micah_marty1

Lector caveo:

 

After 10 years(!), I figured I should update and moderate my dated and intemperate remarks above (my only excuses are that it was the early days of photo.net - it felt like there were about 10 of us chatting with each other - and Winter 1998 was a particularly frustrating time in my career).

 

I have frequently done business with B&H in the ensuing decade - a little too frequently, my better half might say - and have corresponded with Mr. Posner on much friendlier terms.

 

While I don't "endorse" any companies, I feel compelled to note for the record that my many orders with B&H since 1998 have been almost entirely trouble-free, with B&H quickly making good on the few exceptions. I have heard others say that B&H has improved greatly in the past 10 years and that my negative experience (recounted in excruciatingly boring detail above) would not have been unheard of in the 1990s but definitely would be anomalous today. I cannot speak for others, but that characterization is certainly accurate with regard to my experience.

 

I would not want anyone to read this thread and leave with the impression that B&H is anything other than a highly reputable firm. Not that they need a good word from me: their rating at resellerrattings.com and elsewhere - and the reliance on them by professional photographers around the world - speaks for itself.

 

With apologies to the folks at B&H - and to the reader - for my intemperance...

 

Micah

Mario, yes, you are correct that no one has come close to Fuji in this realm, basically because there doesn't seem to be much of a market for clean low-light performance in point-and-shoot cameras.

 

The F30 and the F31 are the only digital cameras I've ever seen that have actually *increased* in value after being discontinued, and yesterday I made note of that in a little piece on four of the Fujis (F10, F30, F31, and F50) at TOP:

 

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html

 

(To see the item, scroll down - or go back in the monthly archives if you're reading this after Jan. 1 - to Saturday, December 22, 2007.)

 

Assuming you don't want to pay $350-500 for the F30/31 on eBay, the first camera in the series, the F10, actually acquits itself very well, especially for the price ($120 new these days on eBay). And as dpreview noted, the F50 is still better than most cameras in its class (and at $228 right now at B&H, it's a very good deal).

 

But alas, both of those cameras are at least one stop noisier than the F30 and F31.

 

As others have noted, for non-low-light use other cameras can do at least as well as the Fujis do.

P.S. I suppose the most telling change is that with the F30/31 I often set the ISO on 800 (F30) and Auto800 (F31), while with the F50 I wince a little bit even putting it at Auto400.

"Does your F50 look noticeably soft in the corners, particularly when shooting in bright light, focused to infinity?"

 

Yes, although not consistently so. I'm trying to figure out what it's doing, as sometimes it's one corner more than the others. (I shoot it mostly indoors, so I don't have a lot of infinity shots to scrutinize.)

 

I like the F50's feature set and interface fine (though I'm not sure I'm getting two stops of IS), but I wish Fuji had just put those features with the F30/31 sensor and processor; they really blew it in doubling the megapixels. With any enlargement at all the images look really smeary to me, at 6mp or 12mp; to my eye there is both more noise and uglier noise than with the F30/31 (and about the same amount of noise as the F10, but it's less attractive in the F50 because of over-processing).

 

I guess I'd say that the F50 is fine for a snapshot camera, so that's primarily how I'll use it. But I'm urging any friends who might be characterized as "advanced photographers" to avoid it and buy an F31 while they still can. (Could the F30/31 be a "cult camera" already? Who would have thought that so early in the digital era photographers would be buying discontinued cameras to get better IQ than the newest models have?). The F30 was probably the best; the processing was just starting to get a bit heavy-handed in the F31 -- as shown in the comparison crops in dpreview's review of the F31 -- but those two cameras are very close to each other at ISO 800, with the F50 far behind. (I bought the F50 after dropping my F31 to the pavement, resulting in a huge crack down the middle of every image. Interesting compositional challenge, that.)

 

It's too bad that manufacturers have to play the more-megapixels-is-better game. Advanced photographers' search for a high-quality low-light-capable pocket digital camera will continue, but probably without Fuji as a serious player from now on. That's a real shame, as Fuji was the industry leader in that category for a couple of years there....

OK, Jeff, thanks for that; it's very helpful. Interestingly, the 4gb SD generics (presumably not "HC" since they're not labeled that way!) work fine - writing and formatting - in three Canon point-and-shoots, but in a 1DsII they'll write but not reformat; your post explains why this is probably true.

 

UPDATE: I found a 2gb SanDisk (non-HC) SD card by scrounging through sofa cushions etc. and it worked fine in the F50, both reading and reformatting.

 

I don't have any other SD cards to try in the F50 (to see whether the "Card Error" alert was a matter of card brands or a matter of 4gb non-HC). But unless other owners have problems with SD cards below 2gb or SDHC cards above 2gb, I'll assume it's a matter of card "type" (HC vs. plain above 2gb) instead of "brand," for the reason Jeff noted.

 

Good camera, by the way, but if you have an F30 or F31 and like to shoot in low-light, don't trade in for an F50; it looks to me to be about a stop noisier than those two cameras.

Here's what the Fuji F50 manual says about memory cards:

 

"You can use an xD Picture Card and [they mean "or," as there's only one card slot] an SD Memory Card.

 

"SD Memory Cards/SDHC Memory Cards - They are operation-checked at Fujifilm Corporation. Manufacturer: SanDisk

 

"Compatible models will be updated on our website: http:www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras.html "

 

[That link did not work for me; when I went to the Fujifilm products page and typed "SD card" in the search box, it brought up the promo pages for the F50 - including the note that it accepts SD and SDHC cards - but contained no technical info. A Support search on the Fuji site yielded nothing either.]

 

I have no idea why they say "Manufacturer: SanDisk," as that appears nowhere else in any literature or technical information that I can find...

I hesitate to say anything because I may have an anomalous situation, but...

 

My Fuji F50 won't read the three SD cards I've tried in it (the F50 is the

first camera in this series that takes SD cards in addition to the dead-end xD

card format). The camera works fine with my xD cards from earlier Fujis, and

the generic brand (Transcend) 4gb SD cards I've tried to no avail in the F50

work fine in various other cameras. So it doesn't seem to be a faulty camera

or faulty cards but rather a compatibility issue.

 

The F50 says "Card Error" both when it is turned on after the SD card is

inserted and after I try to format that SD card. Again, it works fine with xD

cards.

 

I'm posting this to check whether the F50 is picky about the brand of its SD

cards, because that could be a budget consideration for others looking at

buying this camera.

 

Has anyone else had positive or negative experience with SD cards in the F50?

If so, which brand of cards worked or didn't? To keep this post from becoming

too long, I'll post the owner's manual's take on the matter below.

Don't know whether it's helpful, but TrustImage has a little bit more on data verification here:

 

http://trustimage.org/more/onVerification.html

 

...and there's a little bit on the verification process's effect on write speed in #6 on this page:

 

http://trustimage.org/dvo.html

 

(Links to Canon's and Nikon's press releases re: their verification kits are just above the "Postscript" near the bottom of that second linked page.)

 

As far as whether the usefulness of data verification is limited largely to "legal/forensics/evidence type situations," data-verifiable originals could be useful in proving to skeptics what was and wasn't done to ANY remarkable photo, of any subject, for example this one here:

 

http://www.madmariner.com/seamanship/piloting/story/FALLING_BOAT_PHOTOS_F_081007_SP

 

(How the data-verifiable original of an impressive photograph could be made available for scrutiny by skeptics is discussed in #5 on that http://trustimage.org/dvo.html page.)

I paid Canon about $180 to replace a scratched filter on a 1DsII.

 

Here's the thread to which I believe Bob was referring:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DeSk

In a post below (on the Sony R1) the OP was criticized by one

respondent for saying that he doesn't want to be a "post-production

slave."

 

I've observed that the amount of work done to digital photographs in

Photoshop is sometimes worn as a badge of honor, as though "serious"

photographers are only as good as the amount of time they spend

using Photoshop. (I used to run into the same attitude among my

fellow large-format photographers: "You can't be a 'serious'

photographer if you don't develop your own film!")

 

But I wonder whether there aren't other "serious" photographers in

the digital age who (like their slide-shooting predecessors in the

film age) do not spend a lot of time fussing over individual

photographs after the shutter is closed -- not because they can't

but because they don't want to. (I have and know well PSCS2, but I

try to spend no more than a minute or two post-processing my own

photographs, including those that are published; I simply don't

enjoy the process.)

 

Obviously many digital photographers like post-production work: one

person on photo.net recently bragged that he spends "far more time

using Photoshop than [he] spends out taking photographs." But it

seems that there must be others who like me aren't enamored of the

computer stages of the photographic process.

 

To each his or her own, I say; there is no "right" or "wrong" answer

as long as the photographer is producing photographs that achieve

the desired goal. Or am I off-base?

 

(Moderator, feel free to kill this thread rather than move it to a

forum where no one will see it.)

Do you know for sure that the sensor is damaged and not the filter in front of it?

 

I scratched the "sensor" on my Canon DSLR (was doing a dusty project that meant cleaning the sensor more than once a day -- God speed the day when Canon addresses the "dust removal" issue) and although I knew that only the filter in front of the sensor was scratched I feared the expense. Canon charged something like $180 to replace the scratched part, including return shipping of the camera to me. Very fair, I thought.

 

Now if I can just jerry-rig an Olympus anti-shake device in the camera, I'll never sweat it again. . . .

I'm really baffled why people who don't subscribe get to participate on the same level as those who do; it always seemed to me that "guests" should get perhaps three posts and after that they're observers unless they subscribe.

 

Even students will find that a year's subscription costs them less than a single book (and less than they would have spent on two rolls of film and processing), and it's not as though observers can't have access to all of the information that is shared here. And, with three free posts, newcomers with a burning equipment question -- most of which seem to have answers in the archives -- would still have three opportunities to ask it.

 

A couple of weeks ago I saw someone with a name something like "KAA" not only diss a well-meaning subscriber who was trying to recruit others to join, but actually give tips on how non-subscribers can tweak their browsers to minimize the number of ads they see here. To me that just doesn't seem right. (All non-subscribers who want to do that tweak, just do a search right now for that thread.)

 

Or would the site just die off if the rule was "X number of posts and then you can watch all you want until you pay"? I'd be curious to know what others think.

As noted above, how one carries oneself (and one's camera) is probably the biggest factor.

 

Making the lens itself less obtrusive doesn't hurt either: I often think Leica users are flattering themselves when they think people a block away are lusting after their cameras, but I've had ample experience with even casual snapshooters coming across the street to say, "Ooh, a white lens!" (I guess Canon's advertising is having an effect.)

 

Ignoring advice that the white paint is an anti-heat measure (not my experience, but I avoid hot climes), I looked into having my 70-200/IS repainted charcoal or black; it was just too risky that overspray would get inside. So instead, I keep the lens almost completely covered in black gaffers' tape (including over the distance window, which I don't use, and over the controls, which are easily bumped and which I don't change often anyway).

 

Gaffers' tape has a decent feel (no worse than painted metal to me) and is preferred over duct tape etc. because it doesn't leave a gummy residue after removal. A good brand won't make your hands black (if link doesn't work, at calumetphoto.com go to studio>disposables):

 

http://www.calumetphoto.com/ctl?PAGE=Controller&ac.ui.pn=cat.CatItemDetail&ac.item.itemNo=TA7000&ac.cat.CatTree.detail=y&type=PRDINDEX

 

Not a solution for everyone, but to me every bit helps. Fwiw, one can easily tear the 1" tape the long way (when removing it from the roll) to cover rings on the lens that are less than 1" wide.

 

When shooting PJ style, of course, the tripod ring is off, but for times I have to walk around with it on, I substituted the black tripod ring from the 100macro for the white ring that came with the 70-200.

 

I also leave the massive lenshood off when photographing people (near or far), reserving it for nature and architecture.

 

Nice pun on "cannon," btw.

Oops! The third link above needs an "html" on the end:

 

http://trustimage.org/more/noteQ3.html

 

Sorry 'bout that!

Photographers often are chagrined or disappointed to learn that when they combine

multiple exposures or perform other content manipulations, the result may not be

regarded on an equal footing as photographs that did NOT undergo content

manipulations. Perhaps this explains the harsh tone of the previous post.

 

Still, there are so many innuendoes and misconceptions in the post that one can only

conclude that its author did not bother to visit trustimage.org website. (Most of the

angriest judgments about TrustImage come from those who are unwilling to spend 2 or 3

minutes learning what it's about.)

 

Let's look at six(!) misconceptions among the previous poster's four paragraphs, and at

what the TrustImage website actually says:

 

1. "[TrustImage] says my images can't be trusted" -- Where does TrustImage say this? The

page

 

http://trustimage.org/more/onTrustworthiness.html

 

addresses this concern head-on. (Summary: "No need to get defensive!")

 

2. "Maybe it's this 'let's carefully define a trusted image so that everything Ansel produced

passes' mentality..." -- Hmm, let's see. On the page

 

http://trustimage.org/more/famous.html

 

which lists dozens of "world-famous

photographers who have each made thousands of photographs that would each meet

TrustImage's three qualifications," Ansel Adams is the *only* photographer singled out as

an example of a photographer who "created a significant number of photographs that

would NOT qualify as TrustImage."

 

3. "It looks like another instance where there are too many lawyers and not enough

engineers" -- Not sure what this means, but TrustImage was created by photographers,

for photographers, and the TrustImage website has been vetted by numerous high-level

photojournalists and photo editors at major newspapers. (Frankly, it's hard to think of any

non-photographers who would be able to write in such depth about the technical aspects

of photography.)

 

4. "500 web-pages and not even a hint of an objective, formal, proof process?" -- If this is

supposed to refer to a quest for an easy way of checking photographs, TrustImage

prominently offers its 5-point checklist at

 

http://trustimage.org/more/checklist.html

 

On the other hand, if the poster is searching for "objective" standards, perhaps he should

be an engineer or a

lawyer, not a photographer. See

 

http://trustimage.org/more/noteQ3

 

for more on how all photographs are subjective.

 

5. "More and more, it looks like a marketing gimmick/scam than anything else." -- Um,

Hello? TrustImage is FREE, as the Home page makes crystal clear. Where exactly is the

money going to be coming from? ("Yup, those ruthless nonprofits, raking in the money by

hosting ad-free websites and never charging a penny!")

 

6. "A book is coming? Why am I not surprised?" -- Again, the point is unclear here. We are

talking with several photographers (some prominent, some not) about forthcoming books,

at least one of which will likely use the TrustImage label (there seems to be no downside in

having publishers use TrustImage). Why is this objectionable? Any photographer is free to

use TrustImage (in a book or elsewhere), there's no money to be made from using the

TrustImage label (it's free, remember?), and there are never licensing fees for using

TrustImage (in a book or anywhere else). So where exactly does the "scam" come in?

 

Enough examples; addressing critics who don't take the time to read the TrustImage

website is very time-consuming. TrustImage speaks for itself, but only to those who

approach it with an open mind.

 

We welcome constructive criticism (much of the site has been improved that way!). Our

only request is that critics actually bother to *read* the few pages we currently have

posted at

 

http://trustimage.org

 

Thank you.

TrustImage (formerly FoundView) is pretty low-key at the moment; we're rewriting the

entire site in preparation

for the first book of TrustImage-labeled photographs (which is still more than a year from

publication) and after that you may hear more about it. The next year might be pretty

quiet, but with every Martha-Stewart-Newsweek manipulated-cover controversy, more

members of the general public

"get" what TrustImage is about so in a couple of years, who knows?

 

There are a lot of misconceptions about TrustImage. Some of them are expressed above;

others of them are holdovers -- now corrected -- from FoundView (as one poster

said, we haven't been real aggressive about marketing, as we're waiting for the first of

several books of TrustImage-labeled photographs to come out over the next 2-3 years).

 

For example, far from being esoteric, antiquated, or out-of-touch, TrustImage pretty

much

summarizes the guidelines of almost every photo contest and magazine that limits

manipulation in submitted photos ("Nature's Best" submissions, "Smithsonian" magazine

photo contest entries,

etc.).

 

But it's simply not worth expending the energy addressing those misconceptions until all

600 pages of the website are back up, and that'll be awhile yet. (It's a very large website,

and every word is being scrutinized for defensibility.)

 

We still think TrustImage is ahead of its time; click on "Further Reading" at the bottom of

the page linked below and then on "Growth Expectations" if you care.

 

We left a few pages up during reconstruction for those who want to know the basics:

 

http://trustimage.org

 

Thanks--

 

Micah Marty for TrustImage.org

<p>Since I posted the announcement about

<a href="http://trustimage.org">TrustImage.org</a> in photo.net's

Unarchived forum this morning, two Canon users have e-mailed to ask

whether the TrustImage site is referring to Canon when it says that

“There are currently three cameras (all from the same

manufacturer)

that can write <strong><a href="http://trustimage.org/dvo.html">

data-verifiable

originals</a></strong> in-camera, including the third-cheapest digital

SLR on the market.”</p>

<p>The answer is Yes, this is a reference

to Canon: the feature is currently available on the 1D (MkII),

1Ds, and the 20D. Canon is not singled out by name on the

TrustImage.org

website because TrustImage is a nonprofit with no commercial

affiliations

and because TrustImage photographs can be made by “any

photographer,

at any level, using any camera.” </p>

<p>(A dvo is NEVER a prerequisite

for labeling a photograph as TrustImage. However, a dvo can obviously

come in handy for comparison purposes anytime viewers are skeptical

about

how much a photograph has been changed, as explained in

TrustImage's

<a href="http://trustimage.org/dvo.html">summary</a> of dvo's.

I personally have Canon’s data-verification feature "On"

when shooting any photograph that may get published and/or labeled

TrustImage.)</p>

<p>Other references to dvo's are linked in TrustImage’s

alphabetical

<a href="http://trustimage.org/azIndex.html">Index</a>.

For those unfamiliar with Canon’s Data Verification feature, a

short summary can be accessed at <a href="http://

www.dpreview.com/news/0401/04012903canondvke2.asp">

dpreview</a>.

</p>

I'm the poster who asked a similar question last month:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007dWW

 

I should add that my wish to modify the lens was for the 90mm, not the 24mm,

where depth-of-field is not nearly as much of an issue, especially at f8 or f11,

as one poster noted above. With the 90mm (and, when part of the subject is

fairly close, even with the 45mm), tilt/swing can be very useful when shooting

in the city.

 

If I could only have them one way, and/or if the lens in question is the 24mm

and not either of the two longer ones, I think having both movements in the

same axis (NOT as they are shipped from Canon) is most desirable -- for

shooting a field of flowers "from here to the horizon," for example.

 

For architecture, however, especially with the longer lenses, I do prefer the

stock (perpendicular) setup.

I've seen several threads and reviews in which users of these lenses said,

"Putting the tilt and shift on the same axis looks like it's just a matter of

removing four screws, rotating the back of the lens 90 degrees, and

reinserting the four screws." But the four screws are not in an axially

symmetric pattern, suggesting that it might be a little more complicated than

that. In other words, has anybody actually done the modification themselves?

 

I ask because I find myself wanting the tilt and shift set up both ways far too

often to keep sending the lenses to Canon to have them switched back and

forth:

 

--For landscape photography, it's handiest to have shift ("rise," technically

speaking) and tilt in the same axis.

 

--For architectural work, on the other hand, it's handiest to have rise and tilt

("swing," technically speaking) at right angles to each other (think of

photographing a tall building facade from an angle).

 

Anybody know of a thread or website where the modification is explained?

I've got the lenses and I've got the teeny screwdrivers; should I take the

plunge? (Please, no smart aleck suggestions about buying more lenses or

buying a view camera; I already have plenty of both.) Thanks for suggestions.

I should clarify: the camera is a 1Ds, and the cable is firewire, not USB. Again, it looks like standard firewire and I'd love to swap it with a 3-footer (or even shorter), but I'm leery of using non-OEM stuff ever since I fried a 1GB microdrive in a third-party card reader (use of which is, according to Canon, supposed to be OK). Thanks. . . .

1. Is it ok to use another cable for file transfer besides the one

provided by Canon (which looks like standard firewire)? The manual

says something like "You will be shot if you don't use the provided

cable," but it's about 10 feet long; needlessly bulky and heavy, esp.

for travel.

 

2. In the Canon File Viewer Utility program, I can't get the

"Model-specific processing mode" box (center of second toolbar from

the top) to show the camera model. It used to, but now it only shows

"Common processing" and no other options. I've tried it with the

camera connected, without, with files on the hard drive, with files

on the microdrive, etc., etc., but nothing gets back the option of

switching it to the model number (and yes, it fully interacts with the

camera, including setting Personal Functions). I'm sure I'm

overlooking something minor; help, anyone?

 

Thanks. . . .

I got a friendly email today from an editor at B&W magazine:

 

"We should probably make clear that our announcement to stick

with 'traditional' photography stands. Prior to making this

decision, we had already committed to Neil Folberg, and we

wanted to honor this obligation."

 

(She also reiterated that the magazine has nothing against

digital, only that they want to address the traditional-photography

segment of the art world.)

 

So there 'tis. I thank her for the clarification.

"Micah, I can't help but think that you, and a few others, would like

to see them change it."

 

Sorry if I gave that impression. I shoot only film, do only contact

printing (8x10 and above) and old-fashioned darkroom-style

enlarging (4x5 and under), and scan when necessary only for

publication. So I'm not exactly Mr. Digital, though I have nothing

against it and will eventually move in that direction.

 

I tried to be neutral in this thread and the one in March

(referenced above). My main interest in posting both of them was

(a) figuring out what it is about digital that bothers people so

much when they draw a line in the sand (as B&W did in April)

saying "No digital for me!" (it's often an objection to "digital

manipulation," though that's obviously not an issue in B&W's

case) and (b) exploring the ramifications of digital vis-a-vis fine

art prints (e.g., when you can make hundreds of identical copies

with little more effort than making one or two, what does it do to

the perception and value of the print? If "darkroom time" is no

longer an issue in the making of each additional print, should

the photographer only make 10 digital-based prints of an image

instead of 100, so that the "rarity" of each will drive up the price?).

 

That's what I was curious about.

A follow-up to an earlier thread posted in March

(http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003EuS):

 

In its latest issue B&W magazine features the digital composites of

Neil Folberg (see his work at www.neilfolberg.com; click on the

"Celestial Nights" link and then on "The photographs").

 

I think it's interesting that the publisher of B&W presents this work

so soon after his strong comments in the April issue ("I'm a

traditionalist, in awe of old-fashioned craftsmanship . . . Digital

represents an element of _modern technology_ while Conventional

represents _craftsmanship_.")

 

Granted, B&W could defend its position by saying that at least one

stage of Folberg's photographs--the prints--are done Conventionally,

but if that's only a matter of churning out identical prints based on

a perfected digital-composite file, the phrase "Old-fashioned" doesn't

come immediately to mind.

 

I'm not criticizing the change in editorial policy on B&W's part, but

merely noting how quickly the magazine's purist position proved to be

untenable.

 

Fwiw....

Yes, apparently, although of course it'll cost you. Fuji claims that

they make Provia F in 11x14 and it's supposed to be available by

special order at B&H (I think I called almost every camera store and

regional Fuji rep in the US before I found an answer--which even then

wasn't really convincing). There's a special order film guy at B&H

(alas, I can't remember his name) who when I asked about the Provia

quoted a price that was more than I wanted to pay at the time (I

believe it was around $200 per 10-sheet box). I can't remember if

there was a minimum order, but it was nothing like the 300 cases or

whatever you hear about sometimes.

 

You might also contact freestyle in California. I got from them on

clearance a bunch of Fuji 64Tungsten for about $40 per box of 10,

which I figured I'd filter for daylight. I think they were

discontinuing it so they may be out but it's worth a try. I also have

9 boxes left that I probably won't use (developing's a bear); contact

me if interested.

 

I don't know that there are any negative films available in 11x14, but

since Portra 400NC is available in 20x24 you'd think you could find

that in 11x14. Good luck. . . .