robert_ades1

<p>I'm considering buying a Contax G2 after becoming interested in shooting film again. I read that Contax committed to offering parts only until 2015 and am trying to get a little more information on the reality and wisdom of owning a camera with no manufacturer support<br>

Basically, how likely are there to be available parts and how easily are they to get in the US? I'd like to think I can get five years of use from the gear. Is this feasible?<br>

When buying used, are there any particular things to watch for? I'd probably buy from KEH rather than eBay.<br>

Thank you,<br />Robert Ades</p>

<p> </p>

<p>But have you done an actual comparison of the print quality between the two printers, or do you know someone who has?<br>

Btw, based on the pricing of ink, it does not appear that the cost to use the printer is really any less than with the R2400.</p>

<p>I'm thinking about upgrading from the R2400 to the R3000 and would appreciate hearing comments from those who have done this.<br>

I print both color and B&W, not in any kind of volume. I'd be interested to know if the print quality is really any better, or if there are any specific features that might make the upgrade compelling.<br>

Epson just announced a $200 rebate, bringing the price below $600 at Atlex.<br>

Thanks in advance,<br />Robert Ades</p>

<p>As one who used to shoot Nikon, and now uses Canon, I really appreciate the availability of f/4 zoom lenses. I truly missed Nikon's old moderately priced, constant aperture lenses. </p>

<p>The problem that I see in Nikon is lack of identity: it is not always easy to identify a pro lens from a consumer lens, except perhaps with that gold band. OTOH, with Canon, there are "L" lenses and non-"L' lenses, and the delineation is very clear. Canon has also managed to remain more consistent with their lens line -- all EF lenses work with all bodies produced since the late '80s, which is a real plus. </p>

<p>Thank you, Sheldon and Brooks. I wanted to make sure that the replacement monitor was at least as the old one. It appears to be the case.</p>

<p>-Robert</p>

<p>Is that a good thing?</p>

<p>Correction to the second sentence: I note that the 2408 does NOT have the "HC" in its name.</p>

<p>Sorry for the typo.</p>

<p>-Robert</p>

<p>Dell is replacing my 2407 with a 2408 under warranty (the USB hub went bad). I note that the 2408 does have the "HC" in its name. </p>

<p>In terms of calibrating a 2408 for photo editing, am I giving anything up relative to the 2407? I'm particularly concerned about the color gamut. Stated differently, is the 2408 just as good (or better) than the predecessor?</p>

<p>Thank you,<br>

Robert Ades</p>

<p>Alan, I checked out Eric's website. Do you think a profile written for the 3800 will work on a 2400? </p>

<p>Patrick, would you elaborate on your experience using this method? </p>

<p>Jim, I already know about custom profiles and have used them with great success when necessary.<br>

My question pertains to ABM, and whether it will render better results when printing on Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, than using the profile provided by Ilford.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Simple question here: I use Lightroom 2.0 (Windows) and I've downloaded and installed Ilford's profile for this printer/paper combination. Color prints work fine. Monitor is calibrated.<br>

For B&W work, do I forgo Epson's ABM (Advanced Black and While Management) and let Lightroom do the color management, or do I switch it off, and use ABM?<br>

Which yields to most consistent, accurate results?<br>

Thank you,<br>

Robert ADes</p>

 

<p>Actually, I shot all the birthing sequences with a borrowed 17-40L, which really came in handy. I wanted to catch the environment at 17mm, and I knew at 40 would suffice for closeups . This one was taken by the anesthesiologist, so I'm not sure what focal length was used.<br>

You're correct, this was taken at ISO 1600. Incredibly subtle noise, I must say.<br>

I have to acknowledge those who recommended smaller gear. Had my wife gone through with a vaginal delivery, she would have rammed that camera right up my a## if I'd used it.<br>

Lauren is a doll (isn't everyone's newborn?). I'm just getting used to parenthood.</p>

<p>I thought I'd follow up.<br>

My daughter Lauren was born on 3/20/09. I had a Panasonic LX3 on order, or rather, back order, for months and I got tired of waiting. <br>

Running out of time, I noticed that Adorama was selling refurbished Canon 5Ds for $1,399 and I snapped one up. I wanted one of these for years and the opportunity was right.<br>

It was a good move, as I kept it as out of the way as possible. I'm glad I went in this direction -- the quality of the pictures I got of my newborn's first four days of life is really great.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's the 50mm shot at f/2.0</p><div></div>

<p>Okay, I did a little follow up work. I disabled the expanded setting and retried the testing. This time, I used the 50mm at f/1.4, f/2.0 and f/2.8. Then, I used the 24-105L, at 105mm, at f/4.0 and f/5.6.<br>

The tripod was steady, but the results are a little mixed:<br>

With the 50mm at f/1.4 and f/2.0, the images still appear a bit front focused, but at f/2.8 where the DOF expands a bit, the point of sharpest focus seems to coincide with the focus sensor.<br>

With the 24-105, at both f/stops, the point of sharpest focus seems to be the focus sensor, although the DOF is a little broader, making it harder to tell.<br>

So, this begs an interesting question: Why does the lens make a difference when the focus sensor is in the body? Or rather, how do you calibrate a lens?</p>

<p>All good answers, thank you. Yes, I do have the camera set to "expanded", however I was using one-shot AI focus. My sense is not there there's front or back focus, but that the focus sensor is misaligned with the mark in the viewfinder. I'll have to test this some more, as was suggested.</p>

<p>What I cannot understand is what a lens has to do with it. If the camera body is driving the lens focus motor until satisfactory focus is observed inside the camera, how can a particular lens mislead the camera?</p>

<p>Sure, at f/5.6 and 20 feet, focus should be dead on. But, I may also be shooting someone's eyes, or a strand of hair, where imprecise focus can ruin a photograph.<br>

This camera is expensive, and returnable. I simply want to know if it is functioning within normal operating parameters</p>

<p>I just received a refurb 5D from Adorama today. In testing it out, I'm observing some apparent front focusing issues. Am I expecting too much, or is there a problem.<br /> <br /> This cropped shot was taken at ISO 200, 50mm Canon f/1.4, at f/1.4, tripod mounted, in Raw, converted in LR 2.3. Firmware is 1.1.1. It was taken to test the accuracy of the AF detection system.<br /> <br /> The number "24" filled the center the viewfinder focus square, and should have been the point of accurate focus. The arrow is pointing to the sharpest point in the image, sits outside the CF square, but inside the spot metering circle.<br /> <br /> My question: Is this a typical miscalibration issue or am I expecting too much?<br /> --<br /> ----------------<br /> Robert A<br /> Canon 20D</p><div></div>

<p>Ben, I'm thinking of packing an LX-3. It's totally quiet, a backs up to 24mm at F2.0.</p>

<p>Martyn, that's a wonderful shot; the reason I want a camera there.</p>

<p>Believe me, my wife wishes will definitely come first, esepcially in labor and delivery. <br>

FWIW, what I'm really interested in photographing is the baby after it comes out, or the baby and mother bonding for the first time. If I have a chance to get anything else and it doesn't intrude or distract, I'd like to do so if possible.</p>

<p>Thank you, Katherine. Based on your posting, and everyone else's, it looks like the LX-3, which is a good low-light P&S might be good (24-60mm, f2.0-2.8, RAW) for discrete shots. If there's a C-section, I can just reach over the curtain and grap a few quickies.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I'll pack the 20D with my 24-105L and see about a fast prime for taking pictures of the baby post-birth.</p>

<p>Then, perhaps in the spring, I'll explore a 5D when prices have hopefully softened a bit. I was thinking that the shutter of that large mirror might be too much in labor and delivery.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone. You're all so right about your advice.<br>

Allow me to shift slightly to post-birth -- I mean, out of the hospital and back home: The first year of life.<br>

How important is video relative to better still gear? Looking back, do you treasure the video, or do you place greater value on the satisfaction and emotion of great still photographs?</p>

<p>Doug, I didn't understand your first line -- Normal 0 false false false -- could you explain?<br>

FWIW, this will be our only child. Due to our ages, a 2nd is highly unlikely.</p>

<p><strong>Thomas, </strong> I am concerned about missing the moments by having a camera up to my face. But why is still photography any different than video in this regard? I may get a Panasonic LX-3 because it's so stealthy and doesn't need to be held up to my eye. (In the end, I may be too overwhelmed to take any shot)</p>

<p><strong>Lucasz</strong> , yes my wife and I have discussed it extensively. I know her concerns and I've promised that any photography will take second place to my role as her partner. Moreover, I won't photograph anything overly sensitive. I do, however, want to capture the baby -- both right after birth and throughout her development.</p>

<p>To <strong>Rob</strong> , the last time I did this for a friend, I shot on T-Max 3200 at 1600, and a 24mm f/2.8 lens. In retospect, it was a little too wide, and I'd probably opt for a 35mm f2.0 on a FF body and keep my 24-105L nearby.</p>