ccrevasse

And if it matters, my camera is a 1Ds2.

I am not sure whether you are looking for a comparison between the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 24-70, but, if so, there have been many discussions comparing those two lenses. People fervently defend whatever they have chosen.

 

I have the Tamron 28-75. This is my second Tamron; I returned my first because it was blurry at large apertures. My good friend has the Canon 24-70. The Canon is significantly larger and heavier, but it focuses more quickly and quietly. The Tamron focus, however, has never been an issue for me. I have not directly compared the image quality between my Tamron and my friend's Canon, but I am pleased with my Tamron, and my friend is pleased with his Canon.

 

I also have the Canon 100/2.8 Macro and Canon 70-200/4L. The build quality of the Tamron is equal to that of the 100/2.8, and perhaps a notch below the 70-200. The Tamron focuses more quickly than the 100/2.8, and perhaps slightly more slowly than the 70-200. If it is possible to compare the image quality of the Tamron and my two Canons, I would say that the 100/2.8 is the sharpest, and sometimes I feel the Canons have a smoother tonal range than the Tamron. This perception could be imaginary.

Bill, my P-2000 will display jpg files which I edited and converted from RAW with ACR/CS2, although the metadata is limited and it will not display a histogram.

Greg, are you saying the mount between your camera and the Tamron was so loose it allowed grit to penetrate to your sensor? Or are you saying that grit could pass through the Tamron lens itself to the sensor? Either one is very difficult to believe.

Have you sharpened the JPEGs you converted from RAW? If not, that may explain the softness.

So I can do my sharpening to the in-Photoshop image designated cr2. Assuming the only thing left to do to a cr2 image is to sharpen it, is there any reason in terms of the quality of the image for printing purposes why one would want to save as JPEG or TIFF before sharpening, rather than sharpening before saving as JPEG or TIFF?

 

Thanks again for your help.

For clarification, here's my (flawed?) thinking and workflow which led to my question.

 

Last night I was working with RAW files, converting them to 8-bit JPEG for printing on a Frontier, applying my various sharpening actions, and then doing a final save. At some point I noticed I could crop the file while still in cr2 format, and save the cropped version to JPEG thereafter, without altering the original RAW file. Then I (inadvertently, to be honest) applied a lab sharpening action to a cr2 file I was working on. It appeared that PSCS chugged along and applied the desired sharpening to the cr2 file.

 

This got me thinking: multiple saves of a JPEG are a bad thing because each save causes additional data loss; the conversion from cr2 to JPEG is one save; saving my sharpening on the JPEG is a second save. For those files where I can complete all my desired adjustments and cropping in ACR, why not apply sharpening there, too, and avoid the second JPEG save? As suggested, I could convert to TIFF and apply my sharpening there before saving as JPEG, but that might be an unnecessary intermediate step.

 

To my knowledge, the original RAW file is not overwritten by anything I have described. So, (1) Can I apply sharpening (other than ACR sharpening) to my cr2 files? (2) If so, is that sharpening technique inferior to applying the same sharpening to a TIFF or JPEG?

 

Thanks, everyone.

When you open RAW files in Adobe Camera Raw, make exposure, etc.,

changes, and click on "OK," you are left with a file to which your

changes have been applied, but which still has a RAW file extension

(for instance, "cr2" in recent Canon models). Can you apply

Photoshop Unsharp Mask or other sharpening tools to the cr2 file

before converting to TIFF, JPEG, etc.? For those files which only

require some exposure tweaking and sharpening, I would like my last

step to be conversion to JPEG for printing, with no sharpening or

other editing after that point. Is this workable? Thanks.

"And of course when shooting any king of action or portrait and wanting to isolate the subject from its background - there is a big differemce in background blur between f/4 and f/2.8."

 

Actually, Schlomo, the difference in depth of field between f/2.8 and f/4 is not very great. For instance, according to Bob Atkin's DOF calculator, the DOF of a 100mm lens with a subject at 3 meters is 2.92 meters to 3.07 meters for f/2.8, and 2.90 meters to 3.10 meters for f/4.

I use and recommend the Epson P-2000. It is the same price as the Coolwalker but has a greater capacity, better display, and more features. Battery life is good, but I cannot comment on how rugged it is. Personally, I very much like the display feature, as it is fun to review and make an initial cut of each day's photos, especially on a screen as nice as the P-2000's. The P-2000 can download files directly from and to a computer, CF card, and SD card. It will store all types of files and will display thumbnails of most, including Canon RAW files. Most files, including JPEGs imbedded in RAW files, can be displayed full-screen; the only full-screen restriction is files above 8.8 mb (I believe). My one complaint with the P-2000 is that it renames files stored on it, except files stored in the "PC-Data" folder. For the moment, I am using that folder as my back-up hard drive to archive my images.

I attempted to calibrate my 17" Dell flat panel display with a

Monaco Optix XR, and received this message: "Your display device or

driver does not support color table correction." Does this mean my

display cannot be calibrated with the Monaco, or is there some work-

around? Thanks.

Does anyone know the processing parameters (tone curve, sharpness,

and contrast) for the "Standard" setting on the 1Ds II? Thanks.

To return to all 45 focus points, push the AF point selection button and rotate the main dial until the oval you first described appears. Half depress the shutter to engage all 45 focus points.

 

If you use the center focus point frequently, you can "register" that focus point (see pages 70-71 of the manual). Mine is registered with custom function 18-1 for quick access (page 71). To return to all 45 focus points from your registered AF point, you have to follow the process I described above. If there's a shortcut, I haven't found it.

Yes -- the SanDisk 12 in 1 reader works very well with my 2GB Extreme III CF and 1GB Extreme III SD cards. The reader is $30 at B&H.

You should at least take a look at the Epson P-2000, if you can find one. The P-2000 can replace a laptop, but is the size of a small paperback book. I find mine to be quite useful and well-designed, and the LCD screen is beautiful. If you want to be able to store, review, and edit many images on your travels, but want something compact, then the P-2000 is an excellent choice.

I just received an order of Fuji NPH and other film from Adorama.

Normally I order "imported" film (not intended for US markets), but,

having read here of potential risks with imported film, I decided to

order the slightly more expensive "USA" NPH. The NPH shipped to me,

however, has been removed from its boxes. This means (1) I cannot

tell if it is "USA" film and (2) more important, I do not know the

expiration date of the film. Setting aside the potentially devious

act by Adorama, here's my question: is there some way to tell from

the markings on the NPH canister whether it is "USA" film and what

the expiration date is?

keh.com has a Contax 139 in "excellent" condition for $225, and a Zeiss 50/1.4 in "excellent plus" condition for $225 (also available new from B&H for $275). While the total would be $50 over your proposed budget, you would have a simple, high quality package offering image quality at least as good as any 35mm equipment out there.

NPH, Reala, and whatever the Kodak 400-speed C41 B&W film is called. I haven't shot slides since the mid-80s, when I realized I had boxes and boxes of slides no one ever looked at, including me.

I don't know much about 120 or 220 film, but I assume your final results will depend on the method of printing and choice of paper, as it does with 35mm film. I print my UC400 and NPH through a Fuji Frontier on Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and I agree with your conclusions. NPH has rich yet natural colors, and a depth which is very appealing to me -- almost 3D, as you say. I definitely prefer it to UC400.

What funtions are lost (besides autofocus) with the Contax-EOS adapter?

I understand why everyone recommends the Stylus Epic for backpacking, but I have that camera and frankly don't like it. The autofocus is picky and hard to lock, the flash is worse than useless, and the controls are a PITA. I also don't like being limited to a 35mm focal length. The lens, however, is sharp, at least when focused properly, and the camera is compact, durable, and cheap.

 

For a point and shoot camera, I much prefer my Canon Sure Shot Classic 120 with a 38-120 zoom. It is superior to the Stylus Epic in every respect except that it's not made anymore. Maybe there are still some around. In my opinion, it's worth the search.

I bought my Zeiss 50/1.4 new in 1981. The aperture, distance, and depth of field numbers may be less bright, but they are still perfectly legible. Also, the black anodizing has worn off in places on the mount. Otherwise, the lens is as smooth and solid as the day I bought it. It is a great lens, and my favorite.

I would exclaim "Me God" or better yet "Me Gods."

Assuming the Rebel GII is like other recent Rebel cameras, the flash will pop up automatically when needed in the "PIC" modes, those indicated with symbols such as landscape, sports, portrait, etc. However, in the "Creative" modes, such as Av (aperture priority), Tv (shutter speed priority), and manual, the flash will pop up only when you push the flash button on the side of the camera. The camera will not attempt to fire the flash unless the flash is popped up.

 

This link may be helpful: http://www.eosdoc.com/manuals.asp

My guess is that, as with every other expensive brand for which there are less costly alternatives, 90% or more of Leica purchases are made by (1) connoisseurs of "good" equipment or (2) people seeking prestige.