lwg

<blockquote> <p>So how does this work in practice--particularly the 1:1.5 and 16:9 choices? What does one see in the viewfinder to delineate the selected aspect ratio?</p> </blockquote> <p>Using an electronic view finder you see the image with the selected aspect ratio in the viewfinder, and none of the area that is cropped off. I'm not sure how the hybrid finder cameras like the Fuji XPro 1 handles this.</p> <blockquote> <p>How does crop factor change?</p> </blockquote> <p>It changes a little, but it really depends on how you consider it. For example going from 4x3 to 16x9 will crop the top and bottom off the image. So the image is just as wide, but not as tall. Going to 1:1 the image is as tall, but not as wide. The exceptions are the Panasonic cameras that don't use the full sensor and generally keep the pixel count the same. In that case there is less of a "crop factor" change. Don't get concerned about it is my advice.</p> <blockquote> <p>How does the available megapixel count change?</p> </blockquote> <p>It goes down since you are cropping (throwing away) pixels away. Again the Panasonic cameras are slightly different in that they always crop, so there isn't as much difference when the aspect ratio is switched.</p> <blockquote> <p>Is there sufficient resolution to generate stills or video to fit a 4K TV display?</p> </blockquote> <p>4K is only an 8MP image, so there should be plenty of resolution for a nice image on a 4K TV.</p>

<p>From <a href="http://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/traveling-with-us/baggage/during-your-trip/carry-on.html">Delta</a>'s site:</p> <blockquote> <p>Baggage must fit easily in the Carry-on Baggage Check (approximately 22" x 14" x 9" or 56 x 35 x 23 cm), which is located near the check-in counters</p> </blockquote> <p>My read is your case will not be allowed.</p>

<p>I was looking for a small camera with high image quality. I recently bought the EM5, mainly based on the IBIS. I have been very happy with the choice. Note, I have an FX DLSR for when I want better low light sensitivity or higher resolution.</p> <p>I don't find the mirror slap to be an issue with Nikon DLSRs, especially the DX models. I still use the mirror lockup on a tripod, but handheld it's a tiny factor compared to how much I move the camera just pressing the shutter button.</p> <p>The EM5 sensor is noisier than the Nikon, but it's not an issue for me most of the time. I was just experimenting with expose to the right on the EM5 and it does seem to make a big difference. The nice thing is with the electronic viewfinder it's easy to practice since you can see the over exposed areas. On my Nikon I don't bother with it much since I scared of blowing out the highlights and not knowing until after the shot.</p> <p>I think the Olympus 17mm and 45mm lenses are little gems. Very small and high quality. I hope to get the 12mm soon as well. I've also used adapted longer lenses on the camera and appreciate the IBIS with them.</p> <p>I have no experience with the Fuji, though I did consider buying it. In the end the smaller size of the Olympus lenses won me over, along with the IBIS.</p>

<p>I find the RZ system is excellent for anything that sits still and is close by (either to my house or car). I've tried hiking with the the RZ and find my 4x5 and 5x7 setups are lighter, so that's what I use when I want film. I don't own any long lenses for the RZ since I'm sure it would just frustrate my to try for birds and the like.</p> <p>But I think it's an ideal system for macro. The 140mm macro lens is excellent. The leaf shutters have no vibration issues. The rotating back makes both orientations easy to use. The option of a waist level finder let's you get close to the ground comfortably. The bellows focusing is simple and extension tubes are available if you need more extension. The downside is the floating elements in lenses are not automatic, so you must set the distance. That adds time to the setup and is one more step to check.</p> <p>It's really best on a tripod. I've used it handheld and it's not easy to focus and I think the mirror slap makes me jump (blurry results), and eventually it gets heavy. I suspect most of the above pertains to the RB, but I haven't used one.</p> <p>The Hasselblad system is much easier to use handheld, but it's only 6x6. Still you might consider it as well as it's one of the most complete medium format systems out there. The Mamiya 7 is a range finder that's a great landscape camera, but not easily useable for birds or macro. It's worth considering since the lenses are so good, but it would probably only work as supplement based on your stated needs. Still possible to keep your Canon and carry a Mamiya 7 as well.</p> <p>Look at the Cabin 67 projector. I've heard it's excellent, and the one time I saw one it use I was impressed.</p> <p>You might also look into a 4x5 system. The movements and bellows make a lot of pictures easy that are hard to get with other cameras.</p>

<p>On a DX camera I'd lok at something in the 60 to 85mm range for tight portraits. The various 85mm lenses have different looks. I think the 85 f/1.8 AFS is quite a bargain, and would probably serve you well. I'd go a bit shorter if you want head and shoulders type shots.</p>

<p>If it let's in more light with the lever moved more open than f/9 than the lens wasn't fully open at f/9. If it's more than a third of a stop they would have labeled it an f/8 lens. That's why I wonder if you have the right aperture scale.</p>

<p>Ok, it sounds like your shutter is correct. It shouldn't make the lens easier to focus though, since it won't be letting in any more light, even if the lever moves farther the the f/9 mark.</p>

<p>There shouldn't be an f/5.6 mark on an f/9 lens, or are you saying the lever moves to where 5.6 would be, but the aperture scale stops at f/9? Maybe posting a picture would help.</p>

<p>If your lens is fully open at a marked 5.6 on the shutter the aperture scale isn't correct for the lens. f/9 should be fully open and anything smaller than f/9 should bring the blades into view. My guess is your lens cells were added to a shutter from another lens.<br> For a longer lens like the 240mm I don't find it difficult to focus with an f/9 lens. The wider the lens the more important the speed becomes for focusing.</p>

<p>Use the same 5D2 and macro lens to digitize the film. It will give you a good enough scan to make a 16x20 print or smaller. Send the really good ones out for a drum scan.</p>

<p>Photoshop and Lightroom don't make good use of a quad core processor. I have a three year old 15" MacBook Pro with the top of the line (at the time) quad core and nothing I do in PS or LR ever pegs more than two cores. So it may not be a real issue for you, though I haven't run on a dual core system since 2008.</p>

<p>My issue with DX cameras is lack of wide prime lenses for DX. It doesn't seem that that will be an issue for you, and if you really like focusing on the details then a DX camera will benefit you with the smaller sensor (lenses seem longer).</p>

<p>If you are going to shoot a lot of film I think the F100 would be well worth it. But a decent set of lenses is more important. Your 18-55 won't work on either camera. The 35-80 is a slow lens, but will probably work OK to start with. You have the faster 50mm when the light gets dim, but without AF working you do need to change something. I'd go for the F100 which I find works very well with the 50mm f/1.8G, and you can use the 35-80 when you need wider or longer and your feet can't move. The other option is to get the older 50mm AF or AF-D which would focus on your F50. </p>

I couldn't imagine processing a wedding's worth of images without Lightroom. It's much easier than it looks, and it didn't take long to get proficient with it. Give the new version a try with Adobe's free trial.

It's easier than 35mm, and easily done with macro lenses, no bellows required. The downside is less resolution than the flat bed scanners. But it's quite likely enough for a decent 16x20 with a 24mp camera.

<p>I don't understand the problem. Just scan them, then reverse and flip them in Photoshop. This simple trick will let you buy expensive lenses, that others would toss, for cheap.</p>

<p>As far as I know there is no way to use the Mamiya 6 lenses on the 7 body.</p>

<p>Tom, I have shot the 300 f/4 AFS on the D7000 and D810, both of which have about the same pixel pitch. I get much better sharpness out of my lens than you show in the one shot. The TC14E does cut sharpness a bit wide open. However I replaced the tripod with one from Really Right Stuff because I found the factory one allowed a bit of shutter vibration, which was very noticeable. Maybe that's what you have going on.</p>

<p>Nikon's DX side is really lacking on wide angle lenses, both primes and fast zooms. Plus the prime choices in the normal to telephoto range aren't going to line up with the traditional focal length choices. My guess is you will not like a 24-70 zoom as much on DX as FX. That was a deciding factor for me to switching to an FX camera. The downside is my 300mm lens suddenly had much less reach. There's nothing wrong with the DX cameras, but the lens choices make it unappealing to me.</p>

<p>I care who makes the sensor, as a matter of academic curiosity. As long as we have a few competitors who can churn out quality sensors we can expect to see progress. For a while I thought we would only have Sony left making sensors, which wouldn't be good for the industry.</p>

<p>Get an Epson or Canon printer. The older HP consumer photo printers are hard to buy ink for. They sell so few, and they all take different inks, that in a few years time you won't be able to buy ink easily. At least that's been my experience with an older model (8450 maybe). </p>

<p>I have that lens and use it on the D800E. I find it ok as a walk around lens, but it's not sharp at the pixel level especially at the 24mm end. On a 24MP DX camera it will be worse, as those have a tighter pixel pitch. The only good news is it should be more even across the frame.</p> <p>My guess is this lens is probably best on a 24MP or less FX camera.</p>

<p>As you say the DX is just "cut out" from the full FX sensor. So it's the same image quality, but to make the same sized print you will be using fewer pixels, so a 16x24 from the DX portion will have noticeably lower sharpness than the same sized print made from the full FX sensor.</p> <p>Set the camera to DX mode and you can see the cropping in the viewfinder. If you also turn off the AF Point Illumination (A5) it will shade the outside area to make it clearer what is included in the image.</p>

Bill C's explanation of the curves is correct. However I'm not sure how much practical use it will have for DSLR scanning. My best results involved using a color light head to balance the light. Set the camera WB to daylight and adjust the head until you get a histogram where all color peaks from the orange mask overlap. Then it's just a matter of inverting and fixing the gamma globally (yes, minor color correction will be needed). The same thing could be done with filters over a flash or incandescent bulb. It will just take more work.

<p>I had this lens for an old D100 where it was decent at best. On film and full frame it continually disappointed at the edges and corners. I sold it and eventually bought the 16-35 when I found a good deal on it. The 16-35mm is excellent, even on the D800E. I haven't used the newer 18-35mm G lens.</p>