david_haynes

I'm thinking about buying this printer to do about 1600 - 5x7 photos of softball teams (about 160

teams - 10 prints of each team) on site as they are taken. This would be done with about 40 teams

each day over 4 days, so abotu 400 prints per day.

However, I'm concerned that the July heat will create problems.

Anyone had experience with this printer in these conditions?

Thanks,

David

Here's another example of the Leica Digilux 2. A typical head-and-shoulders portrait I

did of my wife for a business portrait she needed. It was shot wide open at f/2.4 at

the 35mm equivalent of 90mm.

I think the OOF area and bokeh in this image is comparable, if not better, than my

Canon 20D with 50 f/1.4.

I also have the 20D and 1D and about 20 Canon lenses ranging from 10-400.

But my favorite camera for this kind of thing is my Leica Digilux 2. (or the Panasonic

LC1 which is its twin - same lens and guts, different finish and badges)

I've done several shoots for advertising agencies with this camera and images for a

brochure will be no problem at all.

The lens (equiv. 28-90, f/2.2.4) is the best I've used on a digital camera. And the

images have the Leica "look" that has caused disserning professional photographers

the world over to pay extra for their cameras and lenses.

This camera will not disappoint.

How much depth of field one wants is a subjective decision. Sure, I could put a tele-

extender on the G6 and have much less depth of field at a given distance, but for

what I do the G6's 140mm equiv. lens is plenty fine.

Likewise with the D2. At f/2.4 (wide open at the 90mm equiv.) the amount of blurring

is just right for my tastes for a tight shot. I could move closer and blur more or move

back and blur less.

Another example is with DSLRs. I could put a 400mm on my Canon DSLR, step back

for a similar cropping for a portrait, and completely blow out the background if I

chose to do so. However, I believe the ideal perspective for people photography is

from 5-10 feet from the subject. I then select lenses to allow me to crop as needed...

for full length - a 35-50 equiv.; head and shoulders - about a 90-100 equiv; tight

face shot - a 140-200 equiv. or so.

For the way I shoot, the G6 and D2 give enough blur to be pleasing without becoming

objectionable and contrived looking as would a long tele.

But again, it's all a matter of personal style and taste.

Any of the Canon G-series cameras from the G3 to G6 have a 35mm equiv. 140mm

lens at f/3, which allows for a nicely OOF portrait background at head-and-shoulders

distance. The wide end of the lens (35mm equiv. in 35mm format) is f/2.

If you have deeper pockets the Leica Digilux 2 or Panasonic LC1 (same camera,

different name badges) have a Leica Summilux f/2-f/2.4 lens that has a 35mm equiv.

of 28-90mm and also very nice bokeh.

I use my Digilux 2 for portrait and commercial assignments when the situation allows

and the images are stunning.<div></div>

The original post asked:

"Is there another digicam that has a very good quality?"

My D2 has the best out-of-camera images of any digicam I own, including the 20D.

In fact, I recently used it on an advertising shoot, along with a 20D and L glass, and

after the first

two days of the five-day shoot, the art director said not to even get the 20D out of the

bag, that he preferred the "look" of the images we were getting from the D2.

The 20D is a fine camera, and so are many, many others. But for a non-

interchangeable lens compact digital, nothing compares at the moment to the D2 or

it's Panasonic twin, the LC1, IMO.

Like all things "Leica" it does come with a hefty price tag, but I'd pay it again for that

lens.

Where the camera is in relation to the subject determines the perspective.

The focal length of the lens only crops in or shows a wider view of that perspective.

You can easily test this with a zoom lens by standing in one place and taking a series

of photos or a static object at various zoom settings. After downloading them, in your

photo editor crop in to make the subject the same size on-screen in all the pictures

by increasing viewing magnification. They will look identical except the zoomed in

images will exhibit more noise and pixelation.

I don't know about the sensor brush, but for more than two years I have cleaned the

sensors on my Canon DSLRs (D30, 10D, 1D, 20D) with Pec Pads and Eclipse alcohol

using a cut-down rubber spatula bought at Wal-Mart. No problems and my total

investment was about $15 for the Eclipse and 100 pack of Pec Pads.

As far as the spots in the sky go, my preferred method in PS/CS is the Patch Tool

(behind the Healing Tool band-aid in the toolbar).

I have the G6 and it's great. Fast f/2 lens (WA) f/3 (tele) makes it a more versatile

camera for many applications. When I shot M6s all my lenses were Summicrons and I

never wanted for anything wider than 35mm. Just my personal preference.

For someone who understands photography, the Canon has a lot of hidden little

goodies like built-in ND filter, wireless remote, hot shoe with ETTL flash capability (I

also have Canon DSLRs and flash/macro flash) and many exposure options. The 7mp

files will easily print an 11x14 that's equal to what I could do with my 10D (*lens

differences aside)

It's $400 over your $700 budget, but if you really want to be happy with a camera for

the kind of shooting you want this camera for, may I suggest the Panasonic LC1 (now

$1,100 at B&H). I have the Leica Digilux 2 (LC1 twin) and it's just about the perfect

grab and go camera, IMO. You might find a used one for less, who knows.

But my Leica is a joy to use and - like my Hasselblad and Zeiss 150 Sonnar - photos

of people with the Digilux 2's vario-Summicron are a cut above other camera/lens

combos.

Good Luck!

MR-14 is good for shorter lenses (50 and 65) disappointing on the 100 and 180, IMO.

I use a MT-24 along with Wimberley macro bracket with my 65 and 100 macro lenses.

Works beautifully because one of the MT-24's two heads can be brought behind the

subject for a rim/effects light by placing on the Wimberley bracket.

If you can spend the $ for the MT-24 you won't regret it, if you do much macro work.

If not, it's a waste of money, IMO.<div></div>

I have the Canon 100 and 180. When I bought the 180 I expected to sell the 100, but

have come to realize that - for me at least - the 180 is not a good hand-held choice.

My typical way of working with each lens is:

100mm = handheld with flashbracket and MT-24 or 550EX

180mm = tripod (90% of time) with bracketed 550EX (or two, or three) with Lumiquest

softboxes

Cliff,

I have both the Canon 1.4x and 2x TC's (the later models of each) and the 70-200 f/

2.8L IS.

My take is that the 1.4x can be used with little or no image degradation, but the 2x

will take a heavier toll, but is still preferable to upsampling. My tests show the 2x is

best with my lens at f/8 or so (closed 1 stop from wide open).

I also use both converters with the 400mm f/5.6L and 180mm f/3.5L macro. These

prime lenses are much better with the 2x than the zoom, IMO. However, the edge still

goes to the 1.4x in image quality.

Here's a shot of a full moon done a couple of years ago with 10D and 400mm + 2xTC

(equiv. in 35mm to a 1280mm lens) at ISO 400, f/16 @ 1/400th second.

http://studioblountsprings.com/moon.html

Robert,

Three years ago I had two sigma lenses - 20mm and 28mm macro, both f/1.8 - and

neither would focus accurately with either my D30 or 10D (both since sold). I did

similar tests to what you describe and determined that both lenses were slightly off

(front focus).

Sent back to sigma service center and after a couple of weeks they came back with a

curt note that said "can't change lens software." No further explanation.

I suspect - but have no way of knowing or proving - that Canon is building in some

kind of glitch in their bodies that prevents third-party lenses from focusing as

accurately as the Canon lenses. And apparently sigma still hasn't figured out how to

make some of their lenses focus properly on the Canons. Maybe it's different with the

same lens and a Nikon or Minolta or Pentax.

Both went on eBay the next day and have since been happily replaced with a 17-40L

with is both more contrasy and sharper than either of the Sigma primes when focused

properly (manually).

I will never buy another sigma product.

BTW, I have the Canon EF 15mm f/2.8 and it has always focused properly (though a

little noisily) with every body I've used it on. For about a hundred bucks more than the

off-brand sigma, it's a bargain.

Jon,

I assume you're refering to the radial or barrel distortion that's characteristic of a

fisheye. The individual images can be "debarrelized" using panotools or other

software (CS2 now has this feature I think) but you loose part of the image (corners)

when straightening this way. I know of no way to correct the fisheye-created files you

have now that could be effectively stitched together without falling apart at the edges

because the data lost would be needed for stitching.

However, if you can reshoot with a more normal length lens - which will require

taking many more single images than with the fisheye used here - you could get a

much less distorted mpg panorama. For greatest detail I'd suggest you use a tripod

and carefully level the head, then capture each individual image vertically with

appropriate overlap (hope your computer has plenty of RAM).

You do not say in your post what camera you used, but my Canon Powershot G2, G5

and G6 all have a panorama assist mode which gives you a ghosted image of the

previous shot to align to while shooting which I find very helpful. The Canons also

have five ways to capture (l-r, r-l, top to bottom, bottom to top and 4 corners) and

lock in the exposure based on the first image when in the pan assist mode. I don't

know if other cameras have these features, but if yours does it's well worth using.

Hope this is helpful for you.

David

"Any recommendations?"

A bigger budget.

Look to invest a minimum of $200 in the legs and at least that much in a good head

for a medium-level tripod system.

Remember. a good tripod is a purchase that will serve you for many years, though

many cameras and lenses, so choose carefully.

Think abou it... if you're using a 20D and BG-E2, you've spent over $1,500 on a throw

away camera that'll be obsolete in a year or two and worth only a few hundred bucks.

For a third of what you paid for the camera/grip, a good tripod will last a lifetime and

will make shooting a pleasure instead of a pain. Very few photographers ever realize

this simple fact.

The best system I've seen for shooting verticals is the "L" bracket system sold by Kirk

and Really Right Stuff, but it's not cheap. The "L" shaped brakets are Arca Swiss style

quick releases that mount to the camera and allow them to mount to the tripod in

either the vertical or horizontal position. That way, the position of the lens changes

only a fraction of an inch, if any, instead of swinging in a wide arch and being lower

and to the side as with bottom-mounted cameras.

Here is the RRS website:

http://reallyrightstuff.com/body_plates/canon/index.html

I have the Gitzo 2220 ($200) and Arca Swiss B1 ballhead ($400) and it's already seen

cameras from D30, 10D, 1D, 20D in the two years I've had it. I expect it will see many

more.

Another significant difference if you're planning to use Canon's EX series flashes or

Canon macro flashes is the Mark II has ETTL-II flash metering, which is tremendously

better on my 20D vs. the 10D I had before that was the original ETTL metering for

flash.

I have a portrait setup with softbox, umbrella, etc. using three 550EXs, ST-E2 wireless

trigger and MT-24 macro twin flash and it's damn near impossible to fool the ETTL-II

when using any of these.

I think DSLRs are great. I've owned a number of them and expect to buy more as I

need them. I have and use to make a living Canon DSLRs and lenses ranging from

15mm to 400mm.

I have owned most Canon DSLR starting in 2001 with the D30, then 10D, 1D and now

20D. I have also used Nikon's D-100, D2H and D1X and Canon's 1DMKII and 1DSMKII.

I always shoot RAW + JPG with my digital cameras.

Of course I can make an image look just about however I want it to look shooting RAW

and converting and applying controls in photoshop. I do it all the time.

My point about the D2 is that its image processing in JPG mode is giving me better

color, contrast, saturation, etc. without doing anything than I've ever gotten with a

DSLR, in a wide variety of situations. I know you can create tone curves, etc., on pro

dslrs and all that or use the limited plus and minus parameter controls of digicams

and entry-level dslrs to change the jpg processing. I didn't have to do any of that on

the Leica. And besides, as lighting situations change, so would your processing

parameters if you're always changing them.

The original poster said he has not used digital and wanted something to replace his

35mm grab shot camera. I'm assuming that he was not spending hours and hours

tweaking these images but sending them to a lab and using what came back. In my

opinion, the D2 or LC1 is the best camera I've used at spitting out great images from

the camera that require no post processing to look good.

As a side note, in the 18 months I've had the D2, on three occasions it was used

simultaneously with my Canon DSLRs and once with a Nikon D2H on commercial

assignments. When the three different art directors for these varied projects made

their selections, the Leica jpg files were chosen.

If you want to know what I mean by this I'm afraid you'll have to buy or borrow a D2

or LC1 to see for yourself as posting a little JPG online wouldn't prove anything.

This has been my experience with the camera. I was trying to make a helpful

suggestion to a LF photographer who, I assumed, would not be satisified with the

typical P&S digicam oversharpened images that are formed through cheap glass that's

found on most of this breed of camera.

I am not and did not say the D2 is the perfect camera for everything. But I have

personal experience with it and with the current top-of-the-line digital DSLRs and I

can make an objective judgement on what it will and won't do. My cameras, lenses,

lighting, etc. are my tools. As a tool to use in certain situations the D2 does what it

does better than any other tool I have access to at the moment, so it is useful to have.

And to Scott Eaton and Giampi, I respectfully say that unless you've tested the D2/LC1

yourself, any comments you make about its image quality or characteristics is just so

much personal opinion.

Ray,

I, too, come from the LF and MF background, shooting a Blad and Deardorff V8 as well

as Wisner 4x5 and all the lenses.

The camera you're looking for - that will satisify you - is the Leica Digilux 2 or

Panosonic LC1 (which are the same camera with different badges - and prices).

Believe me, if you're used to the Schneider, Rodenstock and Zeiss lenses, the Vario-

Summicron (28-90 equiv. for 35mm, f/2-2.4) on these cameras are the only thing out

there that comes close unless you get a Canon or Nikon DSLR & L or ED glass, which

will cost a lot more. A 12x18 print from the 5mp files is pushing the envelope a bit,

but the lens is more than capable if you're up to the photoshop uprezing methods (I

use the 110% step-by-step in bicubic smoother mode with good results to that size).

As an added bonus, the camera can be operated just like an old fashioned film 35mm

- shutter speed dial on top, aperture ring on lens, focus ring on lens, etc. However,

you can also use as full automatic camera with very nice results. And it has a 2.5" LCD

that's a pleasure to use.

These camera absolutely produce the best straight-from-camera jpgs of any of the 14

digital cameras I've owned, including several pro level Canon DSLRs. In fact, I just shot

an advertising job where the art director actually chose the D2 as the camera he

wanted to use instead of my Canon DSLRs and L lenses. He preferred the "look" of the

Leica files.

It won't fit in your shirt pocket and it's more than the price you wanted to pay, but if

you're carrying around LF equipment and paying the prices all that stuff costs, it's

probably do-able.

Of all the digital cameras I've owned, my D2 does its thing better than any of them.

David,

I have the G6 and previously owned the G5 and G3. I think all the G-series cameras

are the best of breed for what they are.

You are right about the optical viewfinder, it's really only good for an approximation

of framing. And any lens adapter like the Lensmates I've used cuts even further into

the field of view.

But that said I think the problems with using the LCD are very overblown. I've used my

G6 in every imaginable lighting condition and haven't found a situation yet where I

couldn't get acceptable framing by rotating the LCD one way or the other a little bit.

Also, sometimes in very bright light I find it helpful to shade it with my left hand a

little.

Are you using the LCD out to the side snapped back against the camera back? If

you're not already, try it to the side and rotate until the image is best. Usually if the

LCD image is too dark, rotate counterclockwise a bit and it will brighten considerably.

Also, one of the first things I do when purchasing a new camera is to turn the

brightness of the LCD up all the way. This also helps.

Good Luck.

David

Micha,

One more thought... if you see yourself getting seriously into macro photography IMO

the Canon is the way to go. They have lenses and lighting dedicated to macro that

Nikon

simply doesn't offer.

One example is the MPE-65 macro lens, which goes from 1x to 5x lifesize without

bellows or adapters and is very well corrected.

Another is the MT-24EX macro twin light, which works so well with the 20D and

ETTL-II it's almost scary.

Otherwise, either company has a full line of lenses and accessories that can produce

top quality images, but at a hefty price for the nicest stuff.

The 20D 8mp files are about a 25% larger than the D70's 6mp, but either will give you

sharp and well-defined images.

I'd like to also encourage you to handle both cameras in person. Get the one you feel

most comfortable with.

Victoria,

One way to boost contrast in middle tones without overly affecting the highlights and

shadow areas is to use unsharp mask in PS to set local contrast.

I first convert the RAW data to a 16-bit image and do all my adjustments in 16-bit

mode.

Next using "highlight-shadow" I adjust the highlights so they are not right to the edge

of clipping.

Then I apply the USM with local contrast settings:

Amount: 20%

Radius: 50 Pixels

Threshold: 0

Or, for a slightly more saturated look:

Amount: 30%

Radius: 45 Pixels

Threshold: 1

The effect is like that Clariton commercial - pulling a hazy film off the image with

improved separation and saturation without blowing out highlights or blocking up

shadows.

I hope this helps.

Victoria,

From what I can see on the attached screen shots, the problem is simple - the image

is 3-4 f-stops underexposed!

Watch your histogram while shooting night images just like you would in the daytime.

Expose to get the data curve as far to the right as possible without clipping.

If it requires more exposure than the 30 seconds available as a set speed, use a

remote cable release and set the camera to the "B" setting. You can hold the shutter

open as long as you want.

The reason you are having problems adjusting the RAW file is that there is very little

information there to work with.

If you check the histogram on these images I'll bet the entire curve is bunched to the

left 1/4.

It's the equivalent of "clear film" from the analog days of photography.

You can add this to your mix...

I just saw on dpreview.com that Kodak has announced they're discontinuing both

Nikon and Canon mount DSC14 series cameras. They said customer support would

continue thru 2008, but who knows?

One thing about this announcement, you can look for the prices to tank on the Kodak

DSLRs.