DSLRUsers.com

As a chnage from discussing the recent HACK and in view of the possibly temporary nature of posts made at this time, I just thought I would give some insight into my progress in finding a DSLR that can approach the image characteristics of what I am accustomed to.

Night before last I had the opportunity to use a friend's Canon EOS-1Ds (NOT the Mark II) to shoot some domestic interiors. We used both a 24mm TSE and also the 17-40 'L' zoom (at 24 mm) as a comparison. For the first time I can see the rendering of detail in the image that would expect and need.

There are obvious advantages with the 24mm TSE given the lens's ability to apply shift and tilt and this is more than likely going to be the preferred option. However, the lens has a near legendary propensity for significant levels of Chromatic Aberration (even on-axis without movements applied) which colour my non-digital thinking (no pun intended). The 17-40 displayed far less colour fringing at all focal lengths but does not have the same acutance as the prime (even with USM) and this could prove to be a major concern.

But the camera itself performed wonderfully and given that the mark II has a higher pixel count AND the Digic II processor, it might prove quite an interesting option - albeit at a premium price.

Do any of you Canonaholics have the 24mm 1:1.4 lens? Could you offer some opinions. I am also intrigued to learn more of the 20mm 1:2.8.

For the rest of my workload I should be pretty well catered for by the 50mm 1:1.4, the 85mm 1:1.8 and the 70-200mm 1:2.8.

All this represents a significant investment in capital assets and when teamed with a new computer and monitor it becomes something about which I need to be certain. Any advice would be warmly welcomed.

Cheers,

The 17-40 is supposedly one of the sharper wide angle zooms in Canon's arsenal. It's widely reputed to be visibly sharper than the 16-35 "pro" alternative - so brace youself, if you find the 17-40 lacking in acutance you may be SOL, unless you find a workable solution from extra wide angle zooms (eg. the 12-24, 11-18, 10-20's of mostly 3rd party makes), or another good quality prime - but from my perception of your reluctance to accept the system you love and having to 'settle' for the system that's more workable, your intended purchases revolve around your need for the TSE ability of the 24mm.

Secondly - what do you perceive/believe/wish the "Digic II" processor to be? It is my understanding that it refers to nothing tangible, it's just marketable jargon from a company that loves these catch words.

FWIW, stick to film. It's worked for you so far, why change to a newer and (for your shooting purposes) inferior system?

Opinions about the quality of the 17-40 vs. 16-35 vary, especially when used on full-frame cameras.
Sorry, I don't have 20/24mm lenses to comment on.

Certainly the 24mm (although it's an L) seems to have the worst reputation amongst the TSE lenses. There are a number of people who use medium-format Mamiya and Pentax lenses on Zoerk PSA (Panoramic Shift Adapter)s on 1Ds-series bodies to get shift lenses that they say out-do the TSE 24mm. Have you thought about that?

As for the Digic II, it's like Intel's "Pentium Inside" campaign. Certainly it's a nice chip that throws a lot of data around very quickly, but in the end who cares what chip's inside as long as it does the job (and does it fast enough). The 1DsMkII is much nicer machine than the 1Ds (e.g. responsiveness, LCD behaviour, R/G/B histogram) and yes the Digic II helped do that, but it's the performance and not the components which matters. And if you're shooting RAW (and I suspect you would) the quality of in-camera JPEGs (e.g. white-balance, gamut, sharpening) is irrelevant.

As to whether this would require a new computer and monitor (and storage) I'd have to wonder why you wouldn't have this gear already. Are you not dealing with digital scans and printing already?

Of course, you could also consider a BetterLight scanning back for your 4x5 body (as long as you're dealing with stationary subjects!).

Dave,

I appreciate what you are saying about DigicII but I do feel that with file sizes like those of the EOS-1Ds MkII speed is a bit of a help - although I doubt that I would ver need to shoot in rapid fire mode and deadlines for me are lax enough not to need instantaneous dispatch.

Once the dust has setle I might chase up further info from you about those other lenses. But more on acutance and resolution in a minute.

At present I have no need for digital processing capability beyond pure amusement and so I am on an old Imac Graphite running OS9.1. I need to start from scratch in the coimputer arena and this machine will be relegated tot he most important aspect of my work - MYOB ande admin. Looking at a G5 Twin 2.7 GHz with 4 MB of RAM and a Lacie CRT monitor.

Onyx,

I have been so busy lately and must apologise for not having written back to thank you for answering my PM request. (Or did I? Can't remember!)

You are nearly right about sticking with film, but that is quickly changing. It is market expectation as much as anything and, although I would not stop using LF film, I do need to provide a digital alternative for those who desire the expediency of it. Particularly in the Publiching world.

Now, onto other things:

Yesterday I went to a mate's place with the 16bit TIFFs from the 17-40mm and the 24mm TS-E. I also took a tranny of a typical domestic interior that I produce which had been shot on a 47mm Super-Angulon XL which equates in 35mm film terms to about a 14mm - distortion and aberration free. We scanned to a size equivalent to the 360mm image length of the 1Ds native file and compared on screen the film (E100G @ 100 ISO) and digital capture (also @ 100 ISO).

Like many, I had been comparing and actual pixels screen image with a view of a tranny through a good (Schneider 8x) loupe on a light box. The differences were quite surprising and almost staggering. On a level playing field the performance of either Canon lens held up very well in terms of acutance and possiblty even eclipsed the Schneider. Only in the area of CA was there anything to detract from the Canon images and chances are simple PS actions could remedy much of that. I have to say, also, that in order to get the same field of view on a D2x I had to resort to the 12-24mm DX zoom and I found the results to be overwhelmingly unacceptable. (No offence to those who own, use and love these, incidentally). So after much deliberating and investigation a clear path is beginning to emerge.

I'd like to thank all of the D70 memebrs who have helpoed me through this transition. Your comments and advice have been invaluable and I hope that they continue.

Cheers,

So you're going Canon?

SS
Something that may be worth thinking about...

I am not sure about the IMacs etc, but with the last computer I bought, I got an 80GB hard-drive, 1GB graphics processor / card / RAM whatever it is called.

My brother-in-law's computer has a 120GB hard-drive and seems to download images faster, but processing images in photoshop slower as it doesn't have a faster graphics xyz...

The computer shop did the graphics changeover for $300.

Good luck with your purchases.

Sheetshooter,

Your continuing efforts down this long and arduous path are indeed interesting, and the results that you're getting are pretty much in line with my expectations for you, based upon what (little) i know of what you do.

While the discussions for and against FF digital will continue for quite some time, I do believe that there's a legitmate need for FF, and whiule, today, it will permit results that are comparable to traditional film based 35mm photography, the prospects for improvement in this field are also quite fascinating to contemplate.

The DX sensor size can and will sit alongside FF, but it will, for the foreseeable future at least, serve a different, if albeit more prominent, role.

And both will permit one to achieve very high standards of output; but it comes down to what, precisely, does oine regard as acceptable?

Which brings me to a question for you: as I've already indicated, the results you're tabulating at this point in time do not surprise me, and I accept them without question.

What I do "query" however, is your own personal standards, and I do not mean this in any sort of derogatory manner, but merely to ask (if not point out) that your background and experience defines very much the standards that you personally hold to be acceptable.

These standards are, by their very nature, extremely high (as well they should be) and while I fully accept and espouse that we should all strive to produce output of the highest possible standards, we also perhaps need to redirect our focus from time to time so that we can take into account the target audience for our product.

So, while it's all very well (and quite valid) to pixel peep at our images (which would be looking at them more finely than looking at a tranny on a lightbox through a loupe, I'd imagine) I would also be curious at an apples to apples comparison - a hard copy printout of similar but comparanble images (size, FoV, crops, etc) but where the images were originally made under the different conditions described. Thus, you would look at a set of typical for-publication quality and sized prints where each was sourced from a different camera, such as EOS,vs D2x vs 5x4, and presented to you blind.

I think that would be an interesting test ...

Gary,

I appreciate your points and feel that possibly there has been a little more to my career than you are perhaps aware of. (There is also a slight possibility of some blurring of the distinction between my dad and me.) I have always been concerned with the ultimate quality of what leaves my hands. It is something that was really driven home to me in the early seventies shooting for Arnotts on 8x10 at 1:1 magnification under the guidance of a Münich trained shooter. Since then I have applied the same rigorous standards to whatever I have shot from Centrefolds for Playboy to record covers, to Theatre, Film & TV publicity and so forth. Now I shoot a lot of built environment and habitat. Among my clients are some magazines which are quite expensve and have excellent reproduction - when I give them a 6x12 of an interior they can wring every ounce of detail (not just acutance) out of the image. A designer or architect will go to great pains to ensure that not only colours but textures and finishes complement one and other and make a statement. In shooting the stuff the way I do those differences are retained when the dots of ink finally hit the paper.

If I were either more wealthy or had more daring I would probably bite the bullet and go for the Leaf or Sinar back and build a selection of camera options around that. But I no longer have the gumption and recklessness that I once did and so now I tread a lot more cautiously.

Yesterday I had a meeting with the pre-press fellow from a magazine publisher I deal with. He has very set parameters that he considers acceptable - and is quite content to keep scanning film, incidentally. But when I told him that I could supply files straight from the camera that would meet the target size of a double-page spread he was ecstatic. It is hard enough to maintain the weave of fine upholstry on a sofa the other side of the room as it is, to start significant up-sizing it gets harder. Then there is also the previously discussed issue of the types of lenses that can achieve the angle of view I need on the two different sized sensors - well, three or four actually if we take the 1.6 Canon and the 4/3rds Olympus into account.

I do not suppose that there is really any need for me to discuss any of this here at all, but I just thought that it might prove interesting to hobbyists to get a glimpse of the sort of 'purpose-driven' or 'end-use qualified' decisions that have to be made.

As for the future of the APS sized technology I think it is anybody's guess at present. There is a stud-poker card sharp somewhere at Canon who has just called Nikon's bluff with the announcement of the EOS5D. I'd suggest that this camera telegraphs an intention that ALL Canon DSLR cameras will be 36x24 format in a few years - even their entry level units like whatever the 350D replacement will be. Right now the folk at Nippon Kogaku must be thinking long and hard about how and if they counter this. There are not only those like myself who are embarking on an entire system from scratch to serve a definite need, there are also the long-standing users of SLRs who have a cupboard full of 'full-frame' lenses that will mean the same in terms of view on a new 36x24 digital as they did on that mushroomy coloured stuff with the holes up the side. Curiously, Canon have not done much in expanding their range of smaller image circle, tele-centric lenses which could be another indication of their intentions.

We do indeed live in interesting times.

Sheetshooter,

I always appreciate you long and vivid posts. Not only because content-related values, but also because of possiblity to pushing my English to higher level

Regards,

k.Polak

Sorry for the long chats, I am delightfully buggered after a truly wonderful day of work. Drove up past St.Albans along the banks of the Upper MacDonald River to shoot an Eco-Friendly home. What a day! Sun, fresh air, cows going Moo, chooks making their noises - ah, just a lovely day and I'm happy so I'm chatting.

Thanks for the kind comments.

Sheetshooter wrote:Gary,

I appreciate your points and feel that possibly there has been a little more to my career than you are perhaps aware of. (There is also a slight possibility of some blurring of the distinction between my dad and me.)

Undoubtedly, and on both counts too, I'm sure.

I have always been concerned with the ultimate quality of what leaves my hands. It is something that was really driven home to me in the early seventies shooting for Arnotts on 8x10 at 1:1 magnification under the guidance of a Münich trained shooter. Since then I have applied the same rigorous standards to whatever I have shot from Centrefolds for Playboy to record covers, to Theatre, Film & TV publicity and so forth.

That was exactly the perspective I felt you were coming from ...

Now I shoot a lot of built environment and habitat. Among my clients are some magazines which are quite expensve and have excellent reproduction - when I give them a 6x12 of an interior they can wring every ounce of detail (not just acutance) out of the image. A designer or architect will go to great pains to ensure that not only colours but textures and finishes complement one and other and make a statement. In shooting the stuff the way I do those differences are retained when the dots of ink finally hit the paper.

And that was the confirmation I was looking for - that wasn't just you looking for that particular level of excellence.

I fully accept that there are clients who can understand, differentiate, and expect, demand and are prepared to pay for only the best, but IMHO those clients are decidedly in the minority.

My point, which you've addressed perfectly, is that you remain committed to satisfying the needs of your clients, which, fortunately for you, do not fall short of the standards that you set for yourself.

My contention, of course, was that the majority of clients would have standards below those which we set for ourselves, and that we need to be sure exactly whose standards it is that we're going to be addressing in the longer term.

Your answer perfectly addresses all of those concerns without digressing from the primary issues at at hand.

I do not suppose that there is really any need for me to discuss any of this here at all, but I just thought that it might prove interesting to hobbyists to get a glimpse of the sort of 'purpose-driven' or 'end-use qualified' decisions that have to be made.

Actually, I think it's most fascinating, as it presents an area of photography here that most have never seen. Many, I dare suggest, would not even be aware of its continued existance.

As for the future of the APS sized technology I think it is anybody's guess at present. There is a stud-poker card sharp somewhere at Canon who has just called Nikon's bluff with the announcement of the EOS5D. I'd suggest that this camera telegraphs an intention that ALL Canon DSLR cameras will be 36x24 format in a few years - even their entry level units like whatever the 350D replacement will be. Right now the folk at Nippon Kogaku must be thinking long and hard about how and if they counter this. There are not only those like myself who are embarking on an entire system from scratch to serve a definite need, there are also the long-standing users of SLRs who have a cupboard full of 'full-frame' lenses that will mean the same in terms of view on a new 36x24 digital as they did on that mushroomy coloured stuff with the holes up the side. Curiously, Canon have not done much in expanding their range of smaller image circle, tele-centric lenses which could be another indication of their intentions.

Your point regarding the absence of a range of the smaller image circle Canon lenses is well made and is an interesting one to consider.