sunny_alan_alan

<p>Thank you all.<br /><br />I am not very conversant with calibration.<br /><br />I assume, that there should be extra hardware attached inside the mechanism of the Monitor which will communicate with the calibration gadget and software, which makes these few series of few models special as "calibratable" and thus costly.<br /><br />And Andrew Rodney was telling Benq PG240's technology is superior, hence it is more costly. Right?<br /><br />Now, to start with at a minimal cost, same time without sacrificing the very cause of calibrating process, can I buy a Monitor, VFM one, if it is existing at all, please ? <br /><br /></p>

 

<p>Thank you all.<br /><br />I am not very conversant with calibration.<br /><br />I assume, that there should be extra hardware attached inside the mechanism of the Monitor which will communicate with the calibration gadget and software, which makes these few series of few models special as "calibratable" and thus costly.<br /><br />And Andrew Rodney was telling Benq PG240's technology is superior, hence it is more costly. Right?<br /><br />Now, to start with at a minimal cost, same time without sacrificing the very cause of calibrating process, can I buy a Monitor, VFM one, if it is existing at all, please ? <br /><br /></p>

 

<p>I am in the process of setting up a color-calibrated environment: Monitor, Printer, if needed Camera too.<br /><br />While talking to local the X-rite dealer, he suggested the only 'true calibratable' monitor is Benq PG 240.<br /><br />I found it is pretty pricey.<br /><br />Is it true, this is the only one and no alternative affordable one ?</p>

<p>Ok.<br />How good is "Canon 100 mm 2.8 Macro EF" for this work, please ?</p>

<p>Thank you.<br>

Yes, I too am convinced a long lens, say around 100mm 1:1 is ideal for this work.<br />But I am looking for a lens from the old system, large format.<br /><br />Heard there are many a Jems available, used, very cheap, but real good for this work. But Im not well versed to know which are good glass, compatible on A7r.<br /><br />Please help...</p>

 

 

 

<p>For a Limited-Edition Art reprinting facility, I got a studio room with a length of about 22 feet.<br />I need to decide a copying Lens: a flat-field 50mm or longer, say 90, 100 or even 150mm.<br>

I tested the distance with the 24-105 zoom on my Sony A7r. I can copy a size of about 8x5 feet painting in single piece.<br />I read copying from distance with long lens or copying in tiles is better to avoid hot-spots.<br />Considering this, which lens is better for my room for copying 8x5 feet and smaller oil paintings,<br>

a 50mm/2.5 macro or longer as mentioned above?<br>

(I am aware of proper lighting at 45 angle and the like...)<br>

I think better I go for a 150 mm, and capture in tiles and stitch them to make an adequately large file in about 300 resolution.<br>

Am I correct?<br>

Thanks in advance for the time...</p>

 

 

 

<p>The seller quoted 'Aptus II 65, 28mp'. Ididnt see it yet. He asks $5500. (I dont know if right price, for a perfectly working used one)<br>

I may have to copy from 4x3 ft paintings to 5x10 ft at least. I may have to buy Multistitch for those bigger ones.<br>

Film??<br />No, I have no Labs nearby and do not know color film developing. Apprehensive to invest in an inhouse Lab, film is discontinued by all mfrs, shortly. Kodachrom is stopped, Velvia 100.... Cant say when others too.<br /><br />Isn't any digital camera suitable ?</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

I located a used but good condition Aptus II 65 DB, which I intend to use for copying flat art, fine art paintings for licensed Limited Edition prints, as well as for outdoor landscape photography, to take advantage of the best dynamic range it offers over my Canon 5D2.<br /><br />With the Aptus the seller bundled camera is a Hassy 500 CM + HB 100mm, 80mm lenses.<br /><br />I think the 500CM is quite an old camera to use for my specific need of outdoor shots. Am I wrong?<br /><br /><br>

In that case which best used camera model, at a reasonable price?<br /><br />And these 2 lenses are good for my both purposes?<br /><br />I am new to MF photography and gears. <br /><br />Your sharing is valuable....</p>

 

<p><br /> </p>

<p>I have a choice of below two sets of gear, landscape and art copying are the need. (No big budget...)<br /> Which is better and why please, or any alternative options, thanks in advance....<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MF systems:<br /> 1. Betterlight Super 6K HS 4x5 Digital Scanback @ $ 5000 + <br /> Cambo Master Plus 4X5 View Camera ........... $ 1000<br /> Schneider 80mm f5.6 Macro-Digitar …………… $ 800<br /> (aka Macro-Symmar MC Copal ) <br /> +shipping, duty. Total……….$ 8000<br /> <br /> <br /> Or<br /> 2. Leaf Aptus II-65 Digital Back – <br /> No much used. Clean sensor.<br /> Hasselblad 500 CM+HB 100mm, 80 mm Lens<br /> With pistol grip,Extn. Rings, shade, wires…etc<br /> Original Box….. Total $ 7000<br>

</p>

<p>My gut feel is the EF17 to 40F/4L is the answer for you at this time.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

16 is much more wider than 17. Still you think 17-40 is apt? I am happy, this is cheap too.<br>

<strong>Rationale: </strong><br>

Not as expensive as the 16 to 35/2.8 and very likely you will not use the extra aperture stop but will use the extra 5mm of Focal Length.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

Why? Wont extra aperture useful for low light situation?<br>

Not as complex or as specialist a lens as the TS-E 17F/4L and if you still want the TS-E17F/4 the 17 to 40 will be a good mate for it.<br>

^^^^^^^<br>

Well, I dont think going for TSE now. WHAT DO YOU TOUCH the Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, 21 f/2.8? The "Help me help you"(send me $5) expert says Zeiss 21 f2.8 is the sharpest lens he ever seen.<br>

And I want a very sharp one to enlarge to 36x24 inch on canvas prints. And he is an expert not to be discounted just like that ! It is a German, legendary lens, and price is almost equal to a EF 16-35.<br>

What do you think?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Disgust</em></strong> = (noun) strong disapproval or revulsion; impatience or severe irritation with situation or person or action.<br>

<strong>No! Not at all! </strong><br /> You read my mind incorrectly, on all counts.<br /> I thought: “<strong><em>passion”</em></strong> and “<strong><em>enthusiasm”</em></strong> and hopefully I responded accordingly with due diligence.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

But I didnt know 'Disgust' has such irritating connotations ! Yes, then I misjudged... Sorry, but I didnt intent.<br>

And I am happy: met a Pro, with unusual patience, passion and enthusiasm to newbies...<br>

Let me evaluate your suggestion.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the elaborate reply...<br>

I can read your mind: disgust on near foolish questions and the helplessness of teaching "everything A to Z" through a Forum post.<br>

But I am all ears, very patient. A novice has no options... Except asking, ferocious browsing/reading to learn to make least mistakes.<br>

Yeah, many say: "You jump into it after all, to practice it. Cant practice swimming on bank...". I can, but in that process I will end up wasting lot of money on costly glass.<br>

And if I jumped 2 months back I would have drowning now with a D90+few heavy-weight, costly lenses strapped on me !<br>

Earlier no .Net was available to yell for help to people sitting on the other side of glob, like a generous William W, hence they all left with sacks full of lenses in the 'swimming' process, which they do not touch once got the right lenses...<br>

My effort is to avoid as much "great lenses" possible to zero-in on the near-fittest one. I found every day I am saving $ 100 avoiding wrong glass and learning much of theory, THANKS ALL OF YOU...<br>

On my extensive study learned I need as much MP as possible to enlarge to 24x36 inches, thus zeroed in on Mk2, the cheapest-best FF. I know unless with fitting lens/lenses, Mk2 is helpless, hence my current yelling for 'The BEST (and cheapest)' possible hires lenses...<br>

I decided on 50mm f2.5 and 70-200 f/4L IS.<br>

Now the wrangling is going for a Wide Angle, between EF 16-35 f/2.8 L, Zeiss 18mm f/3.5, 21 f/2.8, EF 17-40/4L and TS-E 17-40/4L.<br>

Got some more time to teach me?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you very much William !<br>

Your list is wholesome.<br>

While the list of lenses is essential for the pro-work; keeping it my wishlist, is it possible to advise a pruned list with bare essentials, covering my needs for first one year, as a 'Starter-kit' for me the beginner to be experienced to be aware of need of additional lenses?<br>

1. TSE-17F/4L: Is little expensive.<br>

2. How do you compare TSE- 24F/3.5L with EF 16-35 f2.8L II USM or the all-rounder EF 24-105 4l ? (The later has IS and the TS-E is open to elements). Your input is valuable here...<br>

3. If EF300F/4IS is there why extenders?<br>

Please be patient, beginner-student I am ...<br>

Thanks in advance.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Still I couldnt zoom in on a need based system:Travel, landscapes, nature, art copying+enlargement printing, sculpture, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

I am buying 50/2.5 for sure: Copying is covered. For landscape amd general photography i need a wide or even an Ultra-wide. Anything better than 24-105 ??<br>

Also need a telephoto for travel, nature, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm-Telephoto-Zoom-Cameras/dp/B000053HH5/?tag=dpnotes-20">How is EF 70-200mm f/4L USM ? It is cheaper but no IS. Anything better at budget ?<br /></a></p>

<p>I mean, how far 24-105 a telephoto zoom, at least to start with?<br>

For my work, is 'telephoto' feature a must other than hobby purpose?</p>

<p>That means I have to buy both. (I am yet to buy lenses).<br>

I thought I can save some money.<br>

What about if I keep only 24-105, leaving 70-200?</p>

<p>Thanks.<br>

What about my other questions, please...</p>

<p>My work is no wedding, studio, people, news and sports, portraits than hobby. No much of birds or animals even.<br>

I am serious on travel, landscapes, nature, art copying+enlargement printing, sculpture, archaeological, temple art etc.<br>

Camera: Body: 5d Mark2.<br>

Lens: 1) 50mm f/1.4 (copying)<br>

2) 70-200mm f/4L IS<br>

3) 24-105mm f/4L IS<br>

1. Is the above ok for my requirements?<br>

2. Can I eliminate any one out of 2 and 3 lenses? (In other words has 70-200 enough/minimum wide angle feature to eliminate 24-105? I know for certain 24-105 cannot stand with 70-200 in many other quality aspects)<br>

Thanks in advance...</p>

<p>@Dan:....Secondly, if my assumption that you want to not only copy large subjects but also <em>reproduce</em> them at equivalent sizes up to 4' x 3" is correct, you will be pushing the upper boundaries of high quality print size - and lens quality will be significant.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

Yes , you are correct, I want to print actual size 4x3. Know despite with a fullframe+21 mp may not be capable to get a very fine job as done by a Hasse or Scanning Back.<br>

But my effort is how far near(say acceptable to at least a layman buyer) I can push the quality to near ‘upper boundaries’, with Mk2 + any possible additions, improvements, investments.</p>

<p>@...Third, you mention "landscaping" (e.g. - "landscape") lens, but I'm not clear whether you are simply using that as a description of a lens type or if you also intend to photograph that sort of subject. I'll assume that you do <em>not</em> plan to do landscape photography but are just using that as a shorthand to refer to lens characteristics.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

I HAVE plan for landscape photographing and printing on canvas. That is the reason I enquired which ‘Value For Money’ Zoom.</p>

<p>@...With this in mind, your focal length will depend primarily on the size of the subject and the distance from which you can or choose to photograph it. Going cheap on lenses could make sense if you are only going to print small - say 12 x 18 or similar - but if you intend to print at those very large sizes and do professional work, this is a situation in which you will want to get a lens that optimizes image quality. (I use the 7900 and a 5D2 and have some experience with such print sizes.)<br>

I do not have an personal experience with the inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 lens. I do use the 50mm f/1.4, and stopped down a bit it can produce very high resolution - essentially, for all practical purposes, as high as any other Canon lens in terms of the effect on your print.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

Yes, if specific, costly LENS can push me near high quality, bigger sizes, I am ready: if that decisive quality possible. If L-series can make MUCH difference, I go for it. Because it is much much cheaper than going for a Scanning Back!<br>

But; with a Mk2+ whatsoever high lens+ gears I cannot get even a decent 4x3 copy: I DO NOT go for costly lens, but normal once and satisfy with possible sizes. Waiting till when I can save money for a Scanning Back…</p>

<p>I agree Bob, 'enough money' is very much a relative term...<br>

Thats why when a Hasselblad HD4 is referred, I retreated immediately to Stitching...</p>

<p>I am all ears, wait for your wise input...</p>

<p>Thanks, I got it and decided on the 50 macro.<br>

@ But for high quality, really high quality, you know you need a scanning back, or a custom stitching frame, or a Hasselblad HD4-200MS, nothing beats effective sensor size or number of pixels.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

I checked what are involved....at least NOW, I am not going for it, may be later, if the incoming volumes justify it.</p>

<p>@What is your proposed output? A single 5D MkII frame will not output to high quality, art reproduction quality, much over 24" on the long side, but even then viewing distance is a factor.<br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

No 24" in longer side?<br>

I expected 36 with Mk2, without stitching.<br>

But need 36, what else to do? Well, will resort to stitching.<br>

Please tell me: A 48" painting for decent close resolution stitched, how many steps, snaps needed?<br>

What extra gear needed?</p>

<p>Thanks a lot for those contributed. Great tips.</p>

<p><strong>@</strong>Philip Wilson: <strong>In a 20 foot room an 85mm lens will allow you to shoot just over 8 feet by 5<br /> feet so you may want to consider the 85 F1.8 or even a Macro lens (Cannon 100 F2.8s or Tamron 90mm). If you are happy to focus manually the Contax 50mm F1.7 and F1.4 are very sharp and work well with an adaptor. My Contax 50 F1.7 is<br /> clearly sharper than my Canon 50 F1.4.</strong><br>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^<br>

This given rise a doubt: Copying from closeby with a 50/2.5 Macro or copying from far with a 60 or 85 mm will result distortion-less better quality. A painting is always square and no cropping possible, corners are as important as center of reproduced painting.<br>

I am trying to do the perfect job of a Scan-back, expectations of my clients are sky high, cannot compromise. So money cannot be a barrier…<br>

What is my best bet, at a higher budget, if it improve quality decisively ?</p>

<p>Hello,<br>

New to this forum.<br>

I am here for learning.<br>

Professionally a digital large format printer, running own business in printing for advertising industry graphics.<br>

Newly entering in Fine art & photo copying and printing on Epson 9890.<br>

Copying involves photography, DSLR camera, lenses(I discount scanning, and large/medium format Scanbacks to begin with, since found current DSLRs are competent to capture images of 'normal' sizes)<br>

After much study, I zoomed in on 5D Mk2 as basic body. Think this full-frame with it's mps can capture a 4x3 ft painting in single shot with enough resolution, to be reproduced without stitching.<br>

Not experienced in the mind-boggling multitudes of lenses, just stepped in to the learning process.<br>

Need to shortlist 2 lenses:<br>

1. Copying lens: For copying paintings of various sizes, say 4x3, 3x2 ft... Bigger ones may need Stitching. Copying is in-studio. A copying room is in the making.<br>

Here is my confusion: Suitable lens mm/size, room length needed to copy the above sizes and rare large ones, say 8x4 ft. etc. (I am aware of need of good lighting<em>, </em>Polarisers, Tripod etc.)<br>

Considering a room length of 20/25 feet, which is the good copying lens for Mk2?<br>

Result of my study:<strong><a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Canon+good+lens+for&hl=en&prmd=ivns&biw=1024&bih=627&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=9079362058149002410&sa=X&ei=WHheTtnnC8ysrAflz_C5Dw&ved=0CJQBEPMCMAI">50 mm - F/1.8 - <em>Canon</em> EF, </a></strong><a href="http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=Canon+good+lens+for&hl=en&prmd=ivns&biw=1024&bih=627&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=9079362058149002410&sa=X&ei=WHheTtnnC8ysrAflz_C5Dw&ved=0CJQBEPMCMAI"><strong>50mm f/1.4 USM</strong></a><br>

2. General purpose landscaping-zoom lens: Budget say $ 500. My find: <strong>Canon EF 100-300mm 4.5-5.6 USM. Or should I stretch to </strong>EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM, since I have no plan to keep many lenses.<br>

I am no Pro yet, but a lens is no consumable, an asset.<br>

I am waiting for your valuable advice on all aspects.<br>

Thanks in advance.</p>