Digital BW, The Print

Has anyone got their hands on one of these yet or seen a substantive review?  They seem 
to be shipping the first units now.

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/Canon-1ds-mkii-p1.shtml
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" <
stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone got their hands on one of these yet or seen a substantive 
review?  They seem 
> to be shipping the first units now.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale" 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> Has anyone got their hands on one of these yet or seen a 
substantive review?  They seem 
> to be shipping the first units now.

Hi Steve,

I had the chance to shoot with one, courtesy of my Canon rep, back 
in mid-October.  I'm expecting my keeper to arrive any day now.  
Anyway, it handles of course like the old 1Ds and is almost 
identical to the 1DMKII (which is my main shooter being an event 
photographer).  The images looked very clean at high ISO compared to 
my 1Ds, and that I am thankful for.  It still seems a little 
sluggish compared to the 1DMKII, but then that is to be expected 
considering its pumping huge files through the digic II processor.  
In my studio, I noticed that the files (RAW+JPEG) were averaging 
about 18MB, so you better have plenty of CPU power and storage 
space :-).  The images looked excellent.  All that resolution and 
low noise.  You definitely are going to want the best glass for this 
camera.  One thing I was very pleased to see was the improvement in 
ETTL flash operation.  ETTL-II really works and the body is now a 
feasible backup to the 1DMKII for event work.  I suspect wedding 
photographers will be very happy.  My main application for the 
1DsMKII will be architectural, landscape, and large group shoots.

I'm sure there are some in-depth reviews starting to show up now 
that it is shipping.

Cheers,

Tony Bonanno

Thanks Tony.  When you say "best glass" have the Canon lenses really
improved massively over the last 5-6 years?  My two lenses are L series
(28-70 2.6L, 70-200 2.8L).  They are not the image stabiliser versions but
the generation before (just USM L).  With a full sized sensor I understand
there is no need for a specific Digital Only lens.  Am I right?  While a
whole bunch of primes would be nice I am not going to go there just yet.
Does sound like I should update my flash (430EZ).

> From: Tony Bonanno <tony@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:28:25 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Kale"
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> 
>> Has anyone got their hands on one of these yet or seen a
> substantive review?  They seem
>> to be shipping the first units now.
> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> I had the chance to shoot with one, courtesy of my Canon rep, back
> in mid-October.  I'm expecting my keeper to arrive any day now.
> Anyway, it handles of course like the old 1Ds and is almost
> identical to the 1DMKII (which is my main shooter being an event
> photographer).  The images looked very clean at high ISO compared to
> my 1Ds, and that I am thankful for.  It still seems a little
> sluggish compared to the 1DMKII, but then that is to be expected
> considering its pumping huge files through the digic II processor.
> In my studio, I noticed that the files (RAW+JPEG) were averaging
> about 18MB, so you better have plenty of CPU power and storage
> space :-).  The images looked excellent.  All that resolution and
> low noise.  You definitely are going to want the best glass for this
> camera.  One thing I was very pleased to see was the improvement in
> ETTL flash operation.  ETTL-II really works and the body is now a
> feasible backup to the 1DMKII for event work.  I suspect wedding
> photographers will be very happy.  My main application for the
> 1DsMKII will be architectural, landscape, and large group shoots.
> 
> I'm sure there are some in-depth reviews starting to show up now
> that it is shipping.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony Bonanno
>

-----Original Message-----

From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@...] 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 3:28 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II

One thing I was very pleased to see was the improvement in 
ETTL flash operation.  ETTL-II really works and the body is now a 
feasible backup to the 1DMKII for event work.  

-------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it better than the ETTL-I. I assume you are using it with the latest
580 Flash gun?

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

-----Original Message-----

From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 10:44 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II

With a full sized sensor I understand
there is no need for a specific Digital Only lens.  Am I right?  


No you wrong. Get the best lenses and God will smile on your images

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

At 3:28 AM +0000 11/18/04, Tony Bonanno wrote:
>[snip]
>The images looked excellent.  All that resolution and low noise. 
>You definitely are going to want the best glass for this camera. 
>[snip]  My main application for the 1DsMKII will be architectural, 
>landscape, and large group shoots.
>[snip]

But what _is_ the best wide-angle Canon glass for those applications 
(which are also mine)?

It's easy for me to choose among Canon's longer and normal lenses 
because the image stabilization feature on some of their lenses is so 
important, and getting more important, to me.

But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and 
17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better 
at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. If not, 
I think I'd prefer the faster 16-35mm despite the price difference.

And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the 
benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I 
have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I 
see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere 
near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better 
images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd 
get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
--
Sam

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 2:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II

>>With a full sized sensor I understand
>>there is no need for a specific Digital Only lens.  Am I right?

Yes, you are correct. A digital-only lens can make different tradeoffs in
design because performance at the edge of a 35mm sized frame is not
important since the sensor is smaller. This may allow a digital-only lens to
be smaller/cheaper and optimized for other parameters. Any such tradeoffs
would compromise the lens's full-frame performance. Some digital-optimized
lenses are also good for full-frame, though they may not be optimum for
full-frame.

The only change I have heard that may be making  for new full-frame lens
designs is that, since CCD/CMOS sensors are more reflective than film, there
can sometimes be more flair due to the light bouncing off the sensor and
back into the lens. I've heard they are adding coatings to the rear elements
to reduce flair from the bounce. They may also be optimizing the cameras to
minimize the light reflected off the sensor, but that is just a guess.

>But what _is_ the best wide-angle Canon glass for those applications
>(which are also mine)?

>It's easy for me to choose among Canon's longer and normal lenses
>because the image stabilization feature on some of their lenses is so
>important, and getting more important, to me.

>But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and
>17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better
>at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. If not,
>I think I'd prefer the faster 16-35mm despite the price difference.

>And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the
>benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I
>have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I
>see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere
>near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better
>images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd
>get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

>Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
>--
>Sam

Sam,

I follow some pretty pragmatic guidelines when choosing lenses - and greatly
influenced by price. I shoot Nikon, so I have no practical experience with
the lenses you're considering. But the application you're shopping for seems
like a PC lens might be your best choice. I have used the Nikon 35mm f3.5,
and did a fairly good job at making modest perspective corrections - nowhere
near what a view camera can do, but I found it useful none-the-less.

That said, I stick with zooms theses days. The optics, as demonstrated in
recent tests, are nearly as good as primes. And every instance of not
changing lenses is one less chance for getting dirt on my sensor.

Bill Cheadle



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> With a full sized sensor I understand
> there is no need for a specific Digital Only lens.  Am I right?

As I understand it, it's the other way around. It's not that the "digital
only" lenses are better, they're just smaller and more efficient because
they're designed for smaller sensors. You can't use them with full-frame
sensors or 35mm film because they don't project a large enough image on the
focal plane. The lenses designed for 35mm film are probably generally
better, because they're designed to be sharp over a larger area. And on a
digicam with a crop factor, they may be better still, because the corners of
their working area, where they're weakest, aren't even used.

If anyone knows anything to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. My purchasing
philosophy has been based on the idea that eventually I'd have a full-frame
sensor, so I've been sticking to lenses designed for 35mm.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Sam,

From what I\ufffdve read, you\ufffdve hit on the main difference between Canon\ufffds two ultra-wide zooms; the 17-40 is better on the short end, and the 16-35 better on the long end. For my money, since I was buying an ultra-wide zoom for the shorter end I went with the 17-40/4. However, I primarily shoot outdoors on a tripod so the f/4 is not an issue for me. If my requirements started to approach the longer end of my 17-40, I\ufffdd probably switch over to a 24-70 at this point. IOW, I wouldn\ufffdt typically buy an ultra-wide zoom for the longer end.

I can\ufffdt imagine you\ufffdd have any image quality issues with the 24 or 35/1.4 primes. From personal experience, I can tell you that the non-L 20/2.8 prime is definitely not the glass my 17-40/4 is. I don\ufffdt even use my 20mm prime anymore! You might want to surf on over to photodo.com just to see what they have to say. I wouldn\ufffdt take their word as \ufffdthe gospel\ufffd\ufffdjust another opinion.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

Alan Huntley

> 
> From: Sam McCandless <samcc@...>
> Date: 2004/11/18 Thu AM 10:39:25 EST
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
> 
> But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and 
> 17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better 
> at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. If not, 
> I think I'd prefer the faster 16-35mm despite the price difference.
> 
> And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the 
> benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I 
> have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I 
> see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere 
> near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better 
> images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd 
> get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

Sam;

A well designed prime will always be better than a well-designed zoom. Not to get into the really tedious physics of it, just consider the issue of light slowing (bending), diffracting, and ultimately coming to focus at different points after being broken into various parts of the spectrum. A high speed prime with perhaps 7 to 8 elements obviously will have less problem than a zoom with 15 - 20 odd elements. Add the additional surfaces which give considerably more flare with a resulting loss of contrast, and you should start to (excuse me for this) "get the picture" as it were.

The down side? Hope your back is in better shape . . . while any prime will weigh less than a zoom, when you end up carrying 3 or more lenses to make up the difference, the weight issue is nullified. Obviously the ideal situation is to have both, or perhaps a zoom, and maybe one really good prime in a focal length you favour when shooting. I have a couple of high end zooms, but when I am walking through city streets (I always have a camera with me), I tend to carry a 20 or 24 and a 45gn (the lense is as flat as a pancake and makes for a really nice package).

A real problem with wide angle zooms crops up with most photographers inability to understand the need for a really GOOD lenshood. While all those nice molded sculptures they give you with a 17-35 or whatever you buy, the hood is of MINIMAL help even at the wide end and totally useless at the longer end. In a lense that is extremely susceptible to flare (ALL wide angle zooms), it only serves more as a bumper to protect it from whacks and bangs.

Consider what film people use if you want more solid guidance. Documentary people shooting 16 or super 16 will travel with a zoom, AND usually a set of three or four hi-speed primes. NO ONE in the feature film end would shoot anything with a zoom . . . they can't afford the loss in quality. Remember that these are people who insist of their gear being stripped and calibrated on a regular basis . . . they can afford and insist on, the absolute best that is available.

good luck
Paul Aparycki

  And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the 
  benefit of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I 
  have the 35mm f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I 
  see a big difference between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere 
  near as good as the 1Ds MK II. So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better 
  images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms, then by using the primes I'd 
  get the better-image benefit plus at least two stops of speed.

  Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
  --
  Sam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yeah!!!! Someone hit the nail right on the head, with the exception that the other lenses (designed for digital) ought to be cheaper. I haven't seen anyone yet produce an optic for half-frame (that IS what most digital cameras are) at a substantially lower price. While the design costs are certainly not any less due to CAD, the manufacturing of elements with (sometimes) extreme curvature or the need for aspherics has been reduced . . . as should the price . . . guess I am just dreaming "in Technicolour"

Paul Aparycki
  And on a
  digicam with a crop factor, they may be better still, because the corners of
  their working area, where they're weakest, aren't even used.

  If anyone knows anything to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. My purchasing
  philosophy has been based on the idea that eventually I'd have a full-frame
  sensor, so I've been sticking to lenses designed for 35mm.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless
<samcc@v...> wrote:
> 
> But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and 
> 17-40mm f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better 
> at the lower end while the other is better at the higher end. 

Sam,

It seems that things related to lens performance is changing with the
advent of digital photography. Not too long ago, the MTF curves for
lens performance were what was needed to choose a lens. (www.photodo.com)

Now, the DXO Analyser from www.dolabs.com is revealing that lens
performance is tied to the camera body on which it is used. The same
lens on different camera bodies will return different results as to
vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometrial distorsion, sharpness and
noise (s/n ratio).

The results I have are from the French magazine Chasseur d'Images
(March 2004). I have not followed on it since I still use a film camera.

Both the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2,8 L USM and the Canon EF 17-40 f4 L USM
tested higher on the Canon EOS 300D and 10D than on the Canon EOS 1 Ds. 

The Nikon AF-S DX 12-24mm F/4 G tested higher on the Nikon D2H than on
the Nikon D100 and the Fuji S2 Pro.

The higher priced professional dslr bodies do benefit from the highest
quality lens. Michael Reichmann of the Luminous-Landscape also uses
the DXO Analyser for his camera-lens test. More info about the DXO can
be found on his site.

How things used to be simple. Now everything is complicated!

The issue of the body making a difference for chromatic aberration and vignetting makes no sense whatsoever. I don't doubt what you have read, but I question the "validity" of the testers over their advertising interest. Chromatic aberration is an artifact of the optical path (the glass) . . . period, and if vignetting is coming into play, that would indicate lousy tolerances on behalf of some of the lense designers. Because there is still a wide market available for full-frame lenses which in most cases are at the forefront of the lense designers art/ability, they should, for all intents and purposes work perfectly on a half-frame camera (a digital camera). The only place where it would make sense about some problems is the opinion offered (can't remember who posted it) about the sensor being so reflective that it would cause "backflash" or flare. That obviosly is a problem that needs to be tended to at the sensor surface, and perhaps some additional coating at the rear elements (matte black paint on the rear element doesn't count).

If there is going to be a "consensus" amongst "test" magazines (read; nikon pays us more than canon, epson pays us more than canon) that we suddenly need to take their advice to "dump" our systems, I think that "advice????" should be taken with not a grain of salt but perhaps a truckload. Contrary to what "chasseur d'images, pop photo, shutterbug" or any other amatuer rag wish to say, the laws of physics are for the most part, immutable. If the lense comes to focus (all colours) at a common point, it comes to focus . . . that is it. The problem then is obviously in the nintendo box (digital camera).

Maybe the manufacturers aren't as ready as many would like to think?

Paul Aparycki


  different results as to
  vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometrial distorsion, sharpness and
  noise (s/n ratio).

  The results I have are from the French magazine Chasseur d'Images
  (March 2004). I have not followed on it since I still use a film camera.

  SNIP SNIP SNIP

  How things used to be simple. Now everything is complicated!


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Andre wrote:

> 
> It seems that things related to lens performance is changing with the
> advent of digital photography. Not too long ago, the MTF curves for
> lens performance were what was needed to choose a lens. (www.photodo.com)
> 
> Now, the DXO Analyser from www.dolabs.com is revealing that lens
> performance is tied to the camera body on which it is used. The same
> lens on different camera bodies will return different results as to
> vignetting, chromatic aberration, geometrial distorsion, sharpness and
> noise (s/n ratio).

Mainly the relation between lens and sensor.

> The results I have are from the French magazine Chasseur d'Images
> (March 2004). I have not followed on it since I still use a film camera.

The German Magazine Color Foto is probably one of the first that 
published test results of the same lenses on different sensor types.

http://www.colorfoto.de/d/10916

http://www.colorfoto.de/sixcms/media.php/258/Kameras%20im%20test.pdf

http://www.colorfoto.de/sixcms/media.php/258/Objektive%20i.%20Systemtest.14739.pdf

In German though.

Ernst

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Andre wrote:

> The German Magazine Color Foto is probably one of the first that 
> published test results of the same lenses on different sensor types.
> 
> Ernst

So Ernst, what's your take on the body lens relationship ? Are those
results disputable or should they be taken into consideration ?

Andre

Thanks for all the comments.  I usually buy my stuff at B&H in New York but the camera is 
backordered there.  Has anyone dealt with Profeel in NY?  Any other recommended 
suppliers?  I will be in the DC area over Xmas and would like to have the camera delivered 
there before I arrive (ship to avoid sales tax).  I can wait for B&H but don't want to find that 
they can't supply prior to my trip to the US (I live in London) - I also want to be able to use 
the camera on a trip in the first week of January....

My first post here, though I've learned a lot, lurking.

I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte on a 2200 for 2 years. In fact, it's 
the only paper I've ever used. Most of my work is color, but I do print BW 
from time to time and some limited testing with QTR makes me think I'll be 
buying that and printing more BW going forward.

I feel like I'm on the downhill side of the learning curve so I'm ready to 
spend a bit more for paper than I have on the EEM. I was never completely 
happy with EEM, but it worked reasonably well. At this point I want to at 
least achieve same image quality as with EEM or, better still, exceed it. 
At the same time, I'd like to feel more assurance that the prints will be 
as permanent as the current state of the art allows.

After much reading I've developed a very short list of possibilities and 
have played a bit with one of those so far: Moab Entrada Natural. The 
warmish color put me off a bit at first, but the prints made using Moab's 
canned profile are quite nice. I'm at the point of having a custom profile 
made for this paper and just want to get some feedback on alternatives 
before committing. I should say I'm no paper junkie. If at all possible I 
want to find one something that works and stick with it.

I've read some good things about Hahnemuhle Rag, Premier Hot Press, Epson 
Ultrasmooth, Museum Digital and the Moab. The HR is expensive for a guy 
that's still throwing away more prints than not and the flaking issue 
sounds irritating. The EU sounds great, but I have no interest in cutting 
paper from rolls. The PHP is "identical" to EU according to some and it 
sounds like a good paper. Inkjetart claims Museum Digital is identical to 
EU as well.

So, as subjective as I know all this is, I'm looking for help in narrowing 
the list. I'm not averse to testing myself, but it seems that in order to 
do so I'd have to purchase the papers and have profiles made. This is more 
work and expense than I'd like. I'm a bit apprehensive asking such a 
subjective question, but I've read enough here to know that I'll have a 
chance of beating some of this learning curve with your help. Is anyone 
here willing to share their good or bad experiences with papers on my list? 
Or, gulp, is there a paper I haven't considered, but should?

Michael

First, let me give Clayton Jones a plug here since your question can find a
lot of answers in an article he wrote and posted on his website. Click here
http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn5.htm for his very informative "Great
Paper Chase" piece.

I had the same "complaint" with the Moan Entrada natural, and as a result
tried the BW. It seems a bit brighter than EEM, though not quite as smooth
and detailed. But with the right image, it can really pop, B&W or color.

I've also used Legion Photo matte quite a bit. It's at least as smooth and
detailed as EEM, subjectively I'd say a bit more - the reason why I've used
it quire a bit. For non-archival work for a client or for my portfolio,
that's what I use, and recommend it highly. I've tried dozens more through
sampler packs, eBay "buys" and so on. But now try to stick with three or
four at most.

Clayton's characterization "Paper Chase" pretty much nails it - emphasis on
"chase". Try to find what does your images justice and stick with it.
Otherwise you wind up trying papers instead of making images.

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Poster [mailto:mposter@...]
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 1:11 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Matte Papers



My first post here, though I've learned a lot, lurking.

I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte on a 2200 for 2 years. In fact, it's
the only paper I've ever used. Most of my work is color, but I do print BW
from time to time and some limited testing with QTR makes me think I'll be
buying that and printing more BW going forward.

I feel like I'm on the downhill side of the learning curve so I'm ready to
spend a bit more for paper than I have on the EEM. I was never completely
happy with EEM, but it worked reasonably well. At this point I want to at
least achieve same image quality as with EEM or, better still, exceed it.
At the same time, I'd like to feel more assurance that the prints will be
as permanent as the current state of the art allows.

After much reading I've developed a very short list of possibilities and
have played a bit with one of those so far: Moab Entrada Natural. The
warmish color put me off a bit at first, but the prints made using Moab's
canned profile are quite nice. I'm at the point of having a custom profile
made for this paper and just want to get some feedback on alternatives
before committing. I should say I'm no paper junkie. If at all possible I
want to find one something that works and stick with it.

I've read some good things about Hahnemuhle Rag, Premier Hot Press, Epson
Ultrasmooth, Museum Digital and the Moab. The HR is expensive for a guy
that's still throwing away more prints than not and the flaking issue
sounds irritating. The EU sounds great, but I have no interest in cutting
paper from rolls. The PHP is "identical" to EU according to some and it
sounds like a good paper. Inkjetart claims Museum Digital is identical to
EU as well.

So, as subjective as I know all this is, I'm looking for help in narrowing
the list. I'm not averse to testing myself, but it seems that in order to
do so I'd have to purchase the papers and have profiles made. This is more
work and expense than I'd like. I'm a bit apprehensive asking such a
subjective question, but I've read enough here to know that I'll have a
chance of beating some of this learning curve with your help. Is anyone
here willing to share their good or bad experiences with papers on my list?
Or, gulp, is there a paper I haven't considered, but should?

Michael




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







---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/2004

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Does sound like I should update my flash (430EZ).
> 


Sam, Richard, Steve,

Steve, regarding your flash, yes, to take advantage of the ETTL-II, 
I'm pretty sure you'll want one of the EX series flash units.  It 
will be backwards compatible with your older Canon bodies.  Any of 
the EX flash units should work fine.  

The 70-200 2.8L and 28-70L lenses are fine glass and there is 
absolutlely no reason why you would need to replace them.  

The full size sensor with 16MP does seem to challenge the wide 
glass.  There are already reports coming in that even the Canon 16-
35L is producing some weird results shooting wide on the 1DsMII.  
There are lots of theories as to why this is the case (angle that 
light hits the pixels, etc).  Canon did some serious redesign of the 
pixel shape and microlenses to try to minimze these problems.  I 
think the jury is still out on this issue.  If I was going to buy a 
wide L lense for the 1DMKII today, it would be the 17-40 f/4 L.  In 
my opinion, probably the best "L" wide "zoom" that Canon has 
produced, although admittedly not as fast as the 2.8 lenses.

I'm still waiting for my rep to ship the 580EX.  Have used two 550EX 
with the ETTL-II on my 1DMKII.  Difference from the old ETTL is 
dramatic.  ETTL-II doesn't depend on focus point for exposure and 
actually reads exposure from multiple samples on sensor and 
calculates distance into algorithm for most EF lenses.  Is much more 
consistent than the old flash.  Doesn't get nearly as confused when 
lots of white or black in frame (major issue for wedding photogs.).  
The new 580 has the added benefit of factoring in the "sensor size" 
to optimize flash exposure further.  It will know if you are 
shooting with an 20D (APS sensor), a 1DMKII (1.3x), or a 1DsMKII 
(full size sensor).  Hoping to have my 580EX (and my 1DsMKII) early 
next week.

Cheers,

Tony Bonanno

hello
my 2 cents from my experience.
for color i use Arches Infinity-it is too expensive
and a bit fragile, but I get really nice color on it-i
did get a custom profile made for it. i use a 2200 for
color. EEM has proven to be a good color proof paper
for me.
for b&w i use Premier Hot Press. it is very similar to
Moab Entrada but it doesn't flake as much, in fact i
never have flaking problems with PHP. it also can take
more ink than Entrada so i get a touch more Dmax on
the paper. also it is two sided which is great for
testing shots or for profiling. once i run out of
Arches I am thinking of going to PHP for color as
well. it has a lot to like-cheaper than Photo Rag,
cheaper than Arches, 100% cotton, no obas, nice
weight, etc etc. i use an epson 1200 with MIS UT1 and
QTR to print.
so in the end-a plug from a PHP guy.
right on
john e

But will a 580EX  show any improvement over a 550EX when used with a 1Ds?

In other words is the ETTL-II a function of the 1DsII or the actual 580EX
Flash unit.

If it is the flash unit will it detect the sensor size on a 1Ds

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@...] 
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:34 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Does sound like I should update my flash (430EZ).
> 


Sam, Richard, Steve,

Steve, regarding your flash, yes, to take advantage of the ETTL-II, 
I'm pretty sure you'll want one of the EX series flash units.  It 
will be backwards compatible with your older Canon bodies.  Any of 
the EX flash units should work fine.  

The 70-200 2.8L and 28-70L lenses are fine glass and there is 
absolutlely no reason why you would need to replace them.  

The full size sensor with 16MP does seem to challenge the wide 
glass.  There are already reports coming in that even the Canon 16-
35L is producing some weird results shooting wide on the 1DsMII.  
There are lots of theories as to why this is the case (angle that 
light hits the pixels, etc).  Canon did some serious redesign of the 
pixel shape and microlenses to try to minimze these problems.  I 
think the jury is still out on this issue.  If I was going to buy a 
wide L lense for the 1DMKII today, it would be the 17-40 f/4 L.  In 
my opinion, probably the best "L" wide "zoom" that Canon has 
produced, although admittedly not as fast as the 2.8 lenses.

I'm still waiting for my rep to ship the 580EX.  Have used two 550EX 
with the ETTL-II on my 1DMKII.  Difference from the old ETTL is 
dramatic.  ETTL-II doesn't depend on focus point for exposure and 
actually reads exposure from multiple samples on sensor and 
calculates distance into algorithm for most EF lenses.  Is much more 
consistent than the old flash.  Doesn't get nearly as confused when 
lots of white or black in frame (major issue for wedding photogs.).  
The new 580 has the added benefit of factoring in the "sensor size" 
to optimize flash exposure further.  It will know if you are 
shooting with an 20D (APS sensor), a 1DMKII (1.3x), or a 1DsMKII 
(full size sensor).  Hoping to have my 580EX (and my 1DsMKII) early 
next week.

Cheers,

Tony Bonanno







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



 



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]




---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Michael,

>I've been using Epson Enhanced Matte on a 2200 ...

> I want to at least achieve same image quality as with EEM ... 
>... prints will be as permanent as the current state of the art allows.

>I've read some good things about Hahnemuhle Rag, Premier Hot Press, Epson 
>Ultrasmooth, Museum Digital and the Moab. 

>The HR is expensive for a guy that's still throwing away more prints 
>than not and the flaking issue sounds irritating.

It and PermaJet's new "ImageLife" papers (Alpha -- no OBAs and creamy, Delta
-- some OBAs and white; distributed by Jobo 800-664-0344) are the only ones
that will beat EEM's dmax, with PhotoRag being the champ.

> The EU sounds great, but I have no interest in cutting 
>paper from rolls.

Been there, done that, and I agree.

> The PHP is "identical" to EU according to some and it 
>sounds like a good paper.

And the 205 is a good value also.

> Inkjetart claims Museum Digital is identical to EU as well.

It's not the same according to my tests.

Just a little more information for your consideration.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hi Richard,

I don't think you will see any difference between a 550EX and a 
580EX on the 1DsMKII.  The 550EX I believe was designed with the 
standard "35mm" frame in mind, and works well with ETTL-II.  The 
ETTL-II is built into the camera, not the flash.  With the 580EX, 
there have been several design changes such as a rotary wheel 
control, slightly more power, etc., but basic flash function is not 
much different than 550EX other than factoring in sensor size when 
used on ETTL-II cameras (currently 20D, 1DMKII and 1DsMKII).  I'll 
know more when I actually have the 580EX and can compare it with the 
550EX.

Tony Bonanno

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" 
<richard@r...> wrote:
> But will a 580EX  show any improvement over a 550EX when used with 
a 1Ds?
> 
> In other words is the ETTL-II a function of the 1DsII or the 
actual 580EX
> Flash unit.
> 
> If it is the flash unit will it detect the sensor size on a 1Ds
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@y...] 
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:34 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Does sound like I should update my flash (430EZ).
> > 
> 
> 
> Sam, Richard, Steve,
> 
> Steve, regarding your flash, yes, to take advantage of the ETTL-
II, 
> I'm pretty sure you'll want one of the EX series flash units.  It 
> will be backwards compatible with your older Canon bodies.  Any of 
> the EX flash units should work fine.  
> 
> The 70-200 2.8L and 28-70L lenses are fine glass and there is 
> absolutlely no reason why you would need to replace them.  
> 
> The full size sensor with 16MP does seem to challenge the wide 
> glass.  There are already reports coming in that even the Canon 16-
> 35L is producing some weird results shooting wide on the 1DsMII.  
> There are lots of theories as to why this is the case (angle that 
> light hits the pixels, etc).  Canon did some serious redesign of 
the 
> pixel shape and microlenses to try to minimze these problems.  I 
> think the jury is still out on this issue.  If I was going to buy 
a 
> wide L lense for the 1DMKII today, it would be the 17-40 f/4 L.  
In 
> my opinion, probably the best "L" wide "zoom" that Canon has 
> produced, although admittedly not as fast as the 2.8 lenses.
> 
> I'm still waiting for my rep to ship the 580EX.  Have used two 
550EX 
> with the ETTL-II on my 1DMKII.  Difference from the old ETTL is 
> dramatic.  ETTL-II doesn't depend on focus point for exposure and 
> actually reads exposure from multiple samples on sensor and 
> calculates distance into algorithm for most EF lenses.  Is much 
more 
> consistent than the old flash.  Doesn't get nearly as confused 
when 
> lots of white or black in frame (major issue for wedding 
photogs.).  
> The new 580 has the added benefit of factoring in the "sensor 
size" 
> to optimize flash exposure further.  It will know if you are 
> shooting with an 20D (APS sensor), a 1DMKII (1.3x), or a 1DsMKII 
> (full size sensor).  Hoping to have my 580EX (and my 1DsMKII) 
early 
> next week.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Tony Bonanno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your 
responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you 
are
> currently using to read this email. ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your 
responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you 
are
> currently using to read this email. ]

-----Original Message-----

From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@...] 
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:53 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II

Hi Richard,

I don't think you will see any difference between a 550EX and a 
580EX on the 1DsMKII.  The 550EX I believe was designed with the 
standard "35mm" frame in mind, and works well with ETTL-II.  The 
ETTL-II is built into the camera, not the flash

Oh calamity.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Doesn't this off topic stuff belong elsewhere? 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard" <
richard@r...> wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@y...] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 7:53 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
> 
> Hi Richard,
> 
> I don't think you will see any difference between a 550EX and a 
> 580EX on the 1DsMKII.  The 550EX I believe was designed with the 
> standard "35mm" frame in mind, and works well with ETTL-II.  The 
> ETTL-II is built into the camera, not the flash
> 
> Oh calamity.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
> currently using to read this email. ]

-----Original Message-----

From: jcap40 [mailto:gtmlabels@...] 
Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:16 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II



Doesn't this off topic stuff belong elsewhere? 

Ask the moderator old bean.

Richard


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

I think ETTL-II only works with the 20D, 1Ds II, and 1 D II. The primary new
contribution with ETTL-II is not related to the sensor. It is that lens
focus distance info is now used, in combination with other info, to
determine the flash exposure, as it has been for years on the Nikon. Nikon
had a patent on that technology, and I heard it ran up, but this info is
third hand. I believe only the three cameras I mentioned support ETTL-II.

Does anyone have any more info on this?

Steve

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony Bonanno" <tony@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:52 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II




Hi Richard,

I don't think you will see any difference between a 550EX and a
580EX on the 1DsMKII.  The 550EX I believe was designed with the
standard "35mm" frame in mind, and works well with ETTL-II.  The
ETTL-II is built into the camera, not the flash.  With the 580EX,
there have been several design changes such as a rotary wheel
control, slightly more power, etc., but basic flash function is not
much different than 550EX other than factoring in sensor size when
used on ETTL-II cameras (currently 20D, 1DMKII and 1DsMKII).  I'll
know more when I actually have the 580EX and can compare it with the
550EX.

Tony Bonanno

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<richard@r...> wrote:
> But will a 580EX  show any improvement over a 550EX when used with
a 1Ds?
>
> In other words is the ETTL-II a function of the 1DsII or the
actual 580EX
> Flash unit.
>
> If it is the flash unit will it detect the sensor size on a 1Ds
>
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tony Bonanno [mailto:tony@y...]
> Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 8:34 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Does sound like I should update my flash (430EZ).
> >
>
>
> Sam, Richard, Steve,
>
> Steve, regarding your flash, yes, to take advantage of the ETTL-
II,
> I'm pretty sure you'll want one of the EX series flash units.  It
> will be backwards compatible with your older Canon bodies.  Any of
> the EX flash units should work fine.
>
> The 70-200 2.8L and 28-70L lenses are fine glass and there is
> absolutlely no reason why you would need to replace them.
>
> The full size sensor with 16MP does seem to challenge the wide
> glass.  There are already reports coming in that even the Canon 16-
> 35L is producing some weird results shooting wide on the 1DsMII.
> There are lots of theories as to why this is the case (angle that
> light hits the pixels, etc).  Canon did some serious redesign of
the
> pixel shape and microlenses to try to minimze these problems.  I
> think the jury is still out on this issue.  If I was going to buy
a
> wide L lense for the 1DMKII today, it would be the 17-40 f/4 L.
In
> my opinion, probably the best "L" wide "zoom" that Canon has
> produced, although admittedly not as fast as the 2.8 lenses.
>
> I'm still waiting for my rep to ship the 580EX.  Have used two
550EX
> with the ETTL-II on my 1DMKII.  Difference from the old ETTL is
> dramatic.  ETTL-II doesn't depend on focus point for exposure and
> actually reads exposure from multiple samples on sensor and
> calculates distance into algorithm for most EF lenses.  Is much
more
> consistent than the old flash.  Doesn't get nearly as confused
when
> lots of white or black in frame (major issue for wedding
photogs.).
> The new 580 has the added benefit of factoring in the "sensor
size"
> to optimize flash exposure further.  It will know if you are
> shooting with an 20D (APS sensor), a 1DMKII (1.3x), or a 1DsMKII
> (full size sensor).  Hoping to have my 580EX (and my 1DsMKII)
early
> next week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tony Bonanno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your
responsibility
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you
are
> currently using to read this email. ]
>
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your
responsibility
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you
are
> currently using to read this email. ]






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

It's definitely enjoying listening in, I've got Nikon gear, but from 
what I'm reading I wish I'd chosen Canon many years back. If only there 
was another Full frame Nikon besides the Kodak, that also performed as 
well as what I've read about the Canon. Ah well...

Glenn

Richard wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcap40 [mailto:gtmlabels@...] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 3:16 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't this off topic stuff belong elsewhere? 
> 
> Ask the moderator old bean.
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> ---
> [This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
> to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
> currently using to read this email. ]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

If you'd like to consider our papers, we have photo and fine art sample
packs.

  Michael J. Pach
  Owner
  AdventureCam Photo
  Proof Line Ink Jet Paper & Media
  719-260-6637
  www.adventurecamphoto.com

  From: "Michael Poster" <mposter@...> <snip>

  Or, gulp, is there a paper I haven't considered, but should?

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.796 / Virus Database: 540 - Release Date: 11/13/04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'd bet most of us B&W film die-hards are just waiting for digital to reach
the point where we can jump on the band wagon.  I think these threads are
relevant.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

>It's definitely enjoying listening in, ...

>> Doesn't this off topic stuff belong elsewhere? ...

Andr\ufffd,

There's a list of tested lenses and digital cameras available at 
the colorfoto.de site, they ask some Euros for it. Four sensor 
types with compatible lenses listed, the better the higher the 
quality figure added. New tests are added to that list almost 
every month. I've the 11-04 magazine with the recent lists. 
Testing is also done with lowest sharpening possible + highest 
degree of sharpening as it is sometimes impossible to get rid of 
all the internal sharpening.

Sigma, Tamron lenses included.  Canon 10D/300D, Fuji S2, Nikon 
D70, Nikon D100, Olympus E-1, Pentax, Sigma SD10 bodies.

Best test result is on the Nikon D70 with the Nikkor 2.8 60mm 
Micro D.  That body and the same lens also show good performance 
in other combinations. There are no tests yet of the bodies that 
are introduced at the Photokina. Small arrows in the lists 
indicate lenses that are good enough for digital bodies.

Can't copy all the data on those lists. too much of it.

Ernst

Hi Andre,

I'm not Ernst but I hope you won't mind me chipping in with a comment here.
It's easy to explain why there can be varying amounts of "chromatic
abberation" and "vignetting" with different digital sensors. I put those terms
in quotes because in digital capture they have different causes than their
counterparts in film-based shooting. The physical construction of the sensor
sites, and most relevantly the depth of the sensor site wells in the surface
of the silicon, can influence the way the response of the sensor changes with
the angle of incidence of incoming light rays. In the case of many wide-angle
lens designs, light striking the edges of the frame can travel at a fairly
oblique angle, and if these lenses are combined with a sensor that is very
susceptible to the direction of the incoming rays, then you will get more
noticeable light falloff in the image.

The amount of colour fringing can be influenced by the sensor construction and
the type of anti-aliasing filter used. Although this effect is not strictly
the same thing as chromatic abberation, it appears similar and the terms are
often used interchangeably.

The one I'm more sceptical about is geometrical distortion. Any sensor will be
very nearly perfect in terms of rectilinearity (and flatness, come to that) so
distortion and focus plane issues should disappear in the digital capture
world.

HTH

-= mike =-

-----Original Message-----
From: Andre
Sent: 18 November 2004 21:46
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Andre wrote:

> The German Magazine Color Foto is probably one of the first that 
> published test results of the same lenses on different sensor types.
> 
> Ernst

So Ernst, what's your take on the body lens relationship ? Are those results
disputable or should they be taken into consideration ?

Andre


==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================

Hi Sam,

If you're into architecture then you'll want one or more of the shift lenses.
A friend of mine is an established architectural photographer in the UK and
purchased a 1Ds to replace his MF gear a few months ago. He seems happy with
the quality of the shift lenses.

Wide lenses for general photography are a tougher matter. The 35/1.4L has a
very good reputation, although I've never shot with it. The 24/1.4L is a good
solid performer (I do have one of these) but any wider than that and the
options get much less attractive. I have an adapter that allows me to mount my
Contax Distagon 21mm on my Canon digital body, and the results are streets
ahead of the rather so-so Canon 20/2.8 EF prime. I've seen comparison shots
from the two short L zooms and they look fairly indifferent IMO. If you can
stand using a prime with manual focus and stop-down metering, then this might
be a good way to go. If you absolutely require a zoom, then take a look at the
20-35/2.8L. It's no longer in production but it's very sharp for a zoom and
you can pick them up nice and cheap if you're patient.

HTH

-= mike =-

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam McCandless [mailto:samcc@...] 
Sent: 18 November 2004 15:39
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Canon 1Ds MK II


At 3:28 AM +0000 11/18/04, Tony Bonanno wrote:
>[snip]
>The images looked excellent.  All that resolution and low noise. 
>You definitely are going to want the best glass for this camera. 
>[snip]  My main application for the 1DsMKII will be architectural, 
>landscape, and large group shoots.
>[snip]

But what _is_ the best wide-angle Canon glass for those applications (which
are also mine)?

It's easy for me to choose among Canon's longer and normal lenses because the
image stabilization feature on some of their lenses is so important, and
getting more important, to me.

But I'm agonizing between Canon's two "ultra-wide" 16-35mm f/2.8 and 17-40mm
f/4.0 L zooms. Because all I've heard is that one is better at the lower end
while the other is better at the higher end. If not, I think I'd prefer the
faster 16-35mm despite the price difference.

And I'm also wondering whether it might not be better to give up the benefit
of zooming and get the 24mm and 35mm f/1.4 L prime lenses. I have the 35mm
f/2.0 prime and the 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 zoom and think I see a big difference
between them - even with (film) cameras nowhere near as good as the 1Ds MK II.
So if the f/1.4 L primes yield better images than the f/2.8 & f/4.0 L zooms,
then by using the primes I'd get the better-image benefit plus at least two
stops of speed.

Or at least so it seems to me. I'd appreciate any advice about all this.
--
Sam




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/ucIolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

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



 




==============================================================================
This message is for the sole use of the intended recipient. If you received
this message in error please delete it and notify us. If this message was
misdirected, CSFB does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. CSFB
retains and monitors electronic communications sent through its network.
Instructions transmitted over this system are not binding on CSFB until they
are confirmed by us. Message transmission is not guaranteed to be secure.
==============================================================================