lexvo wrote:
Thanks for that write up, RDKirk.
I always sent my Kodachromes to the developer to have the slides back in 3 to 6 weeks. One of the reasons I switched to Fuji later on was that the turnaround time only was a couple of days.
I have left some kodachromes into my deep freezer for 15 years and I wonder if it is worth use or to trash them. And If I use theme is there any chance to Kodak to develop them?
dvarnav wrote:
I have left some kodachromes into my deep freezer for 15 years and I wonder if it is worth use or to trash them. And If I use theme is there any chance to Kodak to develop them?
There is one independent lab on the planet that is still processing Kodachrome (last I checked, a couple of months ago). You should be able to find it with some googling--a lab in Kansas, I believe.
Conner999 wrote:
You don't get the IQ from an $8000 camera for $2500 without some corners being cut.... I'm sure the 'fix' will be a typical (for Canon) drawn-out, multi-stumble PITA for all concerned. Nice testing work Canon. Very thorough. Nothing like some needless (and avoidable) frustration.
it sounds more like it was from upgrading needed to provide sustained video and different readout speed and lwoer noise than from cost-cutting
RDKirk wrote:
There is one independent lab on the planet that is still processing Kodachrome (last I checked, a couple of months ago). You should be able to find it with some googling--a lab in Kansas, I believe.
Or was that Oz?
No, I'm pretty sure it was Kansas.
oh man i still have a few rolls from my last trip before i went digital i better get them finished off before it is too late (already they haev sat around way longer than ideal for best image quality.... by far)
Im the past I used a leica and it was easy to focus with the split viewfinder. Today I use a 40D and I am unable to manuel focus hand held as well as the auto focus does. Todays cameras are not designed for manual focus.
mordicai wrote:
Im the past I used a leica and it was easy to focus with the split viewfinder. Today I use a 40D and I am unable to manuel focus hand held as well as the auto focus does. Todays cameras are not designed for manual focus.
The stock focusing screens are not designed for manual focus.
With a precision matt (Ee-s or Eg-s for 5DII) screen or a split prism microcollar screen (Haoda, Katzeye, brightscreen) manual focusing is a piece of cake.
Sometimes with 5D/5D-II you have to use washers (shims) to get accurate focusing screen alignment, this wasn't the case with my 5D but is the case with my 5D-II.
I use Leica, Pentax, Voigtlander (nikon mount) and Zeiss (ZF) all with my Canon cameras in manual focus.
I wrote about what i think of the 5d2 af system here.
That's why I think it's barely worth it.
Please note the serious risk you are taking when using the AF system of this camera.
For us portrait photographers, the 5D2 is already a hit--as was the 5D1. Compared to our Mamiya film cameras--or any medium format back under $10,000 USD--the 5D series are significantly better handling cameras in all ways that deliver images at least as good at ISO 100 and miles better at higher ISOs.
You're comparing the 5D with the 1-Series. We're comparing the 5D with Mamiya ZD. For us, the 5D is nothing but all-win in all ways.
Please note the serious risk you are taking when using the AF system of this camera.
Hi Karel
I have read your blog links. In my view they are somewhat hysterical. But let's deal with the substance.
First, you say that the AF points are too central. That is the case, but unfortunately it is also true of the following cameras:
D3x
D3
a900
1Ds
1Ds2
1Ds3
5D
The reasons that full frame cameras suffer from this problem seem to be that
- they invariably share a compromise focus system with crop bodies
- dispersed focus points require larger submirrors and reduce accuracy
You could argue that the Contax N1 and N Digital solved this, but that system has been discontinued.
Next you say that all focus points should have been cross type. Canon already offers a camera with those features: the 1Ds3. Canon has to choose which features to include and exclude with each camera, and camera buyers seem to like large numbers of megapixels. Canon is trying to give the market what it thinks it wants.
Your comments about image quality and sharpness comparisons between 40D and 50D, and between 5D2 and 5D, and between 5D2 and D700 and so on, seem to ignore the fact that most reviewers and consumers examine 100% crops to make their judgments. Such comparisons obviously bias the judgment heavily in favour of lower megapixel cameras. As a photographer, rather than a pixel peeper, you should know that.
In reality, 5D2 high iso results look more or less identical to 1Ds3 high iso results. 1Ds3 results look almost identical to D700/D3/D3x results. For example, here are crops from a 12800 iso test comparing D700 and 1Ds3, first without noise reduction/processing, and secondly with Capture NX noise reduction, and Neat Image: http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/12800a_sansNR.jpg
now with Capture NX/Neat Image noise reduction: http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/d700v1ds3_12800iso_b.jpg
You would do well to read that thread and understand why complaints about noise and sharpness in 21 and 24 megapixel files are generally exaggerated.
Two more points: of course in-camera noise reduction reduces sharpness, and Canon's may well be less good than Nikon's. If that bothers you, turn it off and do it later with more accurate tools.
Finally, your suggestion that the 5D2 should be able to produce 21 Mpixels of image data at very high isos is ridiculous. All cameras, like all films, produce less detail the further you push them. The advantage of the 1Ds3, 5D2, D3x and a900 is that they produce both superb high iso results to match those of the D700, AND ALSO produce superbly detailed shots to match medium format film at low isos. Use them appropriately, but don't expect 100 iso detail at 12800 iso.
I agree that the 5D2 would have been excellent for studio portraits. I was looking to get it myself, but the AF issues and image quality issues came.
Have you seen the example of the fashion shooter I mentioned? I can't image that happening to me. Having a shoot and then discover later that half of the pictures, which I thought were in focus, are actually out of focus. This is the stuff I dream about and wake up screaming at night.
And yet, that's the case with the 5D2 when using the outer focus points. And the thing is, it gives you the focus confirmation even when the subject is not really in focus. That's the risk you take using this camera.
braniac:
In the comments of the 2 posts of mine which I mentioned, I discussed with various people about resizing images to smaller sizes in order to compare with smaller MP cameras.
But my point is this, you don't buy the higher MP cameras to make smaller images. You buy all that resolution so you can print larger with good quality, without having to upscale a small MP image. This is the primary benefit of more resolution, to print larger without quality loss, especially detail and sharpness. This is one of the benefits of medium format and those insanely high resolutions.
For this reason, 100% crops of the higher resolution sensor should look the same, or better, compared to the lower resolution sensor. Otherwise, if you expect to make bigger prints with the higher resolution files, you will be able to see the extra noise and lower quality of the image at the larger size.
Another example is when you crop. If the 21MP image has more noise per pixel than the 12MP image, when you crop the 21MP to a smaller size, you will end up with more noise compared to the 12MP image. If you would take a 12MP sample out of the 21MP image, comparing that with the other 12MP image, it would then be clear that the 12MP crop from the 21MP file contains more noise than the 12MP file.
For this reason, the 21MP image viewed at 100% should have the same amount of noise, or less, compared to the 12MP image viewed at 100%.
I agree that the 5D2 would have been excellent for studio portraits. I was looking to get it myself, but the AF issues and image quality issues came.
Have you seen the example of the fashion shooter I mentioned? I can't image that happening to me. Having a shoot and then discover later that half of the pictures, which I thought were in focus, are actually out of focus. This is the stuff I dream about and wake up screaming at night.
And yet, that's the case with the 5D2 when using the outer focus points. And the thing is, it gives you the focus confirmation even when the subject is not really in focus. That's the risk you take using this camera....Show more →
Have you ever used the outer focus points of a Mamiya AFD? Oh, wait, on the latest Mamiya, there are only three--very close together. How about a Hasselblad--oh, wait, on a Hasselblad there is only a center point.
Compared to medium format cameras costing thousands of dollars more, 5D centerpoint focusing works just fine.
But my point is this, you don't buy the higher MP cameras to make smaller images. You buy all that resolution so you can print larger with good quality, without having to upscale a small MP image. This is the primary benefit of more resolution, to print larger without quality loss, especially detail and sharpness. This is one of the benefits of medium format and those insanely high resolutions.
For this reason, 100% crops of the higher resolution sensor should look the same, or better, compared to the lower resolution sensor. Otherwise, if you expect to make bigger prints with the higher resolution files, you will be able to see the extra noise and lower quality of the image at the larger size....Show more →
This is simply flat wrong in reality. It sounds logical, just as was Aristotle's argument that heavy objects fall faster than light objects.
But if you actually perform the tests in the real world--enlarge real image files to real hardcopy prints--you will find that argument is as wrong as Galileo proved Aristotle's argument.
Your are buying high Mpix cameras for 2 main reasons big prints A3,A2,A0 etc but also for great Blowups....
The problem of AF mis-confirmation apears on any camera and its very rare, the reason for the that is that when it tries to use focus on moving line with thick shadow just above the line the focus maybe wrong due to a confussion of the AF system. This is the weak spot of the cross or line AF mechanism. It confirms that and its not in focus. I have test that I make with everycamera I had in my hands and no camera could pass it. Specially the 1.1.3 Firmware of MarkIII passed that but then 1.2.3 could not. 20D nope D3 nope D90 in some cases but ... 5D Mark II of course had the same attitude with the other no. But if you go in life view in contrast mode then yes it can focus but this is useless for serious job. Mayby that why Nikon AF system has also a low res Sensor for the AF but it seems that that is not sufficient.
Unless the 5DII has a different focus system from the 5D, which we know it doesn't, I have shot many thousands, well over one hundred thousand, shots with the 5D and any problem with focus is so small that it is no issue. I had shots I had to get and I got them. The only problem was normally with me and not the camera. This was in all types of shooting conditions and situations.
