brad_trostad

<p>Done, hope it helps. Ironically the camera strap and camera bag are so alike that I wished there were a "other" category.</p>

<p>Robin summed it up quite well.</p> <p>I really like my 14mm (Rokinon version). So much so that I cut off the permanent hood so I could dive it in a underwater enclosure. I rarely shoot f2.8, but at f4.0 it becomes quite sharp. I looked at two used copies, the first was soft on one side.</p> <p>Take a picture straight on of a brick wall at f5.6. It should be crazy sharp just about everywhere. If it is soft all over or on one side, try another. You'll also see the moustache distortion right away. Power lines are about the worst!<br> Actually, I like this lens enough that I have been contemplating buying a "Throttle" to adapt it to my A7rii. There aren't any really nice ND solutions for this lens. The throttle would put a variable ND between the rear of the lens and imager.</p> <p>Oh yeah, this lens handles flare quite well too.</p> <p> </p>

I dabbled with this once. My understanding was that for slow motion you want a even faster shutter than 1/2*fps. The reason for this is that there will be interpolated frames between the originals and if they have less motion blur then the interpolation will be nicer to look at in the final product. A key issue here then is whst method is used to generate the frames which were never actually captured. That's were Twixtor was so popular but I haven't kept up to date on whether Premier now does this equally well.

<p>I bought a cheap one and used it to film a wedding with a 5D2. I thought it worked out good. I should state that was for static shots on a tripod pulling focus from someone near to someone far and then back. The one I had, sorry I forget the brand, could be marked with a pencil. The thing I liked the most though was the (fortunately cheap!) handle that inserted into the wheel. For me, I made less mistakes pushing the lever ahead or back than turning the knob "ahead" or "back".</p> <p>If you need to moving the camera while rolling then you'll probably want some help. And if you need two people you will probably need a external monitor, etc.</p> <p>The cheap alternative is gadget that just mounts a short rod onto your lens focus ring and you then move that rod instead of turning the ring. As long as that motion doesn't effect the stability of the shot and you are comfortable with which direction is near and far, maybe it would also work for you and save you some money.</p> <p>A DSLR on rails with a focus pull attachment, external monitor and matte box assembly gets pretty large. It does however come across looking more professional if that sort of thing matters to your clients.</p> <p>And don't forget...many lenses designed for photography breathe when changing focus. I immediately think of the Canon 100L macro which is a wonderful, sharp, excellent video lens. But it feels more like a 90-100mm zoom when changing focus. I personally don't mind the lens breathing a little during a focus pull, especially when changing focus in just one direction during the shot.</p>

<p>Oops my bad, I thought the first 5 zooms and maybe one prime were for crop sensors and thus a switch to full frame would mean several to sell - which Aaron seems willing to do - sorry about that Aaron.</p> <p>For travel, I'd ditch the 70-200 2.8L non-IS in favor of the f4 version. I owned a F2.8L and it was so heavy it was gone just months later - I think that is part of the reason they are such a good deal used.</p> <p>I hate to love my EF-50mm f1.4. It has been repaired by Canon twice, same old problem as everyone else. If you are looking for a great quality / price / weight standard prime the 40mm f2.8 is awesome and excellent for travel. My niece now has mine and I will probably never get it back (nice problem to have).</p> <p>I can vouch for the Canon 100L macro - awesome lens and pretty decent price when refurbished. That and the 35L were my most used lenses on the 5D2. I usually use the 100L on the Sony A7rII for soccer pictures, works good enough for me in servo mode - and it was really sweet for that sort of thing on crop Rebel at 160mm equivalent. </p> <p>Whenever I travel, I always take the Rokinon 14mm f2.8. A bit heavy, but nothing beats the ultra wide angle option. That's another good price vs performance lens for a less common but fun focal length. If you were to stick with crop the equivalent is a bit smaller and lighter.</p> <p>Another thing to ponder, if you aren't in a big rush it does seem like the 5DIV is looming (maybe August/September). The 5D3 prices (used and new) should drop and maybe give you another FF option (and awesome camera!) </p> <p> </p>

<p>Crop sensors have come a long way and the lenses are generally smaller and lighter. You also mention travel and skiing. So why not a 7DII (rugged, sealed, fast)? Sell some of the less used glass and older DSLR bodies and then re-evaluate. Otherwise a 70D or 80D.</p> <p>Or sell the older bodies and get a modern rebel (for travel and skiing - smaller and still pretty rugged). Keep the 10-22 and 17-55 (nice lenses) and a few others and sell the rest. Use that money to buy a 6D and find one good full frame prime for astro work.</p> <p>Another option would be go with a mirrorless (A72 series or A6300 series) which can use adapted glass. The initial benefit will not be size/weight reduction but rather not having to buy all new glass and then decide). On my A7rII, the 35L and 135L focus like they're still on old 5D2. I might buy a Sony Zeiss lens but have not felt the need yet. And the Canon diehard that I am - I just know they will one day have another hit like the 5D2 - and I will go back to their body (sorry Canon - just got tired of waiting - but love the glass and was really sad selling the old 5D2 friend!). Or maybe Canon will even announce a competitive crop mirror-less body......soon.....now.</p> <p>All that being said, the 6D is a great camera and at its price point now its hard to go wrong other than the big lens disruption it would initiate and the added weight of the FF glass.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I don't own the lens however I am curious - is it on a tripod when its doing this? And, if there is more than one IS mode switch position (besides off) which mode is it in when it does it? I sorta sounds like a lens with IS fully engaged but on a very stable tripod so not enough random motion to make it work properly?</p>

<p>The 35L is a nice lens! From all the rumors it appears that its much deserved replacement is now maybe just months away (versus years). That means the older, especially used, 35L's might get a bit cheaper if you want to wait a bit.</p> <p>Like yourself my adventures with the 70-200 f2.8 non-is looked great on paper. I used it for just a few months and resold it. Without IS and with the new 70-200 f2.8 IS II version I would say upgrade to that if budget / work requires it otherwise the f4 IS version seems the way to go.</p> <p>Back to the 35L - no lens is perfect. The 35L needs to be stopped down to about f1.8 or f2 to start getting sharp everywhere. And its kinda big and heavy. Maybe a more modern 35 f2 lens would be better? It is a very enjoyable lens to use though and once I put it on my 5DII it rarely came off for anything with family or in the evenings or around the house or around kids, ...... </p> <p>Sigma now has some nice offerings that fall more in the middle - just not sure about autofocus.</p> <p>I really, really like the 85 1.8 on the full frame cameras - hard to go wrong there at that price point vs image quality.</p> <p>The other gem of a "affordable" canon lens is the 100L macro with IS. That is my second most used lens. Wonderful, sharp, nice colors and the IS is great. Use the focus limiter to keep it out of macro and it focuses fast enough for me for general purpose stuff. If you try the 100L you might not a 85mm that much and you may find yourself rarely using your 135L either.<br> I had the 300 f4 L with IS and sold it for the 70-200 f2.8 non IS and always regretted it. That 300 f4 is a very nice lens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Re: Rodeo Joe</p> <p>Once again thanks for all your help! You were very helpful in my first LF post too. Believe it or not I have shot a lot of wine & liquor bottles with my 5D2 and using LS&M. I enjoy the challenge and I have a few favorite lighting styles for glass. Often I do multiple exposures and blend in post to bring out labels, etc.</p> <p>The mistake I made in this Critique request was to use this type of shot for a first LF critique when I was mainly searching for comments on general camera operation and film look but the lighting was so harsh (because I wanted to see something clearly in the ground glass) that light was clearly the biggest issue with the photo.</p> <p>I really appreciate that you also looked past that and called me out again on the contrast and the lab. That is now what I am working on (purchasing equipment soon) as the lighting issues can wait. I first and foremost need quicker feedback and more control of the negative.</p> <p>If I were going to be serious about LF studio pictures of products like the one in this example, I would actually get some better lighting and first use my FF DSLR to really dial in. In the process of doing that I suspect I would get a keeper or two. And then to switch out the camera and take a few LF shots being much less work and cost. In this critique request I purposely didn't use the DSLR as I was wondering if I would even get a useable image with leaning on anything digital other than the scanner. </p> <p>Thanks again Joe!</p>

<p>Re: David,<br> Thanks for your feedback, especially regarding the scanning! Right now I am on the cheap and using a Canon 8800 with a home made holder and since the backlight is maxed out for 120 film, I scan twice and stitch. The critique image was about 13000 pixels on the long side so clearly to go to the hypothetical 5ft I would need high scanning resolution ($$$$) or a larger negative. I do scan with Vuescan and the scanner indicates 16-bit but no dice. I zoom way in (800x) and switch to 8-bit and don't see a single pixel change so the 16-bit might not be available (and has several online discussion indicating the same).</p> <p>That's okay (at least for me) as I'm trying concentrate on just operating the camera with little or no mistakes and then move on to the next step. My general plan has been as follows:<br> 1.) Get 1 box (25ct) of Ilford 400 speed film and try various shots indoors and outside and use a lab - Done!. If LF wasn't for me I would have bailed at this point and just sell the camera and not be stuck with extra lenses, darkroom gear, chemistry, better tripod, more powerful lighting, etc. </p> <p>2.) Starting developing my own film. I have just finished researching this and will starting purchasing everything. I have never developed film before so I am going to try the BTZS tubes approach. Looks pretty easy, I can do more work with lights on and have much quicker feedback than the lab (2wks+ each time).</p> <p>3.) Provided step 2 isn't too bad then I will probably look for a wide angle lens. I already tried a 90mm and it wasn't wide enough for me so I will look for something a bit wider. I kept the recessed lens board and bag bellows though.</p> <p>4.) If I am still into it then I will probably look for a used V700 or V750 and be able to scan at 16-bit.</p> <p>5.) If I really, really like it I might purchase some studio lights as right now I just have speed lights and trying to take studio setting shots with apertures of f32 and speed lights seems like futility - plus I would at least like a nice powered modeling light to see shadows, etc. I can borrow two from a friend but I think I need to stick to my plan and learn to develop next.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Re: Jose</p> <p>Thanks for you feedback and especially thanks for your comments w/r to LF film, camera operation and lens. I don't know enough yet about development so perhaps getting good at that will help address the "contrasty" part. Regarding the longer lens, I wish I had one as the 210 brings in a lot of background. I have done shots very similar to this using a DSLR and nicer lighting and usually use a 85mm or 100mm macro.</p> <p>Lighting - yeah clearly I was to harsh - but it sure was nice to be able to see the ground glass image! Not sure when I'll do this shot again, but next time I do anything similar I will probably still use the LED lights to assist with focus and then hit it with strobes for the final shot..</p>

<p>Thank You Wouter!</p> <p>I really appreciate the feedback. I am still a relative film newbie, starting with medium format film only last year and now dipping my toe in the water with a Large Format camera, lens and film. These 4x5 sheets contain so much resolution but what good is it if I use the wrong film, don't develop it properly. So to one of your points, I do need to develop my own film. Since I've never done it before I am reluctant - but now is the time.</p> <p>I know when I set up this hypothetical product shot I was cutting corners on lighting. I do indeed own Light, Science and Magic. I have shot several glassware shots using this book. I often prefer the setup with a large softbox behind and a black sheet over the softbox covering just enough so that the camera's field of view only sees the dark background. This technique yields very nice sharp edges to the glass. Then I like to reflect some of the backlight back at the front to light up the label.</p> <p>However, with the view camera I really wanted to see what I was doing so I cut corners and used fixed lighting and worked more on focus, exposure and camera operation. And since I was paying for lab development (spendy) I figured play it safe on this set.</p> <p>I wish the lighting wasn't the first obvious problem. I think it distracts from gathering other Large Format film specific feedback. On the flip side, if the lighting is the main issue then perhaps I wasn't so far off on the camera operation, lens selection, exposure, etc.</p>

<p>Hi,<br> I received a great deal of help on my last post (thanks to all responded!). Since then I have taken two more batches of 4x5 photos. I did pretty bad on the 1st batch with only 3/8 being decent and the rest operator mistakes leading to blown out exposures. I know what I did wrong and learned from it. My next batch I was 8/8 - glad I didn't give up. So I think its time for a critique and I also some questions to keep me moving.</p> <p><strong>Critique Request:</strong><br> I tried an example studio product shot (below). I could really use feedback both from a general photography perspective and especially from a Large Format film and camera point of view. If a scenario helps any for this shot, lets say a hypothetical client wanted to make large posters (say 5ft tall) and they requested 4x5 B&W negatives with this general composition. <br> <img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/LF_SCAN_0011.jpg" alt="" width="543" height="700" /><br> Photo Details: Calumet 4x5, Schneider 210mm lens @ f22 near max bellows extension, Ilford HP5 developed by a lab and using 2 fixed LED lights so I could see what I was doing. </p> <p>A link to a larger version (about 5MB):<br> <a href="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/LF_SCAN_0011_half_res.jpg">http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/LF_SCAN_0011_half_res.jpg</a></p> <p>Self Critique (In Order)</p> <ol> <li>Use pristine products (too many pits, blemishes, etc - lots of PS work to correct)</li> <li>Lighting (should be #1 but bad samples will still be very obvious)</li> <li>B&W Tonality (this should be really, really luscious and isn't there)</li> <li>Sharpness (the high resolution scan seems to lack sharpness)</li> <li>Place products on a more reflective surface (like glass)</li> <li>Try to bring out more of the small bottles reflection on the larger bottle.</li> <li>Composition (sure - what the "hypothetical" client wanted but kinda boring)</li> <li>Backdrop (I just had a thin sheet of dark paper, need something more uniform)</li> </ol> <p>And Some Questions If You Don't Mind:</p> <ol> <li>What film and developer would you use for this type of shot? The perfume bottle is dark blue with a gold top and gold label. The cologne bottle is black with a dark gray top and white writing.</li> <li>What lens would you use?</li> <li>If the hypothetical client said to try some other similar compositions where would you place the two bottles and what lens movements would you use?</li> <li>I've worked some with lighting (up to 4 lights) but any advice would be appreciated.</li> </ol> <p> </p>

<p>+1 for the Samyang / Rokinon 14mm f2.8. Make sure you get a decent copy and you will need to correct the funky distorion in post depending on the scene (eg. lots of horizontal lines). I own a 17-40L and never even use it if I want wide angle. Where 14mm is a pain is when you can not get close enough to the subject hence the zoom.</p> <p>If you haven't browsed the photography-on-the-net forum they have a lens sample archive. From those images, if you were going to take a lot of architectural photos, the 17 TS, the 24 TS and the Zeiss 21mm seem to render images incredibly sharp, good contrast, etc. Those are all spendy and manual focus (like the Samyang).</p> <p>If you are worried about theft, the Samyang will be the least of your worries - often well under $300 used.</p>

<p>E. bummer on your West Africa photos.</p> <p>Giovanni - I love those colors, is the second photo the Fuji Reala?</p>

<p>Hasselblad 500CM + CF 150 + Fuji Acros<br> <img src="http://amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/HB500CM_SCAN_0102.jpg" alt="" width="664" height="664" /></p> <center><strong>"My Ride"</strong></center>

<p> Hasselblad 500CM + CF 60mm + Fuji Acros<br> <img src="http://amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/HB500CM_SCAN_0100.jpg" alt="" width="664" height="664" /></p> <center><strong>"The Chief"</strong></center> <p> </p>

<p>Thanks Rodeo Joe!</p> <p>I appreciate your advice on the scanner. I currently have the Canon 8800F which I bought on Craigslist for $45. It came with all the holders for 35mm and 120. I used it for 120 and I think the scans are "okay". Scans with the DSLR were obviously sharper. I never scan above 2400 lines per inch. I tried once at 3600 and didn't see enough to warrant the extra time and bigger file. For this 4x5, the 2400 seems to be more than enough. And I can live with 10,000 lines on the long side. Actually, since I am stitching two images I ended up at 11,500 on the long side after stitching and cropping unwanted borders.</p> <p>For the scanning part of the equation, I just want to make two changes. Right now the Canon Scan Gear does not allow 16bit Gray scales scans. It gives an error. I will probably just buy Vuescan (well, try a demo of it first). The other item is to verify focus height. Right now I am using three sheets of construction paper and focus looks pretty darned good. But it is easy enough to add / remove and rescan to find there sweet spot.</p> <p>Thanks for your review of the image.Yes, I think it looks underexposed. I shot it back in February to available light coming in the window. The meter was reading close to 16EV facing back at the window. I was so worried about camera shake and reciprocity (which I am aware of but haven't grasped yet) that I think I went for a fast shutter speed and clearly wasn't stopped down to much so perhaps my shutter speed was just too fast. I was also dabbling with quite a bit of swing and some shift so I probably lost some light there as well. And with film I feel that I should underexposed if in doubt as I should be able to recover shadow detail - I hope I understand that right. But maybe the lab over developing gets in the way of that?</p> <p>My only other shot was of my daughter sitting in the living room. In that shot I overexposed by about 1 stop. I simply metered on her chin. Clearly I still have to learn the zone system as well.</p>

<p>Thanks Craig!</p> <p>I really appreciate all of the info and advice you shared for getting started o developing my own film. I really like the idea of keeping this more compact as this hobby has to coexist with a very patient wife and a very curious child.</p> <p>I should probably clarify the dust and scratches comment regarding the lab. I was probably wrong to do that. I could easily see the dust being an issue on my end. So I will watch and see what the next set looks like.</p> <p>Regarding scratches - is it possible I did those myself while loading? I started thinking maybe all 4x5 sheet film has to have a few scratches from sliding into the holders. Since it was my first time maybe I was a bit too rough or perhaps my nervousness to make sure they were loaded resulted in sliding them back and forth a bit too much. Unfortunately, no way to verify that unless I want to trash one unexposed negative right out of the box so I can verify no scratches before going in and no scratches after I load it in the dark.</p>

<p>Just an update. I said I would give one more try with my Canon 8800 following Charle's advice of doing two passes.</p> <p>I had previously tried scanning part of the 4x5 but was getting wicked unwanted light so I bought a few sheets of dark construction paper and traced the 120 film cutout area onto it and then cut it out. I tried it and the scanner indicated an error (bummer). So then I cut out this other area where the 120 film holder was cut out (near the start of the scan). And viola it worked! Thanks Charles for your advice.</p> <p>I did two scans which stitched nicely. For these scans I used Canon's scan gear which is only 8-bit grayscale. I scanned at 2400dpi, full resolution, emulsion (dull side) facing up toward the light in the lid and shiny side down towards flatbed glass. The final stitched scan was 11145x8346 or about 260MB - way overkill for this test but those are the numbers if anyone is interested.</p> <p>More interesting to me was that I had tried some shift and swing and I think I generally got it right, however maybe too much swing. I was trying to get the plane of focus through the apples and berries. Wow, the LF depth of field is so shallow. I was working with window light and didn't have a cable release so had to live with fairly fast shutter speed. The subject isn't all that interesting however I can finally see it somehow. Viewed up close (loupe and on screen) the tablecloth and that patch of material just below the leftmost apple are quite sharp. </p> <p>So, $100 for the old used LF camera and film holders, $200 for the lens, $45 for the Canon Scanner (used) and another $3 for the construction paper. It could be worse.</p> <p> </p> <center><img src="http://www.amazonbeach.com/PhotoVideo/PhotoNetSubmissions/LF_SCAN_001.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="541" /></center>

<p>Hi Craig,</p> <p>Thanks for taking your time to give me more insight on 4x5 and film in general. As you can see my main weakness is not being comfortable with judging negatives. Its funny how things can so easily go one way or the other. When I started with film on medium format, the person I bought the old 500CM from gave me a roll of velvia. So I just shot that first and paid to have it developed. As soon as I saw those negatives it was like a whole new dimension opened up. Each slide was like a little world.</p> <p>Then I tried some color negative film (Portra) and I was immediately put off. I think I was put off because I couldn't just "see" the image on the negative - like I was able to with the slide film. I only shot 2 rolls of porta and in the end was ho hum with that experience. However, to practice and learn I shot part of a roll with off camera flash, backdrop, etc. While I was at it moved the flash trigger over to my 5D2 and took the same shot. In the end (flatbed scanner at 2400dpi) they were quite close to each other in appearance.</p> <p>After that I switched to black and white on the medium format camera and have shot 7 rolls now including 12 shots at a wedding. I am really like the final (flatbed scanned) "on screen" and (digitally) printed look of these images. I can only imagine right now what a complete darkroom and enlarged print would look like. So far I have liked the Tri-X film's look but then again a lab developed it.</p> <p>One thing I noticed about B&W negatives is they are still hard for me to read quickly. I do use a loupe so I can judge focus but after that the final look of the image is hard to see. Repeating myself, probably just because I haven't done it enough.</p> <p>For large format, learning to focus properly, use movements, etc I have been seeking a more coarse / quick way to see the pictures I have taken thus the scanner question. I think if I were shooting velvia 4x5 I probably wouldn't have even dawned on me to post - but that stuff is expensive all around.</p> <p>So I figured the cheapest way to get started was with some Ilford B&W, send them off to a lab for development and scan back at home so I can see and understand better. However, I really don't want to blow $600 on a decent scanner right away or spend $20+ per lab scan. But then I ran into the issue of my cheap Canon 8800F didn't have a backlight big enough for 4x5.</p> <p>However, I did manage to have some success accomplishing a cheap scan of my first 4x5 which I will include that in different post.</p> <p>But any scanning success will not take away from yours and other's experience and suggestions to go the traditional route. I believe my next step is to develop this B&W film myself and then do coarse fast scans immediately at home. Doing just that will eliminate 1-2 weeks of waiting on the lab. And maybe the sheets won't be so scratched and dusty. Then when I am comfortable I will probably shoot some velvia now that it is spring and everything is turning green. And after that (fall or winter) I will probably join a photography club or school that has the lab and printing equipment and learn from the masters. </p> <p> </p>

<p>Re: John - Thanks for your sharing your experience with the older scanners and your choice to switch to the V750.</p> <p>I have already been researching the 3rd party film holders (Better Scanning) and it seems like there is obvious majority indicating they are worth the money.</p> <p>I should verify that Silverfast Ai will work okay with Win8 as that is my main machine for work (software development) and photography.</p> <p>I guess the other thing I like about the V700 series is that it will be a very good 120 film scanner as well.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Re: Jose - You are right. Often the answer is on our own question!<br> I was just wondering if I missed any other options. For example I know I can use a 120 back. But I need to see the entire frame to make sure I'm not ending up with dark corners, etc.</p> <p>I'm old enough to know these days that if I cut a corner I'll just spend the money again so thanks for bringing it up.</p> <p>I don't see much in advantage in the V800 series at this point and not enough in any reviews to warrant spending the extra money there.</p> <p>Regarding developing - As you can tell I have sidestepped that yet I think it is inevitable. I think once I know am dialed in on using the camera (which I think I am pretty close) I need to start developing my own B&W negatives. And then from there think about wet printing, enlarging, etc. I love seeing prints that were made directly from film. Thank you for bringing it up.</p>

<p>Re: L G - Thanks for your input.</p> <p>Regarding scanning with DSLR. I have done it enough on 120 to know now that it is for "winners" only. Using a FF DSLR it takes 6 shots an near 1:1 macro. The images from the film are quite sharp - easily focusing on the grain. But its the stitching that is the PITA. With burred out of focus areas and large areas with little or nothing (skies) stitching 6 shots doesn't always line up nice.</p> <p>Now apply that to 4x5 and you would need roughly 4x4 shots which means 16 images to stitch together. Add in some blurred out of focus areas, skies, large areas of grass, etc, etc and I already know the stitching would be a big time sink. However, the resolution would be stellar!</p> <p>If someone wants sharp scans, using a high resolution crop (think Sony 24MP) or now the Canon 5Ds should easily exceed what is really on the film. I think the Sony sensor will be nicer when it comes to latitude. And if you have a 50mp DSLR you are at least at MF resolutions and starting into LF territory anyway.</p> <p>All that said, if you can link me to any 4x5 which were macro scanned with a DSLR I would love to see their methods and how they turned out!</p>

<p>Re: Charles - Thanks for you insight and suggestions!</p> <p>I guess I would rather pay more money to have a scanner that can also be connected to the same PC that I currently use to catalog, edit and print.</p> <p>I have been keeping my eyes open for a used 4990 as it might work on Win8 and later but I would need to be sure and thus wouldn't want to pay very much. Otherwise I'm going to pass on the older stuff that requires older PC's or dual boots, etc.</p> <p>I think I will take one more try and scanning the 4x5 in two halfs on the Canon 8800. I didn't go to the effort to make a dedicated cutout as you suggested. Perhaps that would work well enough to get a decent 1st scan. However I feel that I will also face focus issues but we'll see.</p> <p>Otherwise I am now leaning towards the V700 series as the V800 series doesn't seem to offer enough more to justify the additional cost.</p>