jamie_robertson2

<p>Thanks John,</p> <p>Those sample images alone are proof that the 11-24mm slaughters the Sigma 12-24mm. I sold my Sigma as it was just too soft and particularly low in contrast.</p>

<p>Standby for people wheeling out the tired old argument: "It will out-resolve our lenses". </p> <p>Sigh... people have been saying that since the 11MP Canon 1Ds was released.</p>

<p>2000-2500dpi. In Vuescan it only gives me 1600 or 3200 to choose from so I select 3200. 6400 is a complete waste of time and disk space.</p>

<p>In my opinion, the only thing the E-M1 cannot do as well as a pro DSLR is AF tracking. It can't do birds in flight or fast action with much success. For everything else it is superb. The contrast detect AF of the E-M1 is far more accurate than the AF of a DSLR and is better for wide aperture portraits and critical focus applications.</p>

<p>A good strong mix of caustic soda with boiling water will clean just about anything. If the bottles are made from glass or ceramic you have nothing to worry about. Just don't breathe in the fumes or your lungs will dissolve!</p>

<p>Silverprint definitely stock it: http://www.silverprint.co.uk/about-us/<br> Cameraworld: http://www.cameraworld.co.uk/contacts/<br> Jessops probably stock it and they have a store on Oxford Street in London.<br> Also try LCE: http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/Branch/?Branch=London+%28Strand%29</p> <p>London is a massive city and there will be countless other small retailers selling it, just a question of finding them.</p>

<p>Simple close up lenses are inexpensive and are surprisingly good. They screw directly on to the front of your existing lens and allow you to focus closer. Try it, you'll love it!</p>

<p>Slap the side on a lightbox and take a photo of it. Worked great for me. Other than avoiding any obvious reflections I can't see what the big problem is. Shoot RAW and correct white balance as required. </p>

<p>Agree with Puppy Face. The cable solution works well on my 5D MkII. A very long cable would help.</p>

<p>You already have what you need.</p>

<p>I run a film group on flickr (<a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/qfp/">https://www.flickr.com/groups/qfp/</a>)</p> <p>Initially I would personally inspect every photo before allowing it into the pool. After a while I had to ask other members for their help. Eventually it got too much for all of us and now submissions are not vetted in advance. However, I always quickly scan through the latest submissions and remove any obvious digital images and other images that break the rules. This has kept the quality feel of the group.</p> <p>One aspect that can be hard to police are those images that are taken on film but are digitised by using a digital camera (e.g. high quality digital photographs of 35mm slides). That's when experience counts.</p> <p>As the others have said, the quality of submissions in a group all depends on the moderator. Large groups like "I Shoot Film" are full of digital shots as they are huge and they don't have the necessary people/commitment to police it properly.</p>

<p>You don't need L glass for a full frame DSLR. </p> <p>The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is a "prime" example of a dirt cheap lens that offers great image quality on full frame. 1000s of users are happy with their Sigma lenses and Sigma don't make L lenses.</p> <p>If you want my advice, don't get a 5D if you expect better image quality. Buy a 5D if you want to enjoy shallower depth of field and use the outer glass of your full frame lenses.</p>

<blockquote> <p>That might have been the case some time ago but I'd be surprised if these films didn't have a CA/C-200 edge code.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>C200 has the CA24 edge code. Probably the old Superia but it's certainly not the same film as the current Superia 200.</p> <blockquote> <p>They're generally unavailable as anything other than imports on the N. American market now.</p> </blockquote> <p>That may be true but it's still a current emulsion, is still in production and can be bought in the USA: http://www.adorama.com/FJCASP36.html</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>Superia is not the only ISO 200 print film that Fuji make.</em><br /><br /><em><br /></em>And those would be?</p> </blockquote> <p>Fujicolor 200<br> Fuji C200</p> <p>Both the above are not rebranded Superia and are still manufactured and sold globally.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Sorry, Ted, but why the "Chicken Little" post when the B&H website still plainly lists Superia 200. When was the last time you checked the site--or bought a Superia film?<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>How do you know Ted was referring to Superia? Superia is not the only ISO 200 print film that Fuji make.</p>

<p>Kathlyn,</p> <p>The 5D Mk1 is only better value because of its price but, yes, it is very dated now.</p> <p>I've used the 5D MkII since it was first released and have no plans to upgrade. 3rd party batteries and chargers are very cheap so I wouldn't be concerned about buying a camera without a charger. 28,000 shutter actuations is fairly low and shutters can fail after 100 actuations or 1 million actuations. The 150,000 is just a guideline. Shutter failure is rare so I wouldn't worry about it.</p> <p>The 6D is a smaller camera than the 5D2, has better low light performance, marginally better AF, takes the more popular SD cards and has built in GPS. It's up to you whether those extra features are worth paying for. </p>

<p>Best value? 5D Mark 1<br> The 5D Mk II is a killer camera, only the antiquated AF holds it back but the AF is at least as good as that of your 550D. The rest of the camera still competes with the latest tech, amazing image quality and very good low light performance. Full HD video and Live View.</p> <p>If you can get hold of a 1Ds MkIII at a decent price you will have the outstanding image quality and vastly superior AF. However it doesn't have video and weighs a ton. The batteries are also expensive.</p> <p>6D is great but doesn't offer much more than a 5D2 unless you want GPS.</p>

<p>I tried the Ee-S on my 5D MkII but it was terrible when using my 24-105mm f4L... far too dark. It did make a noticeable difference when manually focusing faster lenses though. </p>

<p>Jeepers, not exactly cheap are they? I was hoping for a £200 A4 solution instead of a £700 A3 beast. I would lean towards the Canon as I am sick and tired of getting clogged heads on the Epson printers. I must use more ink purging the heads than I use to print photos.</p> <p>I'd be interested in seeing a B/W print from the Pixma Pro 10. It is much cheaper to run than the Pro 1.</p>

Thank you. How do these prints compare to traditional wet prints? And are they truly neutral or do they have that awful colour cast? I have no interest in toning. I currently have the Epson R220 and getting a neutral black and white print is absolutely impossible.

<p>Hi guys,</p> <p>I am thinking of buying myself an inkjet that can do decent black and white prints. I don't want a printer that uses primary colours to produce "black and white" prints. Ideally I could do with a printer that will do both colour and black and white to a reasonably high standard. I am happy with A4 size but will consider an A3 printer if I have to.</p> <p>Any thoughts?</p>

If you're in the UK use Ilford. They can do digital prints onto traditional black and white photo paper. The quality is exceptional.

<blockquote> <p>(You did use the appropriate filter, right?)</p> </blockquote> <p>I vaguely recall shooting at ISO 200 with a yellow filter.</p> <blockquote> <p>But I forget now which are E4 and which are E6?</p> </blockquote> <p>It can definitely be processed in E6 chemistry.</p> <p>Do you think I will need to extend the processing time due to the films age? Or should I just go with the standard time?</p>

<p>For the money you're spending on slide film and processing you could buy another EOS 1 in full working order.</p>

<ol> <li>No light seals = light leakage.</li> <li>Dark photos = underexposed or crappy developing</li> </ol>