fredscal

<p>Thank you all for your prompt and to-the-point answers.</p>

<p>Apparentaly the 30/33/30V/33V (7/7E/7N/7NE) don't have a red AF assist light. Does that mean it won't auto focus well in low light ?</p>

<p>This is surprising because the 50/50E (II/IIE) had AF assist.</p>

<p>(and yes, i'm from Belgium :)</p>

<p>Hello.</p>

<p>I was once the happy owner of an EOS 50 but it was stolen. Now I would like to buy a film camera again. I'll stick to Canon because I now it and was happy with it.</p>

<p>I used to practice photography as an amateur but then I made large prints for an exhibition and was disappointed by quality. So now I've decided to stick to ISO100 films instead of 400 (which, thanks to nowadays IS should not be too big a change, practically speaking), and i've just purchased that 28-300mm zoom from the L-Series on eBay. Call it an impulsive move maybe, but now I need a body to fit that big lens ;-)</p>

<p>So I'm hesitating bout which body to choose. I'm confident that with a touch of patience any EOS film body can be found at a decent price on eBay (or even new)...</p>

<p>I could stick to the EOS-50 that I know of course. Btw I wonder, what is the difference between the 50 and the 50E ?</p>

<p>I could be tempted by a more recent EOS-33V, but I've read something about 35-points focus! 3 points on my eos-50 were already 2 points too many for my taste... It just wasted time. I've once looked into a 450D's viewfinder and those 9 points really seemed to distract from composition. So, <em>35</em> points !? So maybe, on the other end, i'd be better off with an old EOS-100: does that one lack any of the features listed below ?</p>

<p>The 30V/33V also has better flash implementation but I'm not really into elaborated flash setups. But if bodies more recent than the 50 do a better job at focussing, now <em>that</em> would really count.</p>

<p>I'm also considering other lines of product: a 300 or 3000 (what difference?) because they're very light (the lens will be heavy enough and has its own tripod mount) and so cheap that i wouldn't care about its fragility...<br>

Or a more professional line, of which i'm not sure i understand the advantages, except for better resistance, but aren't they bulkier and much heavier ?</p>

<p>So I think i'll just list my expectations and see what advices it gets me:</p>

<p>- as few focusing points as possible (To me they're just distracting clutter in the viewfinder),<br /> - eye-assisted focusing is not necessary,<br /> - as fast and accurate focusing as possible, and which doesn't "miss" too often...,<br /> - focusing in reasonably low light,<br /> - (probably trivial) focus memory while half-pressing the trigger is an absolute necessity, and<br /> - instant autofocus and continuous autofocus <em>must</em> be two discrete settings, not a single combination</p>

<p>- not too weighty would be nice,<br /> - mid-film rewind would be cool,<br /> - built-in flash for the one time in every 100 shots that i might need a little bit of fill-in, and<br /> - the possibility to attach a real-job flash would make me feel more like a real man.</p>

<p>So i'm sure that in regard to this list the choice will have to be a compromise. Would you please help me making it the best possible compromise ?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>PS: I'm also going MF (612), but this EOS kit would be my lightweight kit.</p>

<p>Tom:<br>

If LF lenses are less sharp than 35mm-SLR lenses, then how comes they're more expensive ? (Or did you mean: at equal price, small format lenses are sharper ?)</p>

<p>Tom:<br>

Good to know. Unfortunately then, my MF camera uses LF lenses.</p>

<p>Larry, Patrick:<br>

I've had the same thought about a movie screen. But at the movies you're cought in the action and following the subject in motion; you hardly stop to look at the details in the picture. Not as much as you would watching a photo in an exhibition, anyway.</p>

<p>Les:<br>

My 35mm work is no reference, since i've used different shops' different scanners. For conservative-sized prints, i had found a shop that made decent photo-cds (with an agfa scanner), and for larger, thus grainy, prints, i went to a professional company who made one 500Mb scan per 35mm frame (a grain was thus more about 20 pixels wide if i remember well !). Now I would have liked to control scanning myself, but maybe i'd rather follow David's advice and do on what I used to...</p>

<p>David H.:<br>

Makes sense. I'll take your advice seriously.</p>

<p>Kelly:<br>

I see your point. I'm worrying about technicalities because I'm changing my equipment and work chain. So if I seem a bit overtechnical, it is because I want to put those questions past me as soon as possible, derive a routine from them, and concentrate back on photography.</p>

<p>Dave:<br>

In what unit are you talking ? Thumbs or cm ?<br>

I see your point anyway.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=499187"><br /> </a></p>

<p>How can you know those 2 mornings were identical. Do your brain and retinae have photographic memory ?</p>

<p>I like piture #1, btw</p>

<p>Larry:</p>

<p>No offense taken. It is a question of taste and I respect yours.</p>

<p>Me, I like to be able to make out every blade of grass in a landscape view. It contributes to beauty in my opinion - although it is not an absolute requirement, I just like it better ;-)</p>

<p>With offset-printed posters, you can't reach the same detail level as with a photographic print anyway (but the process has other advantages of course).</p>

<p>Thank you all for your helpful responses.</p>

<p>Michael:<br /> It is exactly what I was asking, thanks. And it roughly corresponds to what I expected.</p>

<p>Robert:<br /> Are you saying that the acceptable enlargement factor varies from 6x to 10x depending on film type ?<br /> Thanks for the film brand tips. Let's hope they don't quit making color roll film too soon...</p>

<p>As for a tripod, I've bought this chinese imitation for 120€ (about $160), I think the brand is Digipod, and it was advertised as professional in a professional shop. Does that seem realistic to you ? I'll see the results in about a week anyway (the lab is so sloooow...!)</p>

<p>Larry:<br /> Call me a lunatic, but I do ;-)</p>

<p>David:<br /> By transparency films, do you mean slides ? I didn't know that slide films gave less grainy results, so if that's what you mean, thanks for the tip. I've considered using slide film, but since i've been told they are very unforgiving exposurewise, and i'm only a beginner in manual photography, i think not to begin with. Or maybe for low-contrast subjects, like a fog scene or so...?</p>

<p>For scanning, I was considering an Epson V700 (6400dpi) flatbed scanner. Does drum scan really give preferable result? I thought as long as pixel is smaller than grain i would be safe... Too naive maybe ?</p>

<p>Ronald:<br /> Obviously. But I wasn't happy with 35mm in terms of detail and print size. Btw, I suppose you're expressing dimensions in thumbs ? (I'm a Continental European, so i don't get implicit non-metric units very intuitively, sorry)</p>

<p>Thanks again. I'll come by later.</p>

<p>Hello.</p>

<p>I'm going from automatic 35mm SLR to manual Medium Format (6x12). I'm only interested in color photography. The reason why I went Medium Format is to be able to print larger pictures. Btw, I'm not really interested in the discussion whether a digital camera would give better, worse or equivalent results.</p>

<p>(in case you wonder, i bought a Fotoman 612 on eBay, but the choice of camera is not the issue)</p>

<p>My main question is: how large a print can I expect to make with sharp detail and little enough grain, from my 6x12cm negative ? The larger the better but I don't want to push it too far. I realize this depends on ISO and film brand, so I'll address each question at a time:</p>

<p>ISO: I wouldn't mind using the slowest film available, but I've read somewhere that slow film don't render light like fast ones (that is, a 1sec exposure on ISO 25 wouldn't give the same result as a 1/16s exposure on ISO400). I've read something about lower contrasts... What does it mean and how does it work? I like landscapes with tormented weather and strong contrasts. Is it an issue, and are there valid workarounds (my plan for now is to scan the negs in high rez, color-time them in Photoshop, and print using Lambda technology... I've done this with 35mm and the result was awesome) ? If a compromise needs to be made, what could it be ?</p>

<p>Film choice: Until now I've only used 35mm Agfa 200, Fuji 400, Fuji 800 color films and was happy with the results - just to give you an idea of my tastes. not that i'm closed to new experiences... so the 35mm films i liked were among the basic ones. Froom there i naturally went to Fujicolor Reala and Fujicolor Pro roll films... I would, however, welcome other suggestions, mostly if it helps reducing granularity.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Fred</p>

<p>(ps: i'm currently experimeniting, but my first rolls aren't back from the lab yet ;)</p>