jackflesher

IMO the 500D on the 70-200/4 makes a very good macro lens. It isn't going to be quite as good optically as a dedicated macro lens, nor will it get you all the way down to 1:1, but it will probably serve you very well for most subjects and get you somewhere around 1:2 which is plenty for flowers. You could add the EF12 tube if you find you need more magnification for the smaller bugs.

 

If you own another lens like a 50mm prime, you can mount it reversed over the front of the zoom for even more magnification and quite good macro performance.

 

Cheers,

Jack

Perhaps I don't understand the question. If you make an HSB adjustment layer on top of the background layer for example and then decide you want to clone out some newfound crud out of your image, you can simply CMD J the background layer and use this as your clone layer. The HSB changes will hold on this layer since it's above it.

 

If however you can only see the crud clearly after the newly adjusted HSB and need to clone on that without losing the HSB layer you might try this -- it isn't elegant and I'm sure there is an easier way, but this should work: Copy the Adjustment layer on top of itself (don't worry that the adjustment effect is now multiplied). Copy the background layer and name it clone. Drag the clone layer to between the two adjustment layers. Hide the background and original adjustment layer. Now you have a clone layer that is a duplicate of the background layer and a "pre-adjusted" adjustment layer on top of it, allowing it to look just like your adjusted original. Now clone away on the clone layer until you're done. Discard the top adjustment layer and drag the clone layer back to between the background layer and original adjustment layer. Show the background and original adjustment layer and all should be well.

 

Cheers,

Jack

"Easiest solution for a home user is an external drive. These beasties are fast, cheap, and given they *don't* use the typically flaky power supply of home PC's they are often nore reliable."

 

AMEN! I use two set up back-to-back as a makeshift RAID. FWIW, I was in COSTCO yesterday and they are selling the Maxtor 160GB combo 1394/USB2 drive for $169. At $1 per Gig you can hardly go wrong...

Hi Peter:

 

I decided to keep it -- the files are just too good :)

I have to add my .02 on this one...

 

Yes, the Imacon scanner is outstandingly good. And with a good transparancy can produce a file that rivals and possibly at times exceeds a 16-bit MF digital capture...

 

BUT! BUT! BUT! I would rather stick pins in my eyes than spend all the time necessary scanning AND cleaning up the scans to get them ready for print output! Until you've done about 200 such scans for print -- heck make that 20 -- you simply do not have ANY appreciation for what a ROYAL PITA scanning is. White gloves, cases of Dust-off, Pec pads and Eclipse emulsion fluid and you still find crap, scratches, divots, buggers, hairs and blobs on your image, not to mention the water spots and chemistry residue stains -- all are especially visible when you view them at actual pixel view in PS... Add to that fact that even the newest Imacon is no speed demon when scanning MF at 4000 DPI -- how long does that take and what is your time worth? Add again the cost of film, processing AND the scanner itself, and all of a sudden the MF digital back looks pretty affordable -- in fact it starts to look down right inexpensive!

 

Me, if it gets me close to the same result, I'll take digital capture WITH A DIRTY SENSOR over the film plus scanning option anytime!

 

Cheers,

Jack

Since you so enjoy the MF approach for landscape compared to DSLR/35mm, just wait until you make the transition from MF to LF -- :D

Wow, big and long question... Instead of writing a book for an answer I'll give you a short and skinny ;) I went with the Contax 645 and Kodak 645C back because:

 

a) it was portable (and could operate untethered)

 

b) has AF

 

c) has superb optics

 

d) and I could finally afford that particular (tethered/untethered-able) back for it ;)

 

As an aside, the largest MF digital capture back is still smaller than fullframe 645, so going with a 6x7 or 6x8 camera will provide no advantage (other than with film). In fact it may be a detrement if you want to get reasonable wideangle digital capture since the larger formats have only longer lenses available.

 

BTW, I like to print big and the files out of this system are incredible to work with!

 

Cheers,

Jack

Interesting: My 558 reads 3/10ths under my Canon 1Ds spot meter in spot mode, though I found the 558's reading to be the accurate one.

I owned this lens for even less time than Jay -- and sold it for the same reasons he metioned. I thought it was a decent lens optically, though compared with my sample, my 70-200/2.8 with the 2x was essentially as good at 400 yet I had the bennefit of faster apertures from 70-200 (even though adding the converter was not convenient nor do you have a rapid way to get from 400 down to 100). The dust-sucking, trombone-slide style zoom is NOT an urban legend; it does, did and will suck dust into its internals faster than you can spell H-O-O-V-E-R. Also, again with my sample, I agree with Jay that the zoom-tensioning ring had only two settings -- too loose and too tight. To be even more accurate, it was not consistent throughout the zoom range, so when slightly loose at the 100mm end it could not be fully zoomed to 400 unless it was loosened more.

 

Personally, I think your money is far better spent on the excellent 300/4IS prime and a 1.4xII converter instead.

 

Cheers,

Jack

Jay:

 

You really should check out another copy of the 300/4 -- it sounds like the one you had was a dog. For example, my 300/4 is VASTLY superior to my 70-200/2.8 IS with the 1.4.

Hi Bob:

 

I agree that theoretically the converters should slow down any lens' AF they are attached to. What I meant to imply is that while this is particularly apparent on the 300/4 IS it is enough less so on the 300/2.8 that it was essentially unnoticable by me.

 

Jack

I have the 300/4 IS and HAD the 300/2.8 IS. My observations:

 

*) To answer your main question, the difference in DOF is notable at about 20 meters out, but is not what I would call significant. IMO since it is subjective, the biggest difference is in the quality of the Bokeh, where the 300/2.8's is only superceeded by the 200/1.8 and 85/1.2.

 

1) My copy of 300/2.8 was a TAD sharper than my copy of the 300/4

 

2) MY copy of the 300/4 worked BETTER with the 1.4xII converter than did my copy of the 300/2.8 and in fact shows virtually no detriment to image quality except for some slight loss in the corners.

 

3) NEITHER lens worked well with the 2xII converter, though the images are "usable"

 

4) The AF speed of the 300/4 IS slows notably with the addition of the 1.4xII converter, but still AF's accurately -- to quantify the slowdown, I would guess about 30% slower. I did not notice an appreciable slowdown of AF with the 300/2.8 IS with the 1.4xII converter.

 

5) The 300/4 IS focuses to HALF the distance the 300/2.8 does -- which in addition to being a possibly huge advantage for photographing small mammals and nesting birds (not to mention very good macro performance at long working distances with the 500D diopter, EF12 and/or EF25 tube attached) -- probably explains why it also focuses slower with the 1.4 converter since the internal focusing group has to move significantly further to focus.

 

6) The 300/4 makes a far better travel companion than the 300/2.8 ;)

 

Note that I stressed MY COPY of the respective lenses in points 1 and 2 since I have experienced significant sample-to-sample variability in other Canon lenses; ie I expect Jay had a very BAD sample of the 300/4 IS and has a very GOOD sample of the 300/2.8 IS while I may have had the opposite conditions...

 

Cheers,

Jack

PS: One additional thing to keep in mind while buying into a system is whether or not you will want to add digital capture capabilities in the future -- this will narrow your selection options significantly and probably also give some hints as to the future resale value of any system you purchase today.

As far as raw imaging capability is concerned, they will generate essentially equivalent results. The debates about rectangular versus square, frames per roll, MF versus AF, ME versus AE, electronic versus mechanical, and German versus Japanese can keep your head spinning.

 

Lastly, IF you can handle the additional size and weight, an RB, RZ, Pentax 67 or GS1, all 6x7 (56x72mm) will give you almost 2x the negative area as 645.

It really depends on what you want to do. I have owned both and currently only own the 558. However, I only shoot with digital now and really only need a meter for studio flash and occasionally want a spot meter.

 

The biggest advantage of the Pentax digital spot meter is the totally intuitive way it relates the entire range of correct exposures to your camera lens settings including under and over exposure values; they are all instantly visible at the same time. By contrast, with any electronic readout meter you have to spin a dial and/or push a button or combination of buttons to get alternate equal or under/over exposure readings.

 

Cheers,

Jack

... Tardis... Now that's getting a bit "philosophistral" ROTFLMAO ;o)

 

Just FTR Macman, the Sony Artisan is a CRT while the Apple Cinema is an LCD... Doubtfull they are in any way the same screen LOL!

 

Now to answer the question. IMO it really depends on you and I don't think you can go wrong with either as both are outstanding monitors. With the Artisan you can sell your Colorvision Optical because the Sony has a built-in calibrator. Many claim the CRT has the best color quality and they are probably right, but I use a graphics caliber digital LCD and love it -- with it I get WYSIWYG between screen and prints which is good enough for me ;)

 

Cheers,

Jack

There was (is) a lot of variability in the performance of 17-35's and this trend continues with the 16-35 (I went through three of them before I found a really great one). OTOH, the 17-40 seems to be consitently very good.

 

IMO the biggest negative to the 17-40 is the fact that it has significant barrel distorion at the wide end and it is not regular but more like a bubble in the middle of the frame. The good news is that Thomas Niemann is offering PTLens for free and will have a data set available very soon to correct distortions on the 17-40.

 

For more info on PTLens see: http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

 

Cheers,

Jack

If you are really are into exploring digital B&W, check this option out:

 

http://www.irdigital.net/

 

;),

Jack

The crop factor depends on what dimensions you end up cropping any given format to; 4:5 or 2:3. At any rate, it is generally accepted that 6x7 is just over 2x 35mm when comparing the full diagonal. Thus the 127 corresponds to a 62 or 63 in 35mm and the 50 equals a 24.

 

This guy has built a nifty Excel spredsheet for actual diagonal and 4:5 proprtion comparisons:

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenses3.html

 

Cheers,

Jack

The 127 was a hold-over design from the Mamiya Universal days -- it was a good "normal" focal for 6x9 as well as 6x7, so it served dual duty on that system which accomodated multiple formats. It was also incredibly sharp which IMO is why it was the first "normal" offering on the RB, only later to be followed by the 90.

IMO "twice" is a stretch... Over the years I have shot with Mamiya, Pentax, Hassy, Fuji and Contax MF cameras. In a nutshell, I would say there is a notable difference between Contax glass and Mamiya 645 glass, maybe 30% or 40% better in some focals, but not twice.

Like all things in life, size does matter ;) BUT! Size is a relative thing when discussing digital imaging; more pixels is not always better, but larger pixels generally are due to better noise properties. So in some cases, a 3MP digicam may produce BETTER images than a 5MP digicam. The good news is that at 8x10 size, it isn't going to matter much which you go with since both will do a good job.

Good Bokeh may be hard to define, but like porn, I know it when I see it.

 

;),

I think Gary's point was that in the case of the 16-35 at f2.8 the Bokeh is distractive -- enough that it should not necessarily be used as a positive consideration when debating between the 16-35 and 17-40 per your original post. It may well be nicer than the 17-40's, but the fact remains it is distractive even in the image you posted.

 

All that being said, I love my 16-35 too ;).

 

Cheers,

I hardly think it's fair (not to mention very poor execution of predicate logic) to extrapolate that just because you made a poor purchase on a single obscure MF item, that ALL MF deals on eBay are therefore "bad".