phil_sugar

Like most photographers, I have boxes of chrome slides that I keep thinking

about scanning when the "perfect" scanner at a great price hits the market. I

have heard of the OpticFilm 7200i, but it has only a 3.3 Dmax, which is below

that of the more expensive Nikons, and I have not seen a new Nikon in quite a

few years. So, what to do? Does anyone have any actual experience scanning

Fujichromes and old Kodachromes with the OpticFilm? Most of my slides are E-6,

but I do want to scan some of my old kodachromes. Any thoughts would be

appreciated. Assuming price, within reason of course, is not the deciding

factor, what would folks recommend?

Geoff:

Thanks for the info, but.........

Adobe says:

The Camera Raw 3.4 plug-in is not compatible with versions of Adobe Photoshop software earlier than Photoshop CS2 or versions of Photoshop Elements software earlier than Photoshop Elements 3.0.

This leaves back where I started if I am understanding the process. With CS I can't use the 3.4 or 3.5 plug-in.

Am I missing something here? Perhaps you could explain your idea a bit more.

I have been using Photoshop CS (1) for some time with a Canon EOS 20D on a

windows computer, and everything is just dandy. I just got a 30D and CS1 will

not recognize the raw file. I downloaded the most recent PS update, but Adobe

says it is for CS2, and it indeed does not work. I of course can purchase CS2,

but instead of that, is there any way to work around this problem so I can use

CS1 for my 30D images?

As an aside, I understand there will be a new PS next spring that will be

designed to best utilize the Intel chips in new Apple Macs, which is why I

don't want to upgrade from CS1 at this time.

Thanks for everyone's help.

Phil

I have several APS size canon digital slr's, and am looking for a long lense

that has image stabilization, perhaps a 500MM f5.6.

If not a canon, I'm sure I would happy with either a Tanron or Sigma

Does anyone ahave a recommendation or a suggestion?

Gustavo:

I have owned and used the older 17-35 L lens for years. When I shot with my film EOS 3 I was not too happy. But now I am using it on a 20D and it is terrific. This is no doubt due to the 1.6 crop factor so that the image circle of the lens is much smaller. The center area of the lens is quite sharp and the soft edges just don't even register with the crop factor. One negative is that the 17-35 is not the best built L lens I own, but it is still quite rugged and it is nice having a bright 2.8 image rather than a rather dim 4.5.

Hope this helps.

I would like to thank everyone for their very helpful comments. I am not much of a computer techie, and don't really understand what 16 bits versus 14 bits really means and how significant it is in terms of getting a good scan. Perhaps someone who understands this technical aspect can explain it. Also, are the Nikon advertised specs for the D-max anywhere near accurate, considering that the people who write the spec sheets are really only nterested in marketing a product.

I am looking for a slide scanner that can scan kodachrome as well as E-6

slides, and am looking at both the older Nikon 4000 and somewhat newer 5000.

While I can afford the 5000, I would certainly like to save some money if the

4000 will essentially do the same job. The only differences I have seen in the

specs is the 4000 has a lower D-max and is 14 bit rather than a 16 bit. I

have read on other posts issues with flare around highlights. If any one has

used these scanners I would really appreciate your commets/recommendations and

thoughts about the claimed flare issue.

I use the Stofen made for the Canon 540EZ on my 580EX because I too have velcro attached to the flash. This set up works perfectly as the EZ stofen is slightly bigger than the one marketed for the 580EX.

One thing to add to the equation is what type of photography you are doing. If you are using wide angle lenses, then get a full frame sensor such as the 5D. However, if you are a wildlife photographer and need as long a lens as you can get, then the 1.3 or 1.6 crop factor can greatly reduce the need for super long lenses or make your long lenses even longer. There is a dispute whether a full frame sensor of 11 mp will produce equal images (when cropped) to that of a 1.3 or 1.6 sensor uncropped, but I think the math favors the 1.3 sensor. I have both the 20D and D1mk2 and when using good photographic techniques the images can easily be enlarged to 16X20.

Philip:

I have owned the 70-200 f2.8 (non IS) for about 10 years and the 100-400 IS for about 7 years. From my experience the 70-200 is a better lens optically, and with the 1.4X and 2X Canon converters is still optically an excellent lens. That said, I have been moderately happy with the 100-400 IS. The optical quality suffers when used with any converter, and the push-pull seems to be a vacuum cleaner around any dust. As has been pointed out elsewhere, the quality seems to suffer at the 400 mm end of the zoom, and the thing is quite cumbersome and heavy at the long end. I have used the 300 f4, IS and even with the 1.4X converter the images are sharper and more contrasty than the 100-400 without any converter. So I quess the bottom line is it is all a matter of compromises and there is really no single answer to all our photographic needs.

The best thing about the less-than-full frame bodies like the D1mk2 is that all my telephoto lenses just got 30% longer, for free, and without any additional weight. All those little feathered creatures just got a lot closer.

It is just a quirk of the brain, but when one looks at an image of an animal (including humans) we look at the eyes. If the eyes are in sharp focus, then the entire image looks sharp. So, pick an autofocus point that is directly over the most prominent eye, and in custom functions program the camera so the selected focus point is the same as the exposure metering point.

Keep on shooting,

Phil

I have read on this forum that Canon has a new "7" series of inks

that can replace the current "6" series used in the i9900. Does

anyone know:

if these new inks are actually available in the States and where they

can be obtained?

if they really are for use in the i9900/i9950?

If anone has used or seen these inks, are they an improvement over

the current inks in terms of both image quality and longevity?

Thanks to all for your input.

Phil Sugar

I have an Angle Finder B which I used on my EOS A2, but I now want to

use it on a D1,mk 2. When I got the finder it probably had some

mounts for other view finders, but I have since lost/misplaced them.

I called Canon parts, and they don't list any finder attachments,

which is no doubt due to their desire to sell me a new Angle Finder

C.Is there anyone out there who has some ideas on how to attach my

old finder? The problem is the D1 has a narrower view finder than the

older EOS A2/A2e. I am not adverse to using a dremel tool and crazy

glue if I knew what to do. Thanks for your help.

Phil

My CRT seems to be dying of old age and I would like to upgrade to a

LCD Monitor. I will be using Photoshop CS and would appreciate some

suggestions on what to purchase. I have been looking at the 19" to

21" Eizo, Planar, Apple, Sony etc. The prices are all over the place

and I realize I will need to budget a hefty amount.

1. Any suggestions on make and model?

2. Some manufacturer(s) state that their color space is in RGB(Adobe

1998) and others, I assume, have a more limited palette like sRGB. If

anyone has any information or opinions on this subject I would

appreciate it since some of these monitors are outrageously expensive.

Thanks to all,

Phil

I have a Teac 4X DVD+RW drive in my Dell 8300. Can someone explain:

1. the difference between +R and -R.

2. Can I use -R media in my +RW drive?

3. Am I limited to 4X speed, or can I use 8X media?

4. Recommendations for a long lasting DVD for archiving raw digital

photos?

Thanks, Phil

Walter, I am interested in your comment about the safety of images stored on an external hard drive. Perhaps you could expand upon your comment, and if you have other suggestions about storage, please include them.

Phil

I have been using CD's to backup my images, but with a new SLR, and

shooting raw, I need a larger method of storage. I am considering an

external hard drive, perhaps in the 250 to 500 gig area. I would like

some help on the following:

1. Does it make much difference if I use USB2, Firewire 400 or

Firewire 800?

2. I have looked at the usual lineup by Seagate, Maxtor, LaCie, etc.

but would like to know if anyone has some actual hands-on experience

that can make some recommendations on these or other units.

Thanks for the help.

Phil

I have the new D1mk2 body and am considering using an old Metz CL45

flash that I own. This brings up a couple of questions.

 

1. Canon says that the trigger voltage should not be more than 6V. I

believe the CL 45's voltage is higher, but I don't know exactly what

it is and if it will fry my mk2's flash circuits. Does anyone know

the voltage?

 

2. If the CL 4's trigger voltage is too high, are there any creative

ways to connect it? I realize I can always use it as a slave unit,

but can I connect it as the main flash?

 

3. To use the CL 4 should I be shooting in Manual, or will Program,

Av or Tv also work?

 

4. Using the CL 4, will the flash "talk" to the mk2, or will it be a

purely manual, non-TTL flash?

 

5. Are there any add-ons or adapters that will reduce the high

trigger voltage down to 6V or less?

 

Thanks to everyone for their input.

Phil

I am looking for a wide lens to match to my EOSD1,mk2. Since I spent

all my money on the camera I am reluctant to buy the Canon "L" super

wide. I would appreciate soom feedback on the Sigma Super Wide Angle

14mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS. If anyone

has other thoughts on Tokina or Tamron I would appreciate reading

them.

I suppose it is inevitable that Epson will replace the 2200 with some

of the new technology introduced in the R800 and the 4000. So, does

anyone have any information, or even a rumor, about WHEN Epson will

introduce a new 13" X 19" printer?

I own both of these lenses and they are both first rate. When I want to shoot indoors, portraits, and just general scenery/travel photos the 70-200 2.8 L is the right choice. When I am shooting wild life, especially birds, the 100-400 is better. One thing to keep in mind, when shooting film it is pretty easy to clean the mirror and insides with a camel hair brush or canned air. BUT, cleaning a digital sensor is a whole new ball game, meaning you have to keep the sensor clean and the quickest way to get it dirty is to do a lot of lens changing out in the field. Taking a 1.4x or 2.0x extender on and off in order to quickly change the focal length of the lens could be a real disaster out of doors. If you are not shooting wildlife, etc., but just family etc. I think you will get better images with the 70-200.