danielleetaylor

October 6, 2014

Not at all. Orphaned does not equal worthless and/or useless.

Not at all. But the 35mm CoolScans are going for $250-$500 on eBay. The MF one for $1,000. If there were parts and service, fine, but when there's not...that is a gamble.

If you already have a DSLR or mirrorless camera, you can get a macro lens (dual use), light box, and copy stand for those prices. Once setup that might actually be faster to work with, and it's not limited to 35mm.

I'm not saying no one should ever buy another CoolScan. Just pointing out the options.

October 6, 2014

They have not produced an sensor with the dynamic range of film yet.

</blockquote>

Imatest shows current DSLRs at 12.5-13.5 stops. That's equal to or better then Portra.

Matching the human eye? I think that will require sensors that read out 2-3 frames in one exposure. Either read rows at different ISOs while sacrificing some resolution (Magic Lantern can do this now), or read out the sensor electronically 2-3 times at different ISOs while the shutter is open.

October 3, 2014

The fact Nikon doesn't manufacture Coolscans anymore does not mean that they are not still as good as they were when Nikon still did.

With no service or parts support, it does if you buy a used one and it breaks. I'm not saying to not buy one at the right price, but...if you have a DSLR or MILC and macro lens, the addition of a copy stand and a light box will do as good if not better.

October 3, 2014

I doubt any scanner available today...save a $13k Flextight...is as good as the CoolScan was in terms of IQ. But the CoolScan is an old machine with no support.

A DSLR, macro lens, and light box can be used to produce very high quality scans. With a good copy stand it might even be faster then a CoolScan.

http://petapixel.com/2012/12/23/why-you-should-digitize-your-film-using-a-camera-instead-of-a-scanner/

September 14, 2013

Of course the final argument (and one that applies to cars, too) is that a bigger, badder camera is better at attracting women. With that I agree, and have to point out that that is something Rockwell completely fails to take into account. Thus his reviews are worthless.

LOL! What about hipsters with antique, or antique looking rangefinders, or lomo cameras? I've seen some pretty hot girls who were carrying, and were more interested in, Diana's then FF digital. Where's your big camera now? :-)

September 14, 2013

We agree on most things where matters of IQ are concerned, Daniel - but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. He's just not.

Well...he has test crops. You have a naked assertion. I'll agree that his high ISO test wasn't sufficient to illustrate the full difference. His low ISO test? Can do those all day long with any modern APS-C / FF sensor, including cropping in. And the only one that will stand out is the D800...and even then only for very large prints of very demanding detail (landscape foliage).

September 13, 2013

Keith - at ISO 100-800 Ken is correct. No comfortable circumstances required. At high ISO I've already said he is wrong.

That said, Ken writes for the average user. Not the advanced or professional user. The average person does not shoot ISO 25,600, or make 30" prints from ISO 3200. Stuff like this is where there's a big difference between FF and crop, but your typical photographer never does this.

As for the lenses he compared...at the tele end they're not close. At the wide end they're close enough that after applying a lens profile and some processing there's little real difference, hence Ken's results.

Is the world going to fall apart because Ken didn't properly delineate where FF or the L lens pulls ahead? No.

Ken is Ken. He glosses over and simplifies some things for his target audience. He also has a chip on his shoulder about photographers who excessively measure and debate small differences, so he swings hard the opposite way: that your camera is not what limits you, so go shoot.

September 12, 2013

He essentially claims that the image quality from an SL1 is not noticeably different from the IQ of any of Canon's full frame DSLRs.

And he is absolutely correct through about ISO 800. This was pretty much true between the 5D and 40D. The 5D2 jumped ahead, but this has been true again since at least the 7D (first 18 MP APS-C). FF is a bit sharper and cleaner OOC, but not after processing. It does yield greater DR, but not dramatically so. It's not until high ISO that the FF sensors really pull ahead.

Dumber still is his claim that thanks to Canon's lens correction system, an SL1 with a kit lens equals a 5D Mark III with L glass for IQ.

What kit and L lenses are we talking about? An EF-S 50-250 isn't going to match one of the 70-200 L's. But the 18-55 IS just might match a 17-40L at f/8 after processing.

I can tell you from experience that you would not be able to tell apart ISO 100-800 24" prints from a Canon FF (i.e. 6D) + 17-40L and a Canon EOS M + EF-M 18-55 IS. Granted the M 18-55 is better then the EF-S version. But if you stop down to f/8 I'm guessing the same would be true there.

This is the same clown who says "your equipment doesn't matter" while dedicating his site to reviewing gear.

Because his site is dedicated to reviewing gear he should tell you that there are dramatic IQ differences where there are none? And why is he clown? Because you disagree with him?

I'm not one to normally identify with my gear, but I find this sort of disinformation maddening.

Typical. No offense, but when it comes to equipment differences photographers are drama queens. We stare at pixels at 400% in Photoshop until our eyes are crossed, then proclaim the slightest difference as what separates web snapshots from wall sized fine art prints. You can see this in all kinds of debates online: FF vs. crop; Canon vs. Nikon; lens X vs. lens Y.

It's human nature combined with the fact that very few photographers have ever been subjected to tests with unlabeled prints. You see the same exact phenomenon among audiophiles and wine connoisseurs. Tell someone one glass of wine came from an expensive bottle and another from a cheap bottle and they will drone on in great detail for 20 minutes about how much better the expensive one is, even if both glasses came from cheap bottles or perhaps the same bottle!

I suppose that the statements are true to this limited extent: For shooting JPEGs of one's child blowing out birthday candles to post to Facebook or print 4X6, there really isn't a world of difference.

Again, from experience: go to Zion NP. Shoot the same ISO 100-800 landscape scene with a Canon FF + 17-40L and a Canon EOS M + 18-55 IS. Process and print to 24". No one will be able to tell you which came from which. If you have a friend do this and present you with unlabeled prints, you will not be able to tell either. This is with the most challenging subject matter (distant foliage stresses resolution like nothing else) at a large print size.

Now if you're shooting at high ISO, the current FF sensors are amazing. At 3200 the 6D doesn't even look like it's at high ISO yet.

April 25, 2012

Demand down? Raise the price to make up for the fewer units sold.

Would you prefer they close down their film lines rather than take a loss on each unit sold?

April 15, 2012

Depending on focal length a 1 second gap between frames will not leave a gap in the trail. If you apply the 600 rule, that is divide 600 by your focal length to get a point source from your star rather than a trail, you will see you could use a 300mm lens and a one second gap and still have a complete trail when stacked,

I can tell you from experience that this just simply is not the case. I don't know why the formula for getting a point source does not work in reverse, but it does not. Even continuous shooting with the shutter locked can yield gaps, but they're typically small enough that they don't affect prints and/or can be easily eliminated. A 1s delay produces more and larger gaps. This is true even at 11mm.

Paul specifically said he didn't want to lock the remote down as that gave him no control over the number of shots.

No he didn't. He asked about the delay between shots "...as an aside."

April 14, 2012

Unfortunately the 1 second delay between shots seems to be unavoidable. It just seems they take some time for the camera to reset after a 30 second exposure, even with the noise reduction turned off. My 5D and 5D2 both do that too.

This is true if the remote drives the camera. But if each exposure can be 30s or less you can shorten the delay between shots to almost nothing.

* Put the 7D in manual.

* Set your shutter speed and aperture.

* Set the drive mode to one of the continuous options.

* Lock the remote shutter button open.

There will still be a delay between shots, but it will be very small, especially in JPEG mode. I shoot star trail stacks this way as the 1s delay caused by the remote creates gaps. If you're shooting with a tracking scope then the delay shouldn't matter.

March 24, 2012

On the contrary, I think DXO gives extremely valuable information that no other test site does. For example, what if I need to know which camera will give the most headroom for doing single-image "HDR" for landscapes where water or trees move between shots preventing multiple images from being used?

You're kidding yourself if you think they are showing you this. Their DR results have no relation to real shots and are literally worthless.

March 24, 2012

It is easy to demonstrate that DxO's DR estimates have no connection with reality by simply testing a few bodies with a Stouffer transmission step wedge. I haven't performed tests to specifically debunk their other metrics, but I do find it laughable that they rate several small format DSLRs as superior to medium format digital backs.

Sorry, but I consider DxO to be a joke, and give no consideration to their claims. The two sites I give the most consideration to for technical evaluations are DPReview and Imaging Resource. I can replicate their tests, and the test results are very much in line with real world experience.

March 22, 2012

For indoor basketball go for the 85 f/1.8. It's faster and you won't need the wide end of the zoom very much, but you will need the f/1.8. For less then the cost of the zoom you can get a 50 f/1.4 as well.

March 13, 2012

The 7D was basically a flop, I think alot of people are going to opt out for a 5D II or a 5D III if the price ever comes down.

The 7D is basically the best crop body out there, with pro level features, speed, and a sensor that matches or exceeds the 12 MP FF sensors people like you were probably drooling over just a few short years ago.

If that's a flop...

March 13, 2012

are there any interfacing issues between the Epson 3880 and the Mini?

The only problem I have with my 3880 is that if I let Apple update the driver then I lose access to all the Epson specific printer settings. I have to delete the printer then re-download and install Epson's driver package to restore everything. This ends up destroying my saved settings.

I won't let Apple's updater touch the driver for this reason, but it can't be helped with major OS upgrades. It doesn't stop me from using the printer, it's just annoying. I've never heard anyone else complain about this so I don't know if it's just something quirky with my OS install.

March 9, 2012

at what point does the enhanced image quality of the 5DII start to show itself? At what ISOs? In what sort of photographic situations?

When shooting challenging subject matter (i.e. landscapes) for critical review at ISO 100-800, there is no discernible difference through 16x24". At 20x30" you may see a small advantage to the 5D2 file upon close inspection.

Neither camera is really good for >30" prints of a challenging subject under critical review. Given less challenging subject matter and/or less critical review of prints you can of course go larger with either.

The 5D2 shows a clear detail and noise advantage 1600-6400. It will show up in larger prints, but is less likely to matter at, say, 8x10.

The 18 MP sensor may require different or additional post work, i.e. a little more sharpening and local contrast enhancement or NR.

I don't really consider the 18 MP sensor to be usable at 12800, not unless you are doing a B&W conversion and going for a grainy look. That said, I'm not that impressed with the 5D2 at 12800 either.

People invariably argue with me when I post this. But to date not one can reliably tell which image came from which camera in an unlabeled low ISO test, even while pixel peeping. Here is one of the tests I've posted to that effect.

I generally advise people to go with the 5D2 if they will be making large prints from high ISO shots or if they own certain Canon lenses like the 24 f/1.4L or the T/S lenses. Otherwise, grab one of the 18 MP crop bodies and put the savings towards glass, lighting, a trip, etc.<div></div>

March 5, 2012

The data will be there, 76MB of it, but whether the lenses resolve 100lpmm with high contrast is another matter entirely. In most cases the images will be blurred at the level of individual pixels. If you really want a high resolution image, medium format digital would seem to be a much better option than trying to squeeze the last little bit of detail out of a small format camera.

If we haven't exhausted lenses with crop sensors yet, then we still have a ways to go with FF. My 7D files are a bit softer than FF files, but the detail is there and easy to sharpen in post. Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that 18 MP is the limit for a crop sensor given existing lenses, that still puts the limit on FF at 45 MP.

I don't think that's the limit. All things being equal MF digital might always be able to offer more. But a 45 MP FF sensor would yield excellent 36" landscape prints and very good prints into the >40" range. A DSLR like that means that even most landscape photographers don't need to spend the extra money for a MF system and lenses. (For the record, I think the D800 is the first in this range, and I hope Canon has a response.)

March 4, 2012

18 MP will yield an excellent 16x24" landscape print, and a good 20x30" one. The 5D3 won't be dramatically better. Probably no observable difference at 24", and just a touch better at 30".

But the 5D3 is much cheaper. Unless you need the fps and weather sealing of the 1DX, you would probably be better off with the 5D3.

March 4, 2012

No it doesn't, I have demonstrated that on many occasions. Even when using exemplary techniques that can't be employed for sports and birds in flight, at optimum apertures with the sharpest of lenses, the real world performance between very dense mp sensors, and much lower density ones is minimal. A 17mp sensor, resolves a tiny bit more than an 8.5mp sensor, and I mean a tiny bit.

You don't make very many large landscape prints, do you? :-)

I have 6 MP and 8 MP prints from Zion trips a few years back when I had the 10D and 20D. And I have plenty of 18 MP prints from later trips with the 7D, very similar locations and lighting. The difference is obvious at 8x10. Even at that size foliage looks like mush from the lower resolution bodies. At 16x24 there is no contest. In fact, I've only made a couple 24" prints from the lower resolution images and have never made more because they just don't look good at that size. The 7D prints are excellent at that size.

I've got some 6-8 MP beach landscapes which are less demanding. At 8x10 there's not much to choose against similar 7D shots. At 24" the 6-8 MP shots are acceptable. But I've had non-photographers, with no hints from me, point out that some of these beach shots had to be from lower or higher resolution cameras while thumbing through my 22" albums. If it can be seen in a situation like that, it matters.

Beach shots where there are more details in the foreground, i.e. rocks, end up in my 8x10" albums, not my 22" albums, for the same reason as the Zion shots. With the old cameras surface texture on the rocks goes to mush at the larger print size. Not with the 7D.

As to Keith's comment about reach, I won't say there's a "massive" difference. But I shoot surfing all the time and have made many 24" surfing prints from 8-9 MP cropped 7D images. For the subject matter that's enough. A FF body like the 5D2 would leave me with 2-3 MP for the same reach, and I'm sorry, but that just won't make a 24" print given the subject matter. At least not one that's any where near as good. When cropping for even more reach and printing larger, APS-C still has the advantage. If you're just cropping a FF sports image to APS-C, but no further, and printing...say...13x19, then I agree there's no real difference.

As to the 5D3 vs. D800, my guess is that the difference will be very small for 24" prints. But for 36" prints? Larger? It's going to be significant, at least for landscapes.

March 4, 2012

Anyway, back to the topic of sensors of the same generation, DLT (it's been a while since that crazy film thread, eh? :)) I'm not sure how the theory could be wrong... SNR has to be higher for pixels of larger size... shot noise will be relatively lower for larger signals (maybe this isn't observable in the real world for these sensors?), and at the very least, the noise contribution from the amplifier/electronics will always be relatively smaller than the signal being read out for larger pixels in comparison to smaller pixels with otherwise same electronics.

I think the theory is fine if you're only looking at a single pixel. If you're looking at an entire image, I think the SNR is about the same regardless of pixel size in the range we see in DSLRs. At least that appears to be the case looking at actual prints.

But I seriously doubt that the D800 will be hold the same level of SNR as the D4, even when downscaled to 16MP. That's basically 'software binning' & without 'hardware binning', the noise component will be relatively higher.

We'll find out once studio samples are available, but I wouldn't bet on it either way.

March 3, 2012

That is exactly my thinking at the moment. Im currently using a Rebel T2i and I don't find the noise with it an problem at all.

I use a 7D (same sensor). I've had a few images which concerned me while viewing at 100% in PS. They were images that I really pushed in PS, or that were shot at higher ISOs under horrible light. But in print the noise ranged from minor to non existent.

You've got to remember Im coming from a film world and film grain is way more noticable then the noise I've gotten out of any digital camera I've used.

I also started in film, still shoot it at times, and I agree. I've got ISO 3200 8x10's that have noise which is as tight as grain from slow speed 35mm portrait film. I've got an ISO 800 16x20 that would have been mistaken for ISO 100 MF just 10 years ago.

Also pixel pitch of a APS crop sensor would be the same as a 45 megapixel full frame sensor, and I don't hear anyone complaining about the noise from the APS sensor.

You haven't visited a FF vs. APS-C thread ;-)

I feel like there are two groups of users: those who want less resolution, more DR, and faster shooting speeds. And those who want maximum resolution. I hope Canon sees this to and has a high MP FF body in the works. I would be thrilled with the T2i / 60D / 7D sensor scaled to FF size (45 MP).

March 3, 2012

Well, in the Nikons this is very obvious at high ISO. The 24MP D3X is significantly worse at high ISO than the 12MP FX models, whereas it does lead the low ISO image quality until the D800 came along (in fact I cringe whenever I have to go above ISO 400 on the D3X).

Do you have samples illustrating this? When I compared studio samples from DPR and IR I did not see this at all. At 100% D3X noise looked sharper, but there didn't appear to be significantly more. At the same view size differences were inconsequential.

The D4 again maintains a substantial edge over the D800 at the highest ISO settings (6400 etc.), even after the D800 image is first downsampled to 16MP.

How can you come to this conclusion? To my knowledge there are no test series available yet for either.

March 3, 2012

However, for two sensors of the same generation, using all the same tech, the one with lower resolution will always have a higher SNR per pixel, which will translate to lower noise & higher DR (primarily b/c of the lower noise) even after downscaling the image from the higher resolution sensor.

We do not see this in real life, whether due to practical limitations or to flaws in the theory behind the claim. Total image noise seems to be driven by sensor size and technology, not by pixel size. At least not until P&S densities are reached.

That said, DR is influenced by pixel size. But even there we don't see massive differences in real life, and technology trumps size any way (i.e. D7000 vs. original 5D).

I'm eager to see how this plays out between the 5D3 and D800. Will pixel size result in a practical difference this time? I don't count the ISO range differences as evidence of this. I want to see studio samples across the ISO range.

That said, even if the 5D3 is the high ISO king, I want resolution, not ISO 100,000+. I'm going to wait and see if the rumored 5D split occurs. If Canon does produce a 5Dx at 45 MP, that will be my next camera. If not, the D800 looks very tempting.

March 2, 2012

Disappointed. The Nikon D800 is the camera I wanted the 5D3 to be. I'm not upgrading right now. But if Canon does not have an answer for the D800 by the time I do, there's a good chance I'll jump to Nikon, or at least add them to my collection.

The vast majority of my shots are at ISO 100-800, with occasional 1600 and 3200. Higher resolution and larger prints are far more important to me than less noise at high ISOs I never use. And I'm skeptical regarding how much difference there really will be between the two at, say, 6400 and 12800 when viewing at the same print size. I know I'll see the difference between the two in a 36" ISO 100 landscape print. I'm doubtful I'll see the difference in, say, a 13x19" ISO 6400 reception or sports print.

At least Canon got the AF right this time.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by danielleetaylor