marco_landini

<p>Hi guys.<br>

I' m here for this question. I love taking pics on the streets, 2 kind of taking situations : "on the scene" ( where i need a wide lens), and "candid portraits" ( where I feel the need of a longer lens, allowing me to take candids at some distance). I would have the right equipment to take picks in these 2 kinds of situation very quickly. Now I have a Nikon D90 with a Tamron 17-50 2.8 on it. I found this zoom ok for wide situations, 17mm is wide enought for me, but I find 50mm is too short for taking those candid portrait at distance. I know there are longer zooms, i.e. 18-105, 16-85, ecc..but at the longer end they are slow, and I need f2.8 at least , not slower. And, anyway, I don' t feel confortable pointing a big zoom close so the people, so the tamron or other zoom sobsitutes are not indicated for close distances.<br>

So, this is my idea : to keep my Nikon D90, and put on it a 85 1.8af , to take street candid portraits at the distance. And pairing the D90 with another camera for closer distances pics. It has to be the less intrusive possible, with a good wide lens ( prime or zoom, it could be not very fast, f 3.5 could be ok), and good quality sensor for good IQ. This second camera could be a small body aps-c sensor reflex ( nikon d3200 ? D40 ? ) with a small prime ( 20 2.8 af ? 24 2.8 af ? ) or a good quality mirrorless camera with optical viewfinder ( fuji x100s ? Fuji Xa1 ? Panasonic lx100 ? ) . The mirrorless camera is nice for it's great IQ and small dimensions, but it's very expansive...The small aps-c reflex ( d40 ? ) is not as small, but has great IQ and is not so expansive, expecialy if I can find one in the used market...<br>

So, which one of these combos you suggest me ? D90 + 85 1.8af (candid portraits) + D40( or D3200)+wide prime ( 20 2.8 or 24 2.8)....or D90+85 f1.8 + Mirrorless camera ( x100s, xa1, lumix lx100 ? ) . Thanks !<br>

Marco</p>

 

<p>For stitching technique : I don' t like "panoramic" pics. Cause of the necessary rotation of the tripod head, they result rounded, and I don' t like the effect. And If I take a close subject, the technique is absolutely impossible. Let's consider that my only possibility is to stick only with D90 : do you think it would be accetable to print an upsized resampled interpolated file, at 254 dpi, cm 120x200 , or at least cm 50x80 ?</p>

<p>And, for the 6x7 scans...my lab offers Coolscan 9000 at 4000 ppi , a Imacon X5, and a Kodak Creo IqSmart 3.</p>

<p>Hi guys.<br>

I' m going to plain a trip during which I would take a lot of landscape pics. I usualy print not larger than 36x24 cm, sometimes 40x30 cm. My prints come from a lab, they use a contone laser printer at 254 ppi. So, my Nikon D90 ( 12 Mpixels) produces a Tiff of enough MB to print that sizes without the need of software interpolation, and I'm pretty happy for the results.<br>

Anyway, in my next trip, I would like to take some scenary and landscape pics to be printed very large, some of them at 80x50 cm, and some others at 1,2 x 2 meters...<br>

The question is : how large can I push my D90 Tiff without pixelation ? Do you suggest me to interpolate the file, by PS resizing algorithm ( bicubic), or by another software ? To print that large ( 80x50 cm and 1,2 x 2 meters ) do I have to get better investing in a 6x7 film equipment ( mamiya 7, as I want to travel light) and have the film scanned for those few poster prints ? Nowadays, I don' t want to invest in a 24 Mpixels camera, for all my work my D90 is good enough. If I buy an used Mamiya 7, I guess I will have no problem to resell it without money loss.<br>

In your opinion, such large prints are crazy for the D90 and interpolation , so you suggest me to use 6x7 film camera scans for those enlargements ?<br>

Thanks, Marco.</p>

<p>As I don't care about the possibility to set aperture by camera ring ( actually I'm old school and I prefere to operate by aperture ring on the lens) , do you suggest me af 85 1.8 (d) , or the g version (no aperture ring) ? I'm only concerned in image quality here.</p>

<p>Hi guys.<br>

I need a 85mm prime lens. The Nikon af 85 1.4 is out of my budget, so my choice will be only among Nikon af 85 1.8 ; Samyang 85 1.4 ; Rokinon 85 1.4. I need the f1.4 aperture only very few times, just for some portraits in which I would achieve e very very short deph of field. I think the f1.8 aperture will be ok enough, so my question is about the image quality from 1.8 onward.<br>

Which one of these 3 primes do you suggest me ? Thank you, Marco.</p>

<p>I find the same issue. I'll be glad to have some suggestions too.</p>

<p>As drum scanner, I mean Tango/ Heidelberg</p>

<p>Steve, I'll follow your suggestion. I'm goin to tray to print the 3 different scans of the same slide, 60x60 cm at 254 dpi, contone printer.<br>

I didn't make scan by drum scanner because it would be so expansive, at least here in Italy. I guess about € 80 for a single 6x6 slide drum scanned at 200 MB.</p>

<p>Dave, very interestig report, thanks.<br>

But I'm talking about a comparison of different scans of the same slide. The comparison is between scanners, not lenses, technique, films or whatsover. Just the performans of different scanners and scanning options.</p>

<p>By the way, I' ve got a scan of a 35mm slide from a coolscan 5000 at 2400ppi and a scan of the same slide by a coolscan 9000 at 2000 ppi. At 100% magnification on ps, the scan by coolscan 5000 at 2400ppi looks clearly sharper than the one by coolscan 9000 at 2000ppi. Is it strange ? Do really 400 ppi more do the difference ? Isn't coolscan 9000 supposed to be more capable than coolscan 5000 on 35mm format too ?</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I just received yesterday my scans of a 6x6 diapo from a professional lab.<br>

They scanned the same original slide 6x6 with a coolscan 9000, a creo iqsmart3, and an imacon x5.<br>

The scans are : a) coolscan 9000 @2000 ppi ; b) coolscan 9000 @4000 ppi ; c) Imacon x5 @ 2700 ppi ; d) iqsmart3 @ 2700 ppi.<br>

My goal is to produce a print of 60x60 cm at 245 dpi, contone printer.<br>

Looking at the b,c,d scan files on photoshop at 100% magnification, and (a) at about 150 % to obtain the same view area, I can see very few difference in therms of definition between them. The coolscan @ 2000 ppi ( case "a" ) results a little pixeled. The b,c,d cases result almost identical in therms of definition, with the little advantage of the creo ( case "d"). The overall image best rendering is case d) , followed very closely by case b). I don't like the rendering of imacon ( case "c")<br>

The prices of the scans : a) = € 2,40 . b) = € 4,80 d) = 5,50<br>

do you think is worth to spend € 5,50 for a scan that produce a 60x60 print at 254dpi, than € 2,40 ?<br>

I mean : on the screen , the difference between coolscan 9000 at 2000ppi magnified on ps at 150% , and coolscan 9000 at 4000ppi magnified on ps at 100% is not much evident. The further improvement from coolscan at 4000 dpi to iqsmart3 at 2700ppi is quiet subtle. This appends on screen. Do you think on the print ( 60x60 cm at 254 dpi contone ) there would be a more evident difference ?<br>

Thanks, ciao.<br>

Marco</p>

 

<p>...And, I can see this difference expecialy on pictures taken at short focal, wide zooms.</p>

<p>Ah Ah Ah, Lex...! Great !</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your inputs.<br>

I have to say, to keep the question as simple as possible, I never use jpeg's, so, I' ve never compared Canon jpeg's to Nikon ones. I only use Raw's. The images I looked at in photography forums I guess they all come from Raw captures.<br>

The differences I can percieve between Nikon and Canon images, for which I said Nikon pics look more "artificial" and somehow hdr-like, are regarding "hi frequency" ( can I say that ...???) images : stone walls, rocks, scenes with a lot of hard and "closely-woven" dense details. Maybe, in this kind of subjects, the camera reacts causing some artifacts that produce a sort of "jagged" effect, giving the whole image a strong, hard, "artifacty "boosted look.</p>

<p>Hi there.<br /> I know this is a controversial and over-discussed question, so, please, I beg your pardon...!<br /> I' m just here to share my impressions and to ask you what do you think about it.<br /> IMHO, I have the impression that, GENERALY SPEAKING, Nikon images have a sort of hdr-like feeling, and, to the other end, Canon images have a more natural and "film like" mood.<br /> I got a Nikon D90. I come from Nikon F series film cameras, with a lot of very good lenses. So, the natural shift has been to Nikon D system, of course...<br /> But all my digital images, to which I tend always to keep things in a conservative way ( I mean about raw development and PS editing) , they all seem to be quiet artificial.<br /> So, my curiosity about Canon images....<br /> I' ve taken a look to a lot of pictures in photography forums, and, please believe me, I guess 8 times to 10 which image was taken by Nikon and which one by Canon...<br /> As I said, trying to explain my feelings the best I can, I would say I have the impression that Nikon images have a kind of hdr-like and "hi frequency" peculiarity. And Canon images give me a more natural and "film-like", not too much edited, impression.</p>

<p>Waiting for your kind insults....<br /> Cheers,<br /> Marco</p>

<p>Dear guys,<br />this discussion is getting a funny way...! Thanks for your attention. In the end, I think I' m trying to find a way to give a difinition in words and explain to you the different "feeling" I get from digital photography or film photography. In my opinion, generaly, digital photography gives me a different sense of "presence", sometimes odd, not as natural as film. And anyway, I'm glad to say to you that my eyes are 11/10 both. Schizophrenia is the common human condition of the world in this era...</p>

<p>I thank you all guys for your kind suggestion and patience. I beg your pardon for the mess in my comunication, it' s not so simple for me to explain what I mean in english, and technical terminology is not my field. Now , I' m sure I' ve miss the point in explain you what I would like to fix in my pictures. I' ve talked about 3D effect and flatness, and you gave my good indication to avoid flatness. Actually, the pictures I posted look very flat. But the problem I' ve noticed and I would like to discuss here, is not that flat light, as I know how to fix it. The problem I would like to discuss here is this : in my opinion and perceprion, the subjects of the mediterranean D90 picture seem to be stitched or pasted to the background, in my opinion. I can see this same issue even in my pictures taken in good light and well exposed. The outlines of the subjects , in my opinion, seems to be penciled, drawn, and not well blended to the scene. Just like a photomontage. And, please excuse my blasphemity, I find that subjects a bit out of focus blend to the shene better than subject taken in perfect focus. This is the best I can to tray to express my question. I hope my efforts to be understood could be fine to have your help and suggestion.</p>

<p>Nice advice Tim. I' m not an English mother language, nor a graphic technician...maybe a schizophrenic...thanks for your punctualization.</p>

<p>My first pic posted in this tread is just a raw capture, only converted and resized to be posted here. After my ps adjustment it looks globaly better . My only concer, I repeat, it' about the contour of the subjects, they look drew, like with a pencil . This is the question. Please, keep our attention and critique about this aspect : the contour of the subjects.</p>

<p>Anyone would please tell me about the contour of the subjects ? That' s the central topic here of my question.</p>

<p>Joseph...just to clarify : about the slide pics I posted, I like ALL them, and they are the 2nd ( monks), the 3rd (village) , the 4th (file tx) , the 5th (lion). The D90 pics are the 1st ( No sharpen, the port of mykonos) and I don' t like this one. And the 6th pic is D90 ( parents in prague) and I do like this one. I think we are missing the point : the argument of my discussion, the issue I ask you for suggestions, Is about flatness, and here the misunderstanding : the flatness I talk about is not about light and shadows, focus or out of focus, depth of field, harsh light and so on...the flatness I talk about is regarding the contour, the outline of the subjects silhouette. To point our attention to this aspect, I actually posted flat light pictures deliberately. The silhouettes contour of the 1st pic ( See side, D90) look unnatural and like a photomontage, they don' t blend naturaly to the scene. Those subjects seem to be pencil drawn on the picture surface...that' s what I mean. In the slide pics, the subjects contours seem to be much more natural looking, also in a flat and dull light the subjects look naturaly blennded and involved in the scene. First picture subjects seem drawn or pasted to the picture surface. I guess the problem I' m talking about here, is not about lighting, is about something tipically intrinsic in digital sensor...And I would minimize that effect</p>

<p>And now, here a D90 picture, taken at noon, at small aperture. This one, I don' t know why, looks ok in my opinion, not like the most of my D90 pics...I have to say, this picture was taken with a manual Nikkor 28 2.8 ai-s, not the tamron. Maybe the issue is because of the objective ?</p><div></div>

<p>And here a large aperture slide, taken in a flat light, overcast day. No pasted or photomontage effect here in my opinion. Pictures taken with my digital D90, in the same different 2 situations ( small aperture, large aperture ) , look very artificial, photomontage-like, in my opinion. Nne of these issues I can see in my slide pictures.</p>

<div></div>

<p>another one</p>

<p>Here another scanned slide, taken at a small aperture, no pasted or photomontage-like effect.</p><div></div>