Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Down

Author Topic: Canon vs Phase  (Read 70730 times)

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #140 on: September 24, 2007, 02:56:53 am »

Quote
I used a canon today with flash at 1/1600th of a sec. Seemed to work fine.    So one less advantage to MF.

I assume he's joking  Perhaps that's the flash duration, but not the shutter speed?

Flash sync has always been a disadvantage of Canon/Nikon.
Logged

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2430
    • Pepperanddust
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #141 on: September 24, 2007, 03:45:24 am »

He is not joking,  at least I assume Canon has FP (focal plane) flash speed as well. Flash up to 1/8000th is possible with FP. Again only with some system flashes.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/...function/fp.htm
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 03:46:37 am by Dustbak »
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #142 on: September 24, 2007, 03:48:17 am »

Quote
Yes with the 45+90tse you can do this stitching stuff, not so, or not very usefull with the 24tse, cause so heavy distortion and also unsharp if shifted. that to an extent that you get bigger files but so bad resolution at the edges that its no fun.
i was doing long time what kirk is doing and you get very skilled if you work in this way. i shot for longer times also, mostly on the light source depending, digital 35mm or 4x5". i learned a lot and i cannot say that these works would not hold up any standard. shift and wa enses have been a big hassle with 35mm and i ended up with some specials, as a complete line of pentax 645 lenses from 35mm up with a zoerkendorf adapter,- these can be shifted with sharp results about 20mm in every direction. also i found the olympus 24mm pc lens the only one which is sharp if shifted and does not distort so much that it frightened me. found a more or less sharp sigma 12-24 .... and so on ( but i bought and sold nearly all WA and shift stuff which exists, including adapters for canon mount ). a good 35mm setup is ok to work for architecture also, if you learn to do it,- but it has its limits and one of these is that i would advice urgently to accompany this nice 35mm setup with 4x5" in case you need it, and you will need it probably or at least i did.

since 1,5 year i work now with mf with a ( in parts ) custom made camera and 22+33mp sensors.  this setup works great now,- and i have forgotten film and one of its advantages is that i can work digital only now,- still not with one set because the canon still is sometimes very usefull.
but if someone asks me if he should change to digital i am very carefull to advice him to go immediatelly to mf. i think the step of learning to use 35mm digitals at their limit will teach so much, that its not bad to do it before. there is no "must", and i cant repeat it often enough- i.m.o. the price of your equipment does not reflect the quality of the work and even less the quality of the photographic skills. much hype in this,- crazy times, crazy habbits.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141473\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Rainer,
Thanks for the reply. You and Kirk are causing me to review and change my planned learning and portfolio development. Could either of you (or anybody else) explain to me how shooting architecture with 35mm dSLR and suitable PC lens teaches you more or differently from shooting with 645 digital and PC lens?

As a (almost ex-) science teacher I'm always interested in how to learn better (for myself, in this case), and had thought that I had identified a good way to learn (with the 645 digital) I'm delighted that your advice is consistent with this. I've spent a long time agonising over what would be a good 'all round' system, and I'd hate to think I got it wrong...Yes, I might need other equipment down the line, but when I do, I hope that I will be buying it from income made from selling high quality photography!

I have reservations about stitched solutions, mainly due to the extra skills and workload required, but also due to the limited range of application. I also do not want (at this time anyway) to use film, but this may have to change, in light of your advice about large format. I have never used film... apart from 15 years ago in an Olympus P&S! Digital has obvious advantages when learning. (Perhaps it has disadvantages as well)

Finally, I was interested that you got such good shift out of the Zoerkendorfer, and had heard good stuff about the Olympus 24 pc lens. Maybe a purchase later.

Thanks again for all the most helpful advice, Rainer.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Graham Mitchell

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2281
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #143 on: September 24, 2007, 04:46:13 am »

Quote
He is not joking,  at least I assume Canon has FP (focal plane) flash speed as well. Flash up to 1/8000th is possible with FP. Again only with some system flashes.

http://nikonimaging.com/global/technology/...function/fp.htm
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141522\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ok, I see what's going on. In effect, it is continuous lighting, not flash, and that has drawbacks. The flash needs to last for the entire duration of the exposure, then the partial shutter is no longer a problem.

Nice feature, and it might be ok with some Nikon compact flashes, but it's not going to be useful for more advanced lighting setups, and it won't work with 99% of the flash units out there.

For example, it means that if you use flash for a speed such as ~1/250-1/1000, you will not be freezing the action the way you normally would with a flash. Part of the reason I chose Profoto Pro lighting was the short flash duration, and the way it freezes moving models down to 1/7000th. (I use Pro6, the Pro7 is even faster).

As always these cameras prove themselves very useful in fields such as event/sports with little or no setup, but not in more advanced situations. Each to their own!
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 04:49:14 am by foto-z »
Logged

eronald

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6642
    • My gallery on Instagram
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #144 on: September 24, 2007, 05:26:42 am »

As always the Canons/Nikons provide 70% of the functionality in 100% of the situations ...

I would agree that Hassleblad is making progress now, though. It looks like they are using some of their cash-flow to good effect.

Edmund

Quote
As always these cameras prove themselves very useful in fields such as event/sports with little or no setup, but not in more advanced situations. Each to their own!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141526\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
If you appreciate my blog posts help me by following on https://instagram.com/edmundronald

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #145 on: September 24, 2007, 08:46:26 am »

but i do not want to create here illusions. if you do not work already with 4x5" maybe its not such a fast way to go there...... i scanned my images myself with a scanmate 5000 drumscanner ( it was very important for me ) and the sum of my 35mm equipment is also everything else than cheap.
i dont know how kirk is working, but just sticking a TSE lense on my canon ( or long time it was a kodak ) never did the job for me. but i learned ( and i did )  that its possible to make hi-end productions with 35mm digital, but together with 4x5 !!. Now i  prefer by far my mf setup which i, for the quality, speed and possibilities it delivers me.
the zoerkendorf shift adapter can be seen here: http://www.zoerk.de/
i advise the pentax 645 lenses not mamiya or hasselblad, i should ( and i will - i simply havent had the idea which shows how often i still use it ...)  ask mr. Z. if he still has the contax adapter also,- no idea how the contax lenses would work. probably very good also ....

Quote
Rainer,
Thanks for the reply. You and Kirk are causing me to review and change my planned learning and portfolio development. Could either of you (or anybody else) explain to me how shooting architecture with 35mm dSLR and suitable PC lens teaches you more or differently from shooting with 645 digital and PC lens?

As a (almost ex-) science teacher I'm always interested in how to learn better (for myself, in this case), and had thought that I had identified a good way to learn (with the 645 digital) I'm delighted that your advice is consistent with this. I've spent a long time agonising over what would be a good 'all round' system, and I'd hate to think I got it wrong...Yes, I might need other equipment down the line, but when I do, I hope that I will be buying it from income made from selling high quality photography!

I have reservations about stitched solutions, mainly due to the extra skills and workload required, but also due to the limited range of application. I also do not want (at this time anyway) to use film, but this may have to change, in light of your advice about large format. I have never used film... apart from 15 years ago in an Olympus P&S! Digital has obvious advantages when learning. (Perhaps it has disadvantages as well)

Finally, I was interested that you got such good shift out of the Zoerkendorfer, and had heard good stuff about the Olympus 24 pc lens. Maybe a purchase later.

Thanks again for all the most helpful advice, Rainer.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #146 on: September 24, 2007, 08:57:50 am »

Quote
As an expert in loudspeaker design and room acoustics,

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/194mach/

Johnathan is more right than wrong, his analogy is correct! When noise and distortion from the environment exceed the noise floor and distortion of your system what's the point? I've seen $80K systems in a $24K pickup = P45+ for a birthday party?

Marc McCalmont
MACH 1 Acoustics

PS I've learned more from Johnathans posts than most others, thanks.

Thank you, Marc. My only intent with my participation in this discussion has been to apply a bit of common sense to some of the more absurd claims being made by the MF enthusiasts. For daytime landscapes where the weight of the gear being hauled to the location isn't an issue, studio work that doesn't require a fast shooting pace, very-narrow-DOF shots, or where really large prints are needed, MFDB has unquestioned advantages.

But that does not mean that MFDB is always the most practical or cost-effective tool for the job. For example, you could use a MFDB or DSLR to shoot yearbook photos for a school. A MFDB would be cool to have for such a task and could certainly deliver excellent images, but given that 95% or more of the prints being sold from such a job are 8x10 or smaller, using a DSLR makes a lot more sense for several reasons. If you print at 300PPI, you're already downsampling even with the original 1Ds; a MFDB is just increasing the level of overkill. Then you have the shooting rate factor; children don't always hold photogenic expressions very long, and shooting more than one frame per child is generally wise to ensure you get a shot everyone is happy with. And given the price parents are typically willing to pay for prints, a DSLR is much easier to justify economically than a MFDB. In the real world of photography-as-a-business

If you want to use a MFDB to shoot such a job, that's great; I have no problem with that. I've used a .300 Winchester Magnum to shoot rats. It's lots of fun, and certainly kills the rat, but a Ruger 10/22 will kill the rat just as dead, the ammunition costs about 1/20th as much, and it's a lot easier on the shoulder to shoot. If you all want to engage in the photographic equivalent of rat-hunting with a moose rifle, have fun. It's not illegal or anything, and nobody is getting hurt. But condescending comments implying that those of us who use the 10/22 to "shoot the rat" are short-changing our clients or are less-sophisticated photographers (like the claims of "dimensionality" supposedly easily distinguished in MFDB web JPEGS) are ridiculous and somewhat offensive. We're still killing the rat, and in most cases, meeting or exceeding our clients' needs, we're just not spending as much money on gear to do so.
Logged

jpjespersen

  • Guest
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #147 on: September 24, 2007, 10:35:12 am »

Quote
Thank you, Marc. My only intent with my participation in this discussion has been to apply a bit of common sense to some of the more absurd claims being made by the MF enthusiasts. For daytime landscapes where the weight of the gear being hauled to the location isn't an issue, studio work that doesn't require a fast shooting pace, very-narrow-DOF shots, or where really large prints are needed, MFDB has unquestioned advantages.

But that does not mean that MFDB is always the most practical or cost-effective tool for the job. For example, you could use a MFDB or DSLR to shoot yearbook photos for a school. A MFDB would be cool to have for such a task and could certainly deliver excellent images, but given that 95% or more of the prints being sold from such a job are 8x10 or smaller, using a DSLR makes a lot more sense for several reasons. If you print at 300PPI, you're already downsampling even with the original 1Ds; a MFDB is just increasing the level of overkill. Then you have the shooting rate factor; children don't always hold photogenic expressions very long, and shooting more than one frame per child is generally wise to ensure you get a shot everyone is happy with. And given the price parents are typically willing to pay for prints, a DSLR is much easier to justify economically than a MFDB. In the real world of photography-as-a-business

If you want to use a MFDB to shoot such a job, that's great; I have no problem with that. I've used a .300 Winchester Magnum to shoot rats. It's lots of fun, and certainly kills the rat, but a Ruger 10/22 will kill the rat just as dead, the ammunition costs about 1/20th as much, and it's a lot easier on the shoulder to shoot. If you all want to engage in the photographic equivalent of rat-hunting with a moose rifle, have fun. It's not illegal or anything, and nobody is getting hurt. But condescending comments implying that those of us who use the 10/22 to "shoot the rat" are short-changing our clients or are less-sophisticated photographers (like the claims of "dimensionality" supposedly easily distinguished in MFDB web JPEGS) are ridiculous and somewhat offensive. We're still killing the rat, and in most cases, meeting or exceeding our clients' needs, we're just not spending as much money on gear to do so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All I can say is thank god most of us don't shoot jobs like Wienke-  Yearbook photos and horse races.  And then in our free time kill rats.
Logged

jing q

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
    • we are super
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #148 on: September 24, 2007, 11:30:57 am »

Quote
All I can say is thank god most of us don't shoot jobs like Wienke-  Yearbook photos and horse races.  And then in our free time kill rats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141560\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think that judging from the work of most people here we're not looking at yearbook portraits...
Logged

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #149 on: September 24, 2007, 12:01:12 pm »

Quote
but i do not want to create here illusions. if you do not work already with 4x5" maybe its not such a fast way to go there...... i scanned my images myself with a scanmate 5000 drumscanner ( it was very important for me ) and the sum of my 35mm equipment is also everything else than cheap.
i dont know how kirk is working, but just sticking a TSE lense on my canon ( or long time it was a kodak ) never did the job for me. but i learned ( and i did )  that its possible to make hi-end productions with 35mm digital, but together with 4x5 !!. Now i  prefer by far my mf setup which i, for the quality, speed and possibilities it delivers me.
the zoerkendorf shift adapter can be seen here: http://www.zoerk.de/
i advise the pentax 645 lenses not mamiya or hasselblad, i should ( and i will - i simply havent had the idea which shows how often i still use it ...)  ask mr. Z. if he still has the contax adapter also,- no idea how the contax lenses would work. probably very good also ....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141549\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks Rainer...I think I understand what you are saying fairly clearly: It's possible to make great images with a 35mm camera, but only if you have great skills in doing that. Large format is much better, when you know how to handle film, and have good skills, but that the most enjoyable to use is now the mf setup.

Experience will help educate me too! I now have a six month period of hard work to learn and practice the skills. Now, how much are Contax lenses...? mmm!

Thanks Again
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Don Libby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
  • Iron Creek Photography
    • Iron Creek Photography
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #150 on: September 24, 2007, 01:32:50 pm »

I may have missed this question so here it goes.  Why are we comparing two totally separate imaging systems, 35mm & MF?  Aren’t these two by their most basic design as different as MF to LF?  All formats have the potential to capture stunning images in different degrees (image size and amount of speed to capture).  To me it is much as comparing a Ford Model T to a current vehicle – all will get you down the road, just one faster than the other and in different degrees of comfort.

I shoot with both 35mm and MF.  To me each has its uses and disadvantages.  As much as I’d love to take images of bears in Katmai AK with my P30+ (for the added detail) I know full well that it isn’t as suited for this as my 1Ds II.  Likewise since moving over to MF I now can see the usefulness of MF in my landscape images over the Canon.

Just my thoughts on the subject, I’ll go back to work on my Sequoia images.  BTW if anyone is interested this was the first time I was able to really give the Hartblei a good workout and so far am very pleased.


don

Dustbak

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2430
    • Pepperanddust
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #151 on: September 24, 2007, 01:54:43 pm »

I must confess, I am much more interested in your sequoia images than the Hartblei  
Logged

rainer_v

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • http://www.tangential.de
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #152 on: September 24, 2007, 01:56:01 pm »

Quote
Thanks Rainer...I think I understand what you are saying fairly clearly: It's possible to make great images with a 35mm camera, but only if you have great skills in doing that. Large format is much better, when you know how to handle film, and have good skills, but that the most enjoyable to use is now the mf setup.

Experience will help educate me too! I now have a six month period of hard work to learn and practice the skills. Now, how much are Contax lenses...? mmm!

Thanks Again
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
yes in general, but there exist also moods where digital simply is much better than film, for its completely diferent way to handle colors, esp. mixed lights. when i mixed 4x5" film with digital, usually i used for "hard" daylight ( esp. with metallic surfaces ) chromes, with overcast mushy weahthers digital. too simple said, but my choice very often was not resolution dependent.
a.e. here you see one shot, which i wanted to repeat with film cause resolution was at the limit for A3 print,because i corrected the image in photoshop and the top of the building is at the limit for doubleside printing. i went 5 times to location with similar weather,tried negatives as well as  chromes of all kinds. i didnt brought out of my scanmate that atmosphere. different moods, also nice, but i was not able to copy that one and it encouraged me so i tried it hard- i had shot it with a kodak slr camera with 0.9 grey filter, 15 seconds exposure time @ iso6. something like that.

[a href=\"http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-seiten/pages-09_highlight-towers/page/02.htm]http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-s...ers/page/02.htm[/url]

next shot was around 4h in the morning on a crane after waiting 1,5 hours. as wienke shoot rats i did that to treat bad me and my assistant, because it was cold and we had made interiors till 2:30.
climed our crane and waited in the hope sunrise might bring some nice light. it did,-  sun apeared behind the horizont and reflected in the building. havent tried it but i hardly doubt to get this shot with film.
later come some winter shots of the facades in sunlight. done with velvia 4x5". with the kodak never would have came out in that way. i think with the emotion back now not a great problem,- probably.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 02:05:05 pm by rainer_v »
Logged
rainer viertlböck
architecture photograp

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #153 on: September 24, 2007, 02:04:31 pm »

Quote
I may have missed this question so here it goes. Why are we comparing two totally separate imaging systems, 35mm & MF?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Because Canons new marketing material has a two line poke at hassy buried in a PDF somewhere !

S
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #154 on: September 24, 2007, 02:50:29 pm »

Quote
yes in general, but there exist also moods where digital simply is much better than film, for its completely diferent way to handle colors, esp. mixed lights. when i mixed 4x5" film with digital, usually i used for "hard" daylight ( esp. with metallic surfaces ) chromes, with overcast mushy weahthers digital. too simple said, but my choice very often was not resolution dependent.
a.e. here you see one shot, which i wanted to repeat with film cause resolution was at the limit for A3 print,because i corrected the image in photoshop and the top of the building is at the limit for doubleside printing. i went 5 times to location with similar weather,tried negatives as well as  chromes of all kinds. i didnt brought out of my scanmate that atmosphere. different moods, also nice, but i was not able to copy that one and it encouraged me so i tried it hard- i had shot it with a kodak slr camera with 0.9 grey filter, 15 seconds exposure time @ iso6. something like that.

http://tangential.de/tangential-de/_html-s...ers/page/02.htm

next shot was around 4h in the morning on a crane after waiting 1,5 hours. as wienke shoot rats i did that to treat bad me and my assistant, because it was cold and we had made interiors till 2:30.
climed our crane and waited in the hope sunrise might bring some nice light. it did,-  sun apeared behind the horizont and reflected in the building. havent tried it but i hardly doubt to get this shot with film.
later come some winter shots of the facades in sunlight. done with velvia 4x5". with the kodak never would have came out in that way. i think with the emotion back now not a great problem,- probably.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141595\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I keep thinking in terms of resolution and colour depth, as the major factors in the 'style' but maybe there is some 'Je ne sais quoi' Great photos: well worth the trouble. (Easy for me to say... I wasn't there at 4 in the morning!)

Appreciate your comments Rainer, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #155 on: September 24, 2007, 03:16:20 pm »

Quote
Just my thoughts on the subject, I’ll go back to work on my Sequoia images.  BTW if anyone is interested this was the first time I was able to really give the Hartblei a good workout and so far am very pleased.
don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Love those Sequoia series images. Quick question: were you shifting and stitching on your 5D, or are they just single shots ? (I've had the Hartblei for exactly 1 hour, but there's no light here to try it out!)

Thanks
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.

Don Libby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
  • Iron Creek Photography
    • Iron Creek Photography
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #156 on: September 24, 2007, 04:14:11 pm »

The only stitching done was with the 5D.  Sandy (wife & partner) just happened to take two images almost side by side and when I opened that day’s shots in PS3 I saw the potential to do a mini pano.  That shot is titled “Sandy’s Trees”.

While Sandy is currently shooting with a 5D she is upgrading to the new 1Ds III prior to our trip to Alaska next year.  All the other images (not shot w/the 5D) were shot using the Mamiya 645 AFD II and P30+ with either a 35mm or Hartblei lens.  So far the only Hartblei images up as yet are “0413”; “583” and “481”.  The one that surprises and pleases me the most is “Path” which was shot using a 35mm lens.

Very pleased to hear that someone likes the images.


Don

rinderart

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16
    • http://www.rinderart.com
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #157 on: September 24, 2007, 04:26:14 pm »

Quote
Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to  use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Finally, someone said it. Thank you. Everytime I teach a group class the women are shooting when the light is right and the men are playing with there stuff and comparing. Happens everytime. Give me someone with vision and a P&S instead of some knucklehead Measurebater with a Expensive necklace anyday.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2007, 04:27:39 pm by rinderart »
Logged

Don Libby

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 824
  • Iron Creek Photography
    • Iron Creek Photography
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #158 on: September 24, 2007, 04:46:02 pm »

Quote
Sorry Guys,
but by now it starts to remind me of never ending quest to prove that small penis is as good as big penis. Easier to walk with, easier to take in and out and definitely works great in low light situation.
...and of course the main point being that is the technique that makes the master and not the equipment , which holds it's water only as long as you do not meet a guy with big penis who also knows well how to  use it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141276\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']OUTSTANDING!!!!  You are the Master!  [/span]

jonstewart

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 435
Canon vs Phase
« Reply #159 on: September 24, 2007, 06:42:12 pm »

Quote
The only stitching done was with the 5D.  Sandy (wife & partner) just happened to take two images almost side by side and when I opened that day’s shots in PS3 I saw the potential to do a mini pano.  That shot is titled “Sandy’s Trees”.

While Sandy is currently shooting with a 5D she is upgrading to the new 1Ds III prior to our trip to Alaska next year.  All the other images (not shot w/the 5D) were shot using the Mamiya 645 AFD II and P30+ with either a 35mm or Hartblei lens.  So far the only Hartblei images up as yet are “0413”; “583” and “481”.  The one that surprises and pleases me the most is “Path” which was shot using a 35mm lens.

Very pleased to hear that someone likes the images.
Don
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=141627\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the info, Don. My wife isn't upgrading to the 1Ds III: She's stuck with the 5D! She promises to stop using the 'green box setting' soon!
Logged
Jon Stewart
 If only life were so simple.
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 11   Go Up