museebfoto

<p>By the way <strong>Josh</strong>, I have suggested some thing about characterizing the selected photo for Cup winner, Do you still remember that?. Thanks again</p>

<p>OK, Thank you <strong>Patrick Wells, Grayham Allott</strong><br /> I have uploaded the two photos by the same procedures and as I think the size are also same. Thanks again<br /> <strong>Josh Root</strong>, Just Now<br /> As I have wrote, Thank you</p>

<p>I thing the system of PN some time can fix the Exif data from the uploaded photo and some time fail. My uploaded photos are captured by Sony Next-C3. First link Exif appeared the second doesn’t.<br>

<a href="../photo/14882312">http://www.photo.net/photo/14882312</a><br>

<a href="../photo/15019172">http://www.photo.net/photo/15019172</a></p>

 

<p>Indeed, the printed results from my old Monitor Card ( stop working now ) are very accurate to extent that my friends compare them with postcards quality .</p>

<p>The same one.</p>

<p><a name="00Zu2i"></a><strong>Mike Earussi</strong><br>

What monitor calibration can do here ?. I compare between the colors of two prints ( for the same file ), one was printed with NVIDIA and the other now with ATi.</p>

<p>This is what happen with me, but please wait a moment.<br /> I have replaced my monitor card from NVIDIA type to ATi, Now my print have a different red color and this is happen even to the photo which I have already printed in NVIDIA without changing any thing like ( Printer, The photo file, Paper type and Ink cartage type ). One thing to mention, the Ink cartage which I use are stocked for more than one year and of course a different monitor setting . Thank you</p>

<p>I advise you to go with Original 5D because the chance to get one become more limited with time, where you always have a chance to get the other cropped option.</p>

<p>In this long and interesting debate I would like to draw your attention to the work of Misha Gordin who processed his photo in a traditional darkroom to his own satisfied degree.<br /> <a href="http://bsimple.com/home.htm">http://bsimple.com/home.htm</a></p>

<p>Creative idea <strong>Patrick</strong><strong>. </strong>MERRY CHRISTMAS</p><div></div>

<p>I am too, I appreciate its low noise performance.</p>

 

<p><strong>Hi Jack the Hat</strong><br>

1) As <strong>Bob Atkins</strong> said, we are talking about thing it will not occur and it is just wishful.<br>

2) All the test reviews agreed that the 5DII had better test results than 5D, and I am sure nothing false in that.<br>

3) Finally, dpreview gave two different reason ( one for jpg test and other for RAW test ) for per pixel' sharpness which is in 5D better than 5DII.</p>

<blockquote>

<p >" It's also obvious - looking this close - that the Mark II can't match the original 5D's 'per pixel' sharpness, and the output looks a little softer. Part of this is doubtless down to in-camera sharpening (which is fairly high by default on the original 5D), some will be the sensor design. Either way it isn't likely to make a difference in real world use where the extra resolution of the Mark II - and a touch of sharpening - will more than make up for the slightly softer output ".</p>

</blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page29.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page29.asp</a></p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p >" Both cameras produce considerably more detailed and sharper results from the RAW than they did in JPEG mode. On a pixel level, the original 5D is still slightly better than the Mark II, but this is to be expected as the original 5D had a very weak anti aliasing filter. In real world use the 5D Mark II will more than make up for any difference in pixel level sharpness with all those extra pixels, so if you need it, the 5D Mark II represents a significant resolution hike over its predecessor ".</p>

</blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page33.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page33.asp</a></p>

<p>I think this is due to the relationship between Circle of confusion ( CoC ), diffraction and cell size and not the reasons given above.<br>

I wish if <strong>Bob Atkins</strong> could have time and share his opinion on this point. Thanks</p>

<p><strong>Jack the Hat</strong><br /> Prestigious companies should not always adopt the principle of profit and loss, or at least because this camera till now on the shelves and in a high price.<br /> Indeed, I hadn't thought about upgrading because I have no interest with the video ability of the SLR camera, and I don't have the need of the higher resolution which is at the expense of cell size.</p>

<p>Why not, this doesn't cost more than a few hours of working from the software engineers, and Canon will do a distinct service to their clients.</p>

<p>Sorry, I meant <strong>Rob H</strong> and not <strong>Bob H</strong></p>

<p><strong>Bob H</strong><br /> Indeed, I don't have the lens you are mentioned, but I have many Minolta manual focus lenses which I have used with film camera.<br /> My following examples are taken by KONICA MINOLTA 7D + Minolta AF 28-100 f3.5/5.6 D Zoom which is cost less than $100. Here the Bokeh here are not so obvious and I have to search in my old film photos.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/14139734<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/9228394</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Bokeh represent how a dot of light which is out of focus will appear in its circular shape and in its gradient in brightness.<br /> Most <strong>Minolta</strong> lenses produce a beautiful Bokeh.</p>

<p><strong>Thanks Paul</strong>.. you are right, indeed what I mean that the MD lenses cannot be used directly.<br /> My own experience with <strong><em>Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D</em></strong> body + mount adapter + MD lens was not good. While the given link show a very good results by using Sony NEX C3 + mount adapter + Leica lenses, In which I just to mention that the E-mount of Sony NEX C3 obviously is more acceptable with adapter.<br /> <strong>Thanks Wendy</strong></p>

<p><strong>Hi Wendy</strong><br /> Yes, as I see, Panasonic FX3 has better lens, it has less distortion specially at wide angle. In another features Sony NEX C3 seems better.<br /> Minolta MD are excellent lenses, but they're manual focus and in a different mount, so you can't use with Sony NEX C3. I have bought adapter for MD lenses to use with my Konica-Minolta 7D but it made the focusing very difficult and the result ( photos ) are too bad.<br /> Please see this link, Sony NEX C3 with Leica Lens.<br /> <a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1030741/0">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1030741/0</a></p>

<p>I have bought Sony NEX c3, I can't judge it because I only took few photos with it , it seems good with dynamic rang, colors, nose, and its beautiful organic design. But it is obvious the kit lenses doesn't match the lens with Panasonic FX3.</p>

<p>Maybe this is from the first roll film I shoot in 1970, it is for the annual spring festival procession celebrated in Nineveh city - Iraq . The camera was ADOX Golf.<br>

I found the following site about the same camera that I had.<br>

<a href="http://www.thecamerasite.net/03_Folder_Cameras/Pages/adoxgolf.htm">http://www.thecamerasite.net/03_Folder_Cameras/Pages/adoxgolf.htm</a></p>

<div></div>

<p>Since taking a photo need the visualization at first, so the photographer must be an artist first.</p>

<p>Thanks Josh for your very fast reply.</p>

 

<p>On Mar 23, 2011 I have sent this email to Photo.net Chief Admin & Director of Community Mr. Josh Root as a suggestion to easy locate the Photographer's POW photo.<br>

<em>Hi Josh ..The name of the member who his photo has previously chosen as POW, his name appear with yellow Cup. So, would you please find any tool ( sign ) that can show the selected POW within the portfolio of the photographer.</em><br>

He answered me <em>It's a good idea and I will look into it for the future. </em></p>

<p><strong>Lonnie Raffray</strong>, Yes I am agree with your recent comment <strong>" Equipment doesn't matter, is too broad and needs to be qualified "</strong>. Indeed, I also have an impression the article given by Ken Rockwell has some extreme ideas but the good thing that he always emphasizes that one should upgrade his skill better than thinking to upgrade his cameras because the camera it self, for example, doesn't compose the photo.<br /> <strong><em>Michael Reichmann</em></strong> was a more realistic and I have quoted two of his lithe statements like<strong><em> " most </em></strong><em>cameras are better than</em><strong><em> most </em></strong><em> </em><em>photographers</em><strong> </strong><strong>" </strong>This has always been true, and<strong> now </strong>simply more so than ever.<br>

So he also took the time as a factor, and as time passes surely the gap will get less and less.</p>

<p>Thank you <strong>Alan Zinn</strong><br /> Thank you <strong>Lonnie Raffray</strong></p>