david enzel

Thank you for posting these images. They are very helpful to me. I am considering

buying a Mark II. I just printed out Dancers with stage lights. I had to be careful not to

sharpen too much in PS and the print on my Epson 960 looks fantastic.

Bob,

I have a few thoughts. I'd suggest you through the your best images made with your SLR

and see what lens you used. If one predominates I would start with that lens.

I personally think a 35 mm lens is ideal for the M if you like street shooting.

Finally, buying any film camera at this point is not going to be good for your wallet. I

would look for the best deal you can find and buy only if you are willing to accept the risk

that prices in my opinion are likely to fall over time as more and more people make the

transition to digital. This may take more than a year. Leica lens prices at the moment

generally seem pretty high to me but I don't that will last unless Leica really delivers a

digital M that the marketplace likes.

I hope this helps.

I use PS CS to convert CRW files. I also use PhotoMechanic. It will bring up almost

instantaneous thumbnails of variable size (up to full screen). The thumbnails are very

clear. Also great for ingesting images to your hard drive. PhotoMechanic is the fastest I

have seen. See www.camerabits.com. It's pricey ($150) with great support. Very simple

to use. Worth the money to me.

Thanks Heather! 45 point AF sounds nice. Never tried it. I'd love to read your review

when you've published it. Please let me know.

Heather,

Thanks for your very helpful response! The image on your web site at ISO 800 shows a

very modest amount of noise -- at least the way it looks to me. How does it look to your

eye on your monitor.

One more question on my mind about the Mark II. I would like to be able to set the

camera so I can select the initial focus point with the round dial on the back (I think Canon

calls this the QCD? -- I am new to Canon) and then let the camera track the subject from

there. Would you know if this is possible?

And if I am not overstaying my welcome, what do you think of the new Canon software?

Are the RAW conversions (that's 99% of what I shoot) better than with the prior software?

David

Heather --

Your images with the Mark II are amazing even at ISO 400. Part of me wants one but I

don't need the speed it offers for what I do. Leaving speed aside what would the Mark II

get me over the 10D? That's what's on my mind. Looks like less noise at higher ISOs than

with the 10D? I also reckon that the successor to the 10D will be out this fall. Seems like

a year and half is the replacement cycle with Canon from what I hear.

Digital is in my experience more expensive than film and I think shooting film is just fine

and dandy. For those who haven't yet tried it I want to say that I resisted a long time and

when I tried digital I just instantly loved the immediate feedback. That advantage alone

made it worth the switch. And when you add White Balance and the ability to change ISO

image to image . . . . To me, the extra expense is worth it. As for the computer, most

people I know who still shoot film (at least color film) no have a digital darkroom. It's hard

to know what you are missing until you try it. Things do break but digital really does

work.

Marc,

You are right. Digital is more expensive. This has been my experience. Recently, I

attended a 3 hour course on digital workflow taught by Seth Resnick (www.d-65-.com) at

the local chapter of ASMP. Resnick compared his equipment costs using film equipment

versus digital equipment. Digital costs him three times as much. The camera bodies are

more expensive and have a shorter useful life and you need a powerful computer that also

must be replaced. He assumed a 3 year useful life for his digital equipment versus 5 years

for film. He loves digital for the immediate feedback and things like adjusting white

balance and considers it superior to film. I would add digital is lot more fun. But it's also

more money. Each photographer must decide if the costs are worth the benefits. For me

yes.

Gareth,

I suggest you check the action you created to see if there is a step in it that tells PS to save

the file to a specific folder. If so, then that is probably the cause. The solution would be

when you run the batch to check the box next to Override Action "Save As" Commands.

That's my initial thought. If that's not it I'll put my thinking cap back on :)

David

Thanks for the very helpful explanation about the EX550 flash. Your image of the candles

and the glass is excellent. Did the meter show proper exposure at the f stop and aperture

you selected? And I also wonder what metering mode you used? I've got a lot to learn

about flash photography.

Also, imo you are being way too tough on your web site!

You would need to create a new action set and then within that create a new action

converting the files from 16 bit to 8 bit and them saving them as JPEGs. Then put all the

images you want to convert in a folder and then go to the Browser and select Automate,

Batch, your action and specify an output folder. PS will do the rest!

I read the response about shooting flash in manual mode. I am learning to use the 10D

and the EX550. What is the reason for shooting in manual mode?

Marc --

I just saw your web site and your work is inspiring. I'm curious about what's mainly in

your kit.

I want to second the comment about Jeff's work. Jeff is a true artist. His work is very

moving. Rare talent.

PS CS will allow batch raw conversion. You can create an action to convert to JPEG and

then save to a folder, burn a CD and have a lab print 4x6 prints.

I have a 10D and set the custom function to set the focus point with the qcd and love

using the camera this way.

Thank you for the helpful responses. I was shooting at ISO 400 in a room with flourescent

light. The ceiling was higher than in most homes but not by a lot. And I forgot to check

the exposure confirmation light -- something I will do in the future. I reckon I could do

some test shots and check for the green light and if it does not illuminate increase the

output of the flash and look at the histogram. Would this work?

I have a Canon 10D and a 550EX. Last Sunday I shot an event bouncing the 550EX off the

ceiling. I shot Canon Raw. I was in Program Mode. Most of my images were about 1 stop

underexposed.

I am new to flash photography. I would like to know how other photographers work with

this or similar equipment to bounce the flash and get proper exposure.

I was able to adjust the exposure durining the PS CS raw conversion but I'd like to avoid

doing this in the future as it is bad practice and I understand it degrades the image

quality. I will say my pictures turned out well through this process even with +1.25 or so

in the conversion.

I am curious about how you focused. Did you select a focus area on the flower or did you

let the camera focus totally automatically? I set Custom Function 13 at 3 so I can select

the AF point by QCD. When I select the AF point my focus is right on. If I let the camera

do it I end up with some out of focus images. But perhaps you were already doing this?

I just read the link to Hoffman's web site and learned a lot from it. Thank you for bringing

it to my attention. A wealth of information.

You've had a lot of people respond. My 2 cents. I think it's only worth owning something

if you use it and enjoy it OR have a sentimental attachment to it. I can't think of another

reason to own something. If you use it and enjoy it then it has all the value you need. If

you have a sentimental attachment to it it has great value to you. If neither of those hold,

you probably would enjoy whatever money you can get for the camera more than a camera

you don't use or have an attachment to. Only you can answer these questions.