armindo.dias

<p>Patrick, thanks for the link.<br>

Actually, there is new film for Spectra by The Impossible Project team:<br>

http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film/spectra<br>

And other formats besides Spectra:<br>

http://shop.the-impossible-project.com/shop/film</p>

<p>Greetings to all!<br /> <br /> I want to buy an high-end Spectra model but I'm confused about all the models and names... <br /> <br /> From what I've found, <br /> - Spectra is the name given in the US and Image outside US<br /> - Spectra Pro is the high end and best Spectra model<br /> - Spectra Pro and Minolta Instant Pro are "the same" cameras, and the best models to buy.<br /> <br /> But what is the equivalent between the Spectra Pro and the Image cameras? I've found:<br /> <br /> - The Image Pro<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://cgi.ebay.de/POLAROID-Image-PRO-Sofortbildkamera-mit-OVP-Zubehoer_W0QQitemZ250746479603QQcategoryZ8276QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp4340.m263QQ_trkparmsZalgo=SIC&its=I&itu=UCI+IA+UA+FICS+UFI+DDSIC&otn=4&pmod=170584975391&ps=63&clkid=6174328291417852455">cgi.ebay.de/POLAROID-Image-PRO-Sofortbildkamera-mit-OVP-Z...</a><br /> <br /> - The Image Elite Pro<br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://cgi.ebay.de/Polaroid-Image-Elite-Pro-Kamera-Foto-/250751773857?pt=DE_Elektronik_Computer_Foto_Camcorder_Digitalkameras_PM&hash=item3a61f86ca1">cgi.ebay.de/Polaroid-Image-Elite-Pro-Kamera-Foto-/2507517...</a><br /> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://cgi.ebay.de/RARE-Polaroid-Image-Elite-PRO-camera-Spectra-PZ600-film-/220718590823?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item3363da6b67">cgi.ebay.de/RARE-Polaroid-Image-Elite-PRO-camera-Spectra-...</a><br /> <br /> So, what's the equivalent Image series to the Spectra Pro? And between the Image Pro and Image Elite Pro, which is the best (or are they the same)?<br>

<br /> I won't be able to test them, I'll buy one from ebay, so i want to be shure i buy the best model...<br>

Thanks in advance!!!</p>

This is just a curiosity. Last night i was watching James Nachtwey "War

Photographer" DVD and i noticed the shutter sound of his camera. It's like an

high-tech/silent sound (for the lack of a better explanation...), not

the "clamp" shutter sound my 5D has. Since i never used an EOS 1 series

camera, does anyone more experienced than me has a clue about wich of the EOS

1 models (N, V, etc.) has that "high-tech" sound? And does any of the digital

models (older and current 1D/1Ds) has that sound too?

Thanks in advance.

Ok... there are hundreds of threads about the f/4 IS vs f/2.8 (non IS) but my

question is about the bokeh differences between the two... I couldn't find a

thread about this so sorry if this is already has been answered.

Here's some info. I have the 5D + 24-105 but i want more range. So the 70-200.

Since i can get the 70-200 f/4 IS and the older 2.8 at the same price i'm

wondering what should i choose. I don't shoot sports or many action stuff and my

main interest would be to have a flexible lens for portraits (between the 85 +

135 and plus range).

The f/4 IS is more interesting: smaller, lighter with the added benefit of IS.

The 2.8: "better" bokeh (?). I've seen a lot of photographers using the 70-200

f/2.8 for portraits with excellent results, with a wonderful bokeh. But what

about the f/4? From your experience, is the difference in bokeh from the 70-200

f2.8 to f4 that dramatic, is the 2.8 bokeh much better than the f4 for

portraits? Or in other words, does the f4 still has a nice bokeh like the 2.8 in

the 85-135 range or should i go for the 2.8 (again, keep in mind that i will be

using it with a 5D)?

Thanks in advance.

I have a 5D/24-105 combo that i'm enjoying very much, but i want a smaller lens

and i've decided to go with primes. Since most of the time i shoot around 50mm,

i was thinking about the Canon 50 1.4 (the 1.2L is way out my budget).

Now, i know that the 5D (like any other camera...) requires the best possible

lens for the best results, but i am wondering if the 50/1.4 is "good enough" to

do the 5D justice... All this because of the Blur Index graph in here

(http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/140/cat/10) that scares

me when wide open.

Is the 50/1.4 that bad wide open?! Is this lens a good combo with the 5D? Any

better alternatives from Sigma, Tamron or even Canon (besides the 1.2L...)?

I want to buy a Toploader bag because of it's portability and convenience. I

already have Lowepro backpack but i find it too big for a casual use.

I'm thinking about the Toploader 70AW or, possibly, the 65AW. I want to carry my

5D + grip + 24-105. I know that the 70AW can accomodate a 1 series body with the

24-70 (bigger than the 24-105), but the 70AW it's still a little bulky for my

needs... that's why i'm wondering if the smaller 65AW can accomodate a series 1

body (essentially the same size as the 5D + grip and the 24-105).

Yes, i know that the best would be to go out to a store and try this, but

unfortunately no store near where i live has these. Anyone tried the 65AW with a

1 series body or 5D + grip? Does it fit or do i need to get the 70AW instead?

Thanks in advance

My 5D + grip + 24-105 will, hopefully come this week. But this weeekend, i

borrowed this combo from a friend of mine to test it with my actual tripod.

Well... my tripod is a joke. The combo is a bit on the heavy side and i just

realized i need a better one, more stable and all that.

I don't want to spend a lot of money, maybe 250-300 Euros for the tripod + head.

What do you recommend? Is it possible to buy a good tripod + head in this price

range or do i need to spend a bit more? For those with the 5D + grip + 24-105,

what do you use and recommend?

John, thanks for your contribution.

All the images were taken with a modest Nikon Coolpix 5700. This is definitly the heart of my work and what i like most to do. I really love b&w and a more conceptual/arty aproach to photography.

What motivates me to get another camera is my desire to experiment other things besides this, like portraits, some nudes, and some landscapes. But this kind of stuff is what, at the moment, gives me pleasure to do.

Oh, and the 5700 is waaaaay to slow recording and focusing... and since i want to print large like 20''x30'' (not everyday, but one time or another), a boost from my current 5MP would be very welcome.

Beau, thanks for sharing. Very nice! It seems that you get a very good copy of the 24-70. Just one more question: does it have any noticeable vigneting? As you have a FF sensor, how does it behave with it?

By the way, great gallery (i love cats ;)).

Beau, thank you.

Nice photo! But what about the focusing speed? From what i know it's somewhat slow because it doesn't have HSM... What's your opinion?

Dan, thank you for your reply.

I guess you are right. I don't need the 8.5fps. I could be handy one time or another, but most of my shooting style don't requires that. Also, i guess it may be better to start with a nice L lens. As i can't justify myself to buy another body in a couple of years, if after that i buy a new one, i already have a nice lens...

From what i read, the sigma 24-70, despite the low price, is not bad, in fact, very good for the price. But i guess i would be safer with Canon L.

Again, thank you.

A couple of days ago i finally decided that the 5D + 24-1005L would be

the way to go (after debating between the 5D and the D200. Well, today

i went to my store and the guy told me: Look, i have a brand new

1DMkIIN for 3290 Euros. Do you still want the 5D? I took some minutes

with it and i completely felt in love with the body, the instant

response and the ruggedness (like a tank...).

What atracts me the most is the fact that it seems to me like a very

low price for a new MkIIN. Now the catch: with the 3290 Euros of the

MkII my budget just allows me to buy a Sigma 24-70/2.8 EX DG and a 4Gb

Sandisk Ultra II. All this sums to 3890 Euros. With the 5D + grip +

24-105/4L + Sandisk UltraII 4Gb i would spend 4000 Euros. I absolutely

can's spend more than 4000...

What would you do? Grab this chance to buy a MkII for a great price

with the Sigma or still choose the 5D with the Canon L?

One thing that worries me is the Sigma lens. It seems that i could be

wasting the MkII overall response and focusing speed with this lens

(it doesn't have HSM/USM)... i don't know, just a feeling, like

driving a Ferrari with really old tires and the deposit almost

empty... Also, what about the quality of this combo? I know that the

MkII is geared towards PJ and sports, but from the many samples it

seems like a very capable studio camera, very detailed and

noise-free... But what about the Sigma? Is it sharp? Is it a good

match for the MkII, despite as being a "cheap" lens?

Just to finish, you can visit my gallery to give you an idea of my

shooting style. After that, MkIIN with Sigma 24-70 or the 5D with the

24-105L?

Thank you in advance for all your opinions.

After many months considering a new dSLR and after considering many

brands/models i finally narrowed my choice to the D200 or the 5D. Yes,

i know they are different models (1.5 vs Full Frame) but the fit what

i'll be able to spend.

Since i don't have a legacy on Nikon or Canon glass, i'm considering

these:

- D200 with the Nikon 28-70/2.8 ED IF (3300 Euros with grip and 4GB

Sandisk Ultra II card)

- 5D with the Canon 24-105/4 IS USM (4000 Eutos with grip and 4GB

Sandisk Ultra II card)

I will not shoot wildlife or sports/action. I'll be shooting mostly

portraits, still life, casual street photography and some studio too.

I want to print large (20''x30'' - 50x70 cm) and my work is focused

mostly in b&w.

I think both have pros and cons. From what i read, the D200 has better

construction (more solid), more features. The 5D has the full frame

sensor, more resolution... The cons: some D200's has the infamous

"banding" problem and the cropped sensor, the 5D has only 3fps and a

"cheaper" body.

The full frame sensor is not that important to me. Shure it's nice, it

would be cool to have the narrow DOF for portraits and 12.8MP, but i

guess the D200 with a 2.8 lens can have the same DOF effect (am i right?).

So in the end, i want image quality and a camera that could grow with

me and serve me well for at least 1 year without feeling the need toi

change for something better. The price diference is not important to me.

If the price diference wasn't a decisive factor, and considering the

glass i choosed for each model, what do you think it would be a better

camera+lens combo?

Steve, thanks so much for the detailed answer.

But i have one more question. This may be dumb question... but like i said, i shoot only digital and i've never had any experience with film. You said it's the negative that has the frame. So, after i have the negative developed, i need to go to an enlarger and print the picture (like a normal developed 35mm film), right?

I'm a newbie in Photography. I just started shooting digital about 1

year ago but i'm getting more and more involved with Photography (yes.

it's a passion right now).

I've just discovered some amazing photos with a lovely frame:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/showphoto.php?photo=31037&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500

I knoe that this is a Polaroid P/N 55 large format film, but i don't

know much more.

Can someone tell me more about this (or point me to some links with

detailed info), about the process to achieve such images and frames? I

really like this, but i'm copying the effect digitally... and nothing

comes close to th original... So, what camera should be fine to

achieve this and how to do it?

Please excuse if this is basic question, but like i said i don't know

much about large format photography yet...

Thanks in advance.

I'm in the process of buying a dSLR and i'm considering seriously the

20D as a serious option. But yesterday, as i was browsing the prices

on the store i'm buying it, i saw that they have for sale the 10D too,

with a 1GB card. It's around 400 Euros cheaper than the 20D (body only

on both cameras). I have the money for the 20D, but the less i spend,

the better (i will have to buy a nice lens too)... I know that 10D is

much "older" than the 20D but it seems to me a very capable capable

camera still today. Besides the obvious 6MP to 8MP diference, what

makes the 20D better than the 10D? Or in other words, for 400 Euros

more, is the 20D the way to go? Maybe i could save those 400 Euros for

a 20-70L lens...

Like if this wasn't enough, a few days ago i saw a Nikon D100 for sale

for 900 Euros (this includes the grip). This is like new, and has the

grip that i find very welcome addition. Would this be a good buy

against the 10D: a D100 with the grip, less 100 Euros than a new 10D?

Keep in mind that i want to make A3 prints minimum, but i think the

6MP to 8MP don't make a huge diference, but i could be wrong... Also,

this would be my first dSLR, but i want something that would keep me

satisfied for some time, so i don't want to buy a low-end model.

Thanks in advance.

So i've narrowed my choices to buy a new camera: or the D1X or the

D2H. And i'm having an hard time wondering about these two.

The main problem is the resolution. I know that the difference between

4 and 5 MP is minimal, but i want to do gallery quality prints of

13x19'' minimum (A3) and i suspect that the extra MP of the d1x will

do better than the d2h...

But the d2h is very tempting: a better battery, the iTTL flash. The

d1x lacks in those department. And i find the body much more appelaing

than the d1x. But i don't need a sports camera, as i won't do any of

that... Of course i wan a fast camera, but i don't need 8fps. And

then, it has "only" 4 MP and for 13x19'' prints i think the more

pixels i can have, the better, so i think about the 5MP of the d1x...

What do you think?

Yesterday i had a change to grab a new 1D MkII and i immediately felt

in love by the body and the feel. Much more pleasing, at least to me,

than the 20D. And since i'm looking for a dSLR i'm thinking about a

second hand bargain. Since i don't have much money, i'm considering

the 4MP EOS 1D

The 1D was released 4 years ago and i'm wondering if it's still a good

buy or not. I don't need action or sports performance. I will shoot

mainly inside and still objects, but i still want a fast camera to

shot with. Basically, i want a film like response.

And i need to print big size (at least 13x19) gallery quality prints,

and i'm wondering if the 4 MP are enough for that.

What do you think? Is the 1D a good camera, despite being "only" 4 MP,

for large 13x19 prints? And still a great camera by today standards?

Or should i look elsewhere?

I'm in the process to buy a dSLR, upgrading my compact camera. And i'm

considering the D1X or the D70s. The D1X seem really great: a pro body

and features, but it's somewaht "old" technology. That's why i'm

considering the 70s too. But i would much prefer the pro body feeling

of the D1X...

I don'tneed a camera for sports or action, it would be used mainly for

portraits, studio work and that, so speed or large number of fps

aren't important to me. Also, the batery life doesn't seems a big problem.

Now the pixels... i want to make at least 13X17 prints (A3 size) and

sometimes even bigger, but 13X17 would the minimum. Do you think the 5

MP of the D1X will be enough to make gallery quality 13X17 prints? Or

should i jump to the 70 instead since it has & MP? Also, is the 10MP

option with the Nikon software good?

So, what do you recommend? I really like the D1X but i'm afraid if it

is "old" technology and the image quality of the 5 MP for 13X17 prints

would be worse than the 6 MP of the D70s...

(I'm also considering other brans, like the Canon 20D...)