mike_earussi1

<p>The 16-50 is designed for compactness, not image quality. The various test I've seen show pretty bad corner performance. The older 18-55 is not as compact but is better optically and can be bought used on eBay for very little money. If you're fussy you'd probably be happier with that. But used K and M42 lenses can be bought pretty cheap. I have a lot of them for my a6000 and they work fine if you're not needing AF. </p>

<p>As a Rollei novice buying an unfamiliar camera can be more trouble than it's worth. As the others have pointed out there are many potential problems that it can have. I would suggest that you wait and save up for a Rollei that has already been CLA'd by a professional, or at least certified by the seller to be in perfect working condition with a good return policy.</p> <p>BTW, the Tessar is an excellent four element lens that is razor sharp in the center, but the corners don't usually become sharp until around f11. The five element Planars and Xenotars are much better corrected for corner sharpness, and consequently command a higher price. </p>

<p>Gloss shows more detail and has greater color saturation than matte or luster. Semi-gloss is sort of a compromise.</p> <p>Also the brand of paper makes a difference.<br> I've tested a lot of papers and prefer Innova Art's IFA 45 for semi-gloss paper due to its excellent dmax. Others prefer a Baryta, which is very nice too but has a delicate surface which scratches easily. But metallic has the most punch, especially a good one like Red River or Breathing Color.</p> <p>Matte paper is preferred by those who don't want any reflections interferring with the viewing of their photo. One of the best smooth matte papers is Canson's Infinity Rag Photographique, but there are also textured matte papers like Canson's Arches Aquarelle, which is a watercolor paper that has an inkjet receptive coating added. But matte papers should have a light protective coating sprayed on top to help with both handling and IR and water resistance. I use Hahnemuhle, but there are other brands as well. </p> <p>But if you enjoy experimenting you should buy some sample packs from the various manufactures and see which ones you like best.</p>

<p>Large format lenses have several drawbacks:<br> 1. their resolution is far lower than what's required for modern sensors (also they were designed to be used at f22 which causes a lot resolution loss via of diffraction).<br> 2. their image circle is so large that all that extra light inside your camera can cause a lot of flare.<br> 3. and I don't think there is any easy way of attaching them to your Sony mount</p> <p>Your best bet is to go with a good 35mm lens macro lens (1/2 life size is plenty for what you're wanting to do). The Nikon 200mm lens is supposed to be one of the best. But if economy is important to you then I've made decent pano stitched copies using a Tamron 500mm mirror lens in Adaptall 2 mount (which also sells for under $200). Just stand far enough away (I was about 10') and pan with the tripod head in the same way you'd make a infinity pano stitch. For smaller paintings it works pretty well, but the larger the painting the further away you need to be to prevent distortion.</p> <p>Also I assume you're aware of the very bad kick the A7R's focal plane shutter causes at slower shutter speeds, which destroys sharpness. This requires you to either use either flash or a very fast shutter speed (over 1/200 sec) or a very slow one (longer than one second) to prevent it. </p>

<p>It really depends on what the final use of your copy is. If just for the web or small prints then any decent 50mm+ macro lens should work fine for making a one shot image. But if you want to make large fine art prints then stitching would be better in order to capture the finest detail. And stitching requires a 90mm+ lens.</p> <p>I use a 90mm f2.5 Tamron macro with the Adaptall 2 mount, which is an excellent lens. They are readily available on eBay under $200. If you want (and can afford) the best then Sony's 90mm macro is supposed to be very good.</p>

<p>What do you think is wrong with what you've got? Unless you plan on handholding a lot of shots at high isos, a APS-C body should offer you the same image quality as a FF one (if the mp count is the same). And on a tripod at the lowest iso I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. </p> <p>If you think there's something wrong with your present resolution or sharpness, I'd suspect your current lens lineup (which is decent, but not up to professional standards) more than your body. My suggestion is to first buy professional grade lenses and see how they work on your T3 before worrying about replacing it. </p>

<p>Look for high quality photographs of the lens and good complete descriptions. I've sold many Pentax 67 lenses for a friend on eBay and unless they've been really abused are pretty tough.</p>

<p>Why buy new when used is so cheap? I recently sold a friends high quality LF lenses for him on eBay and was lucky to get 20% of the retail price for them.</p>

<p>I've used 3rd party batteries in all my cameras (of various brands, both cameras and batteries) and most have worked fine initially. But they are <em>cheap</em> 3rd party after all, and you do tend to get what you pay for. They usually don't last quite as long as manufacture's ones and I've had some fail to take a full charge after only a few months. I even had one that had the cells installed backwards (which I fixed by dismantling it and reversing them). But as a whole they still offer a much bigger bang for the buck than the official batteries, which is why photographers still buy them.</p> <p>My suggestion is to buy them but keep one eye on them and label each one (I label mine #1,2,3, etc. with a white paint pen) so if one does go bad it's easy to spot. </p>

<p>I guess because I sell large prints I don't mind if they want to print low resolution postcards of my work. At 300 dpi 900x1200 is just 3" x 4".</p>

<p>It's about time.</p>

<p>Online photos don't have to be very big and are always jpegs. I seldom post anything larger than 900x1200 (in the highest jpeg setting) because I want it to fit on most people's monitors. If you're worried just ask for the specific size they want, and if the request is much beyond the range I mentioned then ask I'd why. </p>

<p>AdobeRGB is like an intermediate color space, it's larger than sRGB but not as large as ProPhoto RGB. Most professionals now use ProPhoto RGB, as opposed to AdobeRGB, because it preserves the largest color gamut available. And even though it's impossible to see the full range of ProPhoto RGB on our present monitors, the extra colors can show up a little in the final print (the best printers are capable of printing a larger color gamut than the best monitors can show).</p> <p>I was curious myself about the difference regarding printing and made a comparison by printing the same raw file from both and the ProPhoto RGB did have a little better color range than the AdobeRGB. Try it for yourself and see.</p>

<p>I use expired ink that old (and older) in my two Epson 4800s all the time without problems. The key is to use the printer everyday, even if it's just a nozzle check, or the nozzles will block up. For heads that are badly blocked up, leaving the heads resting overnight on an alcohol soaked paper towel sometimes works (just put a catch basin or large rag underneath the head position as the ink has a tendency to leak out of the unblocked nozzles and will drip on the floor). </p>

<p>There's your problem. The 3rd party ink you're using probably isn't as good as Canon's ink, and matte paper doesn't have the gamut of glossy. Plus you probably don't have a profile for the ink/paper combination you're using, and without a profile there isn't much you can do, though perhaps switching to glossy paper might help some. And I'm assuming you also don't have a calibrated monitor. Without any of these the best you can do is trial and error (mostly error). </p>

<p>Gamut limitation varies with the printer, ink and paper you're using. For instance, as a rule matte paper and canvas have less gamut than glossy paper. But the gamut for glossy paper can also vary based on the type of glossy it is, such as RC vs 100% rag Baryta. This is why I originally asked you what printer, ink and paper you were using.<br> But in softproofing are you also checking the different settings like Saturation, Perceptual, and Relative Colorimetric? These settings will have an effect on the gamut. And again, softproofing is only valid if you first have a good profile and a calibrated monitor.</p>

<p>The Canon 10-18 looks good. Sigma even makes a 8-16, if you can afford it (or even find one in India). A lot of professional real estate photographers use panorama photography. It's very nice and professional looking but does require both specialized equipment and practice to get good results. </p> <p>For instance: http://www.seeit360.com/</p>

<p>I have tried using a 4x5 for macro work and it's never worked to my satisfaction due to dof problems. Stopping the lens down to f64 will introduce so much diffraction that you wind up losing whatever advantage in resolution you might have gained from shooting large format in the first place.</p> <p>The best way to shoot macro/micro is by using a digital camera and then using focus stacking. This is the only way I know of to have both high dof and high sharpness and resolution. </p>

<p>You don't mention what your color management system is. For instance, are you calibrating your monitor? Also what printer, ink, paper and profile are you using? And are you softproofing?</p>

<p>You need to answer several questions before someone can give you any solid advice:<br /> 1. what kind of monitor are you printing from, IPS or TN</p> <p><br /> 2. are you calibrating your monitor?<br> <br /> 3. what printer are you using?<br> <br /> 4. what paper are you using and where are you getting your paper profile from?<br> <br /> 5. what program are you printing from (Photoshop, Lightroom?)</p> <p><br /> For instance:<br /> 1. an IPS screen will produce a more color accurate picture than a TN screen.<br> <br /> 2. If you're not calibrating your monitor you're essentially wasting your time and money trying to print from it.</p> <p>3. most printers will produce a decent looking print, but it still helps to know what you're using. Also whether you're using the manufacturer's ink or 3rd party inks.<br> <br /> 4. cheap paper will produce cheap looking prints and an accurate paper profile is essential for an accurate print.<br> <br /> 5. professional programs will allow you to softproof whereas some cheaper ones may not.</p> <p>So if you're calibrating your monitor and then using an Epson printer with Epson inks on Epson paper and an Epson profile and softproofing you should be fine. But if you're not calibrating your monitor, using a HP printer with cheap 3rd party inks and printing on cheap Office Depot (or some other cheap brand) paper and not softproofing, there's no way you're going to get a decent looking print. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Unless you're wanting a fixed pancake type lens I don't think there is one. If you don't mind a fixed lens then there are several. I own the a6000 and if I wanted it pocketable I'd just put the Sony 16mm lens on it. But there are also other manual focus legacy pancake lenses available as well such as the Pentax 40mm. </p>

<p>I've tried over the years to reuse/replenish my chemistry but could never get consistent results. So my suggestion is to experiment with unimportant shots first, maybe a series of test shots, and see what kind of reuse/replenishment schedule works for you before trying it with important shots.</p> <p>But since I consider all my shots potentially important I just gave up reusing old chemistry and just use it single shot, figuring that the chemistry is cheaper than trying to retake my shots (which are usually one of a kind). </p>

<p>The larger the neg the higher the quality of the final print. Any print that's over 4x enlargment you can see the difference in neg size. I've shot 645, 6x6, 67, 69 and 4x5 and the wow factor really only comes with the 4x5 (unless you're just printing 11x14s).</p> <p>If you're wanting to stick to MF due to size considerations then the lightest and smallest 67 camera would be best. That would be the Mamiya 7 II, if money is no object. It also has the highest quality lenses ever made for MF.</p> <p>But if money is tight then you should buy the Koni-Omega with the 90mm lens. The lenses are almost as good as the Mamiya but are usually about 1/10 the price. It weighs a lot more, though.</p> <p>Also, always shoot landscapes using the slowest possible film and on a tripod if you're wanting the highest quality possible. Handholding is fine for sports, weddings, and anything else that moves, but unless you're just shooting for fun, using a tripod is the only way to shoot. </p>

<p>Micro focus adjustment is what's needed for your lens (there should be instructions in your manual). Put your camera on a tripod and focus on something with fine detail at your desired distance, then make a series of fine adjustments until you achieve maximum sharpness.</p> <p>But as others have mentioned, don't expect too much from that lens as it's not very sharp anyway wide open:</p> <p>http://www.lenstip.com/216.4-Lens_review-Canon_EF_50_mm_f_1.4_USM_Image_resolution.html</p> <p>For comparison look at the new Sigma 50 f1.4 A lens:</p> <p>http://www.lenstip.com/400.4-Lens_review-Sigma_A_50_mm_f_1.4_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html</p> <p>At $950 you get what you pay for. But even the older Sigma 50 f1.4 at $500 is sharper than your Canon:</p> <p>http://www.lenstip.com/177.4-Lens_review-Sigma_50_mm_f_1.4_EX_DG_HSM_Image_resolution.html</p> <p>So having good equipment does help, but the micro focus adjustment will maximize what you already have.</p>

<p>It's just out of focus. If you're consistently getting this result with this lens then the focus needs to be calibrated.</p>