don_bryant2

<p>><br>

A quick look at the current X-Rite Densitometers, suggests that these precision instruments have to be recalibrated and the test strip used to calibrate needs to be replaces every 18 months.<br>

><br>

In real world practice for the low volume amateur photo enthusiast, the above is completely false. Purchase the calibration strips from xRite, read the manuals for calibration instructions, and keep the cal. strips and/or plaques in a safe, dark, dry place.<br>

If you can't calibrate a densitometer using the xrite certified new cal. strip then it will need to be returned to the mothership for for repair (if you can't do it yourself). Often all that is required is to clean and replace lamps.<br>

<br>

Scanners make lousy densitometers due to non-linearity and limited dynamic range.<br>

<br>

I recommend purchasing an xRite 801 as a general purpose densitometer. You can probably buy one for $50 to $150. xRite still supports this model. Just be prepared for sticker shock if you need to purchase the calibration materials or lamps, etc.<br>

</p>

I'm using the Nexus 7 with the DSLR Controller

Android app and you shouldn't have any problem

with screen brightness. I find it is just as

bright as the camera LCD is when using live view.

I am already considering buying the Nexus 10. As

a former 8x10 view camera user, having a large

display has a lot of appeal for me. Of course

carrying an additional piece of gear in the

could be a negative.

Using a tablet for critical focusing of

tilt/shift lenses is a good idea, IMO.

<p>Sell the XSi and purchase a T4i (not the T3I).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well the usual suspects have chimed in with their typically arrogant and\or ignorant comments.<br>

No I'm not defending Ellis or Jeff, they can do that just fine, however for the sake of intellectual honesty Jeff's book is an excellent primer and is not written or targeted for beginners.</p>

<p>I purchased the Kindle version for $23, and paid no shipping charges. I can zoom in on the photos (something you can't do with the printed page) to better view what Jeff is illustrating. </p>

<p>All total I've not discovered any flaws with the book and the explanation of the Development module workflow immediately resulted in better renderings - especially the section on the Detail panel clarifying many lingering questions I had.</p>

<p>The contrast between ACR and LR4 is also enlightening. I'll rate the book 4.5 stars out of 5; the page count is just fine.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Davtid Henderson's response was an excellent summary. I can say resoundingly that the 5D cannot replicate a MF film camera experience, either in shooting or print aesthetics; at least that is my opinion. </p>

<p>The difference of aspect ratio is obviously a big non-sequitur from MF. If you only wish to spend 500 euros your camera choices are limited. Since you are interested in the NEX 7 then I reccomend you visit Kirk Tuck's blog and catch up on his experiences with the NEX 7. It might be the camera you are looking for.<br>

If you need an mirror less SLR experience look at Panasonic m4/3 cameras or the new Olympus OMD.</p>

<p>><br>

One of the most infuriating problems was what other well known authors had written, was not entirely suitable, or geared up to their own equipment, or the fact that they could not write at all<br>

><br>

<br>

Who is the author?<br>

<br>

I've been making digital negatives for years for alt. processes and can testify that there is a large learning curve, especially if one is not very experienced with a particular process to begin with.<br>

</p>

<p>How is this topic relevant to EOS cameras?</p>

<p>Exactly what Keith Reeder said. That's exactly why I upgraded to LR 4 and PS CS 6. </p>

<p>I've never heard of LR finding bad monitor profiles - never. Where did idea that come from? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>>m stephens<br>

Thanks very much for the report about the Fuji X Pro-1.<br>

I am also in a quandary about downsizing my photo gear. I have finally decided to cease using film since the cost for 4x5 film has risen and I no longer want to pay the price nor carry the heavy gear even though I have a light Chamonix 4x5. <br>

Currently my digital kit is all Canon and with bodies and lenses it weights in over 60 pounds!<br>

I've pretty much decided to opt for the Olympus OMD EM5 m4/3 system but I may also eventually pick up the Fuji X Pro 1 with 1 or 2 lenses to use as a light walking around camera for street photography.<br>

I am a bit concerned about reports that the lenses are slow to focus manually and AF maybe a bit laggy.<br>

Anyway enjoy your new rig, it sounds like you have made a good decision, especially since you bought at a discounted price.</p>

<p>I've had nothing but horrible results with Sterlingtek batteries. I just bit the bullet and purchased Canon batteries and have had no problems.</p>

<p>I have a non-OEM batt. for my G10 that works as well as the Canon which I purchased through Amazon, though I can't recall the vendor name that full-filed the order.</p>

<p>Christopher,</p>

<p>You may wish to visit Trey Ratcliff's web site 'Stuck in Customs'. He has information posted there about HDRI that you find helpful.<br>

<a href="http://www.stuckincustoms.com/">http://www.stuckincustoms.com/</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>A Lowe Pro Super Trekker AW works. I used that pack for years to carry mine.</p>

<p>Ariel thanks for your input; we each have our own opinions.</p>

<p>I would suggest you express yours a bit more kindly rather than wagging your virtual finger in the face of others asking questions. In short your posts tend to paint your personality as a sexual intellectual. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Whether adapting an EOS lens to a m4/3 body makes sense wasn't the purpose of my question. I just wanted some real world feed back regarding the Kipon adapter. </p>

<p>Thanks to Fred for sharing a pertinent link.</p>

<p>Hello All,</p>

<p>IS anyone using the Kipon m 4/3 to EOS adapter with an Olympus OMD. I'm interested in using my Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 with the OMD body.</p>

<p>Any vignetting issues. Can I focus at infinity or is that sacrificed?<br>

Also comments about other EF lenses with the Kipon adapter are welcome.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Don Bryant</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your replies. </p>

<p>For the shutter release I don't mind having a receiver plug into the camera; I have and use something similar now with my Canons. </p>

<p>I could care less about zone control with multiple flashes. When I use multiple flashes I use monolights anyway, however for single flash (on or off camera) I do like eTTL control.</p>

<p>Bruce I understand about DOF equivalences but having a high GN means that light output can be attenuated easily if need be but having higher GNs allows easier bounce flash in certain environments.</p>

<p>I have read countless posts and web articles about the OM-5 but I don't seem to be able to find the answers to these questions:</p>

<p>Can the shutter be triggered remotely; with no attached shutter release either mechanical or electronic connections? Will remotes such as the RM-1 work with the OM-D.</p>

<p>Currently being a Canon DSLR user I am quite spoiled by the eTTL functionality of my 430 EX II and 580 EX II flashes. Does Olympus have comparable flash integration? And are their flashes as powerful as Canons? The GNs of the Olympus flashes I have researched seem anemic compared to the Canon models.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I own the 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS and the 24-70L.<br>

Generally speaking the 28-135 is an under rated lens at least by my experience; I like using it on my EOS 3 when doing portrait assignments with B&W film (TMAX 400 II). I have 2 friends that have owned that lens, both accomplished photographers and very knowledgeable about lenses. One friend hated his copy, the other loved it. And that often seems to be the case. People either praise or dismiss this lens. Even though this is just anecdotal evidence about the performance of the 28-135, I think there must be copies of this lens that are poor performers. Canon produced them in copious quantities since it was sold as a kit lens.</p>

<p>My 28-135 also works fine on my digital bodies. Having said all that if I had to choose the 28-135 or the 24-70, I would keep the 24-70 lens, unless you can get a great bargain and have return rights of the 28-135. Even so I wouldn't let the 24-70 go, it's not that much heavier.</p>

<p>My 2 cents. </p>

<p>FWIW, examination of the paintings of impressionist painter Gustave Caillebotte, reveal some of his works to have the same angle of view of a 28mm lens on a 35 mm camera. </p>

<p>Look at his paintings, 'The Floor Scrappers', 'Paris Street- Rainy Weather', or 'The Man on the Balcony'</p>

<p><a href="http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/The-Floor-Scrapers-(study)-I.html">http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/The-Floor-Scrapers-(study)-I.html</a> </p>

<p><a href="http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/Paris-Street--Rainy-Weather-1877.html">http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/Paris-Street--Rainy-Weather-1877.html</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/The-Man-On-The-Balcony.html">http://www.gustavcaillebotte.org/The-Man-On-The-Balcony.html</a> </p>

<p>Using Caillebote's visual cues one might suggest the 28mm focal length or equivalent provides a 'natural' angle of view.</p>

<p>Start using baryta papers. They produce very "photochemical" looking prints. The old Harmon FB AL was a great paper and is now produced and marketed by Hanemuhle - "Harman by Hanemuhle". </p>

<p>Adding grain and noise just makes the image look like it has had grain and noise added to it, not film like at all. Take a look at Nik plugins for film emulators, some of their selections work very well, if you want a small film camera look. For emulation of MF and LF film looks you don't really need it, IMO. Season to taste as they say.<br>

And if you are using PS and LR4 be sure to soft proof to get an idea of how the print will look and adjust from that.</p>