mark_ryan2

<p>The last post I saw in the archive for PC laptop specs is from 2006. I'm currently using DPP and PSE3. I haven't been paying attentoin to the harware and software for the past two years, just been shooitng the 20D. I'm looking to get a 1DsII or a 5DmkII and I'd lile to go wiht a laptop. Two small kids doesn't allow me to sequester myself in the office.<br>

I'm partial to Lenovo, but I could stand a Dell. The Lenovo's are just rock solid, and have one for my wife and one from work.<br>

I'm not looking for min specs, but what I should get. I shoot 4-8k a year. I don't know what software I'll run. I'll probably keep it in XP and not go Vista. Really interested in video capability, especially calibration.<br>

Thanks for you help,<br>

Mark</p>

<p>Definately it could be CA, but check the depth of field also. I get it sometimes when the edges are getting just a bit soft and the "bokeh" becomes a fuz, somtimes purple tinged. Edge of the frame could be getting into the OOF area.</p>

I second the F1N. I assume you are doing surf scapes (landscape type) and surf art is surf boarders, or is it things washed up on the surf?

 

F1N with a winder and some fast telephotos will work for the surf boarders.

 

For still shots, I would go medium format in film. RBs and RZs are crazy cheap now. Add in a Epson V750 scanner, and you should be able to do 24x36 inchs.

 

All depends on the subject matter and your work flow.

 

I get nice 11x17s out of the F1N with primes scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual 4 at 3200dpi. Some subject matter I can print out to 13x19 on my Epson 2200.

To me the M system is the pushes the corner of the envelope in small zize and image quality. Add in quiet operation, durable design/manufacture, and low light capabilities and those are the key attributes.

 

I wonder what is going to win in the race to match these properties in the digital arena? Will Leica be able to bend the M-mount around the digital equipement, or will someone push the envelope with digital P&S type cameras and out flank the dRF (ala Sigma DP1).

 

I look forward to the M9 to see Leica's next stab at the problem.

 

If the M9 is an APS-c sensor (D300?), is this linked to the new lower end M lenses that were introduced last year?

Is that M9 (dCL?) going to full frame? I love my CL now and a digital FF version (even a 1.3) would be very interesting. Maybe keep me from a used 1DsII or the rumored 6D.

 

Mark

I have no idea on the cost, but if I had my fathers camera, I'd keep it an for under $100 bucks CLA it.

 

I've had AE-1, A1 and F1N cameras, and it is hard to beat the 85/1.8 for portraits, but if you can get a 85/1.2L cheap that would be cool too.

 

The old cameras get more attention now a days since everyone has seen a dRebel or D50. Younger people look at it weird that it doesn't have a screen in it.

Even does it with medium fine JPGs.

 

?

Tried it with the Large jpg coarse setting and that didn't solve the problem.

 

I don't do burst shots in jpg that often, but I did look back and this seems to have started happening in the last two years.

 

Hummm.

 

Mark

I used to be a big advocate of in body IS for wide angle lenses. The only problem is 1) I learned how to hold a camera release the shutter smoothly and 2) Subject matter doesn't sit still long enough for me to shoot a 28mm (eq) lens at 1/4 of a second. I can't get people to sit still (mainly my two year old) or even adults to take advantage of it.

 

Using bone-to-bone contact or resting on things, I find I can go at least a stop under the inverse lens length rule.

 

I really would like to see a 1.6 crop camera test with a 70-200 lens. One with in body IS and the other with in lens IS. If the in body IS can keep up there, I'd have to say that for 90%+ of shooters that would be good enough.

 

I have a 70-200/2.8IS on my 20D and I find the viewfinder settling to be a big benefit. It stops me from subconciously try to chase the image.

 

To me IS makes most sense with 80mm+ lenses. You're starting to talk about pretty fast reciprical shutter speeds, and people usually won't blur for me past 1/125 or so.

 

Yea, if you are doing shots where things aren't moving, IS and a wide angle might work. But if it is a static shot, use a tripod?

Adam has it right, it is the splotty area inteh lower right quadrant. It looks like a print that has stuck to another print and been peeled apart.

 

The part where it is showing the effect is in a part where there were some reflections thru the window I was shooting thru, but they show up in shots with out glass in them. I see it throught the shot, it is just easier to see in the certian areas. Plus, why would it not affect the first shot, but subsequent shots?

 

I've tried two different cards, although maybe I'll get a new one ;)

Updated to latest firmware 2.0.5, and it still does it.

 

?

Sorry for the formating, when I went back to insert some breaks, the post was gone, but when I went back forward it was still there. So rather than re-type it, I just posted it.

 

Thanks,

Mark

I usually shoot RAW, but I was shooting some sports shots of my son and wanted

more than 5 frames at a time. I shot at fine jpg large and burst mode. AV moe

1/400 at f4 with 17-40 at 40mm end. The first shot of a series is fine, it is

by the 3rd shot that these artifacts show up in the shadows. I shot maybe 7-10

shots at a time.

 

If I shoot RAW I don't get them. If I shoot RAW+Ljpg, I don't get it. I get it

wit my Lexar 80x 1GB Pro CF and my UltraII card.

 

I'll try to post some examples.

 

First Shot

<img alt="1stShot" src="http://home.comcast.net/~markmryan/1stShot.jpg" />

 

Third Shot

<img alt="3rdShot" src="http://home.comcast.net/~markmryan/3rdShot.jpg" />

 

Anyone heard or seen this?

 

Really need help, I was planning on using this as my sports camera and a FF as

a landscape camera. 5 shots at a time is pretty limiting for sports.

 

Thanks,

Mark

Thanks "General" for the idea of stiching together shots, which will work for many shots. I really like taking slow shutter speed shots in the city to blur traffic, which on a long enough shot might work for stitching, but I figured 1-2sec shots might not work so well with streaks not lining up.

 

Can you stich say four vertical shots to make a wide pano, and then stich that pano with one above or below to make an even bigger one?

 

Thanks everyone for the input. That Graflex site is great.

 

Mark

Wide is somwhere between a 28 and 35mm lens on a 35mm film body.

 

Cheap is about up to the $600 bucks. A GSW would fit the bill, I also shoot a Leica CL, so I don't have anything against RF. I usually see them go for more on the bay. Any other good places online for used MF? I look at KEH every once in a while.

 

Mark

Been shooting 35mm and digital (20D) for a while and I've been looking for more

performance out of wide angle nature and city shots. 28mm(eq) on a 20D starts

to get mushy detials when printed over 11x14, to me.

 

I've toyed with the idea of a GX680, thought about scalling back to a RB, then

to a Fuji RF6x9 with the 65mm lens. The birth of a second child leaves money

tight, so I even looked at Ikonta or Bessa.

 

I really want 6x9 because I like the ratio, and the size of the negative. I

want something wider than a 35mm equivilent lens, preferably 28mm angle of

view. Doesn't need a meter, or a fast aperture.

 

The main driver is low price, good optics and 6x9.

 

I can meter, use an aux viewfinder and do all that if I have to.

 

Anything?

 

Thanks,

Mark

Kind of funny, but that's not how it works. If we are talking about common IR capable cameras like Sony's "night shot". The near-ir sensativity of cameras has nothing to do with the black-body radiation of room temperature objects. Common pigments and dyes can be visibly dark or absorbing, but transmit in the near IR. So they have color, but a near-IR camera can see thru the fabric.

 

I can't read Japanese, what are they saying blocks the IR? A lot of white pigment, a metallic film (that would also reflect the far-IR), or a carbon black would all work. Those would scatter, reflect, and absorb; in that order.

 

A metallic film in the crotch might cause some problem with heat build-up and lack of air flow. Ick.

Taking pictures by itself?

 

Is it the End of the World and digital cameras have now truly replaced photographers! A camera that shots weddings by itself!

 

Mark

I'm doing the same thing now with a 20D and a 285HV and 283. I link up my 20D with the 285HV with a PC cord and ViV adaptor, then a Wein Peanut in the Viv283.

 

Digital Wein Triggers don't work with standard flashes and the other way around.

 

One lesson I learned from my 285HV and a Hot Shoe Sync(HSS).

If you are using the 285HV to trigger the 283 you need regular triggers.

 

If you are using the on camera flash to trigger the 283, you need to use a digital trigger.

 

I would have thought the digital trigger would be smart enought o handle both, but it wasn't.

 

I got some umbrellas and stands and it seems to be working well.

 

Mark

Did the aperture change when you used the DOF button and a small aperture?

Ah, I found the 285HV manual online. It says the flash has to be in the off position with batteries in it to use the SB-4. The batteries must be in for some syncronization thingy.

 

You must have batteries to use the AC adaptor. Really odd.

I started with the 18-55kit lens that broke, then added a 50/1.4 then a 17-40, then a 70-200/2.8IS.

 

The 50 is a great portrait lens, maybe more of a head and torso shot than a pure head shot. Best of all the 1.4 keeps the viewfinder nice and bright.

 

With the 17-40 on a 1.6x body, the 40 end does OK in a pinch. It still is a great lens since you can switch from a wider angle group portrait and still use the 40 end for a reasonable 2 person shot.

 

I mainly use the 70-200 outside for action shots of my son. It is pretty hard to use inside (houses) since the effective length is about 100mm.

 

I'd consider the f4 version. Lots of times for portraits with the 2.8 I use an F4 because the depth of field is sooo shallow when you do a head shot of a two year old, his whole face won't be in focus.

 

I plan on getting a 5D for my 17-40 and keep the 70-200 on the 20D for a high low mix. Maybe a Digitial rangefinder for the middle ground.

 

Mark

I didn't know that! When I was researching the problem someone had mentioned having the batteries in at the same time, but that seemed odd.

 

I actually tried it, but I thought the power was coming from the batteries then, not the SB-4.

 

How long do the batteries last then, almost forever?

 

Thanks Rick!

 

Mark

I bought two SB-4s for my 283 and 285HV flashes. I got the 283 to work, but I

can't get the SB-4s to power the 285HV. I even tried the SB-4 that works with

the 283, and powered the 285HV with NiMH batteries to make sure it worked.

 

Any thoughts why it wouldn't be working?

 

I noticed the on/off switch won't shift when the SB-4 is attached to the 283,

but it slides back and forth on the 285HV.

 

The SB-4 comes with out a manual, and I've had the 283 for 20 years. Bought

the 285HV from Central Camera about a year ago. Maybe time for a new 285HV and

use the not powered one for catch lights or washing out backgrounds.

 

Thanks,

Mark

Were they shooting a Bon Jovi video?

 

I too noticed when I was travelling that younger Japanese people do the two-finger sign. Is that really a peace sign, or something particular to Japanese youth?

 

I find with digital that I'm more apt to really explore variations in exposure and framing. Not quite spray-n-pray, but more experimental.

 

Mark