mark_pierlot

<blockquote> <p>I'm thinking about ordering a 70D for the extra reach and pick up a FF camera later.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Great idea, Mark. I use a dual format kit (5DII and 7D), and couldn't be happier. <br> <br> And good score on the 100-400. I have the newer version of that lens, and it hasn't left my 7D since I purchased it a few months ago. </p>

<p>Susanne, I have or have had most of the lenses on your list, and used to favour primes over zooms. However, since getting the 24-70 L II and 70-200/4 L IS, I'm afraid that my primes have largely languished on the shelf (with the exception of the 40/2.8 STM and 85/1.2 L II). In fact, in order to finance my recent purchase of the new 100-400 L, I sold my 135/2 L, 200/2.8 L, and 300/4 L. All are great lenses, but because of the versatility and prime-level image quality of my zooms, they just weren't getting any use. I am holding onto my other "unused" primes (24/1.4 L II, 35/1.4 L, and 50/1.4) for now, in the hope that I may get the urge to use them in the future.</p> <p>I think you've alluded to a very reasonable principle when you say:</p> <blockquote> <p>My main concern - of course, you can say - is that I want all my lenses to be used and not stored.</p> </blockquote> <p>And then you go on to say:</p> <blockquote> <p>One thing I am thinking a lot about is that it seems when you start using primes, a lot of you get more and more attached to them. Does that mean you end up not putting your all-around zoom (like the 24-70) on for occasions like kid’s birthdays parties/everyday life - so that the all-around lens becomes redundant?</p> </blockquote> <p>In my experience at least, the opposite has happened. It's my primes that have become largely "redundant."<br /> <br /> So my list of top three recommendations would be:</p> <p><strong>EF 24-70/2.8 L II</strong> (My most used lens indoors for informal family portraiture)</p> <p><strong>EF 70-200/4 L IS</strong> (My most used lens outdoors for informal family portraiture)</p> <p>A good, fast prime, such as the <strong>Sigma 35/1.4 ART</strong>, <strong>50/1.4 ART</strong>, or <strong>Canon EF 40/2.8 STM</strong>, <strong>85/1.8</strong> or <strong>100/2</strong>. Which one is "best" depends on what focal length you'll use the most. (For example, when I photograph my daughter's piano recitals, which invariable take place in poorly lit venues, I use my 85/1.2, which gives me the optimal focal length and a very fast aperture.)</p> <p>Sigma also makes some super sharp, relatively inexpensive macro primes that would be good for shooting food and other items. I also find the EF 40/2.8 STM and other wide angle EF primes to work well at close (but obviously not true macro) distances.</p> <p>Good luck, and let us know what you decide.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I use a 7D as my crop body (to complement my full frame 5DII) and consider it to be a superb camera. I'm also a hobbyist, and shoot much the same stuff you do.</p> <p>My kids have Rebels (500D and 100D, which has the same sensor as the 700D), and I have been able to compare them directly. The biggest advantages of the 7D are its superior ergonomics and control and menu layouts, and particularly its <strong>much bigger, brighter viewfinder</strong>. The 7D's viewfinder is a true pentaprism (the Rebel's is a pentamirror), and gives 100% coverage and 1.0x magnification, in contrast to the Rebel's 95% coverage and ~0.85x magnification. And it's the viewfinder that makes the biggest practical difference to me while shooting.</p> <p>Of course, if you're doing night sky photography from a tripod in liveview, the viewfinder is irrelevant. And I believe the newer Rebels may have better high ISO performance than the 7D. (However, the Rebels allow you to adjust ISO only in full stops, while the 7D enables 1/2- and 1/3-stop adjustments.) But for all your other applications, I'd recommend the 7D over any of the Rebels. (Of course, the 7DII would be even better, but, alas, it's pricey at present.)</p>

<p>Great shots this week, guys! </p> <p>Jim, the colour rendition and dynamic range of that Ektar 100 is remarkable. I only wish that modern digital sensors had the same DR.</p> <p>Anyway, I have several rolls of it in my fridge, and you've inspired me to load a roll into one of my Canon F-1's, which I haven't done in quite some time. Thanks! </p>

<blockquote> <p>I just started thinking about saving for a long time to get the 2.8 instead of the F4L today ...I wonder how much better it can really be aside from speed. I did see some amazing full body portraits with it with sweet bokeh and isolation.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I have had the New FD 300/2.8 L, and still have the New FD 300/4 L. The f/2.8 isn't much, if any, sharper than the f/4, but it does offer the advantages of the extra stop, as you're well aware. It is, however, a beast of a lens, being much heavier and bulkier than the slower prime (2310 g vs. 1060 g). So if you're mainly going to be hand-holding, I'd get the f/4.</p>

<p>I have the 24-70 II, and have had the 24-70 and the 24-105. The newer zoom is clearly superior to either of the others, with respect to both resolution and contrast. It really does deliver prime quality. (In fact, the only reason I'm keeping my 24/1.4 II and 35/1.4 is for the occasional times that I need a little more speed.)<br> <br> While it is true what David is saying about DLO, I was always underwhelmed by the IQ of the 24-105. In good light, it was fine, but in less-than-optimal conditions, the images it produced for me were dull and lifeless. And I never found the IQ of the 24-70 I to be as good as it should have been.<br> <br> The 24-70 II works superbly as an available light lens and with flash. It's very sharp and has high contrast throughout its aperture and focal length ranges. (By the way, it's been called the "best" normal zoom ever made.) For the kind of event photography you do, Joseph, I'd highly recommend it over the alternatives.</p>

<p>Whoa! I ask an innocuous question about slide scanning, and end up fueling the flames of the film vs. digital debate. Just to set the record straight, I appreciate the respective virtues of both film and digital photography, and would never argue for one over the other. <br> <br> When I asked the question about the megapixel-equivalent resolution of Kodachrome, I just wanted to get a rough idea what "digital resolution" would best fit the film's resolution. (Since I use my DSLR's a lot more than my film cameras, I tend to think in terms of digital resolution.) I know that it's comparing apples to oranges, since their are many other variables at play, but I was looking for a crude approximation.<br> <br> And it seems that Google is my friend (thanks, JDM!), since a cursory search revealed that the approximate digital resolution equivalent of 35mm Kodachrome slide film is 20MP. That "fact" suits me fine, since my full frame DSLR happens to be 21MP. Now that that "academic" issue has been settled for me, I can get on to the practical task of getting my Dad's slides scanned - at 4000 dpi.<br> <br> Upon further inspection, I have discovered that not all of his slides are Kodachrome, anyway. Many are Ektachrome, and some have no film-identifying markings at all, since they were presumably not developed at official Kodak labs. The good news is that most of them have survived well. Even the Ektachrome slides have retained their colour and not faded to an orange hue (as cheaper slide film tend to do over time). Some slides have lost some of their emulsion around the edges, or look a bit splotchy in the background, but in all cases the subjects of the photographs are clear and identifiable.<br> <br> I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this tread, especially those who provided examples of their own slide scans and those who recommended a 4000 dpi minimum scan resolution. And I would appreciate any further commentary.<br> <br> Cheers,<br> <br> Mark<br> </p>

<p>Thanks for the quick responses, guys. It seems that the consensus is 4000 dpi. What would be the approximate megapixel equivalent to that resolution? Would higher be even better, or overkill?</p> <p>Anthony, those are stunningly good concert portraits of some of my idols! (I'm a jazz lover.) I greatly admire your ability, and even more greatly envy the fact that you were able to witness (and photograph) those legendary musical artists live.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I'm going to be having my father's slides digitized, and am unsure what the optimal resolution should be. I had assumed that the highest available resolution would be best, but the manager of the place where I'm having it done claims that ultra-high resolution scans would exceed the resolution of slide film and expose and exaggerate imperfections, thereby yielding inferior results compared to scans done at more modest resolutions. (The cost per slide will be the same regardless of the output resolution.) </p> <p>Almost all of my dad's slides are Kodachrome. They were shot between the late 1960's and late 70's with his Minolta SRT-101 and Rokkor lenses, and are well exposed and in remarkably good condition, having been stored in cool, dry, dark conditions.</p> <p>I will be sharing most of the photos online and on computer via DVD or flash drive, but would like the option of being able to make fairly large prints of some of them. But, even more importantly, since my main motivation for the project is to archive part of my family history, I don't want to later regret that I chose a sub-optimal resolution.</p> <p>So, in a nutshell, which output resolution(s) would be optimal for my purposes?</p> <p> </p>

<p>As another member has put it well in another thread, the F-1N with the eye-level finder does, indeed, have aperture priority:</p> <blockquote> <p>[T]he new F1 (F1N) will work in aperture priority (Av mode) without the AE finder. However, the standard finder will not indicate which shutter speed the camera has automatically selected to use.</p> <p>The AE finder will display this information, but apparently that is all it is needed for.</p> </blockquote>

<p>I have the 24-70 II, and have had the 24-70 and the 24-105. The newer zoom is clearly superior to either of the others, with respect to both resolution and contrast. It really does deliver prime quality. (In fact, the only reason I'm keeping my 24/1.4 II and 35/1.4 is for the occasional times that I need a little more speed.)</p> <p>The 24-70 II complements my 70-200/4 IS perfectly. I think you will find their IQ to be very similar. With zooms as good as these, you don't need primes (unless, as I've already said, you require a faster aperture). Add the new 100-400, and you're set. </p>

<p>The T90 is more versatile than the F-1N, with readily switchable exposure and metering modes, but it lacks swing needle metering. The F-1N also enables you to change exposure and metering modes, but only with the use of accessory viewfinders and focusing screens.</p> <p>I'd get one of each!</p>

<p>Welcome to photo.net!</p> <p>Generally speaking, the longer the focal length, the more IS will be of benefit. Given that I do almost all of my shooting handheld, I wouldn't consider getting a longer lens without IS. But image stabilization will not, of course, compensate for subject motion.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Different habits (and perhaps the amount of time in the Craft, meaning the tools with which we originally learned and the time that we learned with them) create different experiences...</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> Well said, William. I really appreciate and benefit from the experience that you (and others here on photo.net) impart to "photographers" such as me. It's mainly this educational component that keeps me coming back to the site (oh, that, and to hear the gossip on the latest gear!).</p>

<blockquote> <p>[F]or the Photography in which you are interested the 135/2 and/or the 200/2.8 would be higher on my list of considerations for the next purchase, rather than a 70 to 200/4.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> It's interesting how our experience can vary, William. Since getting a 70-200/4 IS some years ago, my 135/2 and 200/2.8 simply languished on the shelf due to underuse. In fact, I recently sold those two primes (along with my 300/4 L) to finance the purchase of the new 100-400 L IS.<br> <br> I tend to use zooms outdoors, where camera-to-subject distances vary greatly, and primes indoors, where they do not (and also where light tends to be lower). Ergo, longer primes rarely go into my bag.</p>

<p>Which is the better "portrait lens" depends on your working distance. In my case, when I'm outdoors doing informal portraiture of my kids, I use my 70-200 on my 7D. And when I'm indoors, or at closer outdoor distances, I use my 24-70 on either my 5DII or 7D. I wouldn't want to be without either lens.</p>

<p>10 million seems a little steep for that kit, Mark. Heck, even at 10 grand it would be overpriced.</p> <p>I'd return it for a refund, and buy the same gear somewhere else. Except if you got the EF 50/1.2 L, which I'd replace with the vastly superior Sigma 50/1.4 ART, or even the EF 50/1.4.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I use evaluative (matrix) metering at least 95% of the time, and spot for challenging exposure situations. With my FD cameras, evaluative was not an option, so it was center-weighted, partial or spot (depending on the focusing screen). But I think evaluative is clearly the best for general shooting.</p>

<p>Judging by the specs of the new Rebel, that would be quite an upgrade.</p> <p>I personally would get the 7DII over the 760D for its superior viewfinder. It's a true pentaprism rather than a pentamirror, and gives 100% rather than 95% coverage. It also has a vastly superior AF system (the best, I believe, of any Canon DSLR), dual processors, a higher maximum shutter speed and burst rate, and is much better built. (However, it's resolution is a little lower than the Rebel's.)</p> <p>If none of this matters to you, save yourself some money and get the 760D.</p>

<p>Nikon and Canon have by far the most extensive camera/lens systems, so if it's a system you're after, stick with Nikon.</p>

<p>Mark, why don't you like using a card reader?</p>

<p>Since you say you don't mind manual focus, another lens worth considering is the highly regarded Nikkor 28/2. Bjorn Rorslett rates it as one of the "<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/bestof.html#top">Best of the Best Nikkors</a>." You'd have to get an adapter for it, though.</p>

<p>It sounds like you got a decent deal, Dave. The A-1 is a very fine body, but is prone to the infamous A-series shutter squeal. I hope yours is free of it. Also, you should check the light seals and mirror foam. You don't want light leaks to ruin your roll of Velvia.</p> <p>Kiron made some excellent lenses. The only one I have is the 105/2.8 macro, but I've heard good things about the 28mm.</p> <p>Welcome to photo.net, and good luck!</p>

<p>Richard and the others have made some very salient points, so I'll just add my two cents.</p> <p>I've had both the 24-105 and original 24-70, and was always a little underwhelmed by their image quality, particularly of the former. So I replaced both with the 24-70 II, and couldn't be happier. It really does deliver prime level IQ.</p> <p>However, for low light shooting, I tend to use my faster primes. But the 24-70 II is great wide open, so if you have a body that gives you clean images at higher ISO's, f/2.8 may be sufficient for low light shooting.</p> <p>Also, remember that IS does nothing for subject motion, so unless your subjects are static, you'll need relatively high shutter speeds anyway.</p>

<p>I'll give another vote for a dual format kit.</p> <p>As far as "formal" shooting goes, I've never shot a wedding, just my daughter's poorly lit piano recitals, but if I ever did I'd surely want a full frame body. And I think that my 5DII would be more than sufficient for the task.</p>