daniel_taylor

Not sure how or why...but B&H Photo lists the 10D as being in stock, and it looks like a "new" listing, not used. $800.

They must have found some boxes some where.

"I calibrate my monitor weekly so it's not a color management issue."

This is equivalent to telling a cop: "I stopped drinking beers 5 minutes ago, so it's not a driving-under-the-influence issue."

If you need to calibrate your monitor weekly, you have a color management issue. Maybe you feel the need to calibrate because you're not doing it right so it always ends up off, or maybe you're being obsessive and by calibrating it every week you're introducing a problem some weeks. Either way, there's a problem.

"I suspect it has something to do with the fact that color spaces didn't exist in the world of film back in good old days. Color spaces limit the number of colors to a fixed set of colors depending on your space. With analog/film you have a smother transition from color to color and from tone to tone."

I'm always amazed when people say this because it's the polar opposite of all my experience to date. There's no comparing my 35mm film and digital work in terms of tonality and subtle color transitions/details: the DSLR always wins. Film does not have an infinite ability to render tones, and in 35mm grain interferes with accurate tonal transitions. I can discern texture in flower petals in my 10D flower shots, defined by the most subtle color variations, that are simply not present (i.e. single color/tone) on 35mm frames of similar flowers under similar conditions.

And that's using sRGB, not Adobe.

If you're sometimes getting accurate skin colors and sometimes not, it's not a color space issue. It's most likely a white balance issue, a variation in post processing, or the constant equipment recalibrations. Assuming you're just being obsessive and your equipment is actually calibrated, I would lean towards WB.

As a couple other people have noted, there's no lab to think for you. You have to manage this stuff yourself. Maybe you have a lab you love and trust and will just find film easier for you. That's fine. But understand it's not a "digital vs. film" issue, it's doing it yourself or leaving it up to someone else.

"I actually need a photo that I can show him to compare.. Compare to canon lenses.."

Better stay away from Canon telephotos. The two times I've seen those showdowns Leica was not the winner, no matter how painful that is to hear.

Try the wide end. Canon isn't as strong there.

"I have Maxxum 5D and EOS 10D. Comparing 2 cameras side by side: Maxxum 5D wins in every way. Auto white balance is inferior in Canon D-SLR's vs KM, Olympus, etc., so is color."

There is no real difference between the DSLRs color wise. Every company is trying to reproduce the Macbeth chart as perfectly as possible, and they're all within 0.01%. If you're seeing a color difference between two DSLRs you either have their parameter settings mismatched (i.e. one on high saturation, one on low), or you don't know how to use the respective RAW converters.

AWB is better/worse between various models, but you can always manually set the WB on scene or choose it later in a RAW converter. Two DSLRs with the same Kelvin setting will produce the same results.

At the low end (i.e. 5D vs. XT) your choice comes down to the system you want to invest in or already have invested in. One body or the other is not going to be the make-or-break difference in the quality of your photography.

"They start to loose resolution too!"

Not only that, film gains resolution over time. But only if you use German glass ;-)

I've seen MTBF ratings of 10 years on spec sheets for cheap "security cam" type sensors. I've also seen MTBF ratings of 100 years on spec sheets for astrophotography sensors protected from the atmosphere (something about cooling which accelerates surface degradation due to reactions with gases in the atmosphere).

Let's say a DSLR sensor has the same MTBF as a cheap security cam, roughly 10 years or 90,000 hours, and that the main factor causing degradation is light exposure. That's 324,000,000 1-second exposures.

I'm pretty sure the shutter will go first.

Let's say the factor causing degradation is atmospheric exposure. Then you're looking at 10 years either way. Is the Bayer and/or AA filter sealed to the surface such that the atmosphere doesn't contact the chip surface? Now all bets are off and you're probably looking at a century or more. (All IC's degrade over time but it is very, very slow.) Even if the seal is not "air tight", simply reducing air flow is enough to dramatically increase lifespan. Ask anyone with a dye Epson printer who places their prints behind glass.

What about the filters? They probably degrade to, but the main factor would be light exposure. Unless the process for creating the Bayer pattern is really, really poor, it should take thousands of hours to "fade" the filter.

This is really a non-issue. People already have camcorders, digicams, and DSLRs that are older than 3 years and they're working fine. I'm pretty sure I can dig up a decade-old camcorder that still works. The lifespan is probably much better than a decade.

So go shoot some pictures.

"Thank you for your informative (and sometimes inflammatory ;-) ) responses. I already have a pretty nice camera/lens combo (Leica MP, 50mm Summicron...) and have a lot of very sharp (ouch!) negatives to scan. I understand there's a bit of learning curve to getting scanning right. This should be fun to compare my digital retakes of old favorites."

There is a bit of a learning curve, but once you've mastered it you can get some really good results and prints. (Again, I don't care what you shoot with, the image matters. And I've got photo albums full of beautiful 8x10's from 35mm. I just get annoyed when people worship film and insist it has properties that even the manufacturers would scoff at.)

The Nikon would be a good choice for a scanner. First step, before even scanning your first frame, should be to calibrate your monitor. I would recommend making your first scans of slides you can view on a light table. That way you can play with levels, color balance, and saturation to get a feel for what's involved in optimizing your scan and matching, as closely as possible, the original film. (Which is easier with some films than with others.)

Good luck!

"Digital cameras, none, not even the best, compares to a true film scanner. The depth of a scan is far better than any result you can get from a digital camera or back."

This is why I post comparison crops: no matter how much someone like Mona stomps their feet in rage, the plain truth stares everyone else in the face.

"A 23 megapixel is more infor than 35 mm film? Sorry, another crock. I have a film recorder that uses a 200mb file to create a 35mm slide and a scanner that scans at 8000dpi-over 200mb file. I don't know where this info is coming from."

From Fuji's datasheets on their best low ISO films. Provia 100F in 35mm records about 10 MP worth of information with a worse MTF curve than digital. You can do a little better with Velvia, and a lot worse with a lot of other films.

But if you want to disagree with Fuji on what Fuji films can record, you be my guest.

"But you will have to live with the grain, but at least you don't have to sharpen it as much as the digital capture!"

(Looks at crops above...laughs at the suggestion that film doesn't need to be sharpened as much.)

No current 35mm color film holds 23 MP of information. But scanners that scan at higher resolutions than film render more pleasing grain patterns, which is very important when scanning 35mm.

Film scan and direct digital capture pixels are not equal. Direct capture yields cleaner images, especially at higher ISO's, that are "pixel sharp" and tend to more faithfully reproduce colors. Some films, on the other hand, offer unique color palettes (i.e. Velvia) or more exposure latitude (i.e. pro portrait films).

You can produce very nice prints at common print sizes from properly scanned 35mm and properly shot/processed digital. Producing technically good prints is easier with digital.

The crops below illustrate that scan and direct capture pixels are not equal, but they're what you would see looking closely at 40" prints which is not a typical enlargement from small format.

(Now the moonbats can come in and claim that digital is an expensive scam and that real photographers only shoot 35mm because 35mm will beat a 1Ds mkII, or a Phase One MF back if using German glass. Oops...too late.)<div></div>

Not bad. I'm curious to know what this scanner is capable of, i.e. adjusters optimized, settings optimized, and scanned at higher settings (as appropriate to the film format). Keep playing, I'll be watching your gallery and this thread ;-)

Thanks for the info!

These are scans of what? 35mm, MF, 4x5? Are we seeing pixel size or scaled down?

I'm very curious about the V700, especially with adjusters set, because if it's as good as photo-i.co.uk claims (a long shot, I know), then it's a bridge to 4x5 for me. Sounds lazy, but I just don't want to deal with film unless I can control the workflow.

Yes. Canon FD is an abandoned lens mount that cannot be adapted to later bodies due to size/registration distance. Therefore Canon FD lenses are a steal right now.

This is going to get worse unless someone comes out with a DSLR that has a FD mount.

"DVD and CD are not durable backup media. For home use nothing beats a set of external hard drives in an aluminum case (not the plasticy cases!"

What happens when the drives won't spin up? Or get wet? Or they pass too close to a magnetic field? Or your house burns down? And what difference does the case make for drives which mostly sit unused?

I have mirror backups of my computers to external HDs stored in a computer media fireproof safe. I still keep CD/DVD archives of "permanent" files, like photos, stored off site. Nothing beats multiple copies stored in multiple locations, which is a little expensive with HD's. Good media lasts a lot longer than some people claim. And I don't have to worry about losing a DVD to water, magnets, or mechanical failure.

While Scott didn't put it nicely, "all the digital images" most likely refers (as you admit) to a bunch of consumer digicams with their saturation settings punched way up. These should be compared to what their owners would have been shooting but for digital: Kodak MAX 800, drugstore processed, in either 35mm or APS format. Those shots never looked good compared to properly shot and processed portrait films either.

IMHO the people who complain about the "digital look" from a DSLR couldn't pick DSLR from film prints in a blind study to save their lives IF the grain factor was somehow dealt with, i.e. viewing at a distance or comparing DSLR vs. MF 8x10's. Put another way, I can shoot portaits all day long using my 10D that, when printed on certain papers, come off exactly like an NPH portrait, with very little post processing work and no "film look" plugins. I would say they look more like a MF NPH portrait than a 35mm one due to grain. I liked NPH skin tones back in my film days, and I like my 10D's skin tones today.

What I never liked from any of Fuji's 35mm portrait films was the grain, which seemed much worse in the 160 films than from a 100 film like Reala, and yes, even a touch bad for a 400 film when it came to NPH. But then I had issues with 35mm grain well before moving to digital, back when I thought digital was a joke and would need over a decade to catch up to film. (Never underestimate Moore's law....)

The films I have a hard time emulating are Provia 100F and Velvia, and I don't think the look-alike plugins get the job done either. But then I can't scan NPH and make it look just like Provia or Velvia, so I don't consider this a "digital vs. film" issue. I'm sure a digital sensor could output the Provia or Velvia "look", but it perhaps would have to be done during RAW conversion? And neither slide film has "pleasing skin tones" IMHO, so I guess that's not relevant to a wedding.

"Mostly I am really crabby about the skyrocketing costs of fuel & health care, the record profits of petroleum companies"

I'm crabby about a government that restricts oil exploration, production, and refinery construction, then levies taxes on gasoline so high that they take in more profit than the petroleum companies which manufacture the gasoline, then has the audacity to put oil company executives on the stand to grill them about their "record profits".

I'm all for reducing record oil company profits. Right after we reduce the unethical and obscene Federal and state gasoline tax profits.

Oh yes, we were talking about film. A 3-17% price increase doesn't sound that bad. Just be happy they're not cutting any more emulsions. And be happy the Feds and states haven't found a way to jump the price 30% or more with "film taxes".

By the time you go to upgrade your CPU, things will have changed enough that even if you can drop in a better CPU, it will be hobbled by an ancient motherboard and RAM architecture (by that time). I've been involved with computers for 20 years and CPU upgrades have never really made economic sense. If you need a CPU upgrade, it's time to just upgrade the machine.

eMachines have a higher failure rate than most, but I've had good experiences with both Dell and HP. For less than $700 (with rebate; right now I think the price is $750) my most recent desktop purchase was an HP with an Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 1 GB RAM with two free slots, 2 free PCI slots and 1 free PCI Express slot, 250 GB SATA drive, two DVD drives (one dual layer burner with lightscribe and one reader), plus keyboard, mouse, bundled software, card reader, and USB/FireWire ports all over the thing. My one complaint? HP's card reader is slower than my external reader, so it's still sitting on my desk. The dual core is great through. I can batch convert RAW, print, and run Photoshop filters and not notice a slow down.

I would try to spend more than $400 and avoid eMachines, but I would definetly give the name brand desktops on sale at Circuit City or Best Buy a look.

"I did not, I stated a fact."

sigh...you want to dissect this? Fine. You said in your earlier post: "In every instance an L prime or zoom will be superior to its **consumer counterpart**"

For me to disprove that statement, I only need to reference one L lens that is not superior to its consumer counterpart. I listed *two*.

Therefore you did not state a fact, you stated a generalization which is demonstratably false. I demonstrated it false.

Happy now, or do I need to get in an even more abrasive mood and spell it for you?

"Take the 135 f/2L VS the 135 f/2.8 SF lens.

The "L" lens is better built, has better & faster AF, better glass, better performance wide open and it's faster. That makes it "superior" to its counterpart."

Take the 50 f/1.0L vs. the 50 f/1.4.

The non-L lens has equal build, better and faster AF, better glass, much better performance wide open, and is lighter. Yes the 50 f/1.0L is faster, but otherwise is inferior to its consumer counterpart.

Take the 85 f/1.2L vs. the 85 f/1.8.

The non-L lens has equal build, better and faster AF, better glass, better performance wide open, and is lighter. Yes the 85 f/1.2 is faster, but otherwise is inferior to its consumer counterpart.

Ergo, L lenses are not superior to their consumer counterparts *in every instance*.

Generalizations do not work well for things as complex as camera lenses. "Primes are always better than zooms", "L is always superior to non-L", "Canon/Nikon is always better than Sigma/Tamron/Tokina". These statements are passed around as common wisdom yet none are true.

Which is why I always say, when generalizations come up, not to make them.

"I?ve heard that shooting more than 400 ISO in the D200 the images are a bit noisy,but thinking in film,in the 90% of the cases using film print like FUJI REALA 100 or FUJI SUPERIA 100 ,I shoot with flash obtaining the minimum rate of grain, for example in weddings or interiors. In digital is not possible shooting at 100ISO inside a church with flash and obtain a good quality and minimun noise?"

DSLRs are noise free at ISO 100. Of course you can use a flash with a DSLR to achieve ISO 100 shooting conditions.

If the existing light allows it, you can shoot at ISO 400 without a flash, and still have noise free images.

Modern DSLRs do not even begin to show noise in prints until ISO 800, and when it shows it's less than in film of the same ISO. As has been pointed out, it's also removable using products like Noise Ninja.

Pixel peepers argue about noise between different DSLRs. It really is a non-issue for all but the highest ISO shots (i.e. 1600 and 3200).

* Start with the light at the scene, as has been previously said. Photography is painting with light. It's not enough to have an interesting subject and composition, you have to have the right light.

* Carefully adjust the levels of your images in Photoshop. The vast majority of images, film or digital, benefit from a levels adjustment.

* If necessary, color balance your image in Photoshop.

* If necessary, boost the saturation a bit in Photoshop.

The first two are more important even though the last one is often the number one recommendation.

If you need post-process free images and are shooting in good light, try boosting the saturation in camera along with manual white balance calibration to the lighting you're shooting in.

"In every instance an L prime or zoom will be superior to its **consumer counterpart** (ex. 135mm f/2.8 VS 135 f/2L, 35mm f/2 VS 35mm f/1.4L, etc...)."

As someone else pointed out, do not make generalizations. Lenses are complex and can be measured and compared in numerous ways (lpmm, MTF, color rendition, bokeh, max aperture, vignetting, center vs. corner performance, build quality, AF speed, weather sealing, etc, etc). It's best to find the lenses at the focal length you want, and compare individual lenses. There are plenty of tests on the Internet for most lenses, though some tests will reveal aspects others will not.

To make an example of your generalization: the two non-L 50's are sharper than the 50 f/1.0L. The 85 f/1.8 also tests slightly sharper with higher 50% MTF than the 85 f/1.2L. But in both cases the L version may help you capture a shot the non-L would not due to wider aperture. Which is superior? Depends on what you're talking about.

AFAIK L lenses are "L" simply due to the use of one or more exotic elements. Aside from that there is no guarantee of performance, build, etc. Yes they tend to perform well and be built well. Canon is not likely to throw an expensive flourite element into a plastic zoom alongside consumer grade elements. But you still have to compare individual lenses.

I don't get Boot Camp. Why would I want to have to restart to switch environments? What would be the point? Is anyone really going to sit there and reboot 25x a day to use different pieces of software? No, they'll end up buying software for one and never using the other.

Virtualization. Run WinXP next to Mac OS X. Some open source packages are already doing it, though if I had an Intel Mac I would probably wait for a commercial package like Virtual PC.

It has been my experience that IS is helpful even at higher shutter speeds. Remember that if you "shake" against the direction of your moving subject at the time of exposure, you've dramatically increased the apparent speed of the subject. After a day of working with a heavier lens, IS still helps save shots.

The 300 f/4L IS is a fantastic piece of glass. Unless you really need a zoom in that range, I would (and did) go for it.

17-40 f/4L for landscapes if you plan on going full frame someday. Otherwise 17-55 f/2.8IS.

For family indoors, 50 f/1.8 or 50 f/1.4.