sam_adams2

March 8, 2013

Great replies. Thanks a lot. I'll share the results from my experiment once the roll is developed.

March 8, 2013

Hello everyone,

I'm looking to shoot more film again and in addition to my old Canon gear want to add a medium format camera. Also I've been working on my flash skills and - thanks to the instant gratification of digital - have become better than I used to be with that.

Yesterday I shot some rather standard/formal portraits with a grey background/4 light setup. I used both by 5DII and my old AE-1p. Since everything had to be on manual I simply used my MarkII as a lightmeter for the old Canon to account for the 400ISO Ilford film and the 1/60 sync time.

I'll be curious about the results but wanted to ask if this approach makes sense or what else to factor in? Does 400ISO translate from b/w film to a Canon digital sensor? Anything else that would be off?

Same question for MF. Do the settings transfer or should I buy a lightmeter for situations like this? And if so do lightmeters have different settings for film/digital or 135/6x6 etc?

November 19, 2012

Wayne, see that's the problem around here. It is in fact a little side business. And I want to be honest and pay the taxes due even if it's just a few hundred bucks of income or so. I want to do the right thing. But once you start doing that you're running into all sorts of problems depending on where you live. I live in one of those quaint little towns that quite openly doesn't want any business in town. They don't think of business people as an asset or as a "credit". They want them out.

And all I'm asking for is really just the right to use my address for the official stuff. I'm not seeing any clients at my house or do anything that would be anyone's, err, business. I still think that what I do in my own house (reading my mail, post processing pictures from a shoot, send out a bill...) shouldn't be interfered with. Like I said, want to make it official and I always think like a business person I believe.

November 17, 2012

I'm looking for Mass photographers who'd be willing to answer some questions that may be more specific to our state here. I'm looking to expand my photography activities as a little side-business and have been getting some paid work lately as such.

So it's time to make things official and file taxes, file the necessary paperwork etc. I don't want to shoot myself in the foot with any of that for something that is rather small at this point. On the other hand I don't want to give the impression that I'm not taking this serious or that I'm trying to evade any taxes that may be due. And there are a bunch of questions that come with that that I haven't quite figured out yet.

And then there is the zoning issue. I know that a lot of folks look at this as a don't-ask-don't-tell issue but I happen to live in one of those very anti-business towns. Even though I'm not running a studio or see any clients at my house I'd be concerned that one day somebody may go after me just for the fact that my business address on paper would be my home address. Probably unconstitutional but who wants to go and fight that? So how do people here deal with this? PO Box one town over? Any experiences with this?

August 8, 2012

Hello everyone,

I'll be in New York City for a few days with some extra time to focus on photography. I'm looking to challenge myself to shoot in black and white only and use mostly my 50mm lens with the 135 as a second lens. This will be on my 5DII.

I'm actually bringing along a family friend and it's her first time to the city. We have tickets for the 9/11 memorial which I actually haven't seen yet myself. I'm still debating if I really want to see it since so far I've always avoided the "touristy" aspect of the event that it has all too quickly turned into. But then again, it appears to be very nicely and tastefully done and I actually appreciate the idea to regulate access a bit.

In any case - does anyone know how people will react if I show up with my "professional" camera based on these rules from the memorial's web site:

"Personal photography is permitted on the 9/11 Memorial. All photographic equipment is subject to security screening and size limitations. No photographic equipment larger than 8”x17”x19” will be permitted onto the Memorial.

Professional photography is not permitted on the Memorial, unless otherwise authorized by the 9/11 Memorial’s Department of Public Affairs and Communications. Professional photography includes taking photographs for advertising or commercial purposes and using studio set-ups, tripods, and/or professional photography equipment."

It should be clear that I'm not on any assignment and I don't even plan on taking the camera out of the bag necessarily. But given some of the stories lately about very hyper NYC police officers I was hoping to get some first hand accounts.

Thanks

February 25, 2012

I'm still unclear why anyone would want this. At any price really. If it's not (at least) a "35mm" sized sensor I'm not interested. Period.

February 1, 2012

I recently went through the same mental exercise for my 8-year old daughter - and getting some responses elsewhere along the lines of "what a waste" such an endeavor must be. Shows how little trust we have in the abilities of our children these days.

Granted, some children may not have the interest, attention span or care at such a young age. Others do. But that leaves the problem that there were really very few options given the prerequisites I had in mind. To me part of the experience has to be to understand how to control the outcome of photos and cover the basics of shutter speed, aperture, composition.

Most point and shoot cameras don't allow for that. And even cheap digital SLRs have their limits. Given the limited budget for the first round of this I opted for a Canon SX130 since there was not much interest in learning on a decent 35mm film camera first - which would have been my first choice.

The SX130IS doesn't have a viewfinder but surprisingly good manual control.

January 31, 2012

I'm not a Mac guy and have never used Aperture so I can't speak to that. The issue with Lightroom (I have LR3 and there have been great bargains out there, got mine for $99 and I ahve yet to see anything in LR4 that makes much of a difference) is that it is really not primarily a photo editing tool but a photo database. Yes, it works for developing RAW files since it uses the same Camera Raw tool found in Photoshop CS5. Different interface but otherwise the same.

What you have to understand with this is:

a) Editing is limited in comparison to PS etc

b) LR is a database that remembers the edits you made but does not save an actual edited version until you tell it too. Some people love it others struggle with that.

c) Due to b) working on files on different computers (even if the files are on a network drive) is a challenge

d) People who are used to certain settings in Adobe Photoshop will find surprisingly different ways how things are set up in Adobe Lightroom, e.g. cropping tool, exporting to jpeg, etc

January 27, 2012

I think everything that can be said has been pretty much said, but here are my thoughts anyway.

I'm not sure if the OP will solve his "not enough light" problem this way since obviously shooting at even larger apertures changes the look, feel and DOF. I personally like it that way but it depends on the situation.

And I understand the urge to use primes instead of big and often slower zooms. I also opted for the 135L and a 200 2.8LII instead of any of the 70-200 options. I also am not very interested in the 85L. My most used lenses at the moment are the EF 50 1.4 and the 135L. Love them both. Absolutely no complaints about the 135. The 50 1.4 could use better build quality (more like my old FD versions of the very same lens). Optically I love the results. I'm still looking for an alternative eventually but can't really see spending $1500 on the L version which has some issues as well.

in short: if it was me I'd consider adding one of the 50s and something at the wider end which could be the 35L or maybe one of the manual focus Zeiss lenses. Those are still on my short list.

October 26, 2011

Thanks for posting those samples. The 135L wins in my estimation. No surprise. The difference of course is subtle. The price difference of about $1000 or so isn't subtle though. The 135L will be my next lens. But I'm prone to primes anyway and dislike IS. So there you go.

October 17, 2011

Like others have said already there is no easy yes/no answer to this. Here are my 2 cents:

I would start with the focal length you need for a specific purpose (or various purposes). So you have a 50 and a 100. How are you using those? Are you missing really that in-between thing? I know that 85mm (on "full frame") is still considered the "standard" lens for portraits. For good reason. But there are other ways of getting good results and you may prefer a different style than the "standard" approach. Both, your 50 and your 100mm should work as very good portrait lenses.

For live stage photography a fast lens is always a good thing. But will 85mm be beneficial in addition to your 50 and 100? How about a longer option? The 135L for example is a fast lens that may come in handy and is still considerably cheaper than the 85L. Or maybe even the 200L 2.8II (fixed focal, not the way more expensive zoom lens). And with either you'd still spend much less even if you upgraded your 50mm lens.

Just ideas. As far as the decision between the 1.8 and the 1.2: I've been in the same boat when bought my 50mm, which has been one of my favorite lenses in the manual focus world. The 50L is a great lens, no doubt. But so is the 50 1.4 even though it has a few flaws. The 85L vs 1.8 comparison may be even tighter since the 85 1.8 is better built than my 50 1.4. None of these lenses are really "better" in all ways. They have advantages and disadvantages. Price is one of them. Speed and and minute differences in picture quality are others. Than there is weight, etc, etc.

Again, I would go back and look at which focal lengths are essential to what you do. You can't really go wrong either way in the end. Maybe you can rent some of the lenses and try things out.

September 1, 2011

Here are two examples with the 200 2.8LII (handheld)

<a href="../photo/14129335">http://www.photo.net/photo/14129335</a>

September 1, 2011

I second the 200 2.8L II idea. It must be the best bang for the buck out there. I own it and it is of superb quality and can easily be used handheld. I personally prefer lenses without IS so to me this was an added bonus. Price, weight, quality, speed. It has everything going for it and it sounds that's the kind of reach you are looking for (otherwise I would have suggested a used 135L, but that would likely be pricier). The obvious alternative then is one of the 70-200 lenses. I personally prefer primes. The zooms are either too expensive, too slow and/or too big for me.

August 22, 2011

Belinda,

Given your desired features you should be quite happy with your 5DII. As some have pointed out already the comparison with the Mark IV is a little unbalanced. Of course 1-series cameras are a slightly different breed and come from a different heritage. But lucky for us Canon put out a full-frame camera that is just as "professional" in many ways but much more affordable. For a direct comparison you'd have to consider the 1Ds Mark III really and not the Mark IV.

I personally wouldn't want to trade my 5DII for a Mark IV but that comes down to taste and usage. As far as the balance of feel I second the idea of adding the battery grip to the 5DII (ideally the original Canon part because it's made from the exact same materials). Not exactly the same as a 1-series camera as far as ergonomics go, but there are actually a few benefits to it. You can take it off, for example if you want to travel really small. And the other great thing is the ability to stick AA batteries into the grip. So when travelling and without longer access to an outlet or if you lose or forget your charger you can always go to the next gas station and keep shooting.

Enjoy!

August 10, 2011

I highly recommend any old Metz "hammer head", for example the 45 CT-4. I still have the original one that I bought for my AE1-P back in the 80s. Still works great with, both, my FD gear and also with my EOS 5DII. It's all manual of course but very versatile if you don't mind the size.

July 13, 2011

Dave,

I think you won't go wrong with that. And to Daniel's point: that may be true for you and a lot of other folks. I wouldn't say that either way of approaching this is "wrong" or "right". To me it's about reading a bit between the lines when someone asks for advice - and for being able to identify with the questions and, well, emotions.

In other words: if some kid with a limited budget asks about a 7D kit vs a your suggested 60D kit I wouldn't try to push onto him or her my ideas about this kind of stuff. I may make a suggestion based on my experience if that kid doesn't even consider certain things (like buying primes, for example...). Dave gave some hints that this was not about budget (I understand, that budget is ALWAYS a concern no matter how much doe is burning in your pocket). He was asking about quality and had already looked at things in a certain way which likely ties back to his experience from the various great film cameras he mentioned. And some people here, including me, could relate to that.

And to your suggested kit: call me crazy, but I would choose the 5DII plus 50 1.4 any day over the 60D kit that you suggested. And I'm not saying that your suggestion wasn't well thought through. It's actually amazing that those two sets have about the same monetary value.

July 12, 2011

Have to agree with Justin here. Sounds like you are looking to seriously approach this down the line so you might as well do it "right" in the first place. Ultimately, the camera these days is the "disposable" part of the system. I'm sure that I won't keep my 5DII for 25 years - like I did with my last camera body (still going strong...). So it comes down to lenses. And in that department - in my estimate - good Canon glass is still the best value. And those good lenses are still built around "full frame" cameras. I understand that some of the EF-S lenses are excellent. But they also limit future extension of the system towards pro bodies etc.

And after having been through the process myself (at least half way through now): the cost difference of the bodies in the end is just a smaller portion of where it appears you're headed - especially if you' re starting all over and are new to digital. I started with the 5DII/24-105L "kit" and another lens. Then there was another lens (with 3 more to go for what I have in mind), a bag, the battery grip, another bag, tripod update (with another one on the horizon), a flash, another flash, and another, some remote triggers, new software, some PC upgrades, CF cards, little gizmos, batteries, more batteries, a few more gizmos, macro extender, light stands...

And before you know it you're looking at a 5-digit dollar amount. If I had to pick just one camera/lens combo it would be the 5DII with a 50.

July 11, 2011

Dave,

In my personal (and these days somewhat unpopular) opinion you are absolutely on the right track. If you like the 5DII already from just trying it out that's a good indicator. And I love the combination with the 50 1.4. If you can stick to that combo for a while you'll likely learn a lot that may come in handy once you're ready for a second career in photography. And I'm saying that as a non-professional but as a long time user of this type of lens and 35mm cameras. It always was my favorite and still is.

People who tell you otherwise may be "correct" in their own right of course and have likely gotten used to certain aspects of digital photography that I probably don't value enough yet. And honestly, I would still be shooting film if that was still possible at reasonable cost and quality. The 5D and now the 5DII (and probably their Nikon equivalent) were the first digital cameras that sort of interested me because I consider them a en par replacement for "35mm" film - if you can get adjusted to AF and, well rather dim viewfinders that is... I'm still struggling with that last part but there is no alternative in the DSLR word.

But yes, there are a lot of people using "crop" cameras who take and make amazing images. To me "full frame" makes more sense and is a little more rewarding.

As far as cost is concerned: I did the math when I bought my 5DII and figured that the 7D I was briefly taking into consideration wouldn't have been cheaper! Why is that? Because you end up spending more money on lenses just to make up for the difference in DOF and the loss at the wide angle end.

I didn't see the need to wait for a 5DIII because the 5DII had pretty much what I was looking for (and then a lot that I was not looking for...).

Good luck and enjoy

July 6, 2011

I can totally relate. I went from the Canon FD system to a 5DII. There was a reason why I never "upgraded" to the EOS system. But now with digital there were no other choices that fit the bill. Generally speaking, I'm happy with my 5DII. The AF, however, still drives me batty. And I don't mean the usual complaints that it is "too slow" or somewhat inferior to other AF systems. I mean the fact that it is AF at all. I just don't like it. It takes away from the creative process.

So short of giving up on SLRs and saving for the Leica M9 I've been thinking what other alternatives there are. Has anyone ever heard of any (rather radical) modification of EOS cameras that would result in a bright viewfinder that is suited for MF just like in the old days - while leaving the exposure measuring intact? I'd be willing to give up on AF altogether and would be fine with paying a good amount for this kind of mod. I would imagine a non-transparent mirror and appropriate focusing screen should be able to achieve that.

June 27, 2011

I heard that before, seems like a really nice lens. However, my concern would be to spend that much money on an EF-S lens if there is ever a full frame camera for you on the horizon.

Here is another idea: have you thought about one or two good primes instead? Depending on what your main application is you may find something there that is as good - if not better - and will be ready for the future no matter what.

If it was me I'd much rather spend that kind of money on, say, a 24 1.4L or even the 35L and then throw in a 50 1.4 or even 85 1.8 later. Those should be a long term investment no matter what. However, if the 17mm end of it is more important to you then you're kind of out of luck.

June 16, 2011

Zvia,

Just saw your comparison picture of the 40D and the 5D. As some have pointed out already I think you are on the wrong track with this. You're not comparing the same thing: different DOF capabilities, different focal length, different (effective) aperture etc etc.

You come from a cropped sensor camera and things are now different for you. You may have to learn to appreciate how much better things really are. Yes, you want your expensive L lenses to be reasonably sharp - and if your 24-105 has a technical problem, by all means send it back and get a different one. Or even an even better lens such as the 24-70 or better yet any primes you like. But also get over the "sharpness" thing a little. Or in other words: I can give you my PowerShot SD500 - and you'll get even "sharper" images.

The 5DII will further increase your palette of artistic tools and that may require some re-learning stuff.

Enjoy

June 16, 2011

I can understand how something like this (with or without the respective price tags) can be a gut wrenching exercise. I can totally relate. It took me weeks to find the "right" initial lens combination. It took a few months and several trips to the camera store next to my work place to pick the "right" systems BAG!

But picking the right camera for me was actually pretty easy since I had a good idea what I was trying to get at. I think what made it easier for me was that I never even went near any of the digital SLRs over the last several years. Right off the bat I found them not fitting my needs - and the 1D series was out of my price range. Anything but "35mm full frame" was out of the question for me (at least). Things only got interesting when the 5D came out but I still waited it out and saved up while sticking to film (FD system actually because I never really saw any advantage in the EOS system). The 7D is a great camera and all but why bother with a sensor half the size of the already small 35mm format?

But as you can see this is a matter of personal style and which aspect is more important - hence which of the compromises is better suited (and they are all compromises in one way or another). If you ask me: you already have a 40D so why add a 7D? Where is the benefit?

Your 5DII is a different animal - which you may or may not like. I like mine. It's excellent bang for the buck - and the few things that I don't really really like about it are inherent to all modern cameras (e.g. the fact that it is an AF camera when what I really want is a digital version of the Canon F1...). "Slow" AF system and "only" 3 or so fps? Completely irrelevant for me to begin with and vastly overrated.

Yes, if funds were unlimited I would also have a Leica M9 (in my opinion actually the best digital camera currently available) and maybe a 1DsIII. But the 5DII is so close to all this -and so much more affordable that even than it would be ridiculous to some degree. There is a reason why so many demanding professionals use it.

If your goal is to ultimately get the 5DIII then I would stick to the 40D and wait. Though I'm not sure what you're expecting it to do differently. I personally will use my 5DII until it breaks and then see what the market has to offer. My guess is (and I'm not trying to add to the rumor mill and play clairvoyant here) that the 5DIII will essentially be a 5DII with a few more MP and a swivel screen and maybe a few more gizmos that I don't care about, including video stuff.

And my other guess: if you don't like the 5DII then you won't ultimately be happy with a 7D either.

But I would make sure the shutter is ok. If it makes weird noises you might want to check if anything in the mirror box (including the screen) is lose. There are a ton of "shutter sound" videos on youtube for comparison by the way. Always wondered what those are good for...

Happy shooting

June 13, 2011

Thanks everyone for your input!

June 3, 2011

Any that you would recommend?

June 3, 2011

Hi there,

I've been searching here and also on the web but haven't really found my answer quite yet. I recently went digital with my SLR gear and I'm overall happy with the results and handling of things. So far so good.

However, I still feel the itch to use my old FD cameras and glass and maybe even add a medium format (Mamyia 67 for example) at some point. Ideally, I would develop and enlarger print my own stuff then. And a good scanner would be nice too. And a Porsche maybe. So, I have a feeling that the Porsche and lab-in-the-basement part is not likely to happen any time soon.

So, since realistically it's really just for occasional use I'd be glad to send the 35mm and 6x7 film off to a good lab and have them make enlarger prints.

Well, sounds simple but I haven't been able to find a place like that. I have one local place that does B&W (haven't tried them yet but already have some Ilford rolls in my bag). Most places that offer anything like this seem to simply develop the film (I could do that part still myself I suppose) and then make mediocre low res scans and print from there. The results from that are pretty awful in my experience - and that's actually the reason why I finally caved in and "upgraded" to the digital EOS system.

So, what I would like to know if there is a list of places that offer full service analog film processing and printing? Or, shall I say: is there one place? Cost is obviously always a factor as well even though I'm not expecting Walmart pricing for this obviously.

Thanks and have a great weekend.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by sam_adams2