plewenthal

<p>Great shot Robert - you caught some great expressions.<br>

My contribution for this week - of the Mt. Diablo foothills as the morning fog cleared.<br>

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

<p>One from the other morning.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi all,<br>

What an inspired set of photos. Ilka I love the aerial shot. One of my favorite subjects.<br>

This is another favorite subject, the fog around the SF East Bay hills. 5dII / 24-105 @28 mm f10. Someone else can use my sacrificed pixels!<br>

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

<p>Hi Milan,<br>

I did what you propose to do and am very happy with the result. That is, I started with a crop camera [the 300d] and the kit lens. Over several years rather than upgrade the camera body I purchased the 24-105, 16-35, 70-200 2.8 IS and 50 1.4, and then got the 5dII when it came out. Overall I find this combination very satisfactory. To your question, I would not want to be without the 16-35 as it provides a unique vantage point compared to the others. As to the 16-35 vs. 17-40 I don't have an opinion as I've only used the 16-35. I do like taking advantage of the background blur and lower light shooting that the 2.8 aperture permits, but that may not be a priority for you. However, as was pointed out above, shooting with such a wide lens is challenging, but I was especially keen to learn how to use such a lens - and someday I may figure it out. As I shoot mostly landscapes and not a lot of sports or BIF the 5dII is perfect for me and this group of lenses is provides a very flexible setup that is easy to take on trips. Indeed I myself am by a large margin the weak link in the system.<br>

Cheers and good luck with your decision.<br>

Phil</p>

I don't know exactly what you're shooting but if it doesn't move you can also consider stitching several digital shots together, perhaps using a TS lens. Another point to consider is the availability of far longer focal length lenses for the 5DII. You can stitch several such shots together and create a massive image

 

I don't think digital has the dynamic range of either color negative or especially B/W film. And what you use to scan is also part of the equation. A true drum scan mey change your thinking.

 

Finally, don't forget the different aspect ratio. You may be wasting pixels.

 

All that being said, I have both cameras and my RZ has been feeling neglected lately.

<p>I've used the DNG converter, which can be downloaded from the Canon website, and it works. The resulting DNG files are about the same size as the RAW files produced by the camera. Query whether it is prudent to keep the original RAW file or toss it after conversion. DNG has an option of incorporating the original RAW file into the DNG file. If you do that the resulting file will be about twice the size of the RAW file. I'm not sure how one would access the embedded RAW file.</p>

This may seem a little unusual but I like to browse the forums using my Blackberry. In the past that worked very well. However, something has happened since the upgrade that just makes the hourglass spin and spin whenever I try to access the site. I have to turn the thing off to use it for anything.

 

Any idea what it could be and whether it could be reversed?

 

Cheers!

 

Phil

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

In case you haven't seen it, at www.the-digital-picture.com there is a set of tables permitting provides sharpness comparisons between any two current Canon lenses, across a range of cameras, apertures, ISOs, etc. I don't know if the site is considered absolutely reliable, but it might be informative. There is always the problem of sample variation.

 

FWIW, I have the IS version and am very happy with it. My choice was based on the notion that the IS version would provide more flexibility, and it absolutely has. I'm just an amateur but have used it to take photos at a family wedding where no flash was allowed, as well as a number of other low-light situations, and [apart from my poor compositional skills] they came out very well. As a caveat, I'm still using the original 6 MP Digital Rebel, which is not as revealing of the sharpness issues that concern you as would be a newer camera.

 

Good Luck!

 

Phil

This may seem a bit off the wall, but an [expensive] alternative might be the Cambo X-2PRO system, which appears to be a bellows that attaches to full frame digital SLRs [including the 5D] and provides tilt and shift movements. I believe your Canon lenses won't work with it but perhaps your Rogonoar lenses would work. I believe it costs about $1,800 and would probably provide more tilt and shift movement than the canon t-s lens.

 

Good luck!

First just let me say how much I appreciate all the thoughtful responses to my problem. I'll confess that I've been surprised at how many people think the 24-105L may be part of the problem. However, the RZ shots are taken with their 180 mm lens, which is reported to be one of their sharpest, so there could be a difference, especially when you combine it with the cropping.

 

Also, I would not have thought that mirror lock up would matter for an IS lens when using strobes - one is an Alien Bee and the other is the White lightning brand. That said, I do use a tripod and MLU for the RZ because it's so heavy and has such a big mirror. So I'll try the Rebel on a tripod with the remote control-no MLU option here.

 

I only shoot in raw mode and use the custom white balance to match the strobe color.

 

There shouldn't be any mixed lighting since I'm usually shooting at night. In any event, the color balance issues are the same for the RZ shots since I use the same setup.

 

I don't have a copy stand so I have to align the image and try to do as much cropping as possible in-camera.

 

I'm intrigued by the polarizer idea and will give it a try.

 

The Rebel images look great on my computer. I don't notice any fuzziness, but because of the cropping and film size the RZ shots are much bigger, plus I can scan and adjust them in 16 bit color. Color fidelity is as much an issue as anything else here and the differences are probably more subtle than gross.

My sense of this is that the stitching technique will even the odds quite a bit by giving me a lot more pixels to work with, and a polarizers will optimize the color quality.

 

Thanks again

I wanted to respond to some of the good suggestions from above -

 

"Shoot raw. Send them 240dpi tiffs. Even high quality jpegs are lossy."

 

I only shoot RAW but it's not easy to email such large tiff files in 16 bit. Maybe I can send them a CD instead of using email. Of course, they are not having a problem with the jpegs from the RZ scans....nevertheless I'll try sending them the full file.

 

"f/8 most likely is best. However, you are not helping us out much here with your vague-ish answers. What lens you use? Just the 24-105 4L? Use a 50mm prime and stand back a little for better results."

 

Sorry if my answers seem vague. I have only used the 24-105L so far. Have not used a tripod because I figured it wasn't necessary with the strobes and image stabilization, but will give it a try next time, and will adjust the lights so that I can use F8. Maybe I'll also try the 70-200 2.8L lens.

 

 

"If you're not cropping (or cropping equally)and you have good lenses, the 5D should yield superior image quality. It has more pixels and they are bigger!"

 

This is what I really wondered about. For me, all the bells and whistles of the 40D don't outweigh image quality itself.

 

"The 4990 is a good scanner, but not ideal for film. You should try a Nikon CS9000. A 4000dpi scan of Astia (or Velvia if you're into that kind of thing) well printed at 16x20 will blow your mind."

 

I've been pretty happy with the 4990 so far - it was an upgrade from the 4870 which never really did the trick. I use the Silverfast software which gives pretty good color control. But thanks for the recommendation - if I get to the point of using a dedicated film scanner I'll look into them.

 

 

"You could try photo stitching, that way you could turn your 6mp camera into a 60mp or greater if need be."

 

"I've also had success going after high resolution images (around 30MP) of artwork with stitched images from an XT. You need a pano head. "

 

Thanks for the suggestion - I'm going to give this a try. Always wanted a panoramic tripod head anyway.

 

"Use a tripod; shoot at ISO 100. Use MLU if shooting speeds below 1/30."

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but what's MLU?

 

"In that sort of highly controlled environment, at low ISOs, pure resolution becomes the most important feature, as the playing field levels out for most other factors, such as high ISO performance, crop factor, etc.

 

And, I would get the 50 or 100mm macro lens, or some other sharp fixed-focal-length lens, and use it stopped down to its best aperture."

 

I believe what you're saying is that I should upgrade the camera and get the fixed-focal-length lens. I'd rather not do both unless it's really necessary....Would you try changing the lens or the camera first?

 

So, to sum this up, what I'm hearing is that I should first try sending a tiff or PS file to avoid the lossy jpeg format. Next I should try stopping the lens down to only F8 and using a tripod. If no success, the next step would be to get a panoramic head and stitch photos together to get a larger file. Third, I should try a sharp fixed length lens, and finally if all else fails I should upgrade the camera body. If I'm going to upgrade it sounds like the consensus is to upgrade to the 5D rather than the 40D.

 

Thanks for all the input on this question - it's been extraordinarily helpful. I'll let you know what happens.

Wow! Thanks for all of your thoughts on this. Let me explain a little more of the situation. I use two bounced strobes and usually stop the lens down to F11 or F13. Is that too small?

 

Generally I love the Rebel. I use a G5 with a calibrated Apple 20" LCD monitor and I'm able to make great 13" x 19" prints on an Epson 2400 printer.

 

But I'm not making these prints, someone else is. I email them high quality jpeg files and they make prints, and they tell me that my scanned RZ files - using an Epson 4990 scanner - are much better in terms of color smoothness and detail than the Rebel files. In many cases they have the original painting in front of them.

 

I have to crop off about 1/4 to 1/3 of the Rebel file because of the aspect ratio problem so that leaves about 4-5 mp. Do you think that's the real problem here?

 

Thanks again!

Does anyone have any thoughts on how I might solve the problem image quality

from the 40D might compare to the 5D? I have the original 6mp Rebel and one of

the things I do with the camera [with the 24-105L lens]is to document artwork,

where image detail and color fidelity are very important. Lately I have been

told by art consultants that the Rebel files aren't good enough to make

outstanding 8" x 10" images. Part of the issue is that the artwork has a

different aspect ratio than the camera, so the images need to be cropped, with

the result that I can't use even the full 6mp that are available. [Fortunately

I've also been using a medium format film camera so I have film images that do

the trick.]

 

So think I have two questions: 1) Will I see more improvement by using a prime

lens or getting a better camera body and 2) if I were to upgrade cameras, do

you think that, for this purpose, the 14 bit capture capability of the 40D

outweighs the full frame, higher megapixel count of the 5D? Noise is not an

issue because I shoot at ISO 100 and I don't particularly care about frame

rates, live view, where the buttons are, etc.

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

 

Phil

I agree. I had an Epson 3200 and it was not as capable on some slides as my

Epson 1600, a much more expensive scanner and the predecessor to the

1680 which retails for about two and a half times what the 4870 costs. When I

asked Epson why, they told me that the 1600 was a more professional

machine with better optics. It certainly is built better. I believe that the optics

have a lot to do with the quality issues surrounding these affordable / low end

scanners with great specs. It is surprising that the 1680 has not been

upgraded to a higher resolution.

 

The pixels game reminds me of the claims audio manufacturers used to make

about amplifier power. The only thing that mattered was the number of watts a

manufacturer could claim on some basis that could be pretended to be

believed. With no qualitative measurement standards - such as a resolution

measure at some level of sharpness - we are left essentially at the mercy of

the marketing department.

 

That said, I will probably buy one. The 3200 was much more capable than the

1600 in many ways - for example it had lower noise.

After adjusting the color balance to be comparable to the Imacon and further

sharpening on the Epson scan, the Imacon is harder to distinguish than before. Also,

note that this was a prototype scanner and the final version may be better. At any rate

it was considerably better than the 3200, which Epson eventually bought back from

me. This was a slide which the 3200 couldn't cope with. It created terrible halo effects

around many of the branches.

Please excuse the misspelling in the caption name!

The attached file is a comparison of a prototype scanner which turned out to be the

4870 with an Imacon 636, both at 3200 DPI This may seem ridiculous, but I believe it

is informative. The Epson scan was made by Epson from an image I sent them, with

USM set on medium - I was having trouble scanning this with a 3200 and they made a

scan of it with the then test model for comparison. I made the Imacon scan myself

with a rented one at a local photo shop - no USM. In case there is any doubt, the

Epson scan is the top one.

I'm strictly amateur. Just bought a 300D about a month ago and

have used it to take photos of art, landscapes in varying light,

performances in a darkened theater [using the built-in flash],

snapshots of people at a party, and animal pictures. I have also

attached a Metz flash to it via a hot shoe adapter.

 

The results to my mind are terrific, especially for what is really an

entry level SLR. However, I'm not interested in fifty different

metering, flash and autofocus modes. My other main camera is

a completely manual medium format beast with no built-in

meter.

 

The best things about it for me are 1) the end of shutter lag [but

my previous digital camera was a Canon s20] which simply can't

be emphasized enough, 2) fast, reasonably reliable autofocus [if

unavoidable at least it's mostly unobtrusive], 3) the virtual

absence of noise, and 4) the pure manual mode. Also, vivid color

very long battery life, light weight and easy to use controls.

 

What I don't like about it is the cheesy manual focus ring on the

lens. Very forgivable for the price but cheesy nonetheless. The

absence of flash compensation hasn't had much of an impact

yet but those who know seem to care about it.

 

The principal thing I don't like about it may simply be something

common to all digital cameras. You really have to expose a shot

to have an optimum histogram. I take a lot of pictures in the

woods and like the dark atmosphere of these images on film.

But digital seems to block up these images. In effect I have to

overexpose them and adjust them down in Photoshop. Not a

huge problem but it causes parts of the sky which peek through

to be completely overexposed. I don't really have a feel for the

camera's latitude yet.

 

Hope this is helpful