paul_rogers1

I've used a regular firewire cable with no problems. Just make sure to get the 8-pin (larger connector) type.

Regards,

Paul

Your digital plan looks fine to me, can't go wrong with either the 70-200 or 100-400.

As for MF, consider the Minolta Autocord: you get a 6x6 negative and fantastic optics for less than $200.

Regards,

Paul

Thanks for the input! I'll stay away from the Ikonta and look for a Fuji 690. Too bad the Fuji commands 2x to 4x the price of an Ikonta. The Autocord seems to be in a class of its own with respect to minimum $$ for maximum image quality.

Regards,

Paul

I've been pleased as punch with my Minolta Autocord but would like

an even bigger negative and wide aspect ratio.

Will a post-war Zeiss Ikon Ikonta C deliver the same edge to edge

sharpness I'm seeing with the Minolta: i.e., how does the lens

compare, and how is the Ikonta's film handling?

Assuming the Ikonta offers the image quality I'm looking for, what

specials issues should I look out for when buying one?

Thanks!

Paul

Andrea,

I chose the Gretag Eye One Display to use with my EBIV 22. It is available for about 2/3 the price of the LaCie Blue Eye.

Like the Blue Eye, it uses a hardware sensor and individual gun adjustments to calibrate. Unlike the LaCie tool, you have to manually adjust the gun settings (under direction from the software) to calibrate.

Regards,

Paul

Thanks, everyone. I did indeed have the camera in AI Servo AF mode. AF-assist works like a champ in One Shot mode.

Paul

I've read through the manual twice now but can't seem to find a way

to get AF-assist working on my new (to me) EOS-3. I have both an ST-

E2 and a 420EX, and neither will fire AF-assist. Both the ST-E2 and

420 work for taking a flash picture, modeling, and FEL prefire, but

will not AF-assist. AF-assist does work when I mount either flash

unit on my DRebel.

Do I need to send the body in for service? It is used and unknown

vintage, so if there were any early-production compatibility issues,

that could be my problem.

Thanks for any help!

Paul

Yet more helpful posts-- thanks again everyone!

After these posts and subsequent web research my plan as of now is to start with a YashicaMat if I can find a 4-element lens model in excellent condition for $200 or less. I found a sample crop at the equivalent of 8'x8' print that shows it can deliver more than enough image quality.

I'll also keep an eye out for a bargain Mamiya RB or Rollei SL66. No offense to the Bronica, Koni-Omega, Fuji, or Pentax recommenders, but I have a purely irrational preference for the box look vs. oversize-35mm look.

Regards,

Paul

Wow, thanks for all the answers. I'm getting the same head-spinning information overload feel that hit after first discovering the EOS and digital darkroom forums on photo.net and dpreview.

In the $500 and under group I'm leaning towards either a Minolta Autocord, YashicaMat 124G, or Rolleiflex 3.5F. Of these, I'm guessing the Minolta would be the best bargain, the Yashicamat would have similar quality but cost half again as much, and the Rolleiflex would have slightly better image quality and substantially better build quality.

If I go up to the $1000ish range, I'm favoring a new Kiev88 (from KievUSA) over used Pentx or Mamiya because $1100 will get a complete system with 65mm tilt/shift lens and mirror lockup.

Are there any $500ish MF cameras with metering, tilt, and shift?

For now, I'm scared of large format after reading the primer on www.largeformatphotography.info.

Thanks again for all the suggestions.

Paul

Thanks, Guys :).

Craig, how is the YashicaMat 124G? I'm willing to spend a bit more to get a built-in metering. Also, would the Yashica definitely offer better optics than a Seagull? (which I could get new for a little less).

Johnathan, I use a variety of focal lengths for 35mm, but with this system I'm thinking only a single normal or slightly wide lens. I'll work with whatever focal length gives the highest quality at the lowest price.

Gary, thanks for the very interesting observations on what makes for wow-factor. I _think_ I'm after tonality and true resolution, not a larger version of the grain-free digital look. Uniform grain doesn't bother me; in fact I sometimes add noise to dslr captures to make prints look more like photographs.

My editing system is up to handling large images, but I'm not planning to add a scanner unless I really get into this. I'll use a scanning service up until the point I've spent around $300 on scans. Even at ~$50 a pop, it will probably be a while since I'll only scan images that look to be real keepers based on the slide or print that comes back from processing.

Best Regards,

Paul

I currently shoot a 6mp DSLR with top glass and generally love the

results but would like the ability to go as large as 16x20 while

retaining the same wow-factor sharpness I can get from the DSLR at

sizes up to 8x12.

Can I do this with a relatively cheap vintage or Russian system, or

would I have to get into something like a Rollei/Schneider system to

produce 16x20s that match or better DSLR prints at letter size?

Convenience and features don't really matter. I would only use this

in situations where I have plenty of time, as a supplement to the

35mm when I want to (attempt) to get an even higher quality capture.

Thanks for any input!

Paul

Thanks everyone for the help! EOS-3 it is. Now I'm off to the Film and Processing forum for a few newbie questions.

Best Regards,

Paul

About half the time I haul mine around on a monopod slung over my shoulder.

The other half I just let it hang from the lens mount on my DRebel. In 6 months I've spent probably 30 hours walking with the lens hanging from the mount and have had no issues. When doing this I also use a quick release chest strap to prevent the lens from swinging about while walking.

Regards,

Paul

I can't answer your question as stated, but I can tell you why I'm about to start scanning film after being pure digital for the past 8 years (a series of point and shoots followed by DRebel). Please let me know if any of these reasons are delusional!

1) Wider field of view, brighter view finder, and 1st-tier autofocus performance for less than 1/4 the price of a 1D MkII or 1/7th the cost of a 1Ds.

1a) Full frame means access to truly high quality wide angle without having to resort to a 1Ds or a 1D + Zeiss manual focus. I wish Canon would eliminate this issue by producing a truly sharp lens wider than 35mm. I'd be satisfied with going no wider than 35mm equiv if Canon would just offer a 21mm comparable to the Zeiss to put on my Drebel.

2) No more white skies. I'm tired of having to choose between blown highlights or properly exposed subject. I see plenty of web images showing the dynamic range I'm trying to shoot, but most were shot with film (or the digitals were tripod shots with exposure bracketing and Photoshop merging done post).

Regards,

Paul

Thanks for the responses.

For another take on AF performance, would the 3 body offer equal or better performance than the 1D (mark 1)? I've played with a 1D and it is more than responsive enough. I've had two main difficulties with AF: animals in motion, and fast street photography. For the latter, I think eye control may be the only way to quickly compose with the subject off center.

Robin, thanks especially for the viewfinder info. I chose the wrong modifier when asking for the "brightest" viewfinder. What I really want is the viewfinder most usable for closeup manual focus, and it sounds like the brighter finder is actually _less_ desirable for this purpose!

The shooting data recording is nice, but not enough by itself to justify the price difference for me.

Regards,

Paul

I've decided against the 1D Mk2 in favor of a film setup and some new

glass. I realized my top 3 reasons for wanting the 1D2-- wider FOV,

brighter viewfinder, and faster AF-- are all addressed in film bodies

for much less.

Ignoring budget, I think I'd prefer the EOS 3 because it has eye

control, BUT I don't want to sacrifice quality vs. the 1v in the

areas of autofocus performance or viewfinder brightness. Can anyone

who's used both comment on the relative AF performance and viewfinder

brightness?

I'm also not clear on whether the metering systems are the same: on

the canon spec pages they read as having identical modes, but the 1v

touts "AIM" (Advanced Integrated Multipoint control), while the EOS 3

page makes no mention. Is AIM actually a differentiating feature, or

is this just a case of the 1v marketing copy writer trying to be more

inspirational?

Regards,

Paul

I don't shoot weddings, but I do have both lenses. I find that I prefer the 24-70 for all but the tightest interior shots. If I'm in a public space like a convention, or doing street shooting (or, I would guess, at a wedding reception), the 24-70 seems to fit better. I find the 16-35 most useful when shooting indoors in small spaces like the homes of friends and family, or for landscape scenics.

The 24-70 seems to be just a tad sharper, and its greater zoom range lets me frame portraits closely without getting right on top of the subject.

Regards,

Paul

I found the 17-40 to be a huge upgrade. At first-- coming from digicams-- I thought the 18-55 was so good I'd never replace it, but then I picked up a 50/1.8 and saw what a difference quality optics could make. This led me to try the 17-40, which for my copy at least, was nearly the equal of the 50/1.8.

I didn't see that much difference in sharpness between the kit lens and L zoom unless I made a point of studying edges at 100% zoom or printing 11x14, but the contrast and color rendition was worlds better. I've since learned enough photoshop to make 18-55 shots look nearly indistinguishable from L shots as far as color and contrast go, but I still consider it a worthwhile expense since I don't like to spend all my time in photoshop.

Regards,

Paul

2.8L IS. I was really hesitant about getting it because of weight and size, but now I'm glad I did.

I've found 2 things very useful for managing it on a long day: 1) a chest strap for holding it against my body without swinging; 2) carrying the 70-200 lens case hooked through my belt and one smaller lens like a 50/1.8 in that case. Most of the time the small lens stays on my belt, but if my neck gets tired or I'm going through an area where I feel uncomfortable with the white lens out, I'll swap in the plastic lens for a while.

Paul

The John Shaw recommendation is a good one, but rather than "Closeups in Nature", you may want to get his newer book, "Nature Photography Field Guide".

I probably missed any number of the finer points in my research on extension tubes vs diopters, but from what I could tell, the advantages and disadvantages boil down to:

Extension tubes: zero negative impact on optical quality, and more flexibility about focusing distance, but they cost you light. Getting to high magnification with a long lense like your 300 would take a very cumbersome stack of tubes.

Diopter: No loss of light, but cheaper diopters can compromise image quality. Can't get high magnification without stacking, which will definitely cost image quality. Maximum working distance is fixed to ~20 inches with the 500D.

I went with a diopter, both because I need the light, and because it was less than half as much as a set of extension tubes. Note, the cost would have been about the same, but after finding some posts here I went with a Nikon #5T diopter instead of the Canon 500D. Optical quality is suposed to be as good, and it was 1/3 the price of the Canon, 1/2 the price when you add in the cost of a 77mm-62mm step down ring.

Regards,

Paul

I can't speak for the 28-90, but compared to the DRebel kit 18-55, the 50/1.8 is only a little sharper for prints up to 8x10. However, it has much better contrast, which is noticeable on even 4x6 prints.

Regards,

Paul

Thanks for the responses, guys. I've spent some time trying to get actions to work, but it doesn't seem possible.

The problem is that the action recorder does not record many of the things I do to caption a photo. I do the following to caption a photo, but the items with an XX next to them are not recorded at all:

XX Ctrl-Alt-I to invoke the File Info dialog

XX Select the description field and copy its contents to the clipboard

XX Dismiss the File Info dialog

Create a new Text layer

Select "Right justification", set foreground to "white", position in lower right corner

XX Paste the clipboard to the text item (recorded as a text literal of what is on the clipboard, not as a paste)

It doesn't seem like actions are going to get me there. Or am I just missing something?

Paul

I went through a similar decision and decided on the 17-40. Little of this may apply for you, but here was my thinking.

First, some factors:

I had a 70-200/2.8, so the macro was only being considered as a macro, not for doing extra duty as short telephoto or portrait lens.

From my experience with a 50/1.8 + 18-55 for a few months I had observed the following about quality glass vs. kit: the contrast on the 50/1.8 was immediately noticeable as better, but resolution was effectively identical for smaller prints. With a lot of Photoshop twiddling I could make kit lens pictures at the same aperture and shutter settings look nearly identical to 50/1.8 pictures for prints 5x7 or smaller. For 13x19 prints there was no comparison: the 50 was noticeably better on edge resolution, and its in-the-lens contrast and color rendition was much more natural looking than what I could achieve in PS twiddling with levels, curves, hue/sat, and local contrast enhancement.

I had the opportunity to borrow a 17-40, and quickly observed that its performance was nearly identical to the 50/1.8, certainly much closer to it than to the kit lens.

So, for me the decision boiled down to:

a) 100/2.8 - Get a new capability (macro)

vs.

b) 17-40 - Better pics straight from camera, and potential for enlargement

I went with b) because I like the convenience of not having to work as hard in PS for good small prints, and the comfort of knowing that I can make very large prints if I get a killer shot. And BTW, I made the 70-200 into a serviceable macro for $55 by adding a Nikon #5T diopter and kenko step down adapter.

Hope this helps,

Paul

Thank you for responding, Vida. I think I was unclear with my question. The process I want to automate is the overlay of text onto an image.

In addition to the filename convention, I do also have IPTC captions for all of these images. Is there an automated way for me to overlay the IPTC caption onto the lower right hand corner of every image?

Regards,

Paul

I have a large set of photos I'd like to print 4x6 with the photo

caption on the photo. I spent about 3 hours tonight going through

image by image, adding a horizontal Type layer in CS, and manually

typing in the caption (filename sans extension)at the bottom right

of each photo.

Is there a way to automate this process, or a third party tool that

can operate on PS files and make proper use of the image sizing,

orientation, and color profile info?

Thanks for any suggestions!

Paul