johnlakkas

<p>Try the Dust-Wand kit from Dust-Aid it's pretty good, it's cheap with many spares in the kit, it's also allowed in carry on luggage in airplanes and comes in a handy box.<br>

It was the one I used after a highly unsuccessful and messy cleaning with the "Green Clean" kit witch left huge smudges in my sensor after the liquid dried off on the sensor. So I had to clean these too.</p>

<p>I haven't tried it myself nor I know how serious solution this can be but nevertheless it is a good idea, check this out:</p>

<p>http://www.instructables.com/id/1-Camera-Image-Stabilizer/</p>

<p>It's cheap as well...<br>

But you would probably need a stabilized lens for best results.</p>

<p lang="en-US">You are actually talking about two different format cameras, like Compacts to APS-C or 35mm to MF, keep that in mind. Comparing two different formats is not exactly fair. Larger sensor format means swallower DOF, need for new lenses witch really behave a lot different than on the smaller format cameras. The pictures of the same scene with equivallent focal lengths do look different on different formats check comparisons between 35mm FF DSLR and digital MF and you will see what I am talking about, Contrast is different, punchiness is different. It's not only the ISO, MP, and DR that matters, there are other elements in the picture even more subtle and subjective and difficult to understand and judge but they do matter and affect the image. Better to know...</p>

<p lang="en-US">Check these:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/p65-plus-field.shtml<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --></p>

<p lang="en-US"><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->

<p lang="en-US">Seems good to me. Indeed some pictures less grainy would help but we have to consider also the depth of field. Witch in some cases like this makes judgments tricky. Focus is another matter. Both samples have the subject pretty close to the lens hence the narrow DOF which is few cm/in in the first and somewhat more in the second picture but not really a lot compared to the depth of the scene. I should mention as well that perfect lenses may seem faulty because the body even if it says it has the focus on a certain AF point in reality in hasn't focused properly due to reasons like the wall surface etc. This combined with the narrow DOF of the large apertures in which we test the lenses can lead to faulty conclusions and large out of focus areas. I had sent to Canon two perfect lenses and I got them back saying they are pretty fine, I refused to believe them and only when I took some samples with the SLR body turned upside-down (180 degrees) I figured that it was an AF issue with the test scene! Finally few lenses show field curvature so they will show different focus distances from the center of the image to the edges.</p>

</p>

 

<p>I forget to mention that (if not obvious) I do available light photography and mostly landscapes but few times I shoot portraits as well. I am a hobbist photographer and I shoot 99% of my pictures on my journeys in Europe.<br>

Also forget to mention that IS won't freeze motion. So if shooting sports or children with available light then wide aperture lenses come first so you can achieve fast sutter speeds.</p>

<p lang="en-US">I was in the same position as you one year ago. The Canon 70-200L f2.8 non IS was expensive for me, so I looked at the 70-200L f4, the IS version was also quite expensive as well and quite limited in reach for my taste but it had the 4 stop IS. The 70-200 f4 non IS had small aperture as well as lacking IS so it was limited in many ways. But every one says the f4's are pretty sharp.<br>

So I thought it would be a good idea to get a 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for the good light and a 100 f2 for the low light. As the 70-300 has the IS I wanted and the reach. The only downside was the f5.6 @ 300 and 3 stop IS instead of 4 stop IS of the 70-200L f4 IS.</p>

<p lang="en-US">I finally bought the 70-300 f4-5.6 IS USM and the 100 f2. Mind that 70-300 has an excellent image quality so the L counterparts won't be much better in it if better at all, you won't regret. It just has rotating front element and lacks weather sealing. Imagine it's called by many secret L lens... In the first place I though it would be struggling in low light but that's certainly not the case! It's sharp wide open and the IS is really good in real life! In low light does a terrific job! Really! I get better keeper rates with my 70-300 IS USM than with my 100 f2 both wide open in low light situations. Imagine that f5.6 with 3 stop IS is somewhat f2! But with quite steady hands (~little shaky hands) the IS can totally stabilize the scene which the shutter speed can't! Also DOF in 200 mm is SO NARROW (few inches/cm) that focus may be tricky as well as limiting for landscapes! 70-300 bokeh is pleasing nothing to worry and it's quite lightweight lens. Speeds up to 1/20 @ 300mm can come out sharp with a decent rate with some exercise! So you get the 300mm and some serious money saving! For comparable bargain but higher price I would suggest the 100-400L IS.</p>

<p lang="en-US">Sorry for large text... I was quite impulsive...</p>

<p>Forget to mention, 99% I bought this:</p>

<p>http://www.adorama.com/CZFDEOSA.html</p>

<p>My copy had the optics not shown in the image which mentioned by some of the reviewers as well.</p>

<p><!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } -->

<p lang="en-US">I got pretty much the same adapter without the electrical contacts on my 350D. Well forget using wide aperture lenses (especially primes) in their large apertures as they work really poorly in their wide apertures. So I might warn you that even if the lens is sharp wide open normaly it might not appear to be due to the adapter so you will have to stop it down a little. The rear element of the lens is bigger than the optics of the adapter maybe that's why, I don't know. Wide aperture pics look like there's fog... (see my pics with fd 50 f1.8 @ 1.8) Of course you might actually like the effect in some circumstances, something like soft focus. The adapter also makes lenses darker. I also own and tested tested a 80-200f4 non L witch made really nice pictures stopped down one or two stops. Though manual focus is a problem with both speed and accuracy. Many times you got to attempt to focus and check the taken image. You also need quite some light to take photos with apertures at f4, f5.6 etc. You can take pictures until the sunset at best, not later... Of course if you can't afford the EOS lenses the go for them! Though IS and AF is a must have. I gave up my 80-200f4 for the 70-300 IS USM, witch is much much handier and the IS a savior!</p>

</p><div></div>

<p>If you want to better this shot what I consider the best is to try ajusting the curves when you develop the raw so you can smooth out the highlights if clipping is in the raw, if not then lower the contrast/saturation and develop so it can look more natural. Hope I helped.</p>

<p>I am not sure if that's the cause but in the picture you uploaded it's quite not possible not to clip and burn highlights. In the big ring arround the sun the red channel probably clips first then the green clips as the sun appears full saturated yellow then the blue clips as well and the image gets white. Maybe you should try to underexpose and overexpose it in the raw development or try the hdr so you have every channel detail.</p>

<p>If it has 12MP rather than 21MP and be cheaper why will it be a better body than 5D mk2? Think it like the old 5D with the new low iso performance and HD video and no more than 3 fps. I think it's worse than both 5D mk2 and D700, isn't it? Though I guess it will take time to see something like that as Jamie said.</p>

<p>It's a just talking post, I wonder if it's just me or if it has been mentioned / is a common sense that it would be nice to see a Nikon D700 like body from Canon for little more money than 50D's price but cheeper than the 5D mk2. Say 12MP FF with video and great low light (better than 50D's). It's anyway possible to see something like that in PMA 09?</p>

<p>I would like to listen your opinions...</p>

I am not an expert but there can be lot's of problems disabling you from making a good print, some of them you would never imagine (like working environment, and room light). I have bought the Luminous Landscape From Camera to Print video tutorial download for less than 40$ and for sure it is both affordable and highly educative on all these matters. (I am not advertising it, or having any kind of cooperation :-). For these money it can save you a lot more and of course learn lot's of stuff. Believe me you won't regret it.

Actually Huey Pro can handle D50 or D65.

"Next guess as to what your issue is is that you may have your monitor too bright, and the huey isn't compensating for it - assuming that you're using an LCD screen, try turning down the CONTRAST and see if you get any closer".

 

Huey probably doesn't compensate brightness and/or contrast. I do use a quite old Sony CRT. It should be seven or more years of use.

I don't think either Huey Pro can handle D50 or D65.

Well yes the action was conversion not just an assignment of a different profile. I pay attention to these details. I do consider buying a book and fortunately I have found the one you mentioned. I did came quite closer with a pretty dimmed screen around 55% contrast and maybe 60-70% brightness. Though in the day where there is light coming in from the window (not directly on the display) can be hard to see just for every day stuff not photo editing. Indeed I would be really happy if just Contrast/Brightness adjustment could almost match the results, actually it was quite hard to keep both highlights and shadows of the Pantone gray shade shape. Huey can't adjust/handle D50 or D65 or anything like this. That's why this are unknown to me. I guess just this shouldn't make me change my hardware device, should I?

WRONG POST:

The leaflets where edited in AdobeRGB though the final version was in sRGB profile (forgive me for the mistake, I just looked at it) and they where darker.

Before that the same phenomenon happened with plain picture print in the local photo store with the final being in AdobeRGB where I was suggested to use sRGB, hopefully the job was done with Photoshop converting the profile according to the printer's profile. So I guess if Photoshop is involved initial file's color profile doesn't matters (if of course it is known and/or tagged in the image).

First of all thank you.

 

Probably I can't have the Photoshop profiles of their printer though I can ask. The monitor of the store where I printed the photos has shown the same luminosity with the print. The guy told me it was pretty dark and changed the RGB levels in Photoshop. Although not every one does that. I always ask them not to change anything and not to apply any 'corrections' because that can ruin the picture and the atmosphere.

 

I really wonder how the graphics-artist/model-maker (leaflet pro designers) calibrate their monitors so they can exactly match the final press print. Especially when they are independent which is usual. I have heard they produce a 'Postscript' file which is the final locked file which is given to the massive printing shop and includes everything like vector/raster graphics and color details.

I have being a hobbyist digital photographer for more than 4 years and the last

year I bought a monitor hardware calibrator Pantone Huey. Recently I faced a

challenge to voluntarily make leaflet for a small local non profit ecological

organization. My Sony CRT monitor was profiled (I made the leaflet in raster

format in AdobeRGB color profile in case it matters including ICC profile). The

problem is that when I print photos or leaflets either to photography stores or

to large scale printing shops the colors are pretty the same but luminosity

varies seriously. In detail the images in my screen look much brighter than

printed out. I guess that I should somehow compare printed results with monitor

(maybe adjust contrast/brightness witch are 100%/50% as Huey recommends in order

to see both highlights and shadows) but is there any way to be done in hardware

way (so safer and consistent)? I could do it by eye comparing screen and printed

material but I guess this isn?t a serious approach. Is hardware going to be

expensive? Is it possible to keep cost less than let?s say 500 euros. I saw some

bundles in X-Rite but they are quite out of my reach and I don?t really know if

they work for an outside printing. Of course I cannot change anything on the

store?s printing device (including color profiles), only to print a color

palette for comparison in a photographic store.

 

Thank you very much, I appreciate any answer.

John

I am giving you one of the images made me decide not to use RawShooter premium 2006. This picture is taken at 12pm with 350D and a Sigma 18-50 f2.8.

I thing that RC has a "plastic" sharpening which means you thing you got detail there but it is discussable if you really do. I would like to hear your opinion. No noise reduction, nor fill light. Only a small amount of sharpening in each program has been added (almost equal). It was converted to jpg only in it's final edit, 100% quality jpg. (I don't actually own any of these programs).<div></div>

Every thing looks fine using DNG format except one thing, are you aware if the conversion from one format to another affects image quality? If it does how much? I thing this should be the major issue to make you decide.

I have tried both RAWshooter essentials 2006 and premium but the results where quite disappointing especially the night shots with high ISOs. RS has a quite bad algorithm dealing with noise, a lot worse than PS's or Noise Ninja. I had taken a RAW shot with my Canon 350D and Sigma18-50 2.8EX with daylight, perfectly in focus but the fine details looked somehow worse than it came out of Photoshop CS2 ACR and Bibble. They looked kind overprossed and unnatural. Maybe they did that to reduce possible moir�?

Try Bibble Pro, it�s little harder to work with than RS in the beginning but gives better results.

I was desperately trying to find a lens cleaner (mostly for a liquid one) and

1) I couldn�t find any good one, only kits,

2) The opinions on the photo.net about liquid cleaners (even famous brands such as Kodak) were many times close to opposites applied on different lenses (comments on the learn area, cleaning lenses ets�),

3) My lens�s (Sigma 18-50 2.8 DC EX) brochure mentions: do not use organic liquids (such as alcohol, acetone etc.) but only lens tissues (which in my case left some tiny pieces of paper on the lens surface) and lens soft cloth.

So I visited more than 5-6 photographic stores asking when, one guy in one shop told me: �I don�t use liquid cleaners at all, usually the ruin the coatings so instead I clean all of my lenses (with gentle moves) with this microfiber lens cloth (DMC HIGHTECH Cleaner (5euro), it says CAMERA, LENS, FILTER, VIDEO�) after I use my breath to moisture the lens surface�.

It�s size is 260mm x 260mm

It sounds pretty weird but IT WORKS REALLY WELL! It really cleans any lens I have tried (Nikon kit 35-80 4-5.6, Canon FD 50 1.8 front and back, and my Sigma with the paper leftovers), this cloth can be washed too!

Before that try to use a lens blower.

If you still try, never put the fluid directly onto a lens.

Anyway I always use a UV filter attached to my lens not to worry all the time.