Digital BW, The Print

Frank,

I've compared tests with the cheap but considered "good" Canon 18 - 55 mm
zoom against my 1.8 Canon EF 50 mm.  The 50 mm is a cheap but very good
lens.  At f 11 they are essentially the same.  Wider than f11 both suffer at
the edges, with the zoom suffering more.  Wide open the zoom contrast at 55
mm is visibly low.  

So, with limited testing, my initial view is that lens quality continues to
be a significant factor.  On the tripod at f11 and f16 (a very pleasant
surprise) the zoom is probably going to be good enough.  

I don't do serious hand held shooting (yet), so the zoom is probably going
to be fine for me and my tripod shooting, where I want the smaller
apertures.  It has the quality at f 11 & 16 that I need.  

I think the Rebel XT is going to be terrific with the fast single focal
length lenses at 1/250 and faster.  So, while the zoom will probably stay on
the camera, I may carry my 85mm 1.8 lens for hand held telephoto shots.
It's the equivalent of a 135mm -- a nice light and fast 135.  (I think I
like the smaller format.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> frank1o05
> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2005 10:05 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: What do forum folks use most for image capture?
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> How does lens quality enter into the picture? I sometimes shoot (recent)
> Leica-M lenses.
> They are quite soft towards the corners when compared to MF (Rollei) or LF
> lenses at the
> same (and even at different) magnification ratios. (All shot at optimum
> apertures: f/5.6, f/
> 11, f/22 respectively. The MF comparison holds only for my normal and
> longish lenses; my
> 50mm Rollei is quite bad off center.) The Leica primes also show some
> barrel distortion,
> much less than other 35mm lenses (which is why I chose them), but still
> more than I have
> use for in architectural work. So I find that if I want straight lines
> straight and sharpness in
> the corners, I have to use MF or LF, regardless of whether there is a chip
> or film in the
> camera.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...>
> wrote:
> > Ernst,
> >
> > You wrote, in part:
> >
> > >...
> > > what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6
> ...
> >
> > Yes, especially if fine detail and resolution are most significant.
> >
> > But, the question for me may be: How much of the typical 16 x 20 inch
> fine
> > art image is affected by the resolution beyond what this 8 mp camera can
> > capture?
> >
> > I made a set of comparison prints using the Rebel and various medium
> format
> > camera and films.  My sampling of an admittedly limited group of
> typical,
> > educated (but not photo-obsessed) types suggests they don't see much of
> the
> > fine detail advantage that the film technically holds.
> >
> > The limiting factor or artifact that everyone seemed to see the most in
> my
> > sample prints was the grain of the 100 ISO film.
> >
> > "Sharpness" -- from even a close, "book-reading" distance -- is about a
> draw
> > between my unprocessed, Nikon 8000 scanned, medium format film prints
> and 8
> > mp versions.  I can see the difference, but it's probably not going to
> be
> > visible in 16 x 20" real world prints.
> >
> > What I have found with my old Tmax 100 medium format negatives is the
> extent
> > to which the grain limited me.  If one looks at the photograph as an
> > information medium and what we do as information processing, I want the
> > maximum useable information to be accessible to the viewer as easily as
> > possible.  For this, I want the best signal-to-noise ratio over the
> > "relevant" frequencies.  The relevance of the frequencies is probably a
> bell
> > curve that changes with viewing distance and image size -- and it's
> probably
> > heavily skewed to the lower frequencies in prints that are judged in
> part on
> > their "artistic" merit.  The peak of that bell curve and, perhaps,  95%
> of
> > the area under that curve seem to be well within what the 8 mp Rebel can
> do
> > very easily, even at a 16 x 20 size.
> >
> > I'm currently of the opinion that this relatively cheap little Canon
> Digital
> > Rebel XT (aka 350D), even with its 18 - 55 mm II zoom, has just knocked
> off
> > most of my medium format film-camera combos for most situations.
> >
> > The low noise of the Canon sensor is a huge part of the formula.  (I'm
> not
> > sure how good the other sensors are.  I suspect this may be where Canon
> > kills Kodak.  I think Kodak poured money into CCD technology, which was
> once
> > thought to be the low-noise leader, but which suffered other
> disadvantages.
> > Among other things, CCD technology has, apparently, not as directly
> > benefited from the CMOS microprocessor and memory R&D and advances.)
> >
> > Combining the Canon's inherently low noise I've seen so far with the
> ease
> > with which I can multi-sample on a tripod, and the limiting factor of
> the
> > grain in 100 ISO film virtually kills the currently existing film market
> for
> > me.  My freezer full of TP may be the end of film for me.
> >
> > Of course, the real world use of this camera may change my opinions.
> >
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> >
> > > Paul Roark wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >I think MF Tech Pan is still my ultimate in quality, but there is no
> > > reason
> > > >to bother with MF Tmax 100, which is now the finest grain camera film
> > > Kodak
> > > >makes since it discontinued Tech Pan.  So, I'm saving the stockpile
> of TP
> > > >for when I really want to go to 22 x 28 or above, and the Rebel is
> going
> > > to
> > > >replace my "quick and easy" Fuji GA 645 Zi that used to have higher-
> speed
> > > >film in it for the occasional hand held shot.
> > > >
> > > >Paul
> > > >www.PaulRoark.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Printed some color prints of a Canon 20D on the Epson 10000 (MIS 7600
> > > inks) with Qimage extrapolation and sharpening. I wasn't surprised by
> > > the quality but my customer was very surprised, his 2100 and Photoshop
> > > (on a Mac) couldn't use all the information available, now he knows
> > > what's possible with his 20D. I could still beat it with the Iskra 6x6
> > > and wet mount scans on the Nikon 8000 but it takes a lot more work.
> > >
> > > Ernst
> > >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>