BOB.T

LOL

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Take a read of this - maybe there's a term for people like us?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

ps. Bob: I do actually own a D30, EOS 33 and 1D, so I'm allowed to know how those work, right?

dr_ming

Level 1 for me please

alistair

Just out of interest, what are you shooting that needs 1/8000th?

5fps would be nice, but then again, I use continuous bursts a lot more now than I used to when I had to pay for each shot

I occasionally get a good shot on a continuous burst, but generally find it just makes me lazy & I get much better pictures if I think about it properly and just take 1 or 2.

Just my 2 cents worth.....

IWatkins

Gone digital ? Just tape the shutter release down, its the only way to fly.

Seriously, I do use the continous shooting mode on the 10D to good effect at times. I.e. trying to catch a moving target in not very good lighting. You set bracketing up for 1 stop above and below and just hold the shutter down. One of those shots will come out OK. I've used this to good effect to catch flying birds etc.

Even so, the best shots I've made with the 10D are those ones that I've sat and though about the shot, set it up and then taken it. There is no subsitute for thought and planning.

Still cheaper with digital though.

Cheers

Ian

darlodge

Thanks for all the replies.

I must admit I have only picked up 2 film SLR's in the last 6 years so I might have confused what I meant by speed etc.

I have also have not had the luck of looking at any DSLR's. I have just read and spoken to a few people about the Digital SLR's and have been told that only Digital SLR's that I can afford (D30) is not as suited as the EOS 5. Mainly down to the following:

Focusing points: 3 (D30) vs 7 (EOS 5)
Shutter speed: 4000 vs 8000
Frame rate per/s: 3 vs 5

This may be rubbish but, that's what my purchase is (was) based on. I think the only way of deciding between the Digital and film is to get 2 loan cameras (1 of each) from a shop and compare identical images. The main think that does concern me is the processing costs of film, though I won't get all printed on paper, most will go on CD until I get good

Dr_ming - What benefit of the ~1.6x magnification of the digital will I see.

Andy - Are you saying that an EOS 5 would catch a car at a set spot using AI Focus AF where as a D30 would not? Also the EOS 5 does have an red AF light, I checked

BOB.T - What does your college course cover? I thought about doing a college course as well. I'd be intrested to hear.

Alistair - I'll be mostly shooting motorpsort and the odd landscape when on hols etc. My old canon (6 years ago) did about 2 or 3 frames per second and I missed things (motoring) but I think that was more down to a bad photographer than the equipment. I can see what you are saying about planning though.

Ian - I can see exactly what you are saying. Planning, planning, planning. and a bit of pot luck

Regards
Darren

[Edited by darlodge - 11/13/2003 1:52:29 PM]

MartinM

OK - here I am

Darren

(edit: Hey, I gotta corner - never done that before)

4000/8000 - can't really see that swinging anything, except for the more specialist stop action shots

3fps vs 5fps - again, not that critical at these prices. So on the EOS5 you have to change films every 7 seconds On the D30, I think it stops after 9 frames at 3fps - if you then take your finger off the shutter button, you have to wait for up to 30 secs or so while it unbuffers to the CF card before you can take another image. That can be a severe restriction that you need to realise exists

3 focus points vs 7 focus points. Well, my 1D has 45, but all my RallyGB pictures were taken with the centre one only! What a waste!

I'd still go for the D30 - changing films, processing, copying to CD/prints ... ugh, I wouldn't want to go there again. I've taken close to 8000 images in about 9 months and it's been a revelation to my general camera skills and to a constantly improving image quality. But I suppose that that's only the equivalent to (about!) 222 36exp films

PS this thread deserves muppetising to the measurebator forums on dpreview

PPS Andy, come on then, how's the 1D?

[Edited by MartinM - 11/13/2003 2:11:40 PM]

darlodge

Thanks Martin,

I used to shoot at 4000 but that was the top speed of old camera. Have you know of any example shots that show the difference between 4000 and 8000? I'm not planning on making a career move so I don't expect to do any specialist stop action shots, unless I fluke it

I know others have said, planning a shot correctly means that you don't have to really on fps shots. Does the D30 have the ability to go stops over and under?

Point taken about the focus points, never really thought of it like that. I don't think I'll very rarely shoot off centre. One of my favourite pictures I've even taken was of a Swan spreading its wings right in front of me about 2ft away. I took the picture and ran like hell. Saying that, although the picture was in focus, it was off centre so I lost one wing which made the picture useless

I can see the benefits of using digital to film (instant processing, easy ability to amend photos, choice of pictures to print, ability to rewrite over bad pictures, choose which ones to print there are more), but I was also given some bad points of using the digital. However all the bad points have been mentioned above and they don't appear that bad on review Now I don't know what to do Well I do really but I have to tap the girlfriend for more money

Don't you know what you mean muppetising this thread. You would not believe how helpful it has been to me

Darren

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Darren,

There's no reason why you can't have your subject off-centre just because a camera only has a few focus points; every camera allows you to 'focus lock and recompose', which means you position the focus point over your subject, press the shutter halfway, then compose the shot you want and squeeze the shutter the rest of the way.

There's a rule in photography called the 'rule of thirds', which says that the images most interesting and pleasing to the eye tend to have their main subject 1/3 of the way across the frame, ie. at the points where the lines intersect in an imaginary '#' drawn across the viewfinder. Photos where the subject is dead centre do tend to be rather dull.

To answer your other questions:

- 1/8000 is only really useful if you're shooting into the sun with a wide aperture to limit DoF. I've never needed faster than 1/4000 - I really don't think you'll notice the difference.

- Yes, the D30 lets you over and under-expose, by 2 stops either way in Av or Tv mode, and of course you can set whatever exposure you like manually.

MartinM: My first impression of the 1D is that it's heavy. I'm still learning what it can and can't do - full review to follow, probably in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, if my D30 appears on eBay, you'll know I decided I like it!

A.

IWatkins

1.6x factor. (WARNING - I think I have following correct)

Often called 1.6x magnification factor. I used to think that if I used a 500m lens on a 1.6x factor camera (e.g. 10D) that I would be getting 500 x 1.6 = 800mm magnification.

However, this isn't the case. It is better to think of it as a 1.6x crop factor, because that is exactly what it is.

For a 500m lens you will get a field of view of a 800mm lens but it will still be magnified the same as a 500mm lens. This is becuase the 500mm lens is working the same as on a 35mm film camera, it is just that some of the light that would normally fall onto a 35mm film frame is falling off the side on a dSLR with a 1.6 crop factor sensor.

The flip side of this is that a nice 18mm wide angle lens will only give you a field of view of a 29mm lens.

I.e. if you go digital, you'll probably want ot buy a new wide angle lens as your first purchase if you do landscape/skyscape photography.

This problem apart (unless you go full frame, e,g, 1Ds, kerching ) there has been no time since I went digital that I have sat there and thought "Wish I still had film".

Cheers

Ian

dr_ming

The EOS 5 has 5 focus sensors, not 7. However, I almost always use just the middle one and re-compose. For fast moving action like motorsport, pre-focussing is much more effective than the AI focus stuff, it's just not quick enough. To use pre-focussing effectively, use the custom function (4, I think) to shift AF activation from the shutter button to the '*' button.

Ian, you are correct about the 1.6x crop factor, that's why I typed
As Ian says, the digital image is just a crop of the centre part of the full 35mm frame. Depth of field remains un-altered (neglecting different size circles of confusion - aptly named!), because the focal point of the lens is still 35mm from the 'film' plane, and thus the true focal length is also un-altered.

I suggested that the 1.6x multipler was useful for m/sport photography because the preference/desire is for a long lenses. If you bought a 400mm lens for your Canon DSLR, you would get images that appeared to have been taken with a 640mm lens, because of the crop factor.

The crop factor is the main reason I have not gone to digital yet. I have used an EOS10D extensively, and the quality is definately there. For the higher (equivalent) ASA settings, I would say that it already better than film. Unfortunately, I do a lot of landscape photography and, when attached to a 10D, my 16-35mm lens effectively becomes 25.6-52.5mm. Yuk. Even if I forked out for the new Sigma 12-24mm lens (and I doubt the quality would be as good as my Canon lens), I'd still only get 19.2-28.4mm!

With regard to the cost/hassle of film, both can be minimised to an extent that (IMHO) it's not that big a deal. The film itself is virtually free, I pay ~£1.25 for 36 exposure Fuji Superia from 7DayShop. Processing costs are slightly more painful, I pay ~£12 for a set of 6x4 prints and 18Mb TIF scans on CD. Scanning the negs youself is hassle and very time consuming. Since the lab I use achieves a scan quality not that much worse than my Nikon film scanner, I think the convenience is worth the cost and minor sacrifice in quality.

The really big benefit (as I see it) from digital is not so much the cost, but being able to look at the picture there and then and see if the composition/exposure/focus etc. etc. was correct and, if not, shoot it again. Although this is not such a big benefit for motorsport photography, 'cos the driver is certainly not going to back up and let you have another shot.


[Edited by dr_ming - 11/13/2003 4:42:47 PM]

MartinM

Andy

<<My first impression of the 1D is that it's heavy. >>
Yes, the standard first impression
- I'm used to it, and it's no problem at all now
- you can hit someone over the head with it very satisfyingly (if reqd)
- who needs IS lenses with all that momentum in the body?

I think if I still had my D30, I'd always be taking overhead images as it would float up in my hands!

This thread is getting very dpreview-like - circles of confusion, crop factors vs image magnification etc etc. Fantastic!

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Dr Ming: you're right that, of course, the driver won't back up for you to let you take another shot. However, if the shot you're taking is a predictable one (say, you want to catch a particular car as it crosses the start/finish line), you will get another go every lap. Sometimes I do photograph the same car on every lap just to get the sharpest one (or to experiment with different shutter speeds) - it's well worthwhile. This, of course, is where digital really shines; just print the decent shots and throw the other 90% away!

dr_ming

Andy: Yup, I agree with you really, the comment was 'tounge-in-cheek'. I just need that full frame sensor. Given that a D1s is ~£7000, and a good used EOS1N/V or EOS3 (or EOS5 even!), can be had for a few hundred quid, the difference pays for a hell of a lot of film and D+P. I would have to admit though, I am tempted to get a 10D for people/wildlife/sports shots. However, I don't see it a good tool for landscapes, firstly because of the crop factor, and secondly because this is one of the cameras where the fanastic 'DEP' mode has been replaced with the totally useless 'A-DEP' mode. Nice one Canon!

One small point though, and one that is rarely mentioned, colour print film still has a much better exposure lattitude and contrast range than most CCD/CMOS arays. This one one of the only weaknesses I found with my father-in-law's EOS10D. No amount of levels/curves tweaking would pull detail out of the extreme shadow/highlight areas in high contrast shots, but do the same thing with a colour negative (assuming a decent scaner), and it's all there.

IWatkins

Dr Ming,

I use my 10D for landscape shots with no real trouble. However, as you know it isn't easy (or cheap) to go really wide. The DEP is the only thing I miss from my Canon film bodies, but there again I never really used it (but that isn't the point ).

I'm looking at the Sigma 12-24 to replace my 17-35 for general landscape/skyscape work. But I can always fall back on my Sigma 14mm prime which works a treat in most circumstances.

I hear you on latitude though. I used to shoot mainly B&W for landscape work and could often recover a high contrast image in the darkroom.

Even so, today I generally either use ND grads to bring down the contrast or take two shots and combine in Photoshop. No great difficulty and a lot less smelly.

Example digital combination from 10D

Cheers

Ian

dr_ming

Ian, Nice pic! I am half digital if you like, since I scan/have scanned all my negs and do my own printing from photoshop (just bought a Canon i9100, with which I am very pleased). DEP mode (and lenses with built in USM motors) was the main reason for buying into Canon as opposed to Nikon, so needless to say, I would miss it a lot - it has never let me down. I find the half-broken DEP mode on my EOS 30 annoying enough. I will make the switch eventually though, just a matter of time (and funds).

IWatkins

Yep, I say I've gone totally digital but truth be told, I'm hanging onto my EOS1 for a few months more. You never know when I'll get the urge to go shoot some nice Ilford B&W film and get the chemicals out

I also have the Canon i9100. Isn't it great ? Everyone in my family is getting a framed A3 print for Xmas. They have been invited to choose an image from my gallery and I'll print and frame it for them. Cost to me ? About a tenner each.

Cheers

Ian

BOB.T

ooh, Ilford black and white, I know an ickle bit about that, we use it at college! Here's one I did last night...



I'm quite chuffed with it, I took the pic, developed the film and printed the pic! It could maybe do with a tad more exposure...I dunno, what do you reckon?

darlodge

BOB.T - Looks but the time is wrong

Did you develop that pic at your college course you mentioned earlier? I learnt B & W film processing back at school. Saying that, that was years ago. I never got used to the smell.

Darren

BOB.T

Yeah. it's all my own (college) work

I did printing and developing at school too, about 12 years ago I've gone back to college to do "an introduction to photography", it's 3 hrs every Thursday night. Not rocket science but it passes the time

dr_ming

Bob. Nice picture. I assume taken with a long(ish) telephoto from below? Exposure looks fine to me (I dragged the pic into photoshop, and the histogram looks pretty good). Could have tried a slightly harder paper I guess, but then you may have lost some of the detail. Digital darkroom only for me now: no room in the house for all that stuff, although I did see a rather neat darkroom 'tent' from Nova Darkroom.

I generally only shoot colour now, then scan the negs and convert to monochrome using the Photoshop channel mixer. This allows you to try the equivalent of coloured filters (red, orange, yellow etc. - for emphasising sky detail etc.) as a post process. Works very well in my opinion. All I need to do now is get a separate printer for B+W only, and load it up with those fantastic Lyson monochome inks. And win the lottery, of course!

[Edited by dr_ming - 11/14/2003 4:57:27 PM]

dr_ming

Ian, Which paper do you use in your i9100? I am currently using Olmec 260gsm matte, which is great for colour, but comes out with a slightly cold (blue) cast for monochrome, even when printing with black ink only. I am about to try some of the Ilford pearl finish stuff, which I have heard is quite good.

IWatkins

Dr Ming,

I've tried all sorts of papers but have settled on the Olmec Matte stuff which I think is fantastic for the price. Get it from 7DayShop.

I've tried all the Canon, Kodak, HP and Epsons but wasn't really happy with any of them. The Olmec Matte (both A4 and A3) suit me nicely. I don't do gloss so there were not too many to try.

I've also heard good things about the Ilford papers, but haven't tried them yet.

I've seen some example B&W prints using the Lyson B&W system and they were really very good. I would go so far to say even better than printing your own B&W in the darkroom with chemicals. I'm considering buying a i950 to run those inks, but obviously A4 only. Don't think I could fit a pair of i9100 in the house. It is that or buy another print head for the i9100 and swap heads for printing between colour and B&W

Cheers

Ian

dr_ming

Ian,

Two i9100s, now that would be cool. Unfortunately, Mrs. Ming might put the mockers on that one. As I said, I too am very pleased with the Olmec paper, however, do you not find it has a slight blue cast when printing with the Canon black ink? I generally overcome this by converting to RGB, and dialling in +5 yellow and +10 red (mid-tones) on the colour balance just before printing, then print I in colour instead of monochrome. My only concern in doing this is what will happen to the colour balance over time. Wait and see, I guess.

I have to agree with you on 7DayShop, I've been using them for years for batteries and film, hence my comment earlier about film being virtually free. Even accounting for the VAT, it really does show how badly ripped off we are in the high street. My only slight gripe is their packaging is a bit cr@p. I've had a couple of boxes of paper from them with bashed in corners.

I took a look at a few more of your sunset pictures (guessed that changing the '13' to a diferent number might yield a few more pics). There are some superb shots there (I have a bit of a thing for sunsets), really dramatic skies. When/where were they taken?

Cheers, Derek.

[Edited by dr_ming - 11/14/2003 7:06:54 PM]

BOB.T

Derek, you'd be right on both counts there...how did you suss the zoom bit?

I had done a print before that without filters, the stone came out over exposed but the clock was OK, it had a lot more contrast on the hands and the digits. The print I posted was done with a (pink?) no.5 filter. If I could of been arsed I would of burnt in the clock a bit but to be honest I don't find printing that appealing and if wasn't for the course I'd probably never use B+W.

I'm a fan of 7dayshop too, you can't fault em for the price of their superia 400

Anyway, these ESO5 things, are they any good!LOL

IWatkins

Derek,

To be honest, I've not really played with printing B&W on the i9100 too much mainly because the first test print I did was a little on the blue/green tinged side also. I did do some test prints by also messing with colour setup but to be honest couldn't be bothered as I know the Lyson solution would solve this. I spent a lot of time getting the i9100 colour managed with my monitor and Photoshop and didn't want to risk messing it up

However, I do know a chap is the States who is currently working on a colour profile for the i9100 to print B&W using all colours. If and when (American = Bit flakey) he sorts it, I'll let you know. This would manifest itself as basically a B&W Adobe RGB (1998) profile you would just switch to when printing.

Never had any trouble with 7DayShop until the last delivery where the corner of a box of Olmec was caved in. I mailed them and they replied saying they plan to improve packaging for papers. We'll see.

Thanks for the kind comments on the sunset shots. It is what I mainly shoot, landscapes/skyscapes. All those shots are fairly recent (only had the 10D for two months) and are around Malvern in Worcestershire.

P.S. Yeah, those EOS 5 do rock

Cheers

Ian

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Interesting stuff about B&W here - it's not something I've ever thought about seriously. I've done a few B&W prints and I've been really pleased with them, but I've not experimented with different inks and papers to get the best from them. Does it really make that much difference?

I have an Epson Stylus Photo 870 and use their Premium Glossy Photo Paper 95% of the time. I don't have the full version of Photoshop or any printer profiling software or hardware, and I do struggle to achieve any sort of colour match between screen and printer. (My monitor is at least calibrated - or at least, it was once).

My fave B&W shot from a few years ago:



Scanned from a dodgy print taken with my old APS compact - don't laugh! - and adjusted for levels and contrast in Photoshop.

Andy

dr_ming

Bob, I guessed the lens set-up from the slightly compressed perspective on the clock face, and the fact that the brick pattern doesn't really show any convergence in the vertical lines.

dr_ming

Andy/Ian, I calibrated my system using DISC1 from www.ktphotonics.co.uk. It costs about £35, and will allow you to calibtate your printer (and ink/paper combination) for colour balance and gamma.

It was by using this 'software' (it isn't sotware, as such) that I know that +5 yellow and +10 red will give neutral prints on my i9100 when printing with Canon inks and Olmec Matte paper. It will work for any printer, but you MUST turn off the printer's automatic colour management when you print (auto/manual colour management on the Canon driver). Also, when printing, you must use the printer supplied ICM profile. I now have my system set up so that I can trust what I see on the screen to be what gets printed on the paper. It took about 2 hours, and 10 sheets of paper to set up. DISC1 comes with a true monochrome reference image to aid the set-up process.

EOS5? I've got one of those somewhere. Quite good it is

[Edited by dr_ming - 11/14/2003 10:41:25 PM]