Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by mehrdad

read all about it!!  AND support it as the new "digital film" is in
danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt  information on raw files
which makes very hard to use other third party software. they offer a
sdk (api) to read the files but their software is worth Sh...t.

in current leica language, it could mean something like this , u can
use only kodak developers to process tri-x.

all nikon  and other digital users it is time to make a stand and let
the manufactures know where we stand.

  -------------------------------------
  regards, mehrdad

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Altaf Bhimji

maybe it will lead to a "real" film renaissance - and newer and better 
film scanners -


altaf - still stuck in the D76 TriX world - but now with a minolta 5400 
and epson 2200 :-)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:41 PM, mehrdad wrote:

>
> read all about it!!  AND support it as the new "digital film" is in
> danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt  information on raw files
> which makes very hard to use other third party software. they offer a
> sdk (api) to read the files but their software is worth Sh...t.
>
> in current leica language, it could mean something like this , u can
> use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
>
> all nikon  and other digital users it is time to make a stand and let
> the manufactures know where we stand.
>
>   -------------------------------------
>   regards, mehrdad

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by guy washburn

Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
have let them know by voting with our checkbooks. If
the D2X languishes on shelves perhaps the message will
get through. Every one that is sold sends the wrong
message.

Guy
--- mehrdad <msadat@...> wrote:
> read all about it!!  AND support it as the new
> "digital film" is in
> danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt 
> information on raw files
> which makes very hard to use other third party
> software. they offer a
> sdk (api) to read the files but their software is
> worth Sh...t.
> 
> in current leica language, it could mean something
> like this , u can
> use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
> 
> all nikon  and other digital users it is time to
> make a stand and let
> the manufactures know where we stand.
> 
>   -------------------------------------
>   regards, mehrdad
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Peter Marshall

mehrdad wrote:
> read all about it!!  AND support it as the new "digital film" is in
> danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt  information on raw files
> which makes very hard to use other third party software. they offer a
> sdk (api) to read the files but their software is worth Sh...t.
> 
> in current leica language, it could mean something like this , u can
> use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
> 
> all nikon  and other digital users it is time to make a stand and let
> the manufactures know where we stand.
> 
>   -------------------------------------
>   regards, mehrdad
> 
> 
Why Nikon did this is a very good question, but as the SDK provides the 
answer to how to handle it, and there is nothing now to stop third-party 
developers producing software that works with these files as well or 
better than Nikon's own software.

I understood it was only a legal technical point that had prevented 
Adobe doing so without the SDK.

However if anyone with a D2X feels they want to get rid of it to a good 
home because of this problem they can contact me!


Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
About Photography	      http//photography.about.com
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere.

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Paul Roark

> Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
> have let them know by voting with our checkbooks. ...


> > ... support it as the new "digital film" is in
> > danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt
> > information on raw files
> > which makes very hard to use other third party
> > software. ...

> > it could mean something like this , u can
> > use only kodak developers to process tri-x.

Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
many (all??) third party lenses.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Seth

Oh, Nikon is feeling it.  Long before the D2X.

I was told the Detroit News "...switched to Canon."  THERE is some bucks.
Not that switch, but there is a trend.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----

==
==Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon have let 
==them know by voting with our checkbooks. If the D2X 
==languishes on shelves perhaps the message will get through. 
==Every one that is sold sends the wrong message.
==

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Seth

Save the overseas shipping!!  SAVE the customs hassle!!

Send it to me!!

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==Behalf Of Peter Marshall
==Why Nikon did this is a very good question, but as the SDK 
==provides the answer to how to handle it, and there is nothing 
==now to stop third-party developers producing software that 
==works with these files as well or better than Nikon's own software.
==
==I understood it was only a legal technical point that had 
==prevented Adobe doing so without the SDK.
==
==However if anyone with a D2X feels they want to get rid of it 
==to a good home because of this problem they can contact me!
==
==
==Peter Marshall
==petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Tom Moore

Paul

That condition appears to be quite common with Sigma lenses. I believe some
other third party manufacturers (such as Tamron) license technology from
Canon to make their compatible lenses and it may not happen with those
lenses. I think Sigma must reverse engineer Canon cameras to design their
Canon lens interfaces.

For newer Sigma lenses (I don't have any and haven't done this personally) I
understand that they can be returned to Sigma for a firmware upgrade which
can make them compatible with newer cameras.

So, it's not really Canon's choice in the matter. I guess they could charge
less for the lens interface technology.

Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Roark
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:44 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com

... deleted

> 
> Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
> 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
> many (all??) third party lenses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com


...trimmed

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by guy washburn

If that is true I agree it is quite anti-social.
Perhaps it is it a mirror clearance issue? Have you
called Sigma on this? Perhaps they know for sure if
there is an issue or just a specific problem with your
lens or body. 

I don't own any Sigma lenses to test with and I
haven't seen any issues reported with the 20D.
 
Guy
--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> > Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
> > have let them know by voting with our checkbooks.
> ...
> 
> 
> > > ... support it as the new "digital film" is in
> > > danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt
> > > information on raw files
> > > which makes very hard to use other third party
> > > software. ...
> 
> > > it could mean something like this , u can
> > > use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
> 
> Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital
> Rebel XT gives me "Error
> 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera
> is incompatible with
> many (all??) third party lenses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by scott_now_coming

Paul,

Contact Sigma for a "mod" to that lens.

If they have one, they'll probably do it for free, or a very small 
fee.

Sigma has "modded" some of their lens in the past to work with some 
of the new camera models.


Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> > Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
> > have let them know by voting with our checkbooks. ...
> 
> 
> > > ... support it as the new "digital film" is in
> > > danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt
> > > information on raw files
> > > which makes very hard to use other third party
> > > software. ...
> 
> > > it could mean something like this , u can
> > > use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
> 
> Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital Rebel XT gives 
me "Error
> 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible 
with
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> many (all??) third party lenses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by John Vitollo

>  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
> 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
> many (all??) third party lenses.
> Paul

I don't use Sigma lenses but the latest lenses are compatable. How old is the 24mm that 
you have? Sigma, if lens is not too old will rechip it for free or a moderate fee.

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Paul Roark

> 
> 
> >  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
> > 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
> > many (all??) third party lenses.
> > Paul
> 
> ... Sigma lenses ... the latest lenses are compatable. 
>  Sigma, if lens is not too old will rechip it for free or a
> moderate fee.

Unfortunately, the 24 mm f2.8 cannot be upgraded -- too old.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Diane Fields

Paul, 

No--that's not true--many are using Sigma, Tamron, Tokina lenses on the XT with no problems whatsoever, but you may have to have it rechipped by Sigma--which they do gladly.  Many have had older Sigma lenses rechipped.  Get in touch with Sigma and see what they say.  Also--Error 99 is an error on Canon cams that covers a lot of territory.  You may just want to try using an eraser on the contacts and try again.  It may just be something small like that--which is what I would try before sending it to Sigma--or remounting it.  Don't worry about it not working with Sigma lenses.  Sigma is usually the one with the most problems (others think that Tamron and maybe even Tokina have a 'quiet' agreement with Canon so they don't have to backward engineer, but Sigma is very good about dealing with these problems.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 10:44 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around





  > Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
  > have let them know by voting with our checkbooks. ...


  > > ... support it as the new "digital film" is in
  > > danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt
  > > information on raw files
  > > which makes very hard to use other third party
  > > software. ...

  > > it could mean something like this , u can
  > > use only kodak developers to process tri-x.

  Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
  99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
  many (all??) third party lenses.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 






  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

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Diane Fields

Nope--the mirror issue is not a problem.  The only place that is a problem is with NON-EFS cams like my Canon 10D and D60 where the new EF-S lenses won't work.  See my other post.  Some Sigma lenses need rechipped for the newer Canon bodies and Sigma knows this and handles it.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: guy washburn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:13 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around


  If that is true I agree it is quite anti-social.
  Perhaps it is it a mirror clearance issue? Have you
  called Sigma on this? Perhaps they know for sure if
  there is an issue or just a specific problem with your
  lens or body. 

  I don't own any Sigma lenses to test with and I
  haven't seen any issues reported with the 20D.

  Guy


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

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Diane Fields

That's too bad--I wonder if it even worked with any of the DSLRs--I'll have to check back with the D30-10D and see what others found.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 3:00 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around


  > 
  > 
  > >  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me "Error
  > > 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
  > > many (all??) third party lenses.
  > > Paul
  > 
  > ... Sigma lenses ... the latest lenses are compatable. 
  >  Sigma, if lens is not too old will rechip it for free or a
  > moderate fee.

  Unfortunately, the 24 mm f2.8 cannot be upgraded -- too old.

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 


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

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-26 by Tom

According to a reply from the editor in a recent issue of Popular
Photography, Sigma will "update" your lens to work with the new Canon.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> 
>  
> > Those of us who abandoned Nikon long ago for Canon
> > have let them know by voting with our checkbooks. ...
> 
> 
> > > ... support it as the new "digital film" is in
> > > danger already. nikon  has begun to encrypt
> > > information on raw files
> > > which makes very hard to use other third party
> > > software. ...
> 
> > > it could mean something like this , u can
> > > use only kodak developers to process tri-x.
> 
> Well, Canon has joined the club.  The new Digital Rebel XT gives me
"Error
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 99" with my Sigma 24mm.  That code means the camera is incompatible with
> many (all??) third party lenses.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around]

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

> 
> According to a reply from the editor in a recent issue of Popular
> Photography, Sigma will "update" your lens to work with the new Canon.
> ...

They can update some but not all of their lenses.  I called Sigma.  The 24
mm f2.8 I have is too old.

I'm OK with the 18 - 55 that came with the camera at this point.  The 24 mm
was not really as wide as I like anyway.  While the auto depth of field
feature on the Rebel XT appears to be close to random and useless, I've got
the DOF down now.  Some charts and tests allowed my to slap some scales on
the lens, making it quite feasible for the zone focusing I like.  And this
little puppy really has some DOF.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Diane Fields

Also, all new Sigma lenses (those from the last number of years) all work with the current DSLRs.  I have 3 Sigma lenses, the 15-30, 20 and 15FE.  The rest of my lenses are all Canons except for a Tamron 90 macro (and its the older one)---but most people are finding that Sigmas do just fine on Canon DSLRs--except for pretty old ones.  All Canon lenses are compatible with all DSLRs and the only lenses I've heard of giving problems are old Sigmas but quite a few people have had them rechipped--except for some very old ones I guess.  

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tom Moore 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 11:12 AM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around


  Paul

  That condition appears to be quite common with Sigma lenses. I believe some
  other third party manufacturers (such as Tamron) license technology from
  Canon to make their compatible lenses and it may not happen with those
  lenses. I think Sigma must reverse engineer Canon cameras to design their
  Canon lens interfaces.

  For newer Sigma lenses (I don't have any and haven't done this personally) I
  understand that they can be returned to Sigma for a firmware upgrade which
  can make them compatible with newer cameras.

  So, it's not really Canon's choice in the matter. I guess they could charge
  less for the lens interface technology.

  Tom



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

Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Paul,

>I've got the DOF down now.  Some charts and tests allowed my to slap 
>some scales on the lens, making it quite feasible for the zone 
>focusing I like.  And this little puppy really has some DOF.

Did you see my earlier post (msg 60617) about the extreme DOF allowing
us to work in the sweet spot aperture of the lens?  I'm wondering if
you have found that to be the case.  

DOF was always a challenge in my years of Pentax 67 work, so this is
like DOF Nirvana.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Ernst Dinkla

Diane Fields wrote:

>Also, all new Sigma lenses (those from the last number of years) all work with the current DSLRs.  I have 3 Sigma lenses, the 15-30, 20 and 15FE.  The rest of my lenses are all Canons except for a Tamron 90 macro (and its the older one)---but most people are finding that Sigmas do just fine on Canon DSLRs--except for pretty old ones.  All Canon lenses are compatible with all DSLRs and the only lenses I've heard of giving problems are old Sigmas but quite a few people have had them rechipped--except for some very old ones I guess.  
>
>Diane
>  
>
 The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the 
Tamron 90 mm. Slightly longer than the Tamron on an APS DSLR.

Ernst

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Diane Fields

I have to say that I at first resisted all thoughts of the EF-S lenses and was planning to upgrade eventually to a 1DSMkII (not sure when my pocketbook would allow it though LOL).  I think I've decided that the mid series serves me well---and I believe that the EF-S lenses are here to stay so the fact that the EF-S won't work with the 1Ds series no longer bothers me much since I don't think they are in my future (there are continuing rumors of a 'gap filler' body between the 20D and 1DMkII and it if has increased resolution that would probably be my pick, but its still a rumor LOL) .  I haven't heard much about the EF-S 60 f/2.8 but your observations seem reasonable.  

Diane
  >  
  >
  The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the 
  Tamron 90 mm. Slightly longer than the Tamron on an APS DSLR.

  Ernst


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

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

Ernst,

> 
> 
>  The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the
> Tamron 90 mm...

In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over the Canon 85
1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.  

On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and fast,
hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors.  For B&W, I don't find I use macro
much.  I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide angles when
I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective.  So, the wide 10 - 22 zoom with a
fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up with.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the norm.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
 
> 
> Ernst,
> 
>> 
>> 
>>  The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the
>> Tamron 90 mm...
> 
> In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over the Canon 85
> 1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.
> 
> On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and fast,
> hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors.  For B&W, I don't find I use macro
> much.  I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide angles when
> I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective.  So, the wide 10 - 22 zoom with a
> fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up with.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Stephen Kobrin

Can I ask a dumb question. Is there any way to get the Canon FD 
lenses to work with the Digital Rebel X?  I have a number of them and 
some are really nice lenses.  A second dumb question:  do you compute 
dof for the nominal focal length of a lens or its actual focal length 
given the digital camera's sensor?  I assume it is the latter.

Steve

> In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over the 
Canon 85
> 1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.  
> 
> On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and 
fast,
> hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors.  For B&W, I don't find I use 
macro
> much.  I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide 
angles when
> I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective.  So, the wide 10 - 22 
zoom with a
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up with.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Tom Baker

That's probably true for Canon, not Nikon.
 
Tom Baker

Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the norm.


> From: Paul Roark 


> 
> Ernst,
> 
>> 
>> 
>> The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the
>> Tamron 90 mm...
> 
> In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over the Canon 85
> 1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.
> 
> On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and fast,
> hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors. For B&W, I don't find I use macro
> much. I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide angles when
> I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective. So, the wide 10 - 22 zoom with a
> fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up with.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>





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









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

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Diane Fields

Hmmmmm----others say that its a long way off--LONG way.  In the meantime, there are not a lot of alternatives for 1.6x cams for very wide angle (I take that back--the Sigma 12-24 was what a lot of people were shooting with until the 10-22 became available).   Sigma also has a 10-20 coming out very soon (non EF-S)   I actually added a 15 rectilinear FE which has much less distortion than on a FF--and I also defish it occasionally (which is about comparable to the 12--which is comparable to a 19mm on a FF).   My 15-30 has served me well for a number of years also so I'm in no hurry and don't have a body at present that accepts EF-S and am not sure if I will upgrade again until the successor to the 20D comes out (probably Feb. 2006 if Canon's cycle is normal) or if the 'gap' body appearrs.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 11:57 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around


  Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
  simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the norm.



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

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

> Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
> simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the
> norm.
> 

I doubt it.  Moore's law is based in large part of the economies of having
smaller chips.  That gets more chips per wafer.  So, there will always be a
major price difference between 1.6 and full frame.  As the noise levels
decrease and resolutions increase, the need for the larger sensors will
decrease also, making them, I suspect, a low volume specialty item. 

I think 8 mp can already do weddings, etc.  Above that level, demand for
portable, hand-holdable cameras seems to decrease dramatically.  For the
view camera and other tripod-only markets we probably will have a
Hasselblad-type camera with swings, tilts, etc.  However, from the DOF I've
seen, I'm even wondering how much I'll ever use tilts, which used to be
critical to me.  (I haven't even tried my Canon 45 TS lens on the XT yet.)

It would be interesting to hear a physicist's analysis of what the smallest
pixel size works well.  Since light has a wave character, I suspect that at
the small end of the scale the wave nature of light starts to interfere with
the sensor's ability to absorb light. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

> .. Is there any way to get the Canon FD
> lenses to work with the Digital Rebel X? 

When I switched from FD to EF, I sold all my FD lenses because it appeared
the only converters would not allow infinity focus.  I'm not sure what
exists today, but I doubt it's possible to salvage them.

> ..  do you compute
> dof for the nominal focal length of a lens or its actual focal length
> given the digital camera's sensor?  I assume it is the latter.

Both are relevant.  I don't have the formulas handy, but what I have found
over the years is that for the sharpness I like for 16 x 20 I usually need
at least 2 stops smaller than the lenses and charts indicate.  However, the
smaller format sensor is going to magnify the circle of confusion more for
any given print size.  So I assumed I'd need even more   In empirical
testing I found that I need 3 stops more than the 35 mm camera charts call
for.  When we're talking about an 18 mm lens that is good at f16, however,
the DOF is still tremendous.  It looks like I can get 2.5 feet to infinity
sharp in a single frame.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Diane Fields

Steve, my understanding is that 'some' tele FD lenses can be used with this converter and the EOS1 series.  Never tried it, haven't seen anything much about it.  And--of course, you would have to lose AF since there would be no 'connectivity' as far as I can see.
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/fdeos.htm

Then again--I'm not even sure this will work with series other than the 1 since the mirror box, etc. is different on the XT to accomodate the EF-S lenses.  Not sure how this converter really would work with them.   
Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stephen Kobrin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 12:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around



  Can I ask a dumb question. Is there any way to get the Canon FD 
  lenses to work with the Digital Rebel X?  I have a number of them and 
  some are really nice lenses.  A second dumb question:  do you compute 
  dof for the nominal focal length of a lens or its actual focal length 
  given the digital camera's sensor?  I assume it is the latter.

  Steve


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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

Clayton,

Yes, I noticed your post, and you're right -- very nice DOF.  (Portrait
types are not necessarily going to like it, however.)

Using the "sweet spot" of the full frame lens is a double edged sword.  All
else being equal, one gets more quality in a lens by covering less area,
especially at the wide end.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Clayton
> Jones
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:12 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was
> www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or
> 
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> >I've got the DOF down now.  Some charts and tests allowed my to slap
> >some scales on the lens, making it quite feasible for the zone
> >focusing I like.  And this little puppy really has some DOF.
> 
> Did you see my earlier post (msg 60617) about the extreme DOF allowing
> us to work in the sweet spot aperture of the lens?  I'm wondering if
> you have found that to be the case.
> 
> DOF was always a challenge in my years of Pentax 67 work, so this is
> like DOF Nirvana.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

In the last two years in which I have been a member of this group a lot of
people have said a lot of things are "way off".  For example, that "digital
killing film" or "digital killing medium format" was "way off" yet look at
what we have seen...at least (1) probably a near 90% reduction in questions
on this forum re film scanners (2) a huge withdrawal from film development
and production and (3) the death of two medium format camera manufacturers,
the merger of another with a maker of digital backs and another going
digital.  (Not wanting to start a digital vs film discussion!!!) 35mm and
645 film isn't dead yet but things have really moved rather quickly.  We are
now at 16.7mp for "full frame 35mm" cameras and believe me any "wow" seen
from an 8mp Canon is more than doubled by the 1DsMKII.  Personally I would
rather hedge against owning reduced sensor lenses and deploy that capital
into a good full frame sensor camera.  The leap to the camera is a lot I
know and by no means for everyone.  But I think one should try avoiding
sinking too much money into an "interim solution" and if possible buy lenses
that will carry through to the next full frame sensor camera.  Just my 2
pence.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Diane Fields <picnic@...>
 
> 
> Hmmmmm----others say that its a long way off--LONG way.

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

There is a discussion here about the optimal pixel size under digital image
sensors:

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 09:36:29 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other
> way around
> 
> 
>  
>> Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
>> simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the
>> norm.
>> 
> 
> I doubt it.  Moore's law is based in large part of the economies of having
> smaller chips.  That gets more chips per wafer.  So, there will always be a
> major price difference between 1.6 and full frame.  As the noise levels
> decrease and resolutions increase, the need for the larger sensors will
> decrease also, making them, I suspect, a low volume specialty item.
> 
> I think 8 mp can already do weddings, etc.  Above that level, demand for
> portable, hand-holdable cameras seems to decrease dramatically.  For the
> view camera and other tripod-only markets we probably will have a
> Hasselblad-type camera with swings, tilts, etc.  However, from the DOF I've
> seen, I'm even wondering how much I'll ever use tilts, which used to be
> critical to me.  (I haven't even tried my Canon 45 TS lens on the XT yet.)
> 
> It would be interesting to hear a physicist's analysis of what the smallest
> pixel size works well.  Since light has a wave character, I suspect that at
> the small end of the scale the wave nature of light starts to interfere with
> the sensor's ability to absorb light.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by scott_now_coming

DOF will remain the same whether used on FF or a "cropped" sensor.

DOF is the result of lens design, focal length, yadda......, not 
sensor size.

The smaller sensor is just "cropping" the image.


Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Kobrin" 
<kobrins@w...> wrote:
> 
> Can I ask a dumb question. Is there any way to get the Canon FD 
> lenses to work with the Digital Rebel X?  I have a number of them 
and 
> some are really nice lenses.  A second dumb question:  do you 
compute 
> dof for the nominal focal length of a lens or its actual focal 
length 
> given the digital camera's sensor?  I assume it is the latter.
> 
> Steve
> 
> > In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over 
the 
> Canon 85
> > 1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.  
> > 
> > On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and 
> fast,
> > hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors.  For B&W, I don't find I use 
> macro
> > much.  I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide 
> angles when
> > I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective.  So, the wide 10 - 22 
> zoom with a
> > fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up 
with.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: scott_now_coming
>
> DOF will remain the same whether used on FF or a "cropped" sensor.
>
> DOF is the result of lens design, focal length, yadda......, not
> sensor size.
>
> The smaller sensor is just "cropping" the image.

Not true. If you crop the image, either as a result of a smaller sensor or
post processing, you inevitably wind up magnifying what's left, which also
magnifies the blurriness, and therefore reduces the apparent DOF. The DOF
only remains unchanged if you print a proportionally smaller image.

--

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

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Bob Frost

Anyone looked at the title of this thread lately?

Bob Frost.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other 
way around



Personally I would be wary of any 1.6x sensor dedicated lenses for the
simple fact that full frame sensors are very much likely to become the norm.

Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

Steve,

 
> There is a discussion here about the optimal pixel size under digital
> image sensors:
> 
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
> 

Yes, that site has a lot of good information.  However, I was wondering more
about what fundamental limits might exist on the technology.

I suspect that companies like Canon have looked at fundamental limits in
making their long term plans.  So, aside from the factors that affect one's
choice given today's technology, it would be interesting to see an analysis
of where a practical end point of sensor shrinkage is. 

Canon fabricates its own semiconductors, I believe.  As such they probably
are, in at least the fab division, up to their eyeballs in these problems.
I don't think any other camera manufacturer has a fab.

The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The semiconductor
industry has fought this battle for years, but they have been able to avoid
the limits imposed by the wave length of visible light by going to UV light
and even non-glass optics.  The camera manufacturers will not have these
options.  So, I'd guess this imposes a practical limit on how small a sensor
of a given resolution can be.

There is also what I think is referred to as "shot noise."  The particle
nature of light causes, among other things, the sensors to detect not a
smooth ramp of increasing exposure, but the steps caused by the quantum of
each photon hitting the sensor. The quantum nature of light appears to
result in significant problems, including noise, as the cell size decreases.
This in combination with optical diffraction, will probably put a lower
limit on the cell size.  Of course, it may be so small that it will have no
impact on any living photographer.

Probably a more practical current factor will simply be the economics of
making a full system of lenses and accessories for any particular sensor
size.  This will probably cause there to be discrete plateaus.  I would
guess Sigma and Tamron will follow Canon.  If they see Canon making specific
lenses for a sensor size, they may assume it will be a significant enough
standard to invest in making third party lenses.  Then again, Canon might
predatorily sucker the third party manufacturers into wasting lots of
development money on what turns out to be a very fleeting, "false" standard.
It would be fun to be a fly on the wall of the decision making bodies here.
I sense there is a lot of gaming that could be going on.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Paul,

>Using the "sweet spot" of the full frame lens is a double edged
>sword.  All else being equal, one gets more quality in a lens by 
>covering less area, especially at the wide end.

What I meant by "sweet spot" was an optimum aperture, not image
circle.  With the Pro-1 I can shoot a scene a f/5.6 where I'd use f/32
with the P67 for similar DOF.  Since the XT has a larger sensor the
increased DOF compared to MF will not be as dramatic as the Pro-1.  So
my question is whether you have found the increase enough to allow
shooting at a more optimum aperture (many are sharper at middle
apertures, less distortion, etc) for the lenses you're using.  And
also faster shutter as well (fewer blurry windblown things).

I'm asking because I look forward to moving to a larger sensor camera
someday, but have gotten terribly spoiled by the Pro-1's DOF (2/3
sensor).  I'm wondering what I'd be giving up.  When I was in DVNP in
January I used mostly f/5.6 and speeds were in the 1/400 to 1/600
range at ISO 50.  There were no DOF limitations, everything was tack
sharp and no blurry flora even though there was a good breeze.  It was
an absolute delight to work that way.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

Agreed.  The sense I get is that the equation is not just optimal pixel size
as a standalone but rather the mix of lens optics, sensor size, pixel size,
anti-aliasing filters and processing algorithms etc.  So the guys with
"control" over the whole system have a definite advantage.  I took the leap
to the 1DsMKII because I felt (I guess subjectively) that Canon was closing
in on the limits for 35mm in terms of their full frame current lens range
etc.  Not that I don't expect improvement in the near future but I do think
the quantum leaps have been achieved for the digitalisation of the current
system.   I suspect the S lens range is a stop gap until the economics of
the full sensor systems are such that they can be applied to the prosumer
and high end consumer models.

The really interesting question is what happens after the current 35mm optic
systems have been largely fully exploited.  Do we need a whole new set of
lenses to go to the next level?  I suspect that rather than this happening
we will see the 35mm kings starting into or merging with the 645 guys.  I
think we have only just began the path of digitalisation medium format and
would not invest in a digital back/645 digital camera today unless I had a
very clear income stream/business to pay it off in relatively short order.

Here's a question:  who buys/takes over the rights to Contax's 645 business
- if it indeed reincarnates at all.  Michael Reichman mentions Leaf and
Phase One.  What if it's Canon?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> Steve,

> Yes, that site has a lot of good information.  However, I was wondering more
> about what fundamental limits might exist on the technology.
> 
> I suspect that companies like Canon have looked at fundamental limits in
> making their long term plans.  So, aside from the factors that affect one's
> choice given today's technology, it would be interesting to see an analysis
> of where a practical end point of sensor shrinkage is.
> 
> Canon fabricates its own semiconductors, I believe.  As such they probably
> are, in at least the fab division, up to their eyeballs in these problems.
> I don't think any other camera manufacturer has a fab.
> 
> The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The semiconductor
> industry has fought this battle for years, but they have been able to avoid
> the limits imposed by the wave length of visible light by going to UV light
> and even non-glass optics.  The camera manufacturers will not have these
> options.  So, I'd guess this imposes a practical limit on how small a sensor
> of a given resolution can be.
> 
> There is also what I think is referred to as "shot noise."  The particle
> nature of light causes, among other things, the sensors to detect not a
> smooth ramp of increasing exposure, but the steps caused by the quantum of
> each photon hitting the sensor. The quantum nature of light appears to
> result in significant problems, including noise, as the cell size decreases.
> This in combination with optical diffraction, will probably put a lower
> limit on the cell size.  Of course, it may be so small that it will have no
> impact on any living photographer.
> 
> Probably a more practical current factor will simply be the economics of
> making a full system of lenses and accessories for any particular sensor
> size.  This will probably cause there to be discrete plateaus.  I would
> guess Sigma and Tamron will follow Canon.  If they see Canon making specific
> lenses for a sensor size, they may assume it will be a significant enough
> standard to invest in making third party lenses.  Then again, Canon might
> predatorily sucker the third party manufacturers into wasting lots of
> development money on what turns out to be a very fleeting, "false" standard.
> It would be fun to be a fly on the wall of the decision making bodies here.
> I sense there is a lot of gaming that could be going on.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Paul Roark
>
> I suspect that companies like Canon have looked at fundamental limits in
> making their long term plans.  So, aside from the factors that
> affect one's
> choice given today's technology, it would be interesting to see
> an analysis of where a practical end point of sensor shrinkage is.
>
> Canon fabricates its own semiconductors, I believe.  As such they probably
> are, in at least the fab division, up to their eyeballs in these problems.
> I don't think any other camera manufacturer has a fab.
>
> The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The semiconductor
> industry has fought this battle for years, but they have been
> able to avoid
> the limits imposed by the wave length of visible light by going
> to UV light
> and even non-glass optics.  The camera manufacturers will not have these
> options.  So, I'd guess this imposes a practical limit on how
> small a sensor
> of a given resolution can be.
>
> There is also what I think is referred to as "shot noise."  The particle
> nature of light causes, among other things, the sensors to detect not a
> smooth ramp of increasing exposure, but the steps caused by the quantum of
> each photon hitting the sensor. The quantum nature of light appears to
> result in significant problems, including noise, as the cell size
> decreases.
> This in combination with optical diffraction, will probably put a lower
> limit on the cell size.  Of course, it may be so small that it
> will have no
> impact on any living photographer.

The thing that limits how small the pixels in a CCD or CMOS sensor can get
is not some hard technological limit, but simply how much noise is
considered tolerable. Point and shoot digicams already have much, much
smaller pixels than DSLRs, which is why they're so noisy. So there's really
nothing to prevent Canon from making, say, a 50 megapixel full frame sensor,
except that people wouldn't be happy with the result. It would be as noisy
as a Digital Elph, and of course slow, and not worth the 20 or 30 megabytes
of storage required for each image.

As to fabs, Kodak and Sony also make chips.

> Probably a more practical current factor will simply be the economics of
> making a full system of lenses and accessories for any particular sensor
> size.  This will probably cause there to be discrete plateaus.  I would
> guess Sigma and Tamron will follow Canon.  If they see Canon
> making specific
> lenses for a sensor size, they may assume it will be a significant enough
> standard to invest in making third party lenses.  Then again, Canon might
> predatorily sucker the third party manufacturers into wasting lots of
> development money on what turns out to be a very fleeting,
> "false" standard.
> It would be fun to be a fly on the wall of the decision making
> bodies here.
> I sense there is a lot of gaming that could be going on.

I'm suspicious of Canon's EF-S "standard", and am sticking to regular EF
lenses for now, on the chance that I can someday afford a 24x36mm sensor.
However, I have some hopes for the 4/3 format, as used in the Oly DSLRs,
because that takes the smaller sensor, puts it in a smaller body, and
attaches a series of smaller lenses. That makes sense to me.

I suspect 24x36mm really isn't the optimum size for a digital sensor, due to
yield issues, but there's still some room to improve the light capturing
ability and noise performance of smaller sensors. Right off the bat, all
sensors except the Foveon throw away more than 2/3 of the light in the
filters, so there's room for about a 10db improvement in S/N right there.

--

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Tom Baker

Clayton  -
 
DOF is not a sensor size issue.  It's a lens issue.  If you used the same lens that's on your Pro-1 on your 6x7 you'd get the same depth of field.  You wouldn't have much of a useful image, but it'd be sharp.  You can find the DOF tables in various places.  So, if you are looking a APS sensor, or full frame 35 size, you can get the answers on the charts.  Or, if it's the 35mm size sensor that interest you, just get out the old 35 and look at the DOF scales on the lenses you'd likely use.
 
None of this negates the good things a tripod can provide, even for the small sensos.
 
Tom Baker


Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:


Paul,

>Using the "sweet spot" of the full frame lens is a double edged
>sword. All else being equal, one gets more quality in a lens by 
>covering less area, especially at the wide end.

What I meant by "sweet spot" was an optimum aperture, not image
circle. With the Pro-1 I can shoot a scene a f/5.6 where I'd use f/32
with the P67 for similar DOF. Since the XT has a larger sensor the
increased DOF compared to MF will not be as dramatic as the Pro-1. So
my question is whether you have found the increase enough to allow
shooting at a more optimum aperture (many are sharper at middle
apertures, less distortion, etc) for the lenses you're using. And
also faster shutter as well (fewer blurry windblown things).

I'm asking because I look forward to moving to a larger sensor camera
someday, but have gotten terribly spoiled by the Pro-1's DOF (2/3
sensor). I'm wondering what I'd be giving up. When I was in DVNP in
January I used mostly f/5.6 and speeds were in the 1/400 to 1/600
range at ISO 50. There were no DOF limitations, everything was tack
sharp and no blurry flora even though there was a good breeze. It was
an absolute delight to work that way.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at 
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm






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









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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Seth

Clayton-

I think optimum aperature has taken on a whole new meaning in regards to
DIT.

With film all the "testers" used to argue the best f/ stop that gave the
most central resolution while being the best to the edges.  It was
comparative for that lens production.

With a partial frame sensor it has shifted.  IOW what may have been a great
lens for overall best quality may have a new "best."  Remember how some
lenses had much better center resolution but went crazy toward the edges?
Now that may be the best f/ stop.  With the sensor only looking at the
better portion to begin with the testing starts over.  Two to three stops
open from the samllest aperature is probably still a pretty good guide
absent other data.

However, the camera companies coming out with the "digital" lenses are
re-opening the problem since these only cover the sensor.  And, a switch to
a different size (larger) sensor may very well render them useless.  Even
with the the new lenses they refer to their focal length by film standards.

As fewer and and fewer people become "film smart" (if they ever were!) this
will lead to confusion.

Seth

 

==-----Original Message-----

==Behalf Of Clayton Jones
==>Using the "sweet spot" of the full frame lens is a double 
==edged sword.  
==>All else being equal, one gets more quality in a lens by 
==covering less 
==>area, especially at the wide end.
==
==What I meant by "sweet spot" was an optimum aperture, not 
==image circle.  With the Pro-1 I can shoot a scene a f/5.6 
==where I'd use f/32 with the P67 for similar DOF.  Since the 
==XT has a larger sensor the increased DOF compared to MF will 
==not be as dramatic as the Pro-1.  So my question is whether 
==you have found the increase enough to allow shooting at a 
==more optimum aperture (many are sharper at middle apertures, 
==less distortion, etc) for the lenses you're using.  And also 
==faster shutter as well (fewer blurry windblown things).
==
==I'm asking because I look forward to moving to a larger 
==sensor camera someday, but have gotten terribly spoiled by 
==the Pro-1's DOF (2/3 sensor).  I'm wondering what I'd be 
==giving up.  When I was in DVNP in January I used mostly f/5.6

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Paul Roark

This article does a good job of dealing with the issues of pixel size that I
had in mind:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_02/essay.html .

But, it does not suggest any specific limit.

The article does note that at 125 lp/mm, a 4 micron pixel is enough.  The
Canon 20D and XT/350D sensors use 6.4 micron pixels.  This suggests an 80
lp/mm limit.

In my lens testing with film cameras, hitting 80 lp/mm was very good, and
what I expected of a good lens on film.  True, I was able to see over 100 on
film in some cases, but it was inconsistent.  With a grain focuser, I was
often able to see over 300 lp/mm in the aerial image, but the low contrast
of the fine detail was apparently such that the film and paper could not
record it.  I suspect this low contrast was caused by the diffraction of the
light and would not be avoided by better lenses.   

Hitting 80 lp/mm even with Tech Pan was, as a practical matter, what I
expected of a good lens in terms of on-film resolution.  Actually, 50 lp/mm
was a more realistic target for the field, where focusing errors, DOF, etc.
played a major role.  If this holds true with digital, then progress may be
more along the lines of dynamic range and other issues than increasing pixel
count.  If that is the case, we may not be far from stable image sensor
sizes for serious shooters.  (And tiny sensors in cell phones for snapshots
may dominate the low end.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
> Roark
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 10:36 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> 
> > There is a discussion here about the optimal pixel size under digital
> > image sensors:
> >
> > http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF7.html
> >
> 
> Yes, that site has a lot of good information.  However, I was wondering
> more
> about what fundamental limits might exist on the technology.
> 
> I suspect that companies like Canon have looked at fundamental limits in
> making their long term plans.  So, aside from the factors that affect
> one's
> choice given today's technology, it would be interesting to see an
> analysis
> of where a practical end point of sensor shrinkage is.
> 
> Canon fabricates its own semiconductors, I believe.  As such they probably
> are, in at least the fab division, up to their eyeballs in these problems.
> I don't think any other camera manufacturer has a fab.
> 
> The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The semiconductor
> industry has fought this battle for years, but they have been able to
> avoid
> the limits imposed by the wave length of visible light by going to UV
> light
> and even non-glass optics.  The camera manufacturers will not have these
> options.  So, I'd guess this imposes a practical limit on how small a
> sensor
> of a given resolution can be.
> 
> There is also what I think is referred to as "shot noise."  The particle
> nature of light causes, among other things, the sensors to detect not a
> smooth ramp of increasing exposure, but the steps caused by the quantum of
> each photon hitting the sensor. The quantum nature of light appears to
> result in significant problems, including noise, as the cell size
> decreases.
> This in combination with optical diffraction, will probably put a lower
> limit on the cell size.  Of course, it may be so small that it will have
> no
> impact on any living photographer.
> 
> Probably a more practical current factor will simply be the economics of
> making a full system of lenses and accessories for any particular sensor
> size.  This will probably cause there to be discrete plateaus.  I would
> guess Sigma and Tamron will follow Canon.  If they see Canon making
> specific
> lenses for a sensor size, they may assume it will be a significant enough
> standard to invest in making third party lenses.  Then again, Canon might
> predatorily sucker the third party manufacturers into wasting lots of
> development money on what turns out to be a very fleeting, "false"
> standard.
> It would be fun to be a fly on the wall of the decision making bodies
> here.
> I sense there is a lot of gaming that could be going on.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

I should caveat the below with the fact that I do think Foveon style chips
represent a huge opportunity within the current 35mm format.  The question
is whether the Canon/Nikon guys are prepared pay for such a re-engineering
of their chip design and whether it can be cost effectively produced - or
whether a theoretically better design technology simply fails to get the
traction it deserves and ultimately dies.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:19:59 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)
> 
> 
> Agreed.  The sense I get is that the equation is not just optimal pixel size
> as a standalone but rather the mix of lens optics, sensor size, pixel size,
> anti-aliasing filters and processing algorithms etc.  So the guys with
> "control" over the whole system have a definite advantage.  I took the leap
> to the 1DsMKII because I felt (I guess subjectively) that Canon was closing
> in on the limits for 35mm in terms of their full frame current lens range
> etc.  Not that I don't expect improvement in the near future but I do think
> the quantum leaps have been achieved for the digitalisation of the current
> system.   I suspect the S lens range is a stop gap until the economics of
> the full sensor systems are such that they can be applied to the prosumer
> and high end consumer models.
> 
> The really interesting question is what happens after the current 35mm optic
> systems have been largely fully exploited.  Do we need a whole new set of
> lenses to go to the next level?  I suspect that rather than this happening
> we will see the 35mm kings starting into or merging with the 645 guys.  I
> think we have only just began the path of digitalisation medium format and
> would not invest in a digital back/645 digital camera today unless I had a
> very clear income stream/business to pay it off in relatively short order.
> 
> Here's a question:  who buys/takes over the rights to Contax's 645 business
> - if it indeed reincarnates at all.  Michael Reichman mentions Leaf and
> Phase One.  What if it's Canon?

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Seth

And Paul brings up another issue of film lenses vs. new "digital" lenses.

Although the effect is more pronounced on color films, B&W are thick enough
with silver to live with film lenses or digital lenses.

With color there are issues.  Color film has three layers (actually four but
one is only a UV filter), each with silver. Blue on top, green in the middle
and red on the bottom.  However thin these may be the light needs to focus
on different layers.  Film lenses are more or less --depending on quality--
tweaked for the process, among other things.

The sensor has different sensors next to each other so they need the light
on one plane.  Part of this phenomena is what causes color fringing with
certain subjects, lighting, etc.

This IS an over simplification in an effort to help those not as film savvy
as others.

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==> From: Paul Roark
==>

==>
==> The diffraction limit of light is one obvious problem.  The 
==> semiconductor industry has fought this battle for years, 
==but they have 
==> been able to avoid the limits imposed by the wave length of visible 
==> light by going to UV light and even non-glass optics.  The camera 
==> manufacturers will not have these options.  So, I'd guess 
==this imposes 
==> a practical limit on how small a sensor of a given 
==resolution can be.
==>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Seth

Clayton-

DOF has nothing to do with sensor size.  A 200mm lens on a full frame has a
given DOF.  If you put it on a sensor with a 1.5 factor it now has a 300mm
EFFECTIVE focal length.  It still is a 200mm lens and maintains THAT DOF.
Just ONE of the advantages of using a smaller sensor --if everything else is
equal.  Since it also has the SAME f/stop you gain that.  No need to use an
extender or a longer, heavier lens.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==
==I'm asking because I look forward to moving to a larger 
==sensor camera someday, but have gotten terribly spoiled by 
==the Pro-1's DOF (2/3 sensor). I'm wondering what I'd be 
==giving up. When I was in DVNP in January I used mostly f/5.6 
==and speeds were in the 1/400 to 1/600 range at ISO 50. There 
==were no DOF limitations, everything was tack sharp and no 
==blurry flora even though there was a good breeze. It was an 
==absolute delight to work that way.

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Tom,

> DOF is not a sensor size issue.  It's a lens issue....

I was afraid after I sent the msg that someone would come back with
this.  Sigh. I thought it was a given and didn't need to be stated,
that with smaller sensors we use shorter focal lengths for the same
effects.  My favorite lens in 6x7 was 135mm. That's about 65mm in 35
and about 15mm with the Pro-1.   It's not a linear translation
however, since, as Paul has already mentioned, that the circle of
confusion factor changes as well.  

The pro-1 lens has limitations, as do all lenses.  I've found that
it's optimum aperture, in terms of overall sharpness, corner
sharpness, lack of vignetting, etc., is around f/4.5 to 5.6  (its
range is 2.4 to 8.0).  I have also found that at f/5.6 I get greater
DOF at 15mm than I got with the 135mm/P67 at f/32, and I'm at optimum
aperture with much faster speeds.  It's wonderful.

Since I don't know the COC factor for Paul's lenses, my question to
him was not theoretical, but practical: what has been his experience
with this so far?  I hope this clarifies it.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Seth,

>I think optimum aperature has taken on a whole new meaning in 
>regards to DIT.....

Yes, of course, but as I explained to Tom, my question to Paul was not
theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
far.  Please let's not take this thread where it was not intended to
go.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Scott McLoughlin

I recently got a 12-24 for my D70 and so far, it's a hoot to shoot, even
though it's my first zoom and I'm not so used to the "zoom to frame" thing.
My D70 bag has the 12-24, the 45/2.8P and an 85/1.8. A 35/2 will fit in
there too if I have a jones for a ~50mm equiv. It's a new "kit", but it's
done the trick for a few outings.

Scott

Paul Roark wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Ernst,
>
> >
> >
> > The new Canon EF-S 60 mm 2.8 macro must be a nice replacement for the
> > Tamron 90 mm...
>
> In my old Canon FD days, the Tamron 90 was my favorite -- over the 
> Canon 85
> 1.2L and 1.8, both of which I had.
>
> On the other hand, a Canon 1.4 50mm will make a nice portrait and fast,
> hand-held lens for the 1.6x sensors. For B&W, I don't find I use macro
> much. I actually find the closest I usually get is with wide angles when
> I'm doing a high DOF shot for perspective. So, the wide 10 - 22 zoom 
> with a
> fast medium telephoto (e.g., 50 1.4) might be what I'll end up with.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
> 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*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Seth,

> DOF has nothing to do with sensor size.  


Sigh.  Double sigh.  Triple sigh.  Please see my reply to Tom.

Pu-leeze folks, don't be literalists. Read the message, think at least
for a few nanoseconds, and understand the meaning, before firing off a
reply that misses the point.  Paul has been talking about increased
DOF with the XT for several days.  How come you haven't jumped on him
about this?  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>


> If this holds true with digital, then progress may be
> more along the lines of dynamic range and other issues than increasing pixel
> count.  

But doesn't greater dynamic range require, all else being equal, a larger
pixel?

> If that is the case, we may not be far from stable image sensor
> sizes for serious shooters.

> (And tiny sensors in cell phones for snapshots
> may dominate the low end.)
> 

Check this out:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0504/05042702nokia_n90.asp

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

Steve,

>But doesn't greater dynamic range require, all else being equal, a 
>larger pixel?

No, it doesn't.  That's what everyone assumed up until this year's
digicams hit the market.  The canon G6 has 7mp on a 1/8 chip, and has
lower noise and greater dynamic range than the G5 with 5mp on the same
size chip (it actually has lower noise and DR than my pro-1 with 8mp
on a 2/3 chip-it's amazing).  That was the crux of Michael Johnston's
column on the subject on the Lum. Lndscp web site awhile back, where
he put forth convincing reasons for full frame sensors not becoming
the standard.   Everything is trending smaller, not bigger.  They keep
improving on it and nobody knows what the limits are yet.  All the old
wisdom is up for grabs right now.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Ernst Dinkla

Steve Kale wrote:

>I should caveat the below with the fact that I do think Foveon style chips
>represent a huge opportunity within the current 35mm format.  The question
>is whether the Canon/Nikon guys are prepared pay for such a re-engineering
>of their chip design and whether it can be cost effectively produced - or
>whether a theoretically better design technology simply fails to get the
>traction it deserves and ultimately dies.
>
>
>  
>
So far the Bayer type chips make faster progress in resolution than the 
Foveon type. Compared to one another the Bayer sensor needs 2x the 
sensor count to stay equal to the Foveon quality. That's what the 
DPreview tests show. The DSLRs with Bayer chips are now at 12, 14, 16.7 
MP, there's no 6 MP Foveon DSLR announced as far as I know.  The 
Polaroid compacts with a Foveon chip are having problems. All in all not 
a good start.

Ernst

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Diane Fields

I tend to agree--but what do I know LOL??!?  I do follow this pretty closely though.  

And--I'm going to do something I said I wasn't--going to buy a 20D for now, relegate my 10D to backup and give my D60 to my husband (and find a 'donor' for the still nice D30).  The 1DsMkII is way out of my ballpark--and I'm not even going to consider that it will be affordable in the anywhere near future.  Besides, I'd rather put that money towards an Epson 4000.  I've missed the boat on selling my previous body several times to get the maximum for it because I've always needed the camera for my soon to come parttime commercial shoots.  This time--I have the 10D which is still a lovely camera and will sell it or the 20D just as soon as I learn a bit about the next generation.  In the meantime I plan to buy the 10-22 and give up my bias against EF-S lenses because I DO think that Canon is rethinking its gameplan for size, sensor size.  

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Jones 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)



  Steve,

  >But doesn't greater dynamic range require, all else being equal, a 
  >larger pixel?

  No, it doesn't.  That's what everyone assumed up until this year's
  digicams hit the market.  The canon G6 has 7mp on a 1/8 chip, and has
  lower noise and greater dynamic range than the G5 with 5mp on the same
  size chip (it actually has lower noise and DR than my pro-1 with 8mp
  on a 2/3 chip-it's amazing).  That was the crux of Michael Johnston's
  column on the subject on the Lum. Lndscp web site awhile back, where
  he put forth convincing reasons for full frame sensors not becoming
  the standard.   Everything is trending smaller, not bigger.  They keep
  improving on it and nobody knows what the limits are yet.  All the old
  wisdom is up for grabs right now.

  Regards,
  Clayton



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

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

Note my "all else being equal".  I thought this was a key issue behind the
PhaseOne backs being able to deliver 12 f-stops of dynamic range.  A larger
pixel can for a given exposure to light capture more information.  What am I
missing?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> But doesn't greater dynamic range require, all else being equal, a
>> larger pixel?
> 
> No, it doesn't.  That's what everyone assumed up until this year's
> digicams hit the market.  The canon G6 has 7mp on a 1/8 chip, and has
> lower noise and greater dynamic range than the G5 with 5mp on the same
> size chip (it actually has lower noise and DR than my pro-1 with 8mp
> on a 2/3 chip-it's amazing).  That was the crux of Michael Johnston's
> column on the subject on the Lum. Lndscp web site awhile back, where
> he put forth convincing reasons for full frame sensors not becoming
> the standard.   Everything is trending smaller, not bigger.  They keep
> improving on it and nobody knows what the limits are yet.  All the old
> wisdom is up for grabs right now.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

Other than the greater bit depth of the A-D converter...

All else being equal: Larger pixel = greater signal to noise ratio and when
coupled with greater bit depth => greater dynamic range
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> 
> 
> Note my "all else being equal".  I thought this was a key issue behind the
> PhaseOne backs being able to deliver 12 f-stops of dynamic range.  A larger
> pixel can for a given exposure to light capture more information.  What am I
> missing?
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Clayton Jones

>What am I missing?

Gee, how did I know you would come back with that one?  You may now
pontificate for the next 14 pages.  Get ready everyone.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Mark Rabiner

I think they may be different standards for different markets.
If the amateur market is heavy into making letter sized inkjets on ok paper
than the noise and other aspects of image quality will have to be good
enough to support that.  If they instead opt for where they were doing
before: 4x6¹s. But on various output printing machines now. Then the specs
would only be very low.  And further miniaturization will come faster.
With 110 and Disk film in the 70¹s with the fake silver scare and realized
how far is too far. Output quality wise.

Pro¹s and serious amateurs will have higher standards of course and will
need to stick around larger sensor sizes longer.
Lets not forget as far as noise goes those third party software options are
part of the given workflow for lots of more serious workers.
Not that I¹ve needed them with my D100 and the scans from my Nikon 5000.

My eye is on the results I need to produce 13x19s on the Epson Velvet paper.

I think I¹m ok with the APS-c size chip and can even do this at 6 megapixels
with my D100 but am on the outer limits with this.
Which is better than being in the Twilight zone.

When I want better quality I go from scans from film but I have no leeway in
the lesser direction.

13x19s on the Epson Velvet paper from my Leica Panasonic Digilux one are
just past the threshold of what I like to get.  I avoid going there. But
will in a pinch.

Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

Huh? I asked a question - I was not endeavouring to answer one.  Take a
chill pill - or two, or ten...  :-)
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
 
> 
> 
>> What am I missing?
> 
> Gee, how did I know you would come back with that one?  You may now
> pontificate for the next 14 pages.  Get ready everyone.
>

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Paul D. DeRocco

> From: Clayton Jones
>
> No, it doesn't.  That's what everyone assumed up until this year's
> digicams hit the market.  The canon G6 has 7mp on a 1/8 chip, and has
> lower noise and greater dynamic range than the G5 with 5mp on the same
> size chip (it actually has lower noise and DR than my pro-1 with 8mp
> on a 2/3 chip-it's amazing).  That was the crux of Michael Johnston's
> column on the subject on the Lum. Lndscp web site awhile back, where
> he put forth convincing reasons for full frame sensors not becoming
> the standard.   Everything is trending smaller, not bigger.  They keep
> improving on it and nobody knows what the limits are yet.  All the old
> wisdom is up for grabs right now.

But that's been true all along. Semiconductor design advances, as well as
signal processing advances, have always decreased the noise levels for a
given pixel size. But it still remains true that for a given technology
making the pixels smaller increases the noise, so there's always a tradeoff
between pixel count and noise level.

Also, there is a theoretical limit, which is that ultimately light is a
"digital" phenomenon: it's made of photons. In daylight conditions, there is
such a torrent of them that they behave like an analog signal, but anyone
who's played with astrophotography knows that at very low light levels,
there is an intrinsic noisiness to the light itself, since it consists of a
stream of photons arriving at a certain average but irregular rate. Some
labratory sensors achieve something like 90% photon conversion efficiency,
which means that they've essentially reached the theoretical limit; the
remaining 10% would have no visible effect. They're still quite a ways away
from doing that in a CCD or CMOS sensor, though.

--

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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras [was www.OpenRAW.org needs

2005-04-27 by Ernst Dinkla

Seth wrote:

>Clayton-
>
>DOF has nothing to do with sensor size.  A 200mm lens on a full frame has a
>given DOF.  If you put it on a sensor with a 1.5 factor it now has a 300mm
>EFFECTIVE focal length.  It still is a 200mm lens and maintains THAT DOF.
>Just ONE of the advantages of using a smaller sensor --if everything else is
>equal.  Since it also has the SAME f/stop you gain that.  No need to use an
>extender or a longer, heavier lens.
>
>Seth 
>
>  
>
DOF is an arbitrary rule. If one wants to compare optical systems there 
has to be a common size for the image produced with the systems. That 
can be a a final print of say 20 x 15 inch. Based on the quality in that 
print size you could define the DOF for the optical systems, whether 
that is a Pentax 67 II or an Olympus C8080. You don't measure DOF on the 
sensor or on the lens without counting to which degree the picture has 
to be enlarged and can be enlarged. Your 1.5 factor sensor needs a 1.5 
factor to produce the same size print again. It depends on the pixel 
count and lens quality whether that gives the same quality. If the angle 
of the lens has to be equal, the focal length has to get shorter, with 
the same glass diameter it could become a faster lens for that smaller 
image and DOF would be equal to the larger sensor + longer and slower lens.

Enjoying the DOF of today's digital compacts is overlooking the fact 
that the optics are quite slow for their focal length, but that is also 
why they can produce such high zoom factors if compared to 35 mm lenses. 
A true portrait lens on a Canon Pro1 should be an 0.5 or something like 
that and DOF would be much more like what we are used to. Whether the AF 
in compacts can cope with that is another matter.

A friend inherited an Ernostar 125 mm 1.8 that was used on an Ermanox 
with 6.5 x 9 cm film. A camera like Erich Salomon used before his Leica. 
The lens the Sonnar is based on. My friend's uncle used that lens with a 
custom adaptor on a Mamiya 645. On the web I discovered that David 
Burnett bought the same lens not so long ago to use it on a Speed 
Graphic with some vignetting. One could argue that the DOF should be the 
same on both cameras but only when the print from the Mamiya is 2.5 
times smaller in size.  The equivalent lens on a Canon Pro 1 would be an 
8.6 mm lens with an 0.12 aperture (if that is possible).

Ernst

Re: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-27 by Steve Kale

And as a more direct response, Michael's arguments were in relation to
changing the whole "format" or "system" specs - specifically, if we have
smaller sensors then lenses can get smaller, lighter and cheaper.  His
arguments were not made within the context of today's "35mm format".
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>


>  That was the crux of Michael Johnston's
> column on the subject on the Lum. Lndscp web site awhile back, where
> he put forth convincing reasons for full frame sensors not becoming
> the standard.

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-27 by Bjorn Helgaas

On Tuesday 26 April 2005 7:35 am, Peter Marshall wrote:
> Why Nikon did this is a very good question, but as the SDK provides the 
> answer to how to handle it, and there is nothing now to stop third-party 
> developers producing software that works with these files as well or 
> better than Nikon's own software.

The SDK is not a real solution.  It's "good enough" for many
people for now, which keeps people from worrying about the big
problems down the road.

For one thing, the SDK is only available to "bona fide developers",
whatever that means.  Innovators like the folks in this forum who
tinker with QTR probably don't qualify.  These folks have managed
to produce better prints from an Epson printer than Epson can.
It's quite likely that someone can do a better D2X raw conversion
than Nikon can.

Another problem is that the SDK only works on the operating
systems Nikon decides to support.  So it doesn't work on Linux,
for example.

And even on Windows, the SDK may drop support for the D2X in a
few years.  Then, if you want to keep using your D2X, you'll have
to also maintain a computer running the last supported version.
Imagine trying to maintain MSDOS on an old PC just so you can
run VisiCalc.

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Paul Roark

Clayton,


> ... my question to Paul was not
> theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
> far.  


I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom that
comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but very good)
lens.  In the lab, the resolution tests made it appear the zoom was about as
good as the 50mm.  In actual photos today, the 50mm looked significantly
better.  The 50mm was very good at f4 and excellent from f5.6 on.  The zoom
could only match the 50mm at the center at f11.  

The real problem with the zoom was at the edges, especially in the dark
greenery.  The best the zoom could do at the edges was not as good as the
50mm at f2.8. I'm not sure why it looked so much worse in the field than
lab.  I suspect higher flare contributed to wiped out the shadow details.

So, I've made a full circle on the lenses.  I'm back to wishing my 24mm
Sigma worked.  I may buy a 24 Canon, and use it and my 50mm.  It doesn't
look like using the cheap zoom is going to be a fair test of what an 8 mp
camera can do.  I would not consider a cheap zoom for my film use, so why
should digital be any different?  (I'm not totally anti zoom.  My 50 - 200 L
and Fuji Zi zooms are outstanding.  I'm not, however, ready to drop $800 for
the 10 - 22 until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
satisfy me.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Carl Schofield

Paul,

Have you tried using your 50 or 85 on the Rebel XT to shoot a matrix of 
overlapping shots for stitching?  You can get quite a gain in effective 
resolution for making large prints.

Carl
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 27, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

>
>
> Clayton,
>
>
>> ... my question to Paul was not
>> theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
>> far.
>
>
> I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom 
> that
> comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but very 
> good)
> lens.  In the lab, the resolution tests made it appear the zoom was 
> about as
> good as the 50mm.  In actual photos today, the 50mm looked 
> significantly
> better.  The 50mm was very good at f4 and excellent from f5.6 on.  The 
> zoom
> could only match the 50mm at the center at f11.
>
> The real problem with the zoom was at the edges, especially in the dark
> greenery.  The best the zoom could do at the edges was not as good as 
> the
> 50mm at f2.8. I'm not sure why it looked so much worse in the field 
> than
> lab.  I suspect higher flare contributed to wiped out the shadow 
> details.
>
> So, I've made a full circle on the lenses.  I'm back to wishing my 24mm
> Sigma worked.  I may buy a 24 Canon, and use it and my 50mm.  It 
> doesn't
> look like using the cheap zoom is going to be a fair test of what an 8 
> mp
> camera can do.  I would not consider a cheap zoom for my film use, so 
> why
> should digital be any different?  (I'm not totally anti zoom.  My 50 - 
> 200 L
> and Fuji Zi zooms are outstanding.  I'm not, however, ready to drop 
> $800 for
> the 10 - 22 until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
> satisfy me.)
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Paul Roark

Carl,

I have not done any stitching with the XT images yet.  I've done it with
film scans, however.  I know it works, but it is work also.  Ideally, I'd
like to have all the information in a single frame.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carl
> Schofield
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 5:02 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras
> 
> 
> Paul,
> 
> Have you tried using your 50 or 85 on the Rebel XT to shoot a matrix of
> overlapping shots for stitching?  You can get quite a gain in effective
> resolution for making large prints.
> 
> Carl
> 
> On Apr 27, 2005, at 8:30 PM, Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > Clayton,
> >
> >
> >> ... my question to Paul was not
> >> theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
> >> far.
> >
> >
> > I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom
> > that
> > comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but very
> > good)
> > lens.  In the lab, the resolution tests made it appear the zoom was
> > about as
> > good as the 50mm.  In actual photos today, the 50mm looked
> > significantly
> > better.  The 50mm was very good at f4 and excellent from f5.6 on.  The
> > zoom
> > could only match the 50mm at the center at f11.
> >
> > The real problem with the zoom was at the edges, especially in the dark
> > greenery.  The best the zoom could do at the edges was not as good as
> > the
> > 50mm at f2.8. I'm not sure why it looked so much worse in the field
> > than
> > lab.  I suspect higher flare contributed to wiped out the shadow
> > details.
> >
> > So, I've made a full circle on the lenses.  I'm back to wishing my 24mm
> > Sigma worked.  I may buy a 24 Canon, and use it and my 50mm.  It
> > doesn't
> > look like using the cheap zoom is going to be a fair test of what an 8
> > mp
> > camera can do.  I would not consider a cheap zoom for my film use, so
> > why
> > should digital be any different?  (I'm not totally anti zoom.  My 50 -
> > 200 L
> > and Fuji Zi zooms are outstanding.  I'm not, however, ready to drop
> > $800 for
> > the 10 - 22 until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
> > satisfy me.)
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Clayton Jones

Paul,

>I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom 
>that comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but 
>very good) lens...

Thanks, this is a valuable report.  I've been wondering if that lens
was any good.



>until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
>satisfy me.

What is your impression of the "look" of the BW images you're getting
(especially regarding spectral response difference to Tech Pan)?


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-28 by Seth

Why not split the difference and get the 1D Mk II?  Then you're dealing with
only a 1.3 factor and have all the quality of the pro stuff.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----

==Behalf Of Diane Fields
==
==And--I'm going to do something I said I wasn't--going to buy 
==a 20D for now, relegate my 10D to backup and give my D60 to 
==my husband (and find a 'donor' for the still nice D30).  The 
==1DsMkII is way out of my ballpark--and I'm not even going to 
==consider that it will be affordable in the anywhere near

RE: [Digital BW] Optimum sensor size (was www.OpenRAW.org ...)

2005-04-28 by guy washburn

The 20D has better image quality than the 1DmII at
less than 1/2 the price. If you don't need the EOS1
speed, toughness, seals, firewire connectivity etc.
the 20D and a card reader is a more cost effective
choice.
Guy
--- Seth <seth@...> wrote:
> Why not split the difference and get the 1D Mk II? 
> Then you're dealing with
> only a 1.3 factor and have all the quality of the
> pro stuff.
> 
> Seth 
> 
> ==-----Original Message-----
> 
> ==Behalf Of Diane Fields
> ==
> ==And--I'm going to do something I said I
> wasn't--going to buy 
> ==a 20D for now, relegate my 10D to backup and give
> my D60 to 
> ==my husband (and find a 'donor' for the still nice
> D30).  The 
> ==1DsMkII is way out of my ballpark--and I'm not
> even going to 
> ==consider that it will be affordable in the
> anywhere near 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Alan Zimmerman

For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on my Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using  the 1760 at 16x24 print size.
Alan Zimmerman
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 7:30 PM
  Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras



  Clayton,


  > ... my question to Paul was not
  > theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
  > far.  


  I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom that
  comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but very good)
  lens.  In the lab, the resolution tests made it appear the zoom was about as
  good as the 50mm.  In actual photos today, the 50mm looked significantly
  better.  The 50mm was very good at f4 and excellent from f5.6 on.  The zoom
  could only match the 50mm at the center at f11.  

  The real problem with the zoom was at the edges, especially in the dark
  greenery.  The best the zoom could do at the edges was not as good as the
  50mm at f2.8. I'm not sure why it looked so much worse in the field than
  lab.  I suspect higher flare contributed to wiped out the shadow details.

  So, I've made a full circle on the lenses.  I'm back to wishing my 24mm
  Sigma worked.  I may buy a 24 Canon, and use it and my 50mm.  It doesn't
  look like using the cheap zoom is going to be a fair test of what an 8 mp
  camera can do.  I would not consider a cheap zoom for my film use, so why
  should digital be any different?  (I'm not totally anti zoom.  My 50 - 200 L
  and Fuji Zi zooms are outstanding.  I'm not, however, ready to drop $800 for
  the 10 - 22 until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
  satisfy me.)

  Paul
  www.PaulRoark.com 





  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

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Diane Fields

Alan, I'd love to hear more as you use it.  I've just ordered it and I print 13 x 19 and 11 x 17s on the 2200.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alan Zimmerman 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:01 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras


  For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on my Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using  the 1760 at 16x24 print size.
  Alan Zimmerman
    ----- Original Message ----- 


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

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Paul Roark

Alan,

> For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on my
> Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no
> resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using  the
> 1760 at 16x24 print size.

Do you by chance have the 24mm EF for comparison?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Steve Kale

Paul

Have you ever used Imatest?

http://www.imatest.com/

It all seems quite techie and some work but then arguably produces a
quantifiable result...I note that the cost isn't too high (PC only I'm
afraid) and you can demo it up to 20 measurements.

Steve
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> Alan,
> 
>> For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on my
>> Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no
>> resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using  the
>> 1760 at 16x24 print size.
> 
> Do you by chance have the 24mm EF for comparison?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

RE: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Paul Roark

Steve,

No, I have not used Imatest.  If it really can produce MTF results, that
would be interesting.

I have used traditional line-pairs-per-mm charts for years.  That in
combination with some other targets has produced very useable results for
me.  On the other hand, my traditional approach may not be very good at
evaluating differing responses to high-flare targets, and that may be what
my real-world shooting is showing there to be.  Of course, I had assumed
that I'd use auto bracketing for serious shooting, and it's way too early to
evaluate how I'll feel after working up a real shots in B&W. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Steve
> Kale
> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:48 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras
> 
> Paul
> 
> Have you ever used Imatest?
> 
> http://www.imatest.com/
> 
> It all seems quite techie and some work but then arguably produces a
> quantifiable result...I note that the cost isn't too high (PC only I'm
> afraid) and you can demo it up to 20 measurements.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> 
> >
> > Alan,
> >
> >> For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on
> my
> >> Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no
> >> resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using
> the
> >> 1760 at 16x24 print size.
> >
> > Do you by chance have the 24mm EF for comparison?
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Alan Zimmerman

My only comparisons so far are with a 20mm canonFD used on my old filmbased T-90. This was one of my favorite architectural and certain landscape lenses. Without having shot the same scenes with the same print size, my conclusion so far is, they are very comparable. Obviously, the wider focal length settings on the ES require very careful framing to avoid outer edge distortion, (as is required with all but TS types).
Alan
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Diane Fields 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 10:30 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras


  Alan, I'd love to hear more as you use it.  I've just ordered it and I print 13 x 19 and 11 x 17s on the 2200.

  Diane
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Alan Zimmerman 
    To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
    Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:01 AM
    Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras


    For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22 EFS lens using it on my Canon 20D ,primarily for architectural work.Although I've done no resolution chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints using  the 1760 at 16x24 print size.
    Alan Zimmerman
      ----- Original Message ----- 


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



  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

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by guy washburn

Diane,

I use the 10-22 on my 20D. It is an amazing lens. F5.6
and F8 are best sharpness. At 10mm F8 I have done many
near to far compositions from 15" to infinity that are
tack sharp corner to corner at 13x19. I do landscape
so I am less concerned by distortion but it gets
pretty good marks there, It showed some Chromatic
Aberration but I have not seen any in my use of it.
The 9.5" min focus let's you do anything you want to
with a wide angle. It's fun to be able to make a nose
to nose portrait of the cat and have the entire room
in focus.

Here is a review with some tests:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

My only gripe is that the lens hood us still on back
order :-(

Hope this helps.

Guy

--- Diane Fields <picnic@...> wrote:
> Alan, I'd love to hear more as you use it.  I've
> just ordered it and I print 13 x 19 and 11 x 17s on
> the 2200.
> 
> Diane
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Alan Zimmerman 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
>   Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:01 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon
> Digital cameras
> 
> 
>   For what it's worth, I just bought the canon 10-22
> EFS lens using it on my Canon 20D ,primarily for
> architectural work.Although I've done no resolution
> chart tests, so far, I'm quite pleased with prints
> using  the 1760 at 16x24 print size.
>   Alan Zimmerman
>     ----- Original Message ----- 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Diane Fields

Yes, I asked B & H to notify me when the hood comes in.  I'm looking forward to shooting with the lens.  It and the even higher cleaner ISOs than the 10D were why I finally succumbed to buying the 20D.  

Thanks for your update--it sounds very promising and what I've been hoping.  I saw Michael's report awhile ago--and that's one thing that's been tempting me and then I've been seeing samples around so the temptation was too great as Spring is here in the NC foothills and mts.

Thanks Guy.

Diane
Show quoted textHide quoted text
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: guy washburn 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 1:17 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras


  Diane,

  I use the 10-22 on my 20D. It is an amazing lens. F5.6
  and F8 are best sharpness. At 10mm F8 I have done many
  near to far compositions from 15" to infinity that are
  tack sharp corner to corner at 13x19. I do landscape
  so I am less concerned by distortion but it gets
  pretty good marks there, It showed some Chromatic
  Aberration but I have not seen any in my use of it.
  The 9.5" min focus let's you do anything you want to
  with a wide angle. It's fun to be able to make a nose
  to nose portrait of the cat and have the entire room
  in focus.

  Here is a review with some tests:
  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-10-22mm-test.shtml

  My only gripe is that the lens hood us still on back
  order :-(

  Hope this helps.

  Guy



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

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-28 by Peter Marshall

Paul Roark wrote:
>  
> Clayton,
> 
> 
> 
>>... my question to Paul was not
>>theoretical.  I'm asking him what has been his practical experience so
>>far.  
> 
> 
> 
> I did some shooting with the Rebel XT, comparing the 18 - 55mm zoom that
> comes with it to my old 50mm f1.8 standard Canon EF (cheap but very good)
> lens.  In the lab, the resolution tests made it appear the zoom was about as
> good as the 50mm.  In actual photos today, the 50mm looked significantly
> better.  The 50mm was very good at f4 and excellent from f5.6 on.  The zoom
> could only match the 50mm at the center at f11.  
> 
> The real problem with the zoom was at the edges, especially in the dark
> greenery.  The best the zoom could do at the edges was not as good as the
> 50mm at f2.8. I'm not sure why it looked so much worse in the field than
> lab.  I suspect higher flare contributed to wiped out the shadow details.
> 
> So, I've made a full circle on the lenses.  I'm back to wishing my 24mm
> Sigma worked.  I may buy a 24 Canon, and use it and my 50mm.  It doesn't
> look like using the cheap zoom is going to be a fair test of what an 8 mp
> camera can do.  I would not consider a cheap zoom for my film use, so why
> should digital be any different?  (I'm not totally anti zoom.  My 50 - 200 L
> and Fuji Zi zooms are outstanding.  I'm not, however, ready to drop $800 for
> the 10 - 22 until I'm more convinced this digital approach is going to
> satisfy me.)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 

Paul,

The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 seems to be a pretty good lens with a decent max 
aperture. I'm certainly thinking of buying it.

Given the quality you can get from digital at EI 1200 or 1600 - 
considerably better than on film - f2.8 is a decent aperture. Though in 
low light I still tend to want to use the 35mm f1.4 on a Leica body - 
nothing from any SLR manufacturer has ever approached a Leica (or Hexar 
RF) for working in really low light. The Leica body and viewfinder is a 
2 stop advantage IMO,

Regards,

Peter


Peter Marshall
photography.about.com
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-29 by Anthony S. Tubbs

I must say you guys make me laugh.  Worry about something Nikon did when 
its encryption was much less than what Cannon does. Read the article 
over in DPREVIEW by Dave Collin on the matter of RAW by all the camera 
makers.   I have been a user of OS/2 Warp for ever I can do most things 
I need to do with a OS that has less support than any thing. What I am 
getting at I can give you every reason not to use WINXP because of had 
bad it is.  I dont see Cannon doing anything but  getting ever fool to 
keep upgrading their equipment just like Microsoftie keeps the pc people 
on the upgrade list.    Bjorn you really are out in left field with your 
comparison of the software bit.  I see plenty of people making Raw 
converters without the help of Cannon , Nikon etc.  I think I am 
starting to ramble I will cut it off, but Get Real with your attacks.  
Your owned by MS and PS, when they have the monopoly.   Anthony

Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>On Tuesday 26 April 2005 7:35 am, Peter Marshall wrote:
>  
>
>
>And even on Windows, the SDK may drop support for the D2X in a
>few years.  Then, if you want to keep using your D2X, you'll have
>to also maintain a computer running the last supported version.
>Imagine trying to maintain MSDOS on an old PC just so you can
>run VisiCalc.
>
>
>  
>

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-29 by Olaf Ringdahl

Today, of about one hundred Digital BW messages, 70 had absolutely nothing
to do with BW printmaking. The list has become a place where the usual
frequent posters can chat away about anything of mutual interest to them,
whether it does or doesn't interest the other members who originally got
together to talk about BW printmaking.

I am happy to see an occasional aside that might interest many of the
members but when the asides reach 70% I begin to think.

This has been a wonderful list, full of smart, wise, generously helpful
people and people like me who need that help. I have been a member since
this list was about seventy two hours old and will stay with it no matter
what it becomes.

I'm only asking that we confine ourselves, mainly, to the subject of the
making of black and white prints by any and all means.

I am not a listmom so you can ignore everything I've said.

Olaf Ringdahl

RE: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-29 by Seth

OS/2??  LOL, I went through that networking course when I was a Systems
Engineer for IBM.

Then, one day I woke up and realized there IS life out there.

Anyway, not my point.  Bibble has released an updated version.  In the
e-mail telling everyone, Eric talks about the Nikon "encryption," which they
CRACKED!!!  He says it is randomly scattered data that follows neither
pattern nor reason.

Not THAT is some fine programming !?!?!

Seth

==-----Original Message-----
==From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
==[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
==Behalf Of Anthony S. Tubbs
==Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 7:56 PM
==To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
==Subject: Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or 
==is it the other way around
==
==I must say you guys make me laugh.  Worry about something 
==Nikon did when its encryption was much less than what Cannon 
==does. Read the article over in DPREVIEW by Dave Collin on the 
==matter of RAW by all the camera 
==makers.   I have been a user of OS/2 Warp for ever I can do 
==most things 
==I need to do with a OS that has less support than any thing. 
==What I am getting at I can give you every reason not to use 
==WINXP because of had bad it is.  I dont see Cannon doing 
==anything but  getting ever fool to keep upgrading their 
==equipment just like Microsoftie keeps the pc people 
==on the upgrade list.    Bjorn you really are out in left 
==field with your 
==comparison of the software bit.  I see plenty of people 
==making Raw converters without the help of Cannon , Nikon etc. 
== I think I am starting to ramble I will cut it off, but Get 
==Real with your attacks.

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-29 by Bjorn Helgaas

On Thursday 28 April 2005 6:55 pm, Anthony S. Tubbs wrote:
> ... Bjorn you really are out in left field with your 
> comparison of the software bit.  I see plenty of people making Raw 
> converters without the help of Cannon , Nikon etc.

What do you think is in left field?  If Nikon actually does use
some technological protection such as encryption, the DMCA[1,2]
makes it far from clear that non-Nikon software can legally
circumvent those measures to process NEF files.

For example, in the "US v Sklyarov" case[3], Sklyarov and his
employer, ElcomSoft, were charged with offering software that
could circumvent technological protections in Adobe eBooks.
He and his company were eventually acquitted, but only because
the jury thought there was no criminal intent[4].

Will there be non-Nikon software that *does* process NEFs?
Sure, but it's on shaky legal ground.  And if I were a company
with deep pockets, I'd be hesitant to produce such software,
especially if the camera manufacturer were hostile, as Nikon
seems to be.

[1] http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/dmca.html
[2] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/?f=unintended_consequences.html
[3] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_elcomsoft_faq.html
[4] http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >And even on Windows, the SDK may drop support for the D2X in a
> >few years.  Then, if you want to keep using your D2X, you'll have
> >to also maintain a computer running the last supported version.
> >Imagine trying to maintain MSDOS on an old PC just so you can
> >run VisiCalc.

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-29 by Bob Frost

Anthony,

Who are all these people? Are you sure they are not just using Dave Coffin's 
raw converter? Have a look at http://www.cybercom.net/%7Edcoffin/dcraw/. He 
lists 29 programs that use his raw converter.

Bob Frost.



On Thursday 28 April 2005 6:55 pm, Anthony S. Tubbs wrote:

.  I see plenty of people making Raw
> converters without the help of Cannon , Nikon etc.

[Digital BW] Re: Sigma lenses & Canon Digital cameras

2005-04-29 by sean_thackrey

I have to say I completely agree; from my point of view, the volume
of postings 
daily is nearly unworkable, since so little has to do with BW digital
printing; 
going through all this every day has all the charm of sorting through
spam. 
I appreciate that many people have the time and inclination to chat
at length 
about an endless list of off-topic matters, many of them extremely
abstruse; 
but it would be nice if more of this could be done either in other
forums or off-
line, since this forum is getting smothered by it.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Olaf Ringdahl" <
o.ringdahl@a...> wrote:
> Today, of about one hundred Digital BW messages, 70 had absolutely 
nothing
> to do with BW printmaking. The list has become a place where the
usual
> frequent posters can chat away about anything of mutual interest to
them,
> whether it does or doesn't interest the other members who
originally got
> together to talk about BW printmaking.
> 
> I am happy to see an occasional aside that might interest many of
the
> members but when the asides reach 70% I begin to think.
> 
> This has been a wonderful list, full of smart, wise, generously
helpful
> people and people like me who need that help. I have been a member 
since
> this list was about seventy two hours old and will stay with it no
matter
> what it becomes.
> 
> I'm only asking that we confine ourselves, mainly, to the subject
of the
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> making of black and white prints by any and all means.
> 
> I am not a listmom so you can ignore everything I've said.
> 
> Olaf Ringdahl

Re: [Digital BW] www.OpenRAW.org needs your help or is it the other way around

2005-04-29 by Michael Hung

> For example, in the "US v Sklyarov" case[3], Sklyarov and his
> employer, ElcomSoft, were charged with offering software that
> could circumvent technological protections in Adobe eBooks.
> He and his company were eventually acquitted, but only because
> the jury thought there was no criminal intent[4].

The Adobe eBooks contains copyrighted works of the copyright owners of
the books. When YOU (Not the copyright owner) used the ElcomSoft
software to circumvent the copyright protection, it is illegal under
DMCA. 

> 
> Will there be non-Nikon software that *does* process NEFs?
> Sure, but it's on shaky legal ground.  And if I were a company
> with deep pockets, I'd be hesitant to produce such software,
> especially if the camera manufacturer were hostile, as Nikon
> seems to be.
> 
> [1] http://www.arl.org/info/frn/copy/dmca.html
> [2] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/?f=unintended_consequences.html
> [3] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_elcomsoft_faq.html
> [4] http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html

It is not on shaky legal ground at all. The WB information is not
copyright-able. It is just a reading from a sensor. Copyrighted works
must be creative. Just like the time/location from the camera's GPS,
or the shutter speed/aperture is not copyright-able. Only your photo
IS. No one has property right to WB, time, location, shutter speed,
etc. Then, the copyright is YOURS. Not the camera manufacturers' or
Adobe's.

There are many failed DMCA attempts to try to expand this very narrow
definition of what the law is intended to protect (Namely, RIAA/MPAA, etc)

Lexmark case:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/2004-10-27-lexmark-dmca_x.htm
(Lexmark tries to use DMCA to stop others from making printer cartridges.)

Garage Door Opener:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/11/17/garage_door_dmca_case_dismissed/

Basically Adobe has no merit to flame Nikon. Yes, OPEN is good, but it
has a cost. As others have pointed out that Canon, Sony, and others
also used encryption; and Adobe is flaming Nikon only because Nikon
wouldn't do a deal to explicitly permit Adobe to decrypt certain data
(Which I believe is unnecessary). Following the "Who owns the image"
theory, your Canon image belongs to the Canon and Adobe (Since Adobe
can open the file thru licensing deals, etc). This is not ture and
will never be able to stand in court. But of course, anyone can sue
anyone in US..

Michael

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.