peter_langfelder

<p>I still miss the ECF of my old EOS-3, even though it mostly only worked in horizontal orientation (I had calibrated one of the settings for horizontal and the other for vertical orientation but was never quick enough to flip the switch between the positions so it was usually stuck on horizontal). It was much faster than the joystick on current Canon cameras...</p>

<p>David, as far as lenses go, you may want to look into the 24-70 f/4 IS L. But I found that the main factor determining discomfort is not the weight, it's how you carry it. Get a system (backpack or a waist pack) that puts all weight on your hips, not shoulders/neck. Although each injured back is injured in its own way, I found that I can carry relatively heavy loads (5D, 24-70, 70-200, water, snacks) all day if the weight sits on my hip, not shoulders. If you need to carry more than a camera and lens, I would suggest a backpack with a frame and good waist belt, big enough to transfer the weight to your hips but small enough so taking camera out and putting it back in is quick and easy. You may need to take you lens/camera combo, plus whatever weight you want to carry, and visit a local store that carries photo backpacks. Try them until you find one that can carry what you have such that your shoulders carry nearly no weight. Remember that when packing a backpack, the heavier stuff should go towards the top (may seem counterintuitive, but makes the load easier to carry). It may turn out to be a much better investment than a marginally lighter lens.</p>

<p>I've always felt that the main limiting factor of my 5D Mark II in shooting anything in low light is the AF miss rate (unless I use flash and the subject is close enough for the AF assist to be effective). I have no experience with the 1D series but have owned an EOS-3 before going digital and my recollections are of a much more surefooted AF (which probably remained so on the 1Ds bodies). The AF performance of the 5D Mark II also depends a lot on the lens used, the newest lenses (24-70 f/2.8 II in my case) seem to perform much better and old lenses much worse, for example the 200 f/2.8 L seemed to focus worse than 70-200 f/4 L IS despite the wider wide-open aperture. So the choice of your next camera depends a lot on the lenses you already have.<br> I know this goes against your stated preferences, but I would seriously consider staying with a Canon crop camera (7D) whose AF and low-light performance may be closer to the 1Ds Mark II, or, if AF is paramount, looking for an older 1D Mark II N (the 1.3x crop body) which may not match the full frame in low-light sensor performance but will provide the best bang for the buck in terms of AF. </p>

<p>One thing that usually needs replacement after a few years is the backup battery, you may want to consider replacing it. No need to take it to a service center for this if you are able to unscrew and re-screw a small screw or two (can't remember how many there were). And yes, take a backup with you just in case.</p>

<p>Has this version of Vuescan worked before? Can you locate an older version to test, or try it on another computer?</p>

<p>Is the camera weight important? If yes, look at Olympus/Panasonic micro-4/3 cameras and their lenses. You will save quite some weight compared to DSLRs and their lenses. Mirrorless Sony cameras like the A-6000 are also very small and light, but their lenses less so. Especially for climbing, the DSLR is not the best choice these days.</p>

<p>If you have a thin negative, the range of densities on the film is very narrow. To get a full contrast image, vuescan (or any other software) will stretch the curves to increase contrast, which also accentuates grain. You other image was probably exposed well and developed normally, and would have had a large range of densities (the white parts lit by the sun must have been very bright). Thus, the grain would show much less.<br> <br />I also agree with other posters that ISO 400 classic B&W films were quite grainy when scanned (I personally used a Minolta 5400 scanner and mostly used Neopan 400). ISO 100 T-grain films (including Fuji Acros) were much better, although Fuji Neopan 100 SS (which was an old-style film) was still very grainy when scanned.</p>

<p>It would be far better to scan the negative on a dedicated scanner; if you shoot MF, you would likely also get better results from scanning the film on your Epson scanner.<br> Or, scan the print in lower resolution so they can share it, and print the negative optically for them if they want a large print.</p>

<p>If you don't use flash, I suggest considering switching systems altogether and going with the Fuji X or possibly Sony E systems. The mirrorless cameras are quite a bit smaller and lighter than the Rebels, although the SL1 comes fairly close. I'm a Canon owner but my wife's Fuji X-T1 absolutely blows our Canon 70D in terms of low light quality and AF accuracy.<br> With the Fuji you get a 10-24mm wide zoom with constant f/4 aperture and image stabilization, 18-55 standard zoom with 2.8-4 aperture and image stabilization and 3.5-4.8 image stabilized 55-200 tele zoom. Coupled with the better low light performance of the sensor, you'd gain somewhere between 1 and 3 stops of low-light capabilities compared to any current Rebel. Plus, should you decide to use primes, you have optically excellent, fast and relatively light primes available. <br> The downside of the Fuji is relatively poor battery life, a very weak flash system, and AF that tends to hunt in low light and is nowhere near the Canon AF for moving subjects - but climbers probably don't move very fast anyway. You'd also have to sell your current camera and invest a considerable amount into the new system.<br> We used to own a Sony NEX-7 which was a great camera, but the lens selection was very uneven. If you can live with the lenses though, the Sony E cameras seem to be a bit less quirky than the Fuji X ones.</p>