax D*ist has the best focusing screen/viewfinder image for manual focusing. I'll have to try to find a store that carries them so I can see for myself.

One other thing I noticed with the 6 and 12 MP files I got with my Tamron SP lenses on the Fuji S2 is that there seemed to be some color fringing which I think must be a function of the image sensor or how lenses interact with the sensor. I've never seen this with the same lenses and 35mm slide film even when scanned at 4000 dpi. Is this a common problem?

Jason

I've been a long time user of 35mm manual focus SLRs. I've never been

impressed with the need for autofocus for my style of photography.

However, I would like to get a digital SLR body. My question is what

is the best digital SLR body to use with manual focus lenses? I have

a number of Tamron SP Adaptall 2 manual focus lenses which I could

use with any digital SLR that accepts manual focus lenses. I've tried

them on a Fuji Finepix S2. I'm okay with the absence of in camera

metering although it is a bit annoying (I often use a hand held meter

anyway) but find the focusing image quite small. My 20+ year old

manual focus 35mm bodies are much easier to focus accurately. How

about using the lenses with some of the Nikon digital SLR or the new

Pentax D*ist bodies? Any comments? Thanks.

Jason