Cheap wide angle lens for Canon EOS 500 D?

Question

I am planning to visit Maldives in couple of weeks.I need a cheaper wide angle lens extension or wide angle lens itself which could fit my Canon EOS 500 D.I would like to capture whole beach in my lens.Please ponder your suggestions which is available in UK.For your info I already have a canon 18-55 mm Kit lens, Canon 70-300mm lens, Canon EF F-1.8 USM lens.

Asked by Ravi

Answer

There are no lenses in your price range.

The adapter you linked to is like putting a cheap magnifying glass in front of your camera (only in reverse, it's making things smaller instead of bigger) - those things are know for low image quality, it's very likely to cause a lot of distortion and I bet that if there's a lot of sunlight (like on a beach) it will cause a lot of lens flare.

Just for reference that cheapest lens that is significantly wider than your kit lens (at least today on Amazon) is the Tamron 11-18mm at 280 quids used.

But, you still have some good options that don't require spending lots of money:

First, 18mm is pretty wide and you can take great beach pictures with your kit lens (hint: if you want a wider image you can also just move back).

Second: you can do a panorama - take multiple image and stitch them together on your computer, there are some really good free programs you can use for this - that will effectively simulate a much wider lens (and it doesn't cost anything).

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

how to put full 3D effect in an image?

Question

Can we put 3D effect in an image and watch this without using any coloured glasses ?

Asked by kundan bora

Answer

You are really asking two completely different questions.

1. Can we put 3D effect in an image?
2. Can I watch a 3D image without using any coloured glasses?

For #1, consider that 3D images are not a single image, the 3D effect is achieved by having two different images taken from a slightly different point of view. To see the 3D effect you have to feed these two images one to each eye. This approximates how we see the real world.

So really, if you have a single image you cannot see 3D. Though you can use post-production techniques to generate two images from your single image. This is how some 2D movies are "converted" to 3D.

There is good information about 3D imagery in the Stereoscopy page on Wikipedia.

Regarding #2, there are a few ways to see 3D images without glasses. But most require either glasses (to filter the two images being displayed and provide a single image to each eye) or specialized display hardware (to split the two images based on the angle of view each eye is at with respect to the display).

There is one interesting method that doesn't require any special hardware nor glasses and that is quite easy to achieve. It's commonly called "Wiggle 3D". This question has a pretty good example of this technique, and my answer there points to a tutorial on how to make them.

Answered by Miguel

Check more discussion of this question.

What advantages does a pure black and white camera have over colour cameras?

Question

Now that Leica has released a pure black and white camera, the Leica M-Monochrome, I started to think about the advantages a pure black and white camera has compared to a colour camera.

I guess you could remove the Bayer filter, but would this give you higher resolution, better contrast?

I assume there is advantages with a pure black and white camera, since Leica has made one, but what are they?

Asked by Håkon K. Olafsen

Answer

The biggest advantage is that you get 3X more light sensitivity.

With a bayer filter, every photosite gets 1/3 of the light that falls on it because the filter blocks 2/3 of incoming light to filter for one primary color. So the sensor becomes more sensitive to light. That means that less amplification of the read-out signal to get the same ISO as with a conventional sensor. The end-result is that you get lower noise at each ISO sensitivity.

There is no need for an Anti-Aliasing filter, so you get better sharpness and micro-contrast. As Nikon proved it though, this is not necessary for Bayer-based cameras but is usually the case. When a camera uses an AA filter, it blurs the light before it reaches the sensor to avoid the occurrence of an artifact called moire. Any time you blur something, you reduce contrast because you spread light over multiple pixels. Without an AA filter, the blurring does not happen and you get better contrast.

B&W sensors also obviously do not need Bayer-interpolation. This means that the readout is the image data and there is no question of softness introduced by interpolation (or the AA filter that is not there) and no need to sharpen at the capture level, although you may sharpen when processing for your output medium (print, screen or other).

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

Softbox selection for my hobby room

Question

My hobby room is a fairly standard room size, say 3x3M. The lighting isn't that great which doesn't help when I take photo's or record videos of projects etc.

I have a softbox that I use for 'product' type shots, but most of my pics are taken on the workbench, ie, during construction. Ok, so that's the situation. I am looking at lighting solutions and have stumbled onto this product:

http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Photography-Photo-Studio-Softbox-Continuous-Video-Light-Lighting-Kit-VL-9026S3-/120804403445?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item1c2080e8f5

This kit appears far more high power than other 'budget' kits (less than $300). I am sceptical about the light thrown though. My hobby bench is about 1.8x1.1M and I'd like to know (without going into to much detail) will these lights throw 'enough light' to scrub the shadows from my workarea for photos and videos? I am a little worried they will only be suitable for portrait type stuff.. Please rid my fears.

Bonus question - what max distance do you think these lights could adequately light a subject?

Asked by Graham

Answer

Reading the details of the eBay auction, you're right, it's not quite what they claim.

• 7650 watts / 15 bulbs = 510 watts/bulb.
• Each softbox takes five bulbs, and two softboxes are included (or three, depending upon what part of the description you read). That will therefore supposedly output 5100 watts, and give you five extra bulbs.

They are supplying 85 watt fluorescents, which are supposedly equal to 510 watt traditional bulbs. Based on a little searching, I'd say an 85 watt fluorescent bulb is probably more like 375 watts from a traditional bulb. The best way to judge light output would be to know lumens or a guide number, but they don't supply those. Also, note the size of those bulbs. They are not your standard compact fluorescent -- they're much bigger at about 4.5 in diameter and 9 in long. So, five of those means this is a big package.

For photo-only work, I would avoid getting a continuous lighting system because of price, size, and heat. But since you mention video, continuous lighting is necessary. Is it worth it? I think this all looks like low quality gear, and a cheap light stand would drive me nuts because it's likely to move too easily... but it may well be worth it, yes.

Answered by Dan Wolfgang

Check more discussion of this question.

How does photography for digital display only differ?

Question

I only want to capture images with the intent of displaying them on a digital screen. I do not want to print the images, ever. Do any specific considerations need to be made upon capturing the image or during post processing beyond these three things:

• Screen color calibration/profiling
• Sharpening
• Resolution and display pixel density

I bring up this question because I feel like film photographers are more keen at producing work for their intended output format, and I would like to know what a strictly digital based workflow would require.

Asked by dpollitt

Answer

Additive vs Subtractive Color Space

One thing to think about is that an additive color space (RGB) is different from a subtractive color space (CMYK or others). There are colors you can display that you cannot print, and there are colors that you can print that you cannot display.

Notice how some yellows will print, but are not displayable, yet some greens are displayable, but not printable.

Blacks

Black is another really good example of a color that prints very differently that it displays, and displays differently depending on what device it displays on. Black on a CRT is the absence of light. Black on a cheap LCD is just very dark. (This is because an LCD is backlit and the back lighting is always on. Even when the cells are turned opaque some light leaks through.) You would think that this would mean a CRT would better contrast but in practice LCDs can get much brighter than CRTs.

Glow

Another aspect of displayed images is that they are luminous. A printed image needs room lighting reflecting off of it to be viewed. (And of course the color of the room lighting matters!) Consider the same image printed on paper and printed on transparency, a slide. Now illuminate the back of the slide. I suspect the slide will appear more vivid, since the brighter areas will glow.

This is a perceptual change, one that you probably can't account for while shooting, but I don't know. For example, I know this photo of mine has far greater impact displayed rather than printed:

Non-Traditional Inks

Another area is that printed images can have non-traditional inks, say a varnish or a foil. This would be exceptional difficult to capture on a display. (This is also getting way out of the realm of photography and into commercial printing, but it is worth noting in such an interesting question!)

Aspect Ratio

If you sell you work matted and framed it is prudent to restrict yourself to a small number of aspect ratios and sizes. This avoids an annoying, and expensive, inventory control problem. For example, I only sell 11x14, 10x20, and 12x12 images. (And I'm phasing out 12x12!) This restriction sometimes impacts your artistically. Your subject might not fit into either ratio but you are essentially forced to move to one of those ratios. This also changes the way you shoot. I constantly frame the shot and then widen it some, which is a challenge since I almost also shoot wide angle, say in the 20mm range on a crop body, and widening it sometimes isn't possible. I do this so there is some extra image in case I need to crop it just so.

This is not the case with displayed images. You are free to crop each image exactly like your vision tells you to crop it, which means you are free to shoot it exactly like you want to shoot it. However, almost all displays are landscape, not portrait, and if you are shooting for a display you'll probably find yourself avoiding portrait shots.

Future Proofing

From a future proofing standpoint I think you would need to say the image and the post-processing steps in a non-destructive and open format so that future display technologies could re-render your image. That's pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

One thing you can do is shoot in Adobe RGB, not sRGB, just so you have a wider color space.

Answered by Paul Cezanne

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any wifi enabled shockproof (i.e rugged) digital camera?

Question

Suppose I need to take photos everyday and upload them to pc wirelessly. I don't want to use extra eyefi sd card for that. Thanks for your help.

Asked by newcomer

Answer

Using an 'eyefi' add in card would give you maximum flexibility in camera choice as the majority of cameras do not have integral WiFi and you are very greatly limiting your choice this way.

HOWEVER

Depending on application, an excellent sounding candidate is Ricoh's G700SE

Ricoh G700SE home page

Specifications

Features page including -

• Despite its small size and light weight, the G700SE has strengthened glass at the lens front surface and body protectors added at strategic points. This toughness enabled it to withstand 2.0 m drops in 26 positions (6 surfaces, 8 corners, and 12 edges) in testing conforming to US Department of Defense “MIL Standard 810F.” Furthermore, it also passes this test with the power on.

• Bluetooth & WiFi, plus GPS and barcode options.

• Introduced in late 2010. 12 megapixel,

• Shockproof, dustproof, and waterproof to about 16 feet and chemical resistant for industrial usage.

• 28 -140mm (f/3.5-5.5) 5x optical zoom lens and a 3-inch, 920,000-dot LCD

• Built-in WiFi and Bluetooth support, and optional GPS and laser barcode reader accessories.

• Features support for SD-WORM memory cards, which offer password-protected, tamper-proof image recording capabilities (aimed at law-enforcement or other high-security uses).

---

Samsung - January 2012

3 WiFi equipped models. No claims to ruggedness per se - wjhat that means to you and whether it can be added wih an external case is TBD.

• WB850F ($379), WB150F ($229) and ST200F ($199) all have Wi-Fi, letting photographers send images straight from the camera to friends via email or upload them to a service like Flickr or YouTube.

• WB850F: 21X optical zoom, 16-megapixel, 1080p video.
  Can run at hundreds of frames per second to recreate scenes in slow motion.
  Internal GPS. 3-inch AMOLED rear screen.

• The WB150F: 14MP, 18X optical zoom and 1080p video recording.

• ST200F 720p recording, 10X optical zoom.

Answered by Russell McMahon

Check more discussion of this question.

How to reproduce Instagram Lo-Fi filter in Photoshop?

Question

I used the Instagram Lo-Fi filter a lot and wonder how I can reproduce the effect in Photoshop...

Asked by ohho

Answer

You will find lots of Instagram filters as Photoshop Action, created by Daniel Box. They are good and really useful :)

http://dbox.tumblr.com/post/5426249009/instagram-filters-as-photoshop-actions

Answered by Hasin Hayder

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the best Nikon DSLR to start out with?

Question

I'm thinking about starting real photography using a DSLR; I had been using point-and-shooters before and had been dismayed by the quality of the photo that was produced.

I'm thinking about buying a DSLR but don't know where to start from. A photographer friend of mine had suggested a Nikon D3000 but I'm not sure if it is the right one for me.

Asked by JFW

Answer

There is not the true answer, but I think you could be happy with a D5000 ... very simply to use, quite good for beginners and not much expensive.

Of course you can invest in some good optic in the next feature and retain them when you decide to pass to a more professional device. You will loose them when you'll fall in love with FX cameras :)

Answered by AlberT

Check more discussion of this question.

What does shot noise in color images look like?

Question

I can find examples of shot noise in monochrome images, but I can't find any examples in color images. What does shot noise in color images look like?

Asked by DragonLord

Answer

Exactly the same. Both CCD and CMOS sensors - with the exception of Foveon sensors - are achromatic. Color is created by an array of color filters in front of the sensor, so the shot-noise is the same, only you tint each pixel Red, Green or Blue. A few rare cameras also use Emerald tint and some leave one sub-pixel achromatic.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

What types of digital cameras are out there?

Question

Everything I come across while researching digital cameras for the most part falls into two categories: Point-and-Shoot and SLRs.

Are there any other types of cameras, be it professional or consumer, and if so, are there any advantages or disadvantages over point-and-shoot or SLR?

Note: I am not referring to "special" cameras that are specifically developed for a certain use; I am looking for a general overview. I'm also only interested in digital, not in film cameras.

Asked by Lynda

Answer

Other camera types that I can think of, in terms of digital, would be:

• Cell Phone - Destined, I think, to ultimately replace, or at least supplant, the point and shoot. They currently represent what is the most likely camera for a person to be carrying and that is what gives them advantage: the camera you have with you is infinitely better than the one that you do not. :) At any rate, they're getting better.

• Bridge - The basic body structure of an SLR with a built-in lens and P&S features. The name, as implied, is about bridging the point and shoot to the SLR. In my opinion, and it is strictly opinion, you end up with the disadvantages of both (bulk of an SLR, image quality of a P&S) without their advantages (lens interchange of an SLR, portability of a P&S).

• Medium Format - Big, powerful, and a price to match. The cheapest of these start at $10,000 and it skyrockets from there. The advantage? Image quality. The medium format camera represents the best of image quality, but they're bulky, have slow frame rates, and more restricted ISO ranges. So, there are trade-offs there, even for the price.

• Mirrorless - It can be micro four-thirds or the more radical Nikon V1 and Pentax Q, but these are interchangeable lens cameras without a mirror. They're often equipped with electronic viewfinders. Their advantage over P&S is usually in lens options and image quality, their advantage over the SLR is in size.

• Rangefinder - Not an SLR as it doesn't have the moving mirror. Leica is the king of this market. Big advantage is smaller body over an SLR, but they don't lend themselves well to zoom lenses because of the rangefinder.

However, even in the two you really know about, the variation is enormous. Not all P&S cameras are made equal and for the SLR world you have:

• Entry Level - Almost a point and shoot, but with interchangeable lenses. The Canon 600D/T3i or the Nikon 3100 are great examples of this.

• Prosumer - Pro level features, consumer styling. The Canon 60D or the Nikon 5100 are examples.

• High-end Prosumer - More pro features, such as weather sealing, faster frame rates, etc. The Canon 7D or Pentax K-5 are good examples.

• Professional - Usually full-frame sensors the size of 35mm film. These are top of the line cameras such as the Canon 1DX or the Nikon D700.

Note that some of these cameras blend or bleed between tiers, but the feature sets on the cameras do tend to lend themselves to one of those 4 tiers.

Anyways, that's my synopsis. I'm sure others could expound upon this much more.

Answered by John Cavan

Check more discussion of this question.

Do megapixels matter with modern sensor technology?

Question

Are more megapixels good?

Are more megapixels bad?

Do more megapixels increase detail? Do they make my images sharper? On the other side, is there a point that is too much? Do megapixels cause increased noise and other problems? How does print and viewing size come into it?

Widespread Internet-forum wisdom used to be that 6 megapixels was the sweet spot — below that just wasn't enough, but above that, there wasn't much benefit. File sizes got larger, but detail was lost to noise and other problems. The arguments are that cramming too many pixels into a small sensor makes each pixel too small to provide any real benefit, and that higher-megapixel sensors outresolve cheap lenses anyway. (Substitute something like 12 instead of 6 if we're discussing APS-C DSLRs.)

This year, pretty much every camera introduced is in the range of 12-18 megapixels. Does this offer any real improvement over that old "sweet spot"? Has technology improved to the point where the "wisdom" needs to be updated, or are we all suffering for marketing? Or have we gone past the sweet spot in some ways, but it's okay because of previously-un-argued points. (For example: more noise, sure, but more detail as well.)

Within the 12-18 megapixel common-today range, for the same sensor size, is there any actual benefit to the higher end? (We've got a question on that specifically, but it attracted very literal replies — I'm looking for why and how.) How do megapixels directly affect image quality with today's technology? What are the benefits and when do they apply? What are the drawbacks, and when do they apply? How should I adjust my technique (and expectations) based on my camera's megapixel count?

Asked by mattdm

Answer

From a purely theoretical point of view: more megapixels good.

People often talk about how high megapixel sensors were now outresolving most lenses, thus there was no point going higher unless using the very best glass. This is not always true. System resolution is the product of lens resolution and sensor resolution. Thus if you improve one, your system resolution will improve regardless of the other. You do eventually get into diminishing returns, but from a theoretical viewpoint a sensor can't outresolve a lens until diffraction effects take over).

Theoretically for a fixed final output size noise is independent of sensor resolution. Yes smaller pixels capture less light, therefore the per pixel noise level is higher. But if you resize a high megapixel image to match a lower one, you average pixel values thus noise is evened out. People regularly complain about noisy high megapixel compacts when viewing images at 100%. But that's a totally unfair comparison.

---

From a practical point of view: more megapixels not bad

From a practical view the noise situation is more complicated, but evidence I've seen suggests that high MP sensors are not much noisier when compared at the same image size (see above). I'll look up some links.

The situation on resolution is complicated by the fact [most] sensors don't see in colour and thus have a bayer grid which requires an anti aliasing filter. Aliasing is worst when the sampling frequency matches your signal (i.e. image detail) frequency. Increasing the megapixel count faster than increases in signal frequency should improve aliasing, to the point where the traditional aliasing filter can be removed.

There are other practical issues which relate to your ability to extract extra detail from your sensor:

• The 1/focal length rule no longer applies as you increase megapixels, you need ever increasing stabilisation, and also increasing shutter speeds as subject motion becomes more apparent.

• Diffraction becomes more of a problem as you increase megapixels as the pixels become smaller than the Airy disk.

• Data processing and storage requirements are higher.

It's worth emphasising that these are not disadvantages of higher megapixel counts, since you can always downsize your images, and you're not lost anything when compared to a lower megapixel count camera. The exception being in camera data processing, since the camera has to read the whole sensor when shooting stills and somehow process this information.

---

So how high can you go? I've seen calculations of the diffraction limiting aperture for red light with a 350 megapixel full frame sensor being f/2.8 (green and blue light requiring even larger apertures) so that gives you an idea. Personally I think your returns would get small past a 50 megapixel 35mm sensor, up to a maximum of maybe 75-100. Once you get noticeable diffraction at f/5.6 people are going to become disinterested, and once you have to open up to f/2.8 with a lens that's razor sharp at f/2.8, the megapixel race is over.

Larger formats allow more megapixels before diffraction sets in (at a given f/stop) however depth of field is shallower at the same f/stop, requiring you to stop down more for depth of field, so there appears to be no intrinsic advantage when it comes to diffraction.

The existence of 60 megapixel medium format camera points to the fact it would be possible, diffraction wise, given good enough glass. Though as users of such cameras point out how difficult it is to utilise 60MP this points to it being a good practical limit, if not a theoretical one.

Answered by Matt Grum

Check more discussion of this question.

How do pros manage to make the color green so bright in their nature photographs?

Question

I am an amateur photographer, I had a question how do professional photographers manage to make the green color so bright in their images.

For example:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnfrisch/5492742882/lightbox/

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/kylehammons/1796400249/

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/mohdhasri/4388973197/

Is this all done in post-processing? Could anyone tell me a Photoshop or Lightroom process to achieve this effect?

Asked by koool

Answer

The question that you are asking is a very common one, but the answers are not as straight forward as you may think. How does a professional make the colors so bright, the contrast so well defined, the focus so perfect, etc ? Well, it isn't just one thing, ever. It isn't a single setting on the camera, or a single post processing technique or button. It is a combination of talent, skill, technique, equipment, patience, etc - all things that cannot be adequately described in a short answer such as this.

The article "Magic Camera Settings" by Thom Hogan really gives a great example of this. Many times amateur photographers are looking for one magic bullet, such as a setting or preset - but you will find none that gives such a general "pop" to photos, as it is a combination of many things.

I won't leave you without helping you out a bit though :) I would suggest picking up a circular polarizing filter. It will help a great deal in giving your greens a very rich vibrant green color. It also helps blues to pop, and can assist when reflections exist in the frame as well. As for post processing, you can use sliders in Lightroom for vibrance, saturation, and clarity to get the photos to pop. You also can single out the green channel and boost the saturation of just that. Don't go too overboard though or you will end up with a very fake looking photo.

Answered by dpollitt

Check more discussion of this question.

How can multiple exposure be achieved with a digital camera?

Question

When using a film camera, it’s possible to create photographs that are the result of multiple exposures, by not winding the film on before taking the next shot. Is there a way of achieving the same result with a digital camera?

I’d like to be able to take multiple incremental shots and then either have them automatically combined in camera, or in post processing.

I know I can create a similar effect by using a long exposure, like the one below (shot with 10 second exposure), but this is quite limiting in what can be achieved and makes composition quite difficult.

Asked by forsvarir

Answer

Note that this is called multiple exposures, not incremental.

A good number of digital cameras of all sizes do this: Most Pentax DSLRs (K-5, K-7, K20D, K10D, K-r, K-x), the Pentax Q, all third generation Olympus ILCs (E-P3, E-PL3, E-PM1) plus the OM-D E-5, most mid-to-high end Nikon DSLRs (D300S, D700, D3X, D3S), the Canon 1D X, a number of Fuji ultra-zooms (like the S9000) and the Olympus ZX-1 which is the smallest camera to have this feature.

Honestly, doing this in software is extremely easy and much more flexible by using Photoshop layers (or equivalent) with various blending operators. The only time one would do it in camera is if you absolutely need to get the alignment blending exactly a certain way. This will be tedious on any camera which is not a Fuji because they are the only ones which let you undo the previous step in case it does not appear as desired.

Answered by Itai

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of photography is still better done with film cameras?

Question

Are there any kind of photography left today which digital cameras are still in the disadvantage to film cameras?

Asked by txwikinger

Answer

Infrared photography is much more accessible with film. With digital it is possible, but generally involves modifying the sensor to remove the infrared filter, which is very expensive.

Answered by chills42

Check more discussion of this question.

How to build a digital reprography system on a budget?

Question

I am a cartoon artists and illustrator and my A3 flatbed scanner just broke.

Good A3 scanner cost somewhere between 1500 and 2000 usd/eur, so I am asking myself, if I could not put together some system that would allow me to make raw images of that format in 300dpi resolution.

As both my images are usually the same size and technique (mainly black and white ink drawings) I was thinking of getting an older digital camera, two flashes or lights and mount them on my wall. Then I would find the right angles and basically just press the shutter button, once everything is "calibrated". In the ideal case, I'd somehow automatically transfer these images to my mac (maybe with one of these wifi cards).

Do you think something like this is feasible?
How would the quality stack up to a scan?

Asked by Jan Limpens

Answer

Well, first off, unless your willing to get the new Nikon D800 (which has a 36.3mp sensor...and is supposed to list around $3000), its unlikely you'll find a cheap camera that is fully capable of reproducing at 300dpi (I assume you mean in final print here...its tough to correlate scanner DPI to digital photo resolution), let alone at the quality you could get from a scanner.

For the highest resolution APS-C sensors, which are probably Canon's at 18mp (Sony's 24mp APS-C sensor suffers from pretty high noise, not to mention the fact that it likely outresolves lenses by a fair degree so the added resolution is pretty moot), your going to have less quality than would be ideal. You are unlikely to actually resolve the same level of detail as a scanner as well, as your packing the entire image into the area of the sensor, where as a scanner will use a high resolution line scanner across the whole page. Most older digital cameras have sensor resolutions that top out much lower than would be necessary to replicate your artwork in print at 300dpi for A3 size (16.54x11.69 inches, or 420x297mm). You could pick up a brand new Canon 550D or 600D for less than $1000 (around $600 for the 550D). The native print resolution for one of Canon's 18mp APS-C sensor cameras is 17.28x11.52 inches, which doesn't really leave you any room for crop/rotation (at least along the short edge.)

If you could find a used Canon 5D Mark II, you might have enough resolution. Its a full frame camera, so it manages noise extremely well (although that may not really be a problem if you light your artwork properly.) If you light your artwork well, slap the camera on a tripod and shoot with a cable release/teathered, you should be able to use ISO 100 to get clean images with barely enough resolution to support a little post-process crop and rotation (to clip off any unsightly edge factors and rotate to the proper orientation, etc.) for final print. The 5D II's native print size at 300ppi without any form of cropping/rotation would be 18.72x12.48 inches, so you would probably land square on the mark for native A3 size post-crop/rotate. The 5D II lists at $2700, and resales for pretty close to that most of the time. There have been some sales lately for brand new ones at $1999, but thats not really any different than spending $2000 on an A3 compatible flatbed anyway.

As far as quality goes, I can only speculate. I've seen some phenomenally good drum scans of medium and large format positives at 300dpi. The image resolution from such scans tends to be quite large, often much larger than a comparable digital sensor (even the new 36.3mp Nikon D800). I'm not sure exactly what the quality from your previous A3 flatbed scanner was, or what kind of optical resolution it actually supported. Most A4/Letter/Legal flatbed scanners I've used these days support at least 600dpi for "normal" scans, and sometimes up to 4800dpi or even 9600dpi for film scans. The quality you can get from a $600-$800 scanner is pretty darn good, all things being equal.

---

I would say that using something like the Canon EOS 550D would certainly produce adequate, usable results, even if they are not quite as high quality as a flatbed scanner designed for it. Canon cameras can be used "tethered" to a computer as well, such that the computer can be used to control the cameras shutter, and such that the photos are saved directly to the computer. This can be done with Canon's DPP (Digital Photo Professional) or Adobe Lightroom, both of which work on Mac. I'd recommend Lightroom 3.x or 4 beta myself, as you can easily catalog your work, add metadata, even print...as soon as the photo is taken, and otherwise handle your entire workflow in a single application. I would recommend getting some high resolution glass as well. At 18mp, an APS-C sensor resolves a LOT of detail, more than many of Canon's cheaper lenses can resolve themselves. Canon's newest lenses, releases from the last few years, primarily their Mark II lenses (i.e. the just-released 24-70mm f/2.8 L II) are designed to resolve enough detail for 18mp APS-C sensors or 46mp FF sensors. I would be very wary of using the native 18-55mm kit lens that comes with the 550D, as its pretty bottom of the barrel, and probably not sufficient to resolve maximum detail at 18mp. A prime lens would really be best, although they can be pretty expensive. There are some cheaper primes, such as the 50mm f/1.8 II, 100mm f/2.8 Macro, etc. that cost around $100-500 new, however I am not sure they are capable of fully resolving enough detail for 18mp (especially in the corners, where sharpness drops off quite a bit, despite the fact that hose lenses are considered very sharp. Compare the MTF charts for those two vs. the new 24-70mm f/2.8 L II which was explicitly designed to resolve high resolution.)

It may also be that your idea of quality and my idea of what you want for quality are very different. The kit lens may be entirely sufficient for your needs (especially given that its recently been updated, and the new 18-55mm lens might be considerably improved over its predecessors.) If you have any friends with the 550D or 600D with kit lens, I'd see if you could borrow it and give it a try before you put any money into lenses. It may also be that to get enough detail out of the body+lens you would still have to spend over $1000, in which case its probably worth spending $1500 on a new scanner anyway, as its likely to do a better job for this particular task.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

Why am I getting dark spots with my Singh-Ray 77mm vari-ND filter?

Question

I've been using a Singh-Ray vari-ND with my Panasonic GH1, and I'm seeing obvious dark spots in the image. On a lower setting the left and right side of the image have dark lines and when I go to a maximum setting the dark sides cave into the middle and forming a circles and it looks really bad. I've been using a 20mm lumix 1.7 lens, and I read that the vari-ND shouldn't be used with lenses wider than 35mm in full-frame terms (which mine would be a 40mm after the micro 4/3 conversion) due to the polarized filter. Could this be why? Or is my filter defective?

Note that my hand is slightly in this last image, and is the cause of the darkened upper-right corner.

Answer

The third image looks like vignetting due to the thick Sing-Ray filter and your step down rings. But strange it's only in one corner - you don't have a hood attached do you? You should be able to see this vignetting through the viewfinder.

Even a normal polarising filter is going to result in uneven skies with wide angle lenses, with the sides often being much darker, due to the wide field of view (light coming from vastly different angles through the filter). With variable ND filters, this effect is multiplied.

The solution is using a longer focal length, if possible, cropping out the sides, or reducing the filter density.

The number of stops you can reduce with these filters goes down as the lens focal length goes down. You might be able to reduce 8 stops at 135mm, but only 5 stops at 20mm.

Your 20mm (effectively 40mm) is close to the 35mm limit they mention. It's a gradual thing, so if it's not recommended at 35mm, it's probably not ideal at 40-45mm and you can expect some vignetting or strange colour casts at the edges, and these will move more to the centre of your images the wider you go.

From their website:

NOTE: Due to the nature of the Vari-ND Filter, its "profile thickness" is significantly greater than most filters (14.2mm for standard mount, 10.5mm for thin mount). The profile thickness of either version may cause vignetting when used with wide-angle lenses, especially on cameras with full-frame sensors. Due to the vast number of combinations of cameras, lenses, and other factors, we can NOT predict under what circumstances vignetting will occur, and to what degree. We suggest simply adjusting your focal length, position, and/or composition to remove the vignetting -- use your digital camera's display for reference.

NOTE 2: The design of the Vari-ND Filter may introduce irregularities when used with very wide angle lenses, especially on full-frame cameras. Adjust your focal length and reduce the filter density setting until the irregularities disappear

Check more discussion of this question.

SIngh Ray 77mm vari-ND filter spots

Question

I've been using a Sing-Ray vari-ND with my gh1 and I'm seeing obvious dark spots in the image. On a lower setting the left and right side of the image have dark lines and when I go to a maximum setting the dark sides cave into the middle and forming a circles and it looks really bad. I've been using a 20mm lumix 1.7 lens, I read that the vari-ND shouldn't be used with lenses wider than 35mm in full frames terms (which mine would be a 40mm after the micro 4/3 conversion) due to the polarized filter. Could this be why? Or is my filter defective? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Answer

The third image looks like vignetting due to the thick Sing-Ray filter and your step down rings. But strange it's only in one corner - you don't have a hood attached do you? You should be able to see this vignetting through the viewfinder.

Even a normal polarising filter is going to result in uneven skies with wide angle lenses, with the sides often being much darker, due to the wide field of view (light coming from vastly different angles through the filter). With variable ND filters, this effect is multiplied.

The solution is using a longer focal length, if possible, cropping out the sides, or reducing the filter density.

The number of stops you can reduce with these filters goes down as the lens focal length goes down. You might be able to reduce 8 stops at 135mm, but only 5 stops at 20mm.

Your 20mm (effectively 40mm) is close to the 35mm limit they mention. It's a gradual thing, so if it's not recommended at 35mm, it's probably not ideal at 40-45mm and you can expect some vignetting or strange colour casts at the edges, and these will move more to the centre of your images the wider you go.

From their website:

NOTE: Due to the nature of the Vari-ND Filter, its "profile thickness" is significantly greater than most filters (14.2mm for standard mount, 10.5mm for thin mount). The profile thickness of either version may cause vignetting when used with wide-angle lenses, especially on cameras with full-frame sensors. Due to the vast number of combinations of cameras, lenses, and other factors, we can NOT predict under what circumstances vignetting will occur, and to what degree. We suggest simply adjusting your focal length, position, and/or composition to remove the vignetting -- use your digital camera's display for reference.

NOTE 2: The design of the Vari-ND Filter may introduce irregularities when used with very wide angle lenses, especially on full-frame cameras. Adjust your focal length and reduce the filter density setting until the irregularities disappear

Check more discussion of this question.

Why can't digital camera sensors expose each photosite individually?

Question

Why is it impossible for camera sensors to function the way the human eye can? What I mean is, why does a certain portion of the image have to be over/underexposed if we compensate for dark and light areas respectively when taking a photo and deciding on the aperture and shutter speed settings.

I understand that the light getting in depends on aperture and shutter speed but since DSLRs are digital, can't there be a technology that would enable each sensor cell use of its own metering and therefore they wouldn't all be subjected to the same amount of light but depending on the metering, a CPU of the camera would shut off certain cells as not to overexpose them.

I hope I'm not saying nonsense. It sure seems to me like a plausible idea.

Answer

Who decides which pixels get how much gain? Much of what goes on in the human visual system happens in the cortex, not the eye, and depends on what we think is important to see based on a combination of intellectual decision and the (somewhat override-able) instinctual drive for self-preservation. While it's true in one sense that we see what's there, it is equally true in another sense that we see what we want to (or need to) see.

It would be almost trivial to create a relatively low pixel density sensor with large photosites that allow for an enormous dynamic range and (assuming a CCD-type technology, since the current CMOS sensor tech can't work this way) a per-pixel electronic shutter in addition to the mechanical shutter. So what would that get you? A flat image with a lot of bit depth and very low local contrast (if the entire bit depth is converted as-is for display or print) along with a number of pixels that are almost, but not quite, clipped by the sensor saturation (although they are, in fact, clipped by the limiting action of the electronic shutter just before the point of saturation). Let's say for the sake of argument, though, that this sensor and its associated computer could record the clipping data (the reason why it stopped recording at that sensel, which could be as simple as recording the actual exposure duration at that site). That would allow the camera's electronics to reconstruct what the numbers would have been if the photosite could have stayed in the game until the final whistle. So now we have an even flatter image with greater bit depth. And where do you draw the line? 32 bits? 64?

Now comes the hard part -- turning this flat, high-dynamic-range image data into a compelling photograph. The simplest approach is to take the eight bits (or whatever the output bit depth would be) that represent the primary metered image and throw away the rest. It would probably be not much more difficult to fit the data to an S-curve, compressing the extreme shadows and/or highlights -- which is more or less what the extended dynamic range settings on newer cameras already do. But there are only so many output bits available per pixel, and most of the extended highlight values are going to round up to white (or at least a 254 and 255 mix). So you've gained very little by dramatically complicating the system.

But there is still one option open -- selective area mapping. Why not bring the sky, say, or just the clouds in that sky, down in value so it can retain detail, while preserving the desired contrast in the foreground? This is where the hard problem lives. What's important? Should the camera decide for you? If the camera decides, then we have a big advance in machine vision and artificial intelligence to get around to first. If not, then do you really want to make this level of post-capture decision for every picture you shoot? Yes, I know there will be some photo-techno-weinies who really do want to be that hands-on, but can we accept that it's a pathological condition, and that professionals interested in turn-around time and the vast majority of consumers aren't like that?

So you need a new sensor, vastly more complicated electronics around the sensor, an enormous image file for projected raw data (which necessitates larger cards and longer write times/slower frame rates), all to gather data that is going to be thrown away most of the time so that you can occasionally shoot one-shot HDR images that require a lot of human intervention in post (or a huge leap in MV/AI). You could probably sell a few of these, but I'd expect the market to look an awful lot more like the medium format market than the existing 35mm/APS-C market. That is, you'd sell to a select group of well-heeled photographers who either actually need the capabilities for professional reasons or to fulfill their fine art vision, and a few who just get a big enough kick out of post-processing to pay the technology tax.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does the Nikon D5100 have a mode or the ability to create a mode to support an effect similar to black and white film photography?

Question

The camera has a mode called "Night Vision", which appears to product gray-scale images, however I'm not experienced enough with black and white film photography to know if this behaves in a similar manner - I've only shot about a dozen images on black and white film, and I wasn't too great, but I have seen some really nice black and white images and would like to experiment with that style.

Is this "Night Vision" mode what I'm looking for? Or is there a way I can configure my camera to emulate black and white film photography?

Answer

You want to look a the Picture Control menu and set it to Monochrome.

Night Vision is an extended-ISO trick that results in monochrome images, but it's meant for shooting in extremely low light; throwing away the colour information allows the camera to produce less-noisy images at very high ISO settings. Using Night Vision in better-lit circumstances is making your images noisy for no good reason (and may call for smaller apertures and higher shutter speeds than your camera and lens can deliver).

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the range of dimensions for a camera to fit comfortably in a pocket?

Question

With compact system cameras (bridge cameras, hybrids, etc) the sizes are confusing on whether they are meant to fit into a pocket or not. This depends on the lens as well. When searching for one online and not having a demo camera the dimensions are the best information without a thorough review being avail.

What are the maximum length, width and height measurements for a camera which will fit into a pocket? (excluding the attached lens, as this can be accounted for later)

Answer

This is a subjective topic that many camera reviews mention. A typical females pockets are much, much smaller than any "pocket" camera I've ever owned would fit into. But the pockets of the teenager walking with his pants down to his ankles, big enough for a small DSLR!

The answer to what is a pocket size camera is up to you! Personally, I have never put a point and shoot camera directly into my pocket, because I prefer to use a case, that adds too much bulk. I also do not wear pants with pockets large enough to carry anything inside of a case. My cell phone inside a very thin case is about as large as I will go. But, about half of the year here in Minnesota I will wear some type of jacket, so a point and shoot camera inside a case can then be carried in my jacket pocket. The size of the camera case adds much more bulk for me than the .25 - .5 inches that the point and shoot cameras vary in size.

To give you some rough estimates of what I personally am comfortable with for a "pocketable" camera:

• 4.7 x 2.9 x 2.5 in (120 x 74 x 63 mm) I used to carry a camera around this size in my BACK jeans pocket. It was HUGE! But in a pinch I could stow it in my back pocket if I had to.
• 4.2 x 2.8 x 1.7 in (106.4 x 71.9 x 42.5 mm) This is probably the maximum I would currently consider "pocket" size. It roughly follows the Canon G series cameras currently. It is not comfortable for me to put into a front jeans pocket, but it is possible.
• 3.9 x 2.4 x 1.1 in (98.9 x 59.9 x 26.7 mm) This is about the largest I will comfortably stow in my front jeans pocket. This roughly follows the Canon S95 series of cameras size.

Check more discussion of this question.