m_keiser

<p>

<blockquote>

"The moiré issues in the scan marked "perfection" are artifacts of Photoshop's resampling algorithms....

<br/>

It's easy to see that my D80 and D200 perform smoothly. There is no significant moiré or aliasing or any other funny business going on.

<br/>

This is interesting: the three Canons have significant aliasing, or false resolution.... This is an engineering textbook rendition of aliasing."

</blockquote>

Hmmmm.... The 'perfection' scan's moire is caused by the resampling in photoshop but the canon images are the canon's fault not the RESAMPLING IN PHOTOSHOP? Yeah that makes sense.

<p>

<blockquote>

"The aliasing isn't turning colors on the 20D and 30D, so no problem. There's a little bit of color on my SD700, but as we'll see at ISO 200, it's insignificant photographically"

</blockquote>

I didn't really notice any on the SD700 shots, but every one of the D70 shots looked horrible.

<p>

<blockquote>

"But wait - look at the granite! The Nikons render this much more sharply than the Canons...."

</blockquote>

Yikes... so much noise even something out of focus looks sharp. Way to go Nikon. Seriously is this guy blind or just an...

<p>

<blockquote>

"The only thing I see is more aliasing with the Canons, but the same noise."

</blockquote>

I don't know what he sees in his tests but I see more a little more detail and MUCH less noise in the 8mp canon shots that have been resampled to match his 10mp nikon shots.

<br/>

If you look at the 'black dot' in the middle of the charts... the true story is hidden right before your eyes.

<br/>

I am a canon guy, but I am more than willing to accept when canon is bested by nikon.... This couldn't be farther from the case when it comes to noise.

Hmmmm, Image Stabilization in both body and lens...

That could qualify as a 'Legend' I guess. Well, we will see in about a week. ( I doubt it, but it would be nice. )

If your buying new...

Elan 7NE $340 + Eos 3 $875 + Nikon 5000 $980 = $2195

Eos 5D = $2970

Is three years worth of film and scanning worth $775?

All USD prices at B&H. Of course if going for used their is a much bigger price gap.

Just some thoughts.

The MTF charts on Canon USA make the old 85L 1.2 look slightly better than the new? Same size weight ect. Hmmm.

The 17-55 2.8 looks pretty nice though.

Will I have the 'cheaper' version (Digi Tripod) of what you linked to, I think the difference is mine has same legs but cheaper head. Anyway it is apsolutely amazing! Amazingly mine will hold a 20d+Grip with a 70-200 2.8 steady... Apsolutely amazing. Granted if the legs are 'aligned' the wrong way the whole thing falls right over, and it only really works 'straight on', but it works and steady.

So to summarize yes those bogen mini tripods are great. I don't think you can go wrong. It'll handle any 'reasonable' situation with ease. Mine is always with me in a side pocket.

Oh and I have never tried another 'mini table-top' tripod that wasn't worthless for more than a tiny 'Point and Shoot', and barely usuable for even a flash unit.

Just my experience.

Just thought some would like to know:

<p>I just ordered a new Wide-Angle Panel for the missing one on a

550ex;</p>

<p><b>Price $14.77 USD</b></p>

<br/>

<p>I also needed a new 'Red Panel' that goes over the AF Assist

light on a ST-E2 (Speedlight Transmitter);</p>

<p><b>Price $6.04 USD</b></p>

<br/>

<p>Now the ST-E2 will be easy, but has anybody had to replace the

wide panel on a 550ex? I figure if I can't do it, a local shop

should be able to. :-)</p>

<p><b>Wish me luck!</b></p>

A few clarifications:

"Then most labs only..." this was defineately meant to read: Most CONSUMER labs... ie. Walgreens, Walmart, ect.

With a reputable lab that should not be the case.

And yes the 'film crop' is a lot larger than APS... but still a lot smaller than most people realize. Just have some film processed at Walgreens, then scan your negs and compare.

Just meant to show the Edges, where lenses perform their worst, are cut off. Certainly not to the extreme of APS but a percentage of the same effect. Defineately smaller than Full-Frame digital though.

My comments taken in their context of being in response to "All those OK to good consumer zooms are now rendered "unusable" on a FF digi-SLR. " are valid I believe.

So like I said "Defineately not all their is too it... But probably at least a small peice."

Just some thoughts.

"It amuses me to no end how these awful "aberrations" hardly ever came up in the 24x36 35mm film days, but now 1) they are the worst thing in the world, 2) All those OK to good consumer zooms are now rendered "unusable" on a FF digi-SLR. "

I have seen one good explanation:

Most 'consumer' cameras have a bad viewfinder; Showing a crop along the lines of what you get with APS.

Then most labs only print the center throwing away the edges, and with slides you have the 'Mask' around the slide.

I think 'most' film users were using 'closer' to APS than they realized.

Defineately not all their is too it... But probably at least a small peice.

Just some thoughts.

Hmmmmm. Hopefully something is going wrong in the conversion heres my experience handheld quick at 135mm f/2.8 1/30th sec. 135mm f/2.8 having the most CA according to Photozone.de . 400% and 1500% crops were done upsizing in photoshop with Nearest Neighbor Sampling.

Hopefully pictures appear below:<div></div>

Canon actually makes a 90-300mm as well...

http://cweb.canon.jp/ef/lineup/tele_zoom/ef90_300_f45_56/index.html

I believe its only available in japan though.

I couldn't see canon charging much of premium over their already $1500 USD price tag for their 85mm 1.2L.... but maybe something along the lines of the makeover they gave their 200mm f/2.8 L II. :-) I could be mistaken but wasn't that just a different hood?

Anyway if they do 'Upgrade' it I wouldn't expect much... At most weather sealing.

But hopefully I am wrong. Then maybe I'll be able to afford a current 85mm L.

:-)

I use RAW + Small Normal JPEG.

To me the RAW gives me the highest quality.

While the Small JPEG gives me something real quick and easy to thumb through and find the 'keepers'.

The best of both worlds in MY opinion, your needs may vary.

The recycle time is so much faster with nimh rechargeable batteries.

It is like night and day difference.

The only drawback is if they sit for several months they will need to be charged before use.

Conclusion: The TV remote and anything that doesn't get changed very often get disposeables... Anything that uses a lot of power, defineately get rechargeables.

Good points in scratching the glass with the plastic.... at least with Multi-Coated glasses which it sounds like you have. It is USUALLY the coatings that scratch easily. That is what has ever stopped me from ever getting MC glasses. I'm sure their are also good MC'd lenses that don't scratch easily, but I've never taken the risk.

Anyway I think most uncoated glasses are pretty tough and won't be harmed by the plastic. Mine at least never have.

Just some thoughts.

I don't know what you can do other than the diopter. But one thought; I would guess the eyepeice is relatively clean and is just smearing the 'oil' that is already on the glasses.

I suppose you try it without the viewfinder 'eyecup' and see if you like it alright. It'll probably smear less with hard plastic than soft rubber. And with glasses comfort with the hard plastic is probably less of an issue.

Just some thoughts.

From canon USA's description of this lens:

"Non-rotating front element; lens length does not change during zooming"

Still says this today... I was fairly disappointed when I first got this lens and it did change lengths.

I wonder if I could claim false advertisement and get them to make me one that doesn't change lengths. :-) LOL

Look here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2485_3545/index.htm

and here:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2870_3545/index.htm

looks like 24-85 has a slight advantage in sharpness. As well as range USM ect.

Don't treat their tests as an apsolute though... But if cheap I think the 24-85 would be a worthwhile upgrade.