jamie_robertson2

<blockquote> <p>JDM the Canonscan FS 4000 is a very good scanner, the achilles heel is the USB transfer rate which I heard is very slow.</p> </blockquote> <p>If you use a PC, get hold of an old SCSI card and cable. The transfer rate is 5 times faster. I still use my FS4000 and, when connected to my Mac through USB, it runs far quicker than it ever did on a PC.</p>

<blockquote> <p><strong>"In what situations is film better?"</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>Archival ability. That is the only true advantage of film that I can honestly think of.</p> <p>Any type of digital storage will last 20 years at most when left <strong>unmanaged</strong>. So, once you're dead, your life's work will die 20 years later at most unless you have people prepared to manage its storage. With film you can leave your files full of negatives lying in a dusty attic for centuries without much worry. </p>

<p>Forget IS, it's completely pointless in those situations. If you're swinging the lens around following bikes you'd be better turning the IS off altogether. All it will do is waste battery power. Use the lens with the most appropriate focal length for the job and forget everything else.</p>

<blockquote> <p>From your other link,</p> </blockquote> <p>That was <strong>my</strong> link. Still waiting for the OP to respond and say thanks ;-)</p>

<p>http://www.apug.org/forums/forum52/32491-bobinquick-adorama-film-loader-instructions.html</p>

<p>Aside from oiling up playmates, that really is a dream job!</p>

<p>I would bet a weeks wage that there was nothing wrong with your equipment. No offence, but I think you're a workman blaming his tools.</p>

<p>That's actually pretty impressive. There's no way I would use it for normal B/W scanning but if I had a batch of badly scratched negatives to scan it would be very useful. Thanks.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Why would you say that, Jamie? This is not the first time the question has come up.</p> </blockquote> <p>Perhaps I'm just expecting too much from people.</p>

<p>LOL @ JDM</p> <p> </p>

<p>Surely this has to be a troll.</p>

<blockquote> <p>I primarily shoot sports (mostly at night)</p> </blockquote> <p>If it's fast moving sport then the 1Ds MkII has vastly superior AF compared to your other 2 choices. </p> <p>The 5D2 and 6D have better image quality at high ISO than the 1Ds MkII. They also have far better LCD screens, are lighter, more compact, have LiveView, have video and use batteries that are small and cheap.</p> <p>If you are happy with the AF of your 40D I would recommend getting the 5D MkII. If you need better AF then the only choice is the 1Ds MkII.</p>

<p>4ft to 60ft? Sounds like you need the 28-300mm L - a heavy and expensive lens.</p> <p>The 24-70mm f/2.8L II is way out of your price range.</p> <p>Out of the lenses you mentioned I would go for the 24-105mm, it's a good quality lens and has a good range of focal lengths. </p> <p>For £300-£500 you could just buy another DSLR and put one of your current lenses on it. That way you'll have one camera with a wide lens and the other with your 70-200mm lens all at the ready.</p> <p>Another option would be to go for a lens like the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5 - f/6.3. It will cover all your focal lengths. Not the sharpest or fastest lens but it's cheap and very convenient. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I do it on occasion, and find that the ND4 will drop my exposures far enough to get blended waves on the beach even on nice afternoon. This is not something I'd expect a single ND .3 -> .9 to enable.</p> </blockquote> <p>0.6 ND is the same as ND4.</p>

<p>If it concerns you, store it un-cocked with the mirror up and the battery out.</p>

<p>If the exposure is OK there is probably nothing you can do about the saturation other than scan and edit on computer.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Yes, I was looking for film. I did find some interesting Canon Rebel EOS film cameras for around $10, but how long is their battery life. It would have to be sitting for several hours powered on without any shutter movement.</p> </blockquote> <p>Any old Canon EOS SLR will do the job. Get one of the cheaper ones that take the RS60-E3 remote. It's a simple 2.5mm stereo audio type socket. Should be simple enough to short circuit by getting hold of a cheap RS60-E3 style remote and hacking into the wire.</p> <p>Battery life is not a concern when the camera is left on. Power is only really used when the shutter button is pressed anyway. You could probably safely leave it on for months without draining the battery.</p>

<blockquote> <p>The film was a bit old... past it's expiration date for sure. I would guess I bought it about five years ago.</p> </blockquote> <p>I've used expired Delta 3200 before and the results were terrible. The negs looked vastly underexposed. Take away the perforation streaks on your scans and my negs looked the same. My advice would be to use fresh film if you're going to shoot high ISO stuff. </p>

<blockquote> <p>I will then move on to R09 made by KG of Germany. Again, I have no experience of this re. shelf-life.</p> </blockquote> <p>R09 had no better shelf life than, say, a stock solution of regular D-76. It is nothing like the original Rodinal unfortunately. </p>

<blockquote> <p>But yes, put an f/2 or so lens on, and ISO 400 should be plenty.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>For alleyways at night I would say ISO 400 is nowhere near fast enough. Even with my 35mm f/1.4 I need to shoot at ISO 1600 minimum. Unless Ray has a wide angle f/1.4 lens I would imagine Delta 3200 would be essential. For colour, Fuji Superia 1600 is the stuff required.</p>

<p>For the record, R09 is not the same as Rodinal even though it is purported to be. I tried it and was very disappointed. It's shelf life is also poor. The original Rodinal would outlast the shelf. I've moved on to Fotospeed FD10, great developer and very cheap.</p>

<p>Use ISO 3200 film.</p>

<p>Looks like crappy developing to me. <br> If you took it to a happy snappy high street developer they are usually clueless about black and white film, let alone Delta 3200.</p>

<p>Sorry to hear that. Time to start up your own lab and run your own business. You have the experience :-)</p>

<p>Yes, I agree. It's weird how it runs reasonably quickly on my Mac though.</p>