pavel_kupcik

<p>Just one more vote for "buy what you need now". I had a 20D with EF-S lenses 10-22, 17-55 and 60mm macro. I sold all of it within two weeks for 80-90% of the original cost (the lenses, not the body). My father wanted to future proof himself with his 30D and bought 24-70 L and 70-200L because "one day he'd go full frame". Guess what, he still doesn't have full frame body and hates the fact that 24-70 is not really wide on a crop and now that Canon came out with 70-200/2.8 Mark II he feels like his Mark I lens is already old. Therefore buy what you want now and sell it later when it's no longer good enough for you or your camera body. At least you're buying Canon which has a large second hand market. Imagine owning Olympus or Sony - virtually no second hand market. How do I know, my brother invested into Olympus and is unable to sell any of it.</p>

<p>If money is an issue, 5D is a great camera. I myself bought one about 6 months ago as I couldn't see myself spending for 5D II. I may upgrade to some future 5D Mark ?, but until then a used 5D was a good value for me. I'm sure I would have bought a 5D II though if money was not an issue - as others said it has many feature improvements: LCD, dust removal, video, live view, etc.<br>

I would be hesitant though to buy one on eBay. I would recommend you look at the Buy and Sell forum at FredMiranda.com or photography-on-the.net. That's where I bought mine and you can see some history of the buyer, such as his message posts about his 5D, how long he had it, feedback from other photo sales, etc. It at least provides some information to gather feedback on the owner and the item being sold before buying the camera.</p>

<p>That's probably the best I've seen with that lens on a DSLR. I have the same lens from film era on Zenit E body. Tried it on 5D for fun/nostalgia - sharpness in the center was actually pretty good, but the contrast and colors were severely lacking, the bokeh is nice, sort of dreamy. It may be a nice lens for B+W photography.</p>

<p>Look at Zeiss 35/2 ZE and 50/2 ZE, you may like them if f/2 is sufficient for you and you don't mind manual focus.</p>

<p>Anthony,<br>

Without repeating what the article that Tommy referenced above says here is my prospective. The 10-22 and 17-55 lenses are lighter, smaller, cheaper and cover more useful range than their FF alternatives. My view is that a crop camera with 10-22 and 17-55 lens offers an outstanding quality and features for value much lower than FF equivalent. The quality of 10-22 and 17-55 can equal many L lenses and many of the features of 50D or 7D are not available on the cheapest FF which is 5D II (I'm not counting discontinued products). If somebody is limited by budget or knows they will primarily shoot with zoom lenses then crop cameras make the best sense to me. I personally have owned a 20D with 10-22, 17-55, 60 macro, 85/1.8 and 200/2.8L. It was a very nice setup and upgrading the body to 7D would have made perfect sense, except that my preferences have moved toward fast prime lenses. Therefore I switched to used 5D and fast primes only. This was a very very expensive switch and it's not very convenient with having to switch lenses all the time. Everything is a compromise though and only you can decide what's important to you. I therefore recommend to everyone who is thinking about FF to really objectively write down the pros and cons and give it some thought. Crop camera with high-end EF-S lenses is to me the perfect combination for general photography with extremely high image quality. Remember you can easily sell quality lenses with minimal financial loss at a later time if you decide to pursue FF or different lenses. I'm not discounting L lenses, but believe that 10-22 and 17-55 are more useful on crop camera than 17-40 and 24-70/24-105. L primes and tele zooms make perfect sense on both crop and FF.</p>

<p>Also just to add. If you feel that you need lenses with larger aperture for your sport events, none of the zooms, including L, may give you fast enough shutter speed. If you need fast wide angle, than look at 24L, 35L, if you need something longer, than look at 85/1.8 or 135/2. All 4 of these are great lenses that could be used with great results on both crop and FF. Buying a FF camera and keeping your slow lenses may not help you much.</p>

<p>If you want to spend the money on L lenses then you may as well buy the 5D or 5D II. If however you just want improved IQ and are undecided about crop vs FF, I would strongly suggest buying the 17-55 EFS lens. You already have the 10-22, which is a great lens, and can build yourself a nice kit around 30D, 10-22, 17-55 and then either 85/1.8 or 135/2. FF is great if you're seeking maximum quality or very specific use such as small DOF, tilt shift lenses, fast wide lenses, etc. The average enthusiast is probably best served by a crop camera and EF-S wide to normal lenses plus L tele lenses.</p>

<p>The lenses you have are a perfect fit for full frame camera. Your 24-105 may be plenty wide on 5D. If I were you, I would buy the 5DII. I would also imagine that cropping shots with 70-200 of 5D II would still yield quality improvement over the crop factor of your 10D.</p>

<p>I've had 70-200 2.8 IS for about 6 months and also have 200 f/2.8 II prime. 70-200 is great if you need to zoom. It is heavy though and really stands out - which can be good or bad. I wasn't impressed with its sharpness at close focus distance, but at medium to longer distance the lens was great especially between 70-135mm. At 200mm it was somewhat soft at 2.8, but only if you pixel peep. The 200 prime is light, small, black and sharp at 2.8. I can walk around with it all day long. It is also a lot cheaper, especially if you buy it used since there's not much demand for this lens and the used prices reflect that. Financial cost aside, I would decide strictly based on the focal length(s) you need. If you know you will be mostly at 200mm, the Prime makes much more sens.</p>

<p>For your intended purpose, portraits and macro, you could use either of the cameras and get great results. I would not upgrade, unless you know what you're missing with 50D, not enough DOF, too much DOF, bigger viewfinder, etc. Upgrading to FF, just because of higher potential IQ is not a good idea withou having a real need/reason. I would imagine that neither portraits nor macro require extremely high ISO.<br>

<br /> I've upgraded from 20D to 5D and feature comparison aside, here are my general recommendations/thoughts for someone who shoots variety of objects.<br>

<br /> - APS camera with very good EF-S lenses, say 10-22, 17-55, 60mm macro is a lot cheaper and smaller/lighter package than FF and L lenses<br /> - If you use mostly fast L lenses, you may as well switch to FF to get the most out of them. If you are happy with EF-S quality and size, stick with APS-C<br /> - FF is overkill for a family/trips/general purpose camera. It's way too heavy and expensive if you're trying to have complete focal coverage.<br /> -- FF is great if you want to use tilt-shift lenses or large aperture lenses f/1.2, f/1.4, etc. or if you really need the last 10% of IQ or print billboards :)<br /> -- APS camera will give an average user 95% IQ of what FF would offer. Think hard weather you really need the last 5 % and are willing to put up with the cost and size.<br /> -- FF and large aperture lens is a disaster for people who don't have at least some photo experience. If you give FF and f/1.4 lens to a spouse to take pictures in Auto mode, it will most likely be blurry as depending on the light the camera may choose a large aperture and the wrong focus point. f/2.8 lens on APS is a lot more forgiving.</p>

<p>I personally have chosen the route of FF with fast prime lenses to achieve small DOF and the last bit of IQ. I will however complement this with a pocket camera with APS or micro4/3 sensor to have something light and flexible for travel. The FF with prime lenses are great for dedicated photo sessions or focusing on getting a very specific result. The pocket camera is for convenience.</p>

<p>Thansks everyone again. I believe I had gotten the answer to my original question and a lot of interesting "why?" responses. I did not intend to start another film vs. digital heated debate. We all have to put our own value on our photos and we all have our own unique strengths/skills. For some its easier to maintain backups, for some to look after the environmental longevity of film and prints. For many it's just a personal preference and the world would not end if all of it did not survive tomorrow.<br>

Thanks again.<br>

Pavel</p>

<p>Kelly,<br>

me and my wife just had a good laugh - it is so true and sometimes the roles change too.<br>

<br /> Thanks.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity. Not to be pushy, but how do you all intend to protect your purely digital sources like DSLR Raw files, JPGs or digital movies? According to most of these posts, all of my and also your digital media will be wiped out before our grandchildren get to see them. Should we stop using DSLRs and digital camcorders and go back to analog? Start buying vinyl records instead of CDs? Maybe stuff money into pillows instead of 1's and 0's in bank?</p>

<p>Just to clarify, I'm not burning up my photo albums :) Just the negatives. Thanks to the scanning of my old negatives I was actually finally able to re-print photos that I've long lost or whose negative could not be found in the unorganized pile of negatives I had.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I guess the thread is changing toward "reasons not to destroy negatives" - I'll play along as this is an interesting topic. I agree that there may be a reson to keep film for all the various reasons you all stated (future better technology, sentimental value, pass it to grandchildren...) , but in my case it's not a very good solution for emergency backup. In today's world, I'm dealing with a lot of data that's only in digital format - DSLR RAW files, AVCHD camcorders, downloaded music, etc. The amount of data from these devices far outnumbers anything I have in analog form (35mm film, VHS, etc). The reality is that I need to have a robust backup for all my data no matter what because most of my data does not have analog backup. My primary focus is therefore to have a robust digital backup. Another big problem for me is that with that much data, organization of the data is of a great importance. If I'm not able to tell which media is where, who is on which photo, locations, dates, etc, than I'm sure my grandchildren will not know. Cataloging analog media would be another huge project that I will not go through. It's much easier and more managable to have a digital catalog and robust backup.<br>

Your thoughts..?</p>

 

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses. I have actually a fairly robust backup. Two on-site copies and two off-site copies (different continent) plus many other copies shared with family members. Scanning the negatives was a nightmare and I don't think I would ever want to redo it, no matter what future holds. The scanning part was actually ok, but the post processing and cataloging was a lot of work. I don't think there will be a machine in the future to which I can just drop a suitcase of negatives and have it scan them, catalog them, post-process them, etc. It will be much easier to convert jpg or tiff to whatever future format is there than reprocess everything. Again these are family photos and not a great work of art worth of preserving for hypothetical future benefit. As of now it's just collecting dust and taking space, just like many more suitcases of VHS tapes and 8mm tapes that I'm in the process of converting to DV.<br>

As far as suggestions to my original question, so far it looks like the only idea is to get a more robust office shredder. I'll have to check them out.<br>

Thank you.</p>

<p >I've scanned tens of thousands of family pictures from negatives to my computer. Now I'm stuck with a suitcase full of negatives and positives. What would be the easiest way to destroy the original film, I don't want to just throw it to trash can and risk that someone can take a possession of them. Cutting them with scissors is not practical due to the large number if film. Burning it may not work as I've heard that film doesn't burn and not sure of how toxic/smelly the fire would be if it did burn. Paper shredder probably also wouldn't work as most of the film is rolled up and I would have to tediously unroll each film and feed it to the shredder.</p>

<p >Mabye I could put them all in a large bucket and pour a "chemical" on them - not sure what chemical that would be and how enviromentally safe it would be?<br>

Any ideas?</p>

Looking at you current lens line up I would go for the 85mm. You already have 28,50 at f/1.8. Your 100mm is 2.8. The 85mm is very sharp even at f/1,8. I use it mostly for portraits and for music recitals and it gives me excellent results. I think the 85mm is one of the best lenses below $1000.

 

I also wish Canon made a 28mm f/1.8 with similiar IQ and upgraded the 50mm f/1.4 for better IQ at f/1.4 and ring USM.

Here's the little knowledge that I have.

 

1. Capture

I shoot everything in RAW, which doesn't have a color profile assigned. The in-camera profiles are only assigned to JPGs.

 

2. Editing

I edit everything in Pro Photo. Pro Photo is my working profile, meaning that all image adjustments are calculated in the Pro Photo space and no information gets clipped. My monitor profile is sRGB as that is all that my monitor can handle. In practice, Photoshop edits internally in Pro Photo, and displays it in sRGB.

 

3. Saving/Printing Processed Photo

I always leave the original/master file in RAW format or 16bit ProPhoto TIFF or PSD for future use. To print on home printer, I print straight from the master file (in 16bit ProPhoto). To print in local store, I export to sRGB 8bit JPG. To publish the photo online or to email it to friends, I export to sRGB 8bit JPG.

 

With this process, I always have the master copy use the best available color space (ProPhoto). Even though my monitor can't display ProPhoto, future monitors may and all edits are done with complete photo information (no clipping).

Just like others said, check the shutter speed on the blown out photos. If it's over 1/250s (max flash sync speed) and your flash doesn't support high-speed sync, than you just need to make sure that you set your camera exposure to get shutter speed below 1/250s. To do that, lower iso or lower aperture. With flash units from Canon (e.g. 580ex), you can a high speed flash sync that allows flash with shutter speeds over 1/250s.

I also read very good reviews of the 24" Dell 2408. Checkout this comparison article

 

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/showdoc.aspx?i=3302

Hi, can any of you recommend a fast scanner for printed photographs. I do not

need any film/negative feature as I already own Nikon Coolscan V film scanner.

Now that I have finished scanning my entire film archive, I want to scan all of

my printed pictures for which I have no negatives. I have thousands of photos

and want to make sure that the scanner is relatively fast. The photos are mostly

family photos of various size (4x6,5x7, etc.) and I will not be scanning any art

or professional prints. My budget is up to $500, but would rather spent less if

possible.

 

I looked at the Cannon 8600F and Canon Lide 600F. I like the 600F for its small

size, which would be handy when traveling to relatives and scanning their

photos in their home. The 600F would also take up less space in my office, which

is already full of photo/video equipment. I tried to lookup the speed ratings on

8600F vs. 600F and this link

http://www.canon-europe.com/for_home/compare_products/loadcomparator.asp?prod=1307B006;0302B010;&lang=UK&country=CE&dir=/for_home/product_finder/scanners/flatbed_with_film_scanning/

shows that the 8600F takes 13.8 msec/line at color 4800dpi vs. 600F of 34.3

msec/line at 4800dpi. Based on this spec it seems that the 8600F is 2.5x times

faster. I'm having hard time though understanding how to interpret the msec/line

speed into something like seconds/page(e.g.A4). If I knew the seconds/page (e.g.

A4) number I could better estimate whether the scanner is fast enough for my

work flow. For example, while the scanner is scanning, I would take the

previously scanned photos and insert them back into the photo album, then I'd

remove pictures from the next photo album page and dust them off. I assume this

would take me about 30 seconds, and in the mean time the pictures would be

scanning. I want to make sure that by the time I'm done with my 30 second

routine my scanner completes the scanning. Now, I haven't done any flatbed

scanning lately and and am not really sure what speed to expect from 8600F or

600F or other scanners - Please don't jump on me if none of these scanners can

actually scan that fast.

 

I would also appreciate any other scanner suggestions (e.g. Epson). Also, I

don't care too much about the bundled software as I will do all post processing

in Photoshop.

 

Thank you.

Maybe I didn't explain the situation to well. Let me try again. Each slide is inside of clear protective sheet (I don't know the official name for it). Then the whole thing is mounted in the regular hard plastic slide mount. When you look at the assembled mounted slide, you can't immediately tell that the slide in it is actually protected by the clear plastic sheet. I'm no expert on slides. I never shot or mounted any myself. These are some old family slides, that I'm trying to scan. I've actually scanned a lot of the slides as they were and didn't realize that the slide inside actually has this protective sheet around it. I don't know if this is how it's supposed to be, if so, should I unmount the slide, then remove the plastic from around it and then scan it. That would be a lot of work, but I would do it if it's worth it. It's probably good that slides were protected this way over the years.

Hi,

 

I have several hundred mounted slides that I'm trying to scan with

Nikon V. I noticed that all slides are inside a clear protective

plastic. Should I remove the slide from this protective layer before

scanning? What is your experience?

 

Thank you.