andrew_grant

I am currently having issues with my 10D. I have some spots I have been unable to remove with a visible dust brush or with SensorClean fluid and polyester tipped applicator (or with eclipse and the Polyester tipped applicator). I also tried the "Copper Hill" method using a friends spatatula and some pec pads I already have.

 

I didn't like the spatula and pec pad method because the pec pad wrapped around a spatula is rather bulky for a 1.6x sensor. I am considering buying some sensor swipes but I wonder if they will be any more sucessful. Other options would be the speck grabber or perhaps SmearAway.

 

Does anyone have any recommendations either for any of the above products or for someone in NYC who cleans sensors.

Jeff Drew, you would have no problem "getting really good, well-timed shots" with a digital camera either if you used a decent digital camera. Any current generation DSLR from Nikon or Canon will be about as fast as an equivalent film SLR from the same company. As a bonus you won't have to change film every 36 exposures. Get a DSLR and dump the digicam toy.

 

I have both a film SLR and a digital SLR and ironically the only kind of film I still shoot is B&W. Shooting digitally in color and convertin to B&W is convenient but has one major disadvantage over B&W film, exposure lattitude. Ilford XP-2 seems to have about 9 stops, way more than any digital camera. The other nice thing about XP-2 is you can scan it easily or print it in wet darkroom on B&W paper just as easily as a conventional B&W film (just not Kodak paper for much longer).

 

I am surprised that B&W materials are disappearing faster than color though, I would expect B&W photographers who do their own printing to be the last people to switch to digital. OTOH color film is a PITA. If you shoot slide you need a different film for each type of lighting and you have the same narrow exposure lattitude as digital without the histogram. If you shoot color negative, chances are you will have to get someone else to process and print it. That will either be expensive or the colors will be wrong.

 

I guess sales of color negative film are being propped up by the sale of disposable cameras and color paper will still be widely used in those digital minilab machines for some time.

"I think the problem is your wanting pro results from a Frontier lab whos market is the amateur, not pros. If you want dead on color mgt, don't be cheap, go to a pro lab and pay the extra."

 

For the kind of money the pro labs want, it may be better to print your own images on an inkjet.

If it didn't cost twice as much as it should and had a proper optical viewfinder.

Anyone who buys a Digilux must really like paying for the red dot. Paying DSLR prices for a P&S digicam with a tiny sensor and an EVF seems crazy to me.

You are correct. In any case www.atlex.com is where I always buy my Epson OEM inks and papers and they sell R800 carts for about 11.50.

If you like to bracket your exposures definitely go digital, bracketing is free.

 

I have found that macro photography has a very low keeper rate, again perferct for digital. I would never use my film body for macro work.

Again what Andrew said. Do NOT use this Lab.

"As far as altex.com goes, I do not see them carrying the R800 inks at all"

 

Altex's R800 page

 

http://www.atlex.com/Epson/epson-printer/epson-stylus-photo-r800-printer-paper-ink-cartridges.htm

Perhaps you should sell your 10D and buy a used 1D.

The EOS 33 is very similar in features to the 10D though the build quality of the 10D is much better. The 300D is similar to the 300. The feature I would miss most would be the rear dial for manual mode/exposure compensation, the flash exposure compensation and control over the AF mode and metering pattern.

 

If you mostly use the program or dummy modes, the 300D would be fine. Alternatively, since you do not have too much Canon gear, check out the Nikon D70. Almost as good as the 10D, almost as cheap as the 300D. Unfortuantely I don't think they have an lens like your 70-200L F4 (great lens).

That works quite well if you are handholding the camera. On a tripod, a handheld spot meter is more convenient. The Pentax Spotmeter F (a digital spometer) has a "higlight" button. You meter the brighest part of the image and then press the button and it will calculate an exposure about two stops under.

Actually, Altex charges 11.49 for a R800 cart but only 8.90 for a 2200 cart so the R800 carts cost about 30% more. I doubt they hold 30% more ink, I have heard that they hold less.

Having a backup body is a great idea. I have an Elan 7. I don't like digicams and a second DSLR would be a lot of money for something I wasn't using.

Where can I get the William Turner ICC profile?

Like Arnie, I found the fix for the shadow problem was a 2200.

I had a 1270 and have now had a 2200 (US version of 2100) for over a year. I have only used the 2200 for printing on matte and I find I prefer the print quality on the same paper (heavy weight matte, still using up my supply). I was never really happy with the print quality of the 1270 because of problems with shadow detail. I like the 2200 quality even more on the heavy textured art papers.

 

I almost always printed matte on the 1270 since that produced the most stable image. I did try Color Life (a lustre type paper) but though the paper may be light fast, it took for every to dry and the paper had pizza wheel tracks. On the 2200, switch to gloss requires a cartridge swap which isn't worthwhile for the occasional gloss print.

 

I have found that all the paper types look pretty much the same under glass or in plastic sleeves so I pretty much stick to matte and print the glossy 4x6s and odd 8x10 at Costco. They are quite cheap but their color is not consistant.

 

BTW the light black cartridge is thought to be responsible for the 2200's better shadow detail.

There have been plenty of stories of prints from dye based Epson and Canon printers fading within a year. If you never sell or give away prints (or pay to have them framed), this is not really an issue since you can reprint.

"but the reality that B/W film was not designed with scanning in mind, and quite often won't yield good results in the digital realm no matter what you do. This is why I tell so many people that if they want to scan film, stop wasting time B/W film and simply shoot color and desaturate. It looks *better*."

 

In my experiance (with 35mm film) the best film for scanning if a B&W image is desired is Ilford XP2. This is a C-41 process B&W film with a clear base (great exposure lattitude too). The worst film for scanning is conventional B&W film (Tri-X is terrible). I have not been completely thrilled with scans of color negative film. I wouldn't use it for B&W images. For color images I wouldn't use 35mm film at all (the 10D produces much better images).

The 4000 takes the same carts as the 7600 and 9600 so it should not cost more to operate. In fact if you want to switch between Matte and Photo black inks it should cost less.

 

OTOH The 2200 may be much cheaper to buy but it is certainly much more expensive to operate. I have one but my print volume is low. I only print 8x10 or above on it. All 4x6 and any glossy 8x10 work I print at a lab.

>>So you think Kodak installed its own electronics into a Canon body while managing to remain completely ignorant about how the mount works?<<

 

Why would Kodak have needed to know how the mount works. Their own electronics and software would not have needed to communicate directly with the lens. Canon shipped Kodak complete EOS 1n bodies,not parts.

 

Competition is great for consumers but the best competition for Canon would be a full frame camera from Nikon based on the D2H. I don't think a Kodak/Sigma studio only body competes with the 1Ds. If I had $5000 to spend on an EOS mount DSLR, I would wait to buy a 1D MKII and give up the extra pixels and full frame sensor.

Actually they have not. What they have done is taken EOS 1-N film bodies and retrofitted them with a Kodak CCD and electronics. This was done with Canon's help. It doesn't look like Canon are helping this time.

I would not rely on them or any other magazine for an unbiased detailed review. It will be interesting to see what robgalbraith and dpreview have to say about the new Kodaks.

 

As for Sigma, I own one of their lenses so I am not completely anti Sigma. However, they have had problems with compatibility with EOS lens mounts for their lenses and they have never before produced a camera body with an EOS lens mount. I would expect some problems.

I have read the reviews of the Sigma SD bodies. My impression is that they are not quite upto the standard of the EOS 10D. They are clearly not in the same class as the 1D variants.

This camera looks a Signma body with Kodak digital bits and a Sigma copy of the EOS lens mount. Given past issues that Sigma has had reverse engineering the EOS mount for their lenses, I am dubious about how well this will work.

 

When you also consider the problems that Kodak have had with their Nikon mount version (which is based on an real Nikon film body and uses Nikon parts), the 1Ds looks to be well worth the $3000 premium.

A digital Canon EOS 1v vs a digital Sigma is no contest.

Not much more than the II, looks more professional and is closer to the 10D in features (e.g. same AF module).