paulie_smith

<p>I would love to have a Contax G2 in digital. The lenses for it are excellent and it would be nice to have this small portable package in digital. No dummies mode, no added plug in to direct print stuff. Just the basic camera, AutoFocus for old eyes getting older each year and a small package with top glass and clean digital images I can work with.<br>

Can it be done without costing $4-8 thousand dollars?</p>

<p>Take a look at the used Omegas or the Calumet monorails. Lots of movement. They work well for a long, long time and you can get a pristine one for the $100 price range.<br>

Many of us started with one and some still use them. Brett Weston used one of the old Calumets for some his work for a number of years.<br>

Not elegant and not fancy but all the movements you will want and you can always sell it again if you move on or up.</p>

Suggestions on how to photograph them, soften things and similar are welcome.<br>

<p>I do know from experience that the choice of focus point in closer work at wide apertures is a problem with most AF cameras. Few do enough testing to find out just where the AF points really are spot on. Close work at wide apertures looks great when it works. Manual focus this way was fine for me for years and then the eyes get older and AF comes to the rescue... sort of. Not as accurate as I used to be(per a review of older contact sheets & louping the original negatives) but pretty good compared to old eyes. Just wish it was a bit better.<br>

Can calling this 'normal' isn't comforting at all. Practice might help. I know with the MkIII I tried shooting with the center AF on the eyes rather on the chest of competitors running directly toward me in hopes the AF problem had to do with it picking up the pumping hands that at times rose up far enough to maybe influence the Auto Focus sensor. Didn't work, was still off. I was better with manual focus and the years of experience. Shame to pay for a 600 f/4 AF only to find the old manual skills are better than the latest/greatest camera body made specifically for what I was doing.<br>

So, I wait for the MkIV to come out and hope it works well. Meanwhile the 1DMkIIn's are still holding up well. (any chance Canon, for eye controlled focus like the EOS 3 when the MkIV comes out?)<br>

Those who have MkIII's that are working well are lucky. The image quality is excellent. Just wish my experience had been positive and I would be using them.</p>

<p>A friend gave me a call with a problem. He is relatively new to weddings and still a bit unsure of himself. He has a family obligation on this one and can't get out of it.<br>

The couple have difficult features. .

 

Any advice to give him?</p>

 

MODERATOR NOTE: Very offensive descriptions about the couple have been edited. Not necessary.

<p>Jeff and some others mirror the experience of friends who have stayed with the 1DMkIII. Some noticed improvement, some didn't. After 3 of them in quick succession with autofocus tracking problems I undid the deal and stuck with the 1KMkIIn. I really wish the MkIII performed as promised on AF because the image quality in all other respects was excellent. So, I wait until the MkIV and then only after it has been out for some time. Come on Canon and get us the gear we need without the glitches. If you do that some of us will buy and use it. My Nikon buddies keep showing me results that look great. I do understand that now matter what is great now will be passed shortly with the next generation. Just wish the AF fixes on the MkIII worked all the time and I would have one of them.</p>

<p>After shooting a baseball game with a friends D300 Nikon I would be very happy to have the next iteration of this series at least match its performance in frames per second, boosted frames per second with the add-on vertical grip, better-faster autofocus and even cleaner high ISO performance.<br>

Having used 1 series film cameras I found a great alternative was the EOS 3 with Eye Controlled focus. For me it worked and I used two of them for events in poorly lit gyms as it helped with more keepers per roll.<br>

Dump the dummies modes on these bodies completely. Make mirror lockup a simple lever or switch. And how about CANON comes out with lens adapters for Nikon, Leica and Contax as well as older FD lenses? They would have the quality control and would help those who still have particular lenses that have proven excellent through the years. I love the 105 f/1.8 Nikkor I have as well as the older bellows mount 100mm f/4 Canon macro. Would be great to have Canon quality control on the adapters allow me to use them with the newer digital bodies.</p>

<p>Why not use film, hand print on fibre papers and charge accordingly? Film and hand done work is becoming a niche market and can go for a lot more then the 'everyone does it' digital work turned out by so many hacks with a camera.<br>

Use an 11x14 view camera and make hand done platinum/palladium prints and cater to an upscale market that appreciates fine craftsmanship and talent. Fewer sittings for much higher fees and returns and each print is one of a kind original work.</p>

<p>No, not scared off. One and 1/3 + 4/3rds. Four thirds of what? Sounds like marketing hype so I don't really buy into it. Just want to know if it really compares to full frame sensors or crop sensors like Nikon and Canon have.<br>

As for ISO, use like a Leica or my old F1 Canons with Tri-X. 11x14 was the maximum size I do real B&W from film and would like that quality from digital.<br>

Having the option of Leica glass for 1.4 apertures sounds nice as long as I can focus in low light.</p>

<p>Do you really know how much mixed chemistry costs? How much it costs to buy and store what you will need? The actual cost of paper, including the test strips and wasted paper it will take per finished print?<br>

Are you working with RC or fibre papers? All hand done or with a processing machine? Toning after the printing as a normal workflow or an extra?<br>

Telling clients what a print will cost has to factor in what it really costs you as well as replacement cost for materials, hardware and overhead. Then you still have not figured in how much money you have to make every working day so you can pay yourself. If you don't do that you are fooling yourself.<br>

Don't try to compete on low price as you will quickly get the reputation as the bargain basement guy and will not get larger jobs. Those will go to the pro printers who charge what they are worth.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/11/sauger.html">http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2008/11/sauger.html</a><br>

Go to the NPPA article and you can read about this. He never should have been arrested and certainly not convicted.</p>

<p>I will say, contrary to Jeff, that some with 1DMkIII are still having issues. Some can be chalked up to operator error or unfamiliarity with the camera and its set up options. Not all are. I know some who have problems and had them taken care of by Canon. I know some who had problems and Canon has not been able to get them taken care of. I know some who have the camera and all works just fine.<br>

<a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=32655">http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=32655</a><br>

The link above to SportsShooter.com (may not show so you can go to the SportsShooter.com site and check) shows the effect of not knowing the camera. The results are poor but this case could be the operator not knowing the setup on a new camera. That said, I have never had a camera that was not sharp from the box unless there were problems.(3 1DMkIII bodies that could not be fixed... I went back to the 1DMkIIn bodies)<br>

That Jeff has some of the good bodies is nice. Others are not so lucky and that is the reason for the constant complaining. Canon has 'fixed' it a number of times now yet the complaints continue.<br>

Is Nikon better? They have their own list of complaints but AF screwups don't appear to be one of them. Nikon seems hellbent on regaining the top tier in Photojournalism circles and is doing a good job of it with their current offerings. In that market segment Canon is currently playing catch-up.<br>

If you get a MkIII take it out and test it right away, from a dealer with a liberal return policy. Buy it with a credit card so you are protected that way. If it is a 'good' copy you have no problems. If it isn't you can return and try another body. When it works this model is one of the finest on the market. My personal experience is that three copies just didn't work as advertised so I will wait for the MkIV to hit and not be an early buyer even then.</p>

<p>Where does one find information on the acid levels in the various papers? I have seen past reports of Epson papers with an acid level that makes me not want to use them.</p>

<p>My vote goes for the tried and true Nikon F3. Some very nice bodies can be had for $100-200. They are one of the finest bodies Nikon ever produced. Rugged and comfortable to use. If you want you can add a number of options in the future and you will likely have the body for a few decades.<br>

The FM or FM2 is a nice low cost manual alternative. If I were going that route I would go with the older pro model, the F2 or even the original F body. With the low prices on film bodies these days the old pro bodies in good condition are still very cheap.</p>

<p>Am looking at having to get more Gold DVD's as the older gold Kodak stock I have is getting low. Is there any real difference in the Delkin or the Mam-A gold DVD in performance or expected life? I like the idea of the white printable surface on top so I can use the fine marking pen to label it. A lot easier for me to read.<br>

If there are any tests of these I would like to see them. A few searches have not turned up any independent tests, just the makers telling how good they are. I want the images and digital files to last and prefer giving files to clients on the Gold DVD or CD. Thanks in advance for any information.</p>

<p>In looking at the G1 and its ability to use Leica M glass, how is the actual image quality in comparison to Canon 40D/50D or 5D cameras and Nikon D300 and D700? Does the G1 image hold up to their quality when enalrged to 11x14?<br />Or, is the 1&1/3 sized sensor just too small to compete? I like the idea of being able to use Leica fast glass for images in digital but want to be able to get an 11x14 that actually compares to the other bodies.</p>

<p>The site didn't want to allow two images so here is the second. (this one from a 40D with the EF 85 f/1.8)</p><div></div>

<p>For Mr. Spirer. It must be terribly frustrating going through life doubting everything and everyone.<br>

So, two from the past few weeks in our small rural area. Both with the 85 f/1.8 EF lens on a 1DMkIIn.</p>

<div></div>

<p>For Mr. Spirer. It must be terribly frustrating going through life doubting everything and everyone.<br>

So, two from the past few weeks in our small rural area. Both with the 85 f/1.8 EF lens on a 1DMkIIn.</p>

<p>A verbal contract isn't worth the paper its printed on. Live and learn and when you find another photographer put the agreement in writing.</p>

<p>"What are your experiences with those problems? Please, let us know. I'm sure this all comes from your personal experience with these cameras."<br>

Spirer, my experience with this specific model is three of them in succession that would not keep up with baserunners at MLB spring training in Arizona and an NCAA track meet in Texas. Two good friends who were using them have switched to Nikon. One of these fellows is fulltime for USA Today and the other used to shoot for The National Sports Daily and is now retired and picks and chooses his events.<br>

Our problems were the ones complained about. Hot weather and action coming into the lens. (400 f/2.8 IS in my case) As a result I went back to the 1DMkIIn and backup 40D and the problems disappeared.<br>

I shoot Canon and have for some time. Nice gear for the most part and some very good glass especially in the super tele area where they were at least four years ahead of Nikon. The downside is the 1DMkIII autofocus problems in hot weather and moving subject matter, especially if the movement isn't very smooth as with Indy cars or similar. A 40D should not outperform a 1DMkIII in focus accuracy. I wanted the higher frame rate for helping to pick out peak action as I shoot a burst of 3-5 as it hits(like with an M16, short bursts when it counts) and this allows me to get the peak and a frame or three just after when facial expressions really help. Also a receiver going for the ball and the defensive back working to strip it from his grasp.<br>

I have a number of friends who have the MkIII bodies and some work well without the fix. Others sent them in for the fix and they came back worse. Some have newer ones and a few still have AF accuracy problems while some do just fine. Seems to be the luck of the draw. I am sure the Nikon shooters have problems of their own but so far no complaints about AF accuracy on warm days with moving subjects. Seems Nikon has 'finally' gotten a good PhotoJournalism camera on the market once again. They were behind for so long and now have a temporary lead.<br>

I expect Canon is far enough into the next models that will come out that they don't really want to spend much time with the bodies that are underperforming no matter what the reason is. If the MkIII's that I used had done the job I would be using them now. As it is I will wait to upgrade when the MkIV comes out after it has been on the market for a bit so I don't get bit. Can't really afford $5,ooo on gear that does not do what I buy it for.<br>

As for my shooting I have scaled back a lot. Near retirement and shoot MLB, some auto racing and NFL, a bit of College football and more HS sports for local papers. All I really want is a camera that does what is advertised. Most will work just fine but the advantage of the high frame rate, good image quality and solid build pushes me to the MkII/III/IV over the 40/50D series. Would love to have the Leica M8 but way too rich for my taste and especially limiting for my shooting style which dictates big & fast glass much of the time.<br>

As I said, I shoot Canon gear. I just want it to do what the ad boys say it will do, without fail, reliably every time. Sure would be nice if Canon were also to hire some ex-Nikon strobe designers. That is the one area Nikon beats hell out of Canon every day of the week.</p>

<p>"Winter Olympics and that's always a great event to get your newest baby into the hands of the sport guys".<br>

Canon will have a tough time getting some to use a brand new, untried camera at the olympics because of the known problems that have plagued the 1DMkIII and its autofocus. I hope whatever they come out with will have these problems solved completely. Would love to get one if they do AF without problems. The promise is there and failure to deliver a reliable product has Nikon sales going pretty well these days in the photojournalism market. Sidelines have turned from mainly big white lenses to a 50/50 mix these days. If Canon doesn't get it right soon the mix will change further in favor of Nikon.</p>

<p>You bought a camera series with known autofocus problems and you are surprised? Some are just fine. But, Canon has had ongoing focus problems with both the 1DMkIII and 1DsMkIII. They have had a number of fixes, upgrades, software upgrades and still problems exist.<br>

How long have you had the camera & how did you pay for it? Any option to give it back to your dealer and get a different body in exchange for a 'defective' camera? Any option for the credit card company to apply pressure on your behalf?<br>

Good luck with CPS and getting a loaner while they fix your top of the line electronic hellbox.</p>

<p>It depends a lot on how you personally see the game through the lens. I shoot a lot of HS sports and for basketball I use an 85mm lens. I like the look it gives me and the editors I deal with have no complaints. I 'zoom' by moving back and forth a bit. Even sitting in the stands to the side of and just below the basket. For under the basket and just to the side a 50 would be ideal. Learn to use the lens you have and really push to get good action with it. A bit of cropping won't hurt the images and as you aren't using a zoom you won't have the tendency to be at the wrong focal length when action is moving fast. Your outfit is also much lighter than most zooms you will use.</p>

<p>Kodak used to make 18x35 foot enlargements for billboards from Kodachrome slides. They worked well for the intended audience. Your camera should work well for what you want. As for 'interpolation', that is what you get with digital when enlarging the image very much. You just have to live with it and pay close attention to the file size and any changes. When you increast the file size you interpolate. Reduce much and you throw information away. Before making changes duplicate the file and work on the duplicate so you have the unaltered original saved with all original information.<br>

As for 'Exhibition Quality', we don't know your standards. Some are nuts about sharpness and tonality and smooth transitions from light to dark. Some want impact and get it no matter the imperfections, grain or digital noise and work for a look they like and for them that is 'exhibition quality'. I shoot 8x10 and contact print. 5x7 and enlarge. My 'exhibition quality' with that gear is different from what I do with EOS digital gear.<br>

Size a file for your intended finished print, crop a section out of it and print it on smaller paper to see if it meets your standards. If not, get a bigger digital back. A lot of programs from QImage to Genuine Fractals to custom labs doing the work that might be worty your time checking. A lot more on these forums know far more than I do on digital. The digital darkroom section probably has a lot more on it as well as the articles on the front section.(start with the articles)</p>