carsten_whimster2

<p>Hmm, I'll try again. The manual says to apply a normal white balance to the second white field, and then to apply the analysis, so that is what I have done. Once I apply the profile generated, the colours are truly weird. If I then apply a white balance again (which the manual doesn't mention I am meant to do, but whatever), I am back to where I was when I applied the original white balance, as far as I can tell, and not all the colours are right.</p>

<p>Did I miss something in the instructions?</p>

<p>Yes, that is what I was hoping for my use too, but I still get the best results with Lightroom's own WB, and that just ain't right after spending €100 :)</p>

<p>I also did a white balance before running the program, as described in the guidelines. Yes, the white balance works well, but not perfectly. That is what the profile was meant to solve.</p>

<p>X-Rite asked for more photos, and I just sent 2 more exposures of 2 more locations in tungsten lighting, i.e. 4 more photos for them to analyze.</p>

<p>Still more to come...</p>

<p>Looking it up once, I found that there is a hood which had two sets of clips, one for holding it on normally, and one for holding it on reversed. However, I have an older hood, marked Summaron 3,5cm, Summicron 5cm, which is painted black and has a silver ring. Works well, but doesn't attach reversed. It has no part number engraved, unfortunately.</p>

<p>Daniel, maybe your guess/hope is right, and maybe Canon will actually debut a 30+ sensor in the 1Ds Mark IV. I hope not for Canon's sake, to be honest. The last few iterations released to compete with Nikon's D3/D3x have been getting more desperate, with less dynamic range in the 1Ds Mark III than in the Mark II, with a more transparent colour array, i.e. higher ISO at the cost of colour accuracy, and more aggressive noise reduction, i.e. more smearing of real detail, earlier. In fact, it seems that every aspect of the latest Canons got a boost in most or all areas, *except* image quality. The 7D is not a good benchmark for FF performance. almost 10 stops of DR is very poor compared to the nearly 13 of the D3x, for example.</p>

<p>Anyway, whatever the next Canon, Nikon and Sony FF pro cameras will be, they will almost certainly reach MF film in resolution, only. DR will probably be better than film in a technical sense, but what happens at the limit will still be quite a lot less attractive than with film. As in the past, there will always be good reasons to go with film, just like there are good reasons to go with digital.</p>

<p>Daniel, if the 1Ds Mark IV will be 35MP, then based on recent Canon performance (1Ds2: 16MP, 2005, 1Ds3: 21MP, 2008) we should expect in somewhere between 2013 and 2014 depending on whether you think the increase will be related to linear resolution, or overall MP increases? Alternatively, it will lose even more dynamic range than the 1Ds3 lost to the 1Ds2, due to moving to too-small pixels too fast.</p>

<p>Why do you think the next 1Ds will be 35MP? Because you want it to be that? Repeating the last improvement, we should expect a 26MP camera in 2011.</p>

<p>I would agree with the previous posters that practice and technique can get you a long way. For example, focus at something the same distance as the bird rather than the bird, and it will be easier. Adding a little depth of field via stopping down a little can give you a little buffer. You might also want to look at a prism finder, which magnify a bit.</p>

<p>If practice doesn't get you there, you will most likely have to look at a 645 systems, since the only two 6x6 systems which have AF/focus assist (to my knowledge) are expensive, as are the lenses (Rolleiflex 6008 AF, Hy6). The Hasselblad H is a much newer camera and the lenses cost a fortune, even second-hand, since they can still be used on the current models. There are much more affordable ways to AF/focus assist, such as a Contax 645, which has Zeiss lenses, like the V cameras. The Mamiya 645 options probably have too much shutter delay for wildlife, except the AFDIII and DF, both of which are also expensive.</p>

<p>I own a Contax 645 AF, and it is a really nice camera. It has autofocus, as the name hints, and the lenses are great. Autofocus isn't fast, not like 35mm DSLRs, but it should be workable for relatively calm birds at medium distances. It is accurate, however, especially in daylight. Most of the lenses in the system are very good, and few cost more than about $1000 if you are patient. The 350mm is an exception, and is both hard to find and expensive.</p>

<p>Check the weights before deciding which camera to get... The C330 is a tank, for example. Maybe you like that, maybe you prefer something lighter.</p>

<p>

 

<p>X-Rite downloaded my sample Leica M8 raw file and will be putting it through the Passport program in the coming days. More to come...</p>

 

</p>

<p>In this thread there have been many strange claims about the resolution of 35mm digital, comparisons of the number of images made economically (when was that ever a sensible metric? Every 35mm digital owner I know shoots too many images), and odd assaults on flatbed scanners, but I will not go point-by-point with any of this, and simply add a data point:</p>

<p>W.r.t. film, scanning 645 high-resolution film (Adox CHS 25) on an Epson V750, a decent consumer flatbed scanner, I find that about 2400dpi hits the point of diminishing returns, which yields about a 25MP image, and compares well to a Sony A900 (and I presume to the D3x, and probably exceeds the resolution of the somewhat softer 1Ds3 and 5D2). I could push the point of equivalence a little further away by buying a much better scanner, like the Imacons. This would have cost about the same, and yielded similar quality to my existing setup. The workflow would have been a bit slower, with less certainty of the outcome while working. The look of film is beyond debate and into preference, but I prefer it, so I would say that at this point, we are rapidly approaching the resolution equivalence, but not quite the overall IQ equivalence. The next generation of 35mm FF high-end cameras will probably match 6x7 film for resolution.</p>

<p>W.r.t. digital, MFDBs have already gotten cheap enough for serious amateurs. I paid about 5000 Euro for my Sinar eMotion 54LV, with 22MP on a 36x48mm sensor. My entire MFDB system (3 Hasselblad FE lenses with adapter, 3 Contax 645 lenses, a Hartblei T/S 45mm, Contax 645 camera, MFDB) costs less than a similar system built around the D3x or 1Ds3, but probably a bit more than a system built around the 5D2 or A900. The MFDB outresolves the 35mm systems by a small margin, due to the lacking AA filter, and it has a greater dynamic range, possibly excepting the D3x. Overall, parity has almost been reached at the high end of 35mm and low end of current MF (there are of course older backs which have already been exceeded; in reality, 22MP sensor in MF are almost obsolete, and 31MP would be the current low-end), but in the future, due to improvements in both systems, there will likely be continued parity across high-end 35mm FF digital and low-end MFDBs.</p>

<p>Just a data point, not too many hidden assumptions or opinions.</p>

<p>As a personal opinion, I find that I do better work with film. Given how much I have invested in MF and digital, this is a little disappointing, but I still keep both. The mindset of shooting less with film actually gives me more top-notch keepers, in an absolute sense. This works for me because I work slowly and deliberately, and might not be applicable in high-pressure jobs like weddings.</p>

<p>As Q.G. and Edward both seem to be saying at this point, I agree that it is extremely important in such comparisons to state exactly what was compared, and to state what the important bit was. For example, if it is only important to the OP that good 20x30" prints can be made, then in this case either camera is capable, and digital is of course more convenient.</p>

<p>However, this conclusion touches only on resolution. The balance would swing towards film again if it were important what it looks like when highlights are blown. Digital often fails brutally in these circumstances, with colour shifts and CA, whereas film is more graceful. If a lack of noise/grain is more important, it goes back towards digital. And so on ad infinitum.</p>

<p>Let me add another data point to Neil's post: scanning on a quite affordable Epson V750, I can get 25MP from 645-sized Adox CHS 25, a very fine-grained B&W film. Increasing the scanning resolution beyond that, I do not see any improvement.</p>

<p>I completely agree with Q.G.: the true test would be to compare both at the 100% pixel level for the D200, and then to enlarge the Hasselblad photo until it just started to look weaker, and then print the D200 at that size, and then compare again. Comparing only one way doesn't show anything about the *relative* strengths, and thus no comparison between the two is possible, only the weak statement that both formats passed this test.</p>

<p>Happy New Year to you too, Rashed, and good light!</p>

<p>I just reported the problem via X-Rite's support form, so let us hope that there will be an update soon.</p>

<p>I bought a ColorChecker Passport a few weeks ago, and just got around to testing it now. My conclusions mirror yours exactly, i.e. in daylight (in my living room, so overcast-shade) the colours look more realistic using the new profile, and in tungsten light (same living room, same scene, evening, dark outside, one normal bulb, one half-gold bulb) the results are much too yellow and somehow wrong all over. I get quite good results by choosing white-balance on the second-lightest grey field. I was quite careful not to overexpose any colour channels, and I tried both directly in Lightroom (2.6) and also in the Passport program. I tried with both my Leica M8 and my Sinar eMotion 54LV MFDB, with the same results.</p>

<p>I am a bit disappointed, because in the daytime I don't usually have colour problems, and I specifically bought the card to help me get better colours in tungsten lighting. I will see if I can report the problem to X-Rite somewhere.</p>

<p>Very nice shot, nice composition. I love the square composition of 6x6.</p>

<p>If the buyer is not happy, the best approach is to get the lens back, at the cost of shipping. I had the same thing happen to me, and trying to satisfy the buyer generally means shelling out lots more money, and in the end they may still be unhappy. Simply offer to buy it back at the same price. In my case, I also paid for the shipping in both directions, to preserve my perfect eBay rating.</p>

<p>To determine if a lens has fungus, shine a very bright lamp through it and look at the light coming through. I use a super-bright LED flashlight for this.</p>

<p>To answer a question like this, you really need to very carefully and elaborately define "quality". I think this isn't even possible to do in such a manner that everyone agrees on the conclusions. Ultimately, you need to try both in your workflow with your destination and compare for yourself.</p>

<p>The easy conclusion that digital has surpassed MF with X MP is not all that interesting. Digital falls apart when enlarged too much (I have seen this effect in a print measuring 2x1,5m and costing more than 25000 Euro), whereas film degrades gracefully. Film also has a nicer shoulder when over-exposed, whereas digital can blow out in very unattractive ways. On the other hand, noise/grain sets in much earlier with film.</p>

<p>I do shoot both, and primarily digital, in fact, but I am very aware of the strengths of each, and trying to make conclusions about "better" or "quality" is impossible on a general level. It is a personal preference.</p>

<p><em>"the D200 has gone down in price because you can get a D300. The Hasselblad has gone down in price for precisely the same reason ;-)"</em></p>

<p>Summary: both have gone down in price because something newer came along. This is not unique to the digital age, and also happened back in film days.</p>

<p>By the way, if you just use the 2000FCW, there is no need to buy expensive FE lenses, since these have additional contacts for use with the advanced 200-series cameras. The F lenses are in most cases identical, but without the contacs, and can be had for amazingly low prices (I will be putting an excellent F 50/2.8 on the market sometime soon, since I upgraded to an FE version.)</p>

<p>The 110/2 also has an amazingly short minimum focusing distance: 0,60m from front element. This combined with the focal length allows getting very close and really filling the frame. While the primary attraction of this lens is the amazingly smooth boke (in most situations, although it is of course not perfect), I find the sharpness better than Q.G. hints at. For this kind of portrait lens, in fact, I find it surprisingly good. It is of course far from the Super Achromats...</p>

<p>There are other great FE lenses. The 50/2.8 is also a very nice lens, as are some of the teles.</p>

<p>In my opinion the two do not compete much with each other. If you don't need or want the special lenses available for the 2000/200 cameras, get a 500. If you want the special lenses, get a 2000/200. I own the FE 50/2.8, 110/2 and 250/4, and all these are more modern and faster than what is available for the 500 series.</p>

<p>Kevin, I am British-Canadian, grew up in Denmark, live in Germany, and still managed to hear of Mark. I have visited the States seriously on just 3 occasions, while living in Canada, and on neither of those 3 occasions I looked at photography.</p>

<p>The *real* point here is that there is a bunch of forum-dwellers who see themselves as experts and who give advice on all sorts of things not asked for. Sometimes that can be helpful, often it is unwanted. In this particular case, it was unnecessary, as a click to Mark's site and a brief glimpse would have shown. I was not picking on your posts in particular, just on the general idea of assuming that someone does not know much. IMO the best way to approach a question is to answer it, not to make replacement suggestions. Auxiliary questions could clarify the context, without needing to assume or jump to conclusions. I am sure I am guilty of assuming things myself, but I do try to get the facts straight before telling someone how to photograph better, or in this case, more conventionally. Using words like "goofy", "wacky" and "His question generated the response it deserved" only reveals you as someone who likes to judge people (too) fast and hard.</p>

<p>Anyway, I doubt anyone is convincing anyone else here. I hope that Mark got the answers he wanted, and hope he doesn't blow off photo.net because of this experience. I agree with Q.G. that the community exists to share, not to judge.</p>