jamie_robertson2

<p>Why scan the negatives uninverted? That just gives you more PS work. If you insist on scanning them as positives then a simple "Auto Tone" followed by "Invert" in PS gives a near enough result.</p>

<p>Re-fix the affected films and see if it cures the problem. If it does, look at your method and see where you went wrong.</p>

<p>I'm just loving that old Ford Granada, it brings back fond memories :-)</p>

<p>I agree, just say the lens won't achieve sharp focus at infinity. That should do it.</p>

<p>Thanks Ilkka, I understand now. I think the possibility of cropping may be better suited to shorter focal lengths.</p>

<p>Your list of demands is almost impossible to meet, especially if you are on a budget. Also, if you want a 28mm lens then a rangefinder focussing system isn't really needed as most things will be in focus most of the time anyway. </p>

<p>My two choices for you are:</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Olympus MjuII (Stylus Epic) if you want autofocus. It has a razor sharp 35mm f/2.8 lens, a built in flash, spot metering, auto film advance and is weather-proof. It's also one of the smallest 35mm cameras ever made. They are also dirt cheap.</li>

<li>Canon QL17 GIII. Manual focus rangefinder with a sharp wide aperture 40mm lens. </li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>A 300mm f/4 lens cropped by 2.5x will give similar SNR and depth of field to a 750mm f/10 lens (without cropping) so it's close to worthless for any kind of action photography (used in this way) because motion won't be stopped with good image quality.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on this? I don't really understand how a cropped image from an f/4 lens can't freeze motion as well as a longer lens. </p>

<p>Keep it and give me 16MP and ISO 3,000,000 instead.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So the question is: Which lens is capable of delivering the required resolution?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>People have been asking that same question since the original Canon EOS 1Ds was released and the same question rears its head again and again (1Ds MkII, Canon 5D MkII, Nikon D800, Canon 5Ds) and we're all still happily shooting with our nifty-fifty's.</p>

<p>Yeah, I saw that today. I'd be able to shoot everything with a 24-70mm and just crop if I needed the 600mm :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me it's a better lens. Maybe your experience is different.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree that the Sigma is easily the better lens but I find the vignetting fairly obvious when shooting wide open with my copy. It's no bad thing, I actually like the resulting effect and sometimes I even enhance it in post. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>there is pretty much no vignetting wide open.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 35mm ART really is incredible, but no vignetting wide open? C'mon... :-)</p>

<p>UPDATE: Malcolm has tested the camera again and ruled out a faulty ISO dial. He even substituted the entire back door of the camera to be sure. Unfortunately this means the camera needs to go to Germany as it looks to be a faulty meter that is the problem. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the main reason to buy the Canon II (and the ver I for that matter) is that the Sigma AF is not 100% reliable as most of the reviews admit.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Before the ART series was released I would agree with you 100%. I've owned quite a few Sigma lenses over the years and their AF has definitely been the weak point. However, I am beginning to believe that the ART lenses are a different breed altogether. The AF on these lenses seems to be bang on, much like you would expect from a Canon lens i.e fast, accurate, no hunting and little need to mess about with AF micro-adjustment etc. </p>

<p>I can't understand the fussing about the size and weight. If you shoot a full frame DSLR then you've already committed yourself to carrying a substantial amount of gear. The people who will buy this lens will probably already own a 24-70mm f/2.8 that weighs even more. If you need f/1.4 you expect it to be heavy. If you don't need f/1.4 then you've no need to buy it. </p>

<p>Even with stellar image quality I would still find it hard to justify the massive extra cost over the Sigma. The weather-sealing is the only major difference that I can see so far.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>push it a half stop</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"pull" ;-)</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/9530547937/canon-ef-35mm-f1-4l-ii-usm-blue-spectrum-refractive-optics</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see how this new lens performs against the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART. The Sigma showed the previous 35mm f/1.4L a clean pair of heels in both image quality and build quality in my opinion. If Canon can improve on the image quality of the Sigma I will be mightily impressed as it's the best 35mm lens I've ever encountered so far.</p>

<p>Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Looks very much like not enough time in the bleach process or exhausted bleach. </p>

<p>I get the same thing on my C41 negs if I don't keep them in the blix long enough. </p>

<p>I have heard that you can bleach and fix negatives again to remove this problem but I may be wrong.</p>

<p>If this is bothering you I would shoot 2 test rolls of some light coloured plain objects and send one roll to your usual lab and the other to a different place. Cream or white painted walls, overcast skies etc are the best subjects to detect this sort of thing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... maybe even dangerous.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You mean if you drop it on your toe?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Are you going to buy one, Jamie, and tell us how you fare?<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am seriously thinking about it. I have a 135mm lens for my M6 TTL so this could be just the ticket. Unfortunately my M6 is sick at the moment and it could be a few weeks before she recovers.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"I found that the Leica meter was overexposing by 1.5 to 2 stops" first. Later, "It is underexposing at ISOs higher than 100."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I know. I initially meant to say "underexposing". If you read back through the thread I did correct myself. Sorry for the confusion. </p>

<p>Craig, that's great to hear. I will indeed post back the outcome. The ISO dial does actually look easy enough to get at... just a case of removing the film pressure plate I think. If it was a cheap camera I would have been right in there but not with my pride and joy. I shall leave it to an expert.</p>

<p>Good choice, you will see a huge difference in image quality compared to the E-P3, especially at higher ISOs.</p>

<p>After extensive testing this morning it is obvious there is a serious problem. I have been in touch with Malcolm and he also agrees that a faulty ISO dial seems likely. The camera is going in for repair again on Wednesday. Thank you all for your help and advice :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Mukul, I don't think the meter is stuck at ISO 100. It is underexposing at ISOs higher than 100. If it were stuck at 100 it would be overexposing.</p>

<p>I agree that the ISO dial sounds like the likely culprit. I'm not sure if I can clean it myself but I will investigate. Thanks.</p>

I'm pointing the camera at a white monitor

screen so the metering pattern will be

irrelevant. I will do a more thorough test today

but, even without comparing it to other

cameras and meters, the M6 shows a 2 stop

difference just by moving the ISO dial from

100 to 125. :-(

<p>Have any of you folks seen this: http://www.mgrproduction.net/#!product/prd1/3594183071/adjustable-viewfinder-magnifier</p>

<p>It adjusts from 1.1x to 1.6x magnification and fits all Leica M bodies. It looks a tad bulky but for that price it may well just find its way into my camera bag. Works out at about £65 or $95.</p>