90mm or 100mm lens? (Leica question) and/or do you like one over the other and why?
Barney
According to http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/main.html both are
really great. However with all of the reading I've been doing, it seems
that most if not all of the newest and/or updated versions surpass the
quality of the older. I understand that the 90mm f/2 ASPH is a much newer
design than the 100mm APO and has some better qualities. With that sort
of thinking, I would lean towards the 90mm f/2 ASPH except it has a small
amount of distortion and has "soft?" focus from 1.5 meters and closer
(with lens wide open).. So now I'm thinking of going with the 100mm
f/2.8.
All of the qualities of the 100mm f 2.8 sounds right for me such as
getting in close with high quality at all openings, however the 90mm
f/2.0 ASPH is listed as having really nice "imaging properties at full
aperture" and is better in all other areas due to it's newer design...
I'm not sure if I would really that difference when my slides are
projected on my 70 screen (with a leica projector and lens) when
compaired with the 100 Elmarit. I would think so if there really is a
difference in lens quality.
The 100mm would probably be easier to get in close to small animals such
as a kitten and face/sholder face shots of my friends when compaired to
the 90mm.
Has anyone worked with both a 90mm and a 100mm? Why would you like one
over the other?
Thank you,
Barney
TP
I think you rather missed the point.
The 90mm f/2 is a general purpose telephoto lens that is optimised for
portraiture. It not only has excellent sharpness, but outstanding
bokeh, that is an exceptionally smooth rendition of out-of-focus
elements of the shot, especially highlights. This helps produce
flattering portraits.
The 100mm f/2.8 is a special purpose macro lens that is optimised for
extreme sharpness at short focusing distances. While Leica lenses
have good bokeh, all macro lenses - regardless of brand - have to
sacrifice *some* smoothness in the out-of-focus areas to obtain the
ultimate in sharpness at close focusing distances. That makes them
less suitable for portraiture.
If you choose the 90mm, you will find it capable of producing superb
portraits, but don't expect the ultimate in macro performance. If you
choose the 100mm, you will get optimum sharpness in macro mode but
don't expect your portraits to be as flattering as they would be with
the 90mm. Neither will the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the 100mm lens
allow you to defocus portrait backgrounds to the same extent as the
f/2 of the 90mm, and that's important for many portraits.
Therefore, you are going to have to decide what is your priority for
this lens: portraiture or macro.
If portraiture, choose the 90mm f/2.
If macro, choose the 100mm f/2.8.
Simple, isn't it?
;-)
John J
> Therefore, you are going to have to decide what is your priority for
> this lens: portraiture or macro.
>
> If portraiture, choose the 90mm f/2.
>
> If macro, choose the 100mm f/2.8.
>
I don't have either the R 90 or R 100 however I use an R 80 1.4 with my R8
and I use a 100mm f2.8 USM with my Canon 1V. Both lenses are fantastic but
if I had to pick one I would choose the 100 macro simply because you can
shoot a portrait with the 100 macro but not the other way around. That is
you can't shoot macro with the 90 2.0 (at least not without the addition of
extension tubes).
Regards
JJ
TP
>
>I don't have either the R 90 or R 100 however I use an R 80 1.4 with my R8
>and I use a 100mm f2.8 USM with my Canon 1V. Both lenses are fantastic but
>if I had to pick one I would choose the 100 macro simply because you can
>shoot a portrait with the 100 macro but not the other way around. That is
>you can't shoot macro with the 90 2.0 (at least not without the addition of
>extension tubes).
Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
On the other hand, depending how close you want to go (say up to 1:2),
the 90mm f/2 ASPH can give some very acceptable results. The same
*cannot* be said of a macro lens used for portraits, unless you are
blind to the adverse qualities of the results.
Of course one answer may be to buy the doyen of multi-purpose 90mm
lenses, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is *both* a superb macro
lens *and* a superb portrait lens. I have 90mm f/4 and f/2 Leica M
lenses, yet I still prefer my trusty Tamron 90mm on a Pentax LX or MX
body for the shots that really matter!
Janos Bauer
> Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
> inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
> Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
> their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
Could you please include some example pictures to understand the
difference. So far I'm happy to use 135mm and 180mm nikkor for portrait
but sometimes (especially indoor, short distance&low light) it would be
better to get a 85mm/1.4.
Thanks!
/Janos
TP
>
> Could you please include some example pictures to understand the
>difference. So far I'm happy to use 135mm and 180mm nikkor for portrait
>but sometimes (especially indoor, short distance&low light) it would be
>better to get a 85mm/1.4.
This issue (portrait vs. macro lenses) has been discussed here many
times. Possibly the best examples of bad portraits taken with an
excellent macro lens and discussed here were those made with a Sigma
180mm f/2.8 macro. That is a fine macro lens but it makes a very bad
portrait lens.
You should try a Google Groups search with that lens in the subject
line.
Michael Scarpitti
> 90mm f/2 APO-SUMMICRON-R ASPH or 100mm f/2.8 APO-MACRO-ELMARIT-R?
Simple. Buy both.
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>From: TP t...@nospam.net
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 8:11 AM
>Message-id: <k3p3b018gl5vl8gq1...@4ax.com>
Hi Tony:
Why do you prefer the Tamron 90 over your 2 Leica M lenses? Better bokeh and
sharpness (hard to believe as Leica is one of the kings of good bokeh and
sharpness and microcrontrast)? The fact that its an SLR lens so you can both
close focus, have no parallax and see exactly how far out of focus/how well the
oof works with the subject? Other reasons?
TIA
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm
Remove "nospam" to reply
***DUE TO SPAM, I NOW BLOCK ALL E-MAIL NOT ON MY LIST, TO BE ADDED TO MY LIST,
PING ME ON THE NEWSGROUP. SORRY FOR THE INCONVENIENCE. :-) ***
John J
> inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
> Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
> their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
>
I think you're just making it up as you go along now.
> On the other hand, depending how close you want to go (say up to 1:2),
> the 90mm f/2 ASPH can give some very acceptable results.
Are you talking about using extension tubes to get to 1:2 as the 90 will
only focus down to 0.7m on it's own?
And, is "Acceptable" the standard you strive for?
>The same *cannot* be said of a macro lens used for portraits, unless you
are
> blind to the adverse qualities of the results.
>
Well then I am clearly BLIND to the apparently abhorent qualities you refer
to as I've been using my (Canon) 100 2.8 macro for portraits for the last
few months I've had it and have been very pleased with the results. As the
lens is razor sharp wide open I think I can accurately say that I've never
stopped it down for a portrait, at least not that I can recall. Prior to
using the Canon I was using a R 180/2.0 and R 80/1.4 for portraits, both of
which were superb in this role. The Canon macro seems to be a good middle
ground although I miss the speed of the summilux.
JJ
TP
>
>Hi Tony:
>
>Why do you prefer the Tamron 90 over your 2 Leica M lenses? Better bokeh and
>sharpness (hard to believe as Leica is one of the kings of good bokeh and
>sharpness and microcrontrast)? The fact that its an SLR lens so you can both
>close focus, have no parallax and see exactly how far out of focus/how well the
>oof works with the subject? Other reasons?
Hi Lewis,
I should really have anticipated your response. ;-)
I prefer my Tamron 90mm over the Leica 90mm f/2 Summicron ASPH because
the ASPH design aims for maximising MTF. Unfortunately, this is
slightly at the expense of bokeh. The same could not be said of the
pre-ASPH Summicron because that design never fell victim to the
current fashion for high MTF numbers at the expense of good all-round
optical performance - for which we can blame Photodo, lens
manufacturers who publish MTF curves and people who read more into
them than they should <g>.
I prefer my Tamron 90mm f/2.5 over the Leica 90mm f/4 Elmar-C because
it has a much wider maximum aperture (by 1.3 stops) allowing working
in available light and defocusing of all but the closest backgrounds.
It also has (in my opinion) superior bokeh and resistance to flare and
does not give anything to the Elmar in terms of sharpness.
Yes, the fact it is an SLR lens helps in terms of evaluating OOF.
However, I find I can predict to a good level of accuracy what OOF
effects my rangefinder lenses will give, simply through experience.
The same is true of the Tamron lens; I don't always check DOF through
the lens, and I even have a Pentax K to Leica M adapter so I can use
it and other Pentax K lenses on my Leica/Minolta bodies.
Parallax really isn't a major issue with a 90mm lens used at normal
focusing distances on a parallax-corrected rangefinder camera. It is
much more of an issue when working close up with wide angle lenses,
especially my 15mm which I use with a non-parallax-corrected
viewfinder.
The Tamron 90mm macro is an outstanding optic. Even to be able to
compare such a modest optic (modesty based on price) with Leica and
Zeiss glass is a miracle, given its humble roots as a macro lens with
interchangeable mounts.
Of course it did once have its independent competitors, notably the
Tokina, Sigma and Vivitar 90mm f/2.8 macro lenses, and the sublime
Kiron 105mm f/2.5, but they have all fallen by the wayside while the
Tamron goes from strength to strength.
Neither Nikon or Canon ever made lenses this good.
Satisfied?
;-)
TP
Sorry, blahblah.
;-)
Martin Francis
news:c8t295$1uo2$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
> > Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
> > inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
> > Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
> > their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
> >
>
> I think you're just making it up as you go along now.
> Well then I am clearly BLIND to the apparently abhorent qualities you
refer
> to as I've been using my (Canon) 100 2.8 macro for portraits for the last
> few months I've had it and have been very pleased with the results. As the
> lens is razor sharp wide open I think I can accurately say that I've never
> stopped it down for a portrait, at least not that I can recall. Prior to
> using the Canon I was using a R 180/2.0 and R 80/1.4 for portraits, both
of
> which were superb in this role. The Canon macro seems to be a good middle
> ground although I miss the speed of the summilux.
IMO it is a highly subjective thing- not everyone notices the relevance of
the quality of the out-of-focus areas of a photo, even though it is the main
thing that defines the legendary status of manufacturers like Zeiss and
Leica (and individual lenses, like the Tamron 90mm and similar) over
excellent optics from others like Canon, Nikon and so on. Anyone can make a
sharp fixed focal length lens- Sigma do it, hell even Cosina do it- that can
give good results in the right hands. Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses don't
necessarily have better sharpness, definition or what have you, than good
Nikon or Pentax or Canon or Minolta glass. But sharpness doesn not
(necessarily) a good portrait make...
Besides, if you shoot wide open, chances are the out of focus elements look
okay anyway- and if you shoot portraits with a relatively uniform
background, chances are you won't see the benefits of smooth "bokeh" at all.
--
Martin Francis
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Neil Gould
> "John J" <blah...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have either the R 90 or R 100 however I use an R 80 1.4 with
>> my R8 and I use a 100mm f2.8 USM with my Canon 1V. Both lenses are
>> fantastic but if I had to pick one I would choose the 100 macro
>> simply because you can shoot a portrait with the 100 macro but not
>> the other way around. That is you can't shoot macro with the 90 2.0
>> (at least not without the addition of extension tubes).
>
> Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
> inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
> Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
> their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
>
Are you really evaluating the Leica 100 f/2.8 APO? I find it very hard to
believe that you've ever used one. I own one, and find it to be an
excellent portrait lens, as well as a handy macro lense. Apparently, my
opinon is not unique:
http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/
Regards,
--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 10:53 AM
>Message-id: <c8t295$1uo2$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>
Hi John:
Why did you switch to Canon from Leica R or do you sitll own/use both systems
but tend to use the same/similar lenses in different systems for different
purposes?
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Mon, May 24, 2004 2:09 PM
>Message-id: <c4c4b0t2b4kcposda...@4ax.com>
Thanks. Yes, very satisfied... but only for now... ;-)
By the way, as a sife note, the current? 90mm f/2.8 R, supposeldy based on the
same design as the M version (or at least it was when I shot with one in the
early nineties) is a superb lens for both its sharpness and its bokeh (perhaps
a little too sharp, though not an ASPH). The 100/2.8 Leica macro I aslo had the
opportunity to shoot with and it is a superbly sharp lens but when I
photographed humans with it I got a bit too close (to test out the macro
function) and photographed nostrils and mini parts of faces, way too close to
get an idea of the bokeh at head shot distances, however I do remember being
pleased with the bokeh on other subjects such as trees shot up close, etc.
Unfortunately I haven't seen these test slides in years and I don't even know
if I still have them :-(.
John J
>
> Why did you switch to Canon from Leica R or do you sitll own/use both
systems
> but tend to use the same/similar lenses in different systems for different
> purposes?
>
> TIA
>
I swapped (jumped ship) for several reasons all revolving around the
practicalities af getting the job done "faster" but I still have all my R
gear, just don't get many chances to use it any more. I miss the image
quality of the R lenses although the flare control in the Canon zooms is
better than the flare control in some of the leica primes I own. The 24-70
is fantastic by the way.
There are several main reasons for swapping;
- Canon zooms such as 17-40, 24-70 and 70-200, and AF to boot. I only ever
use the AF for action work.
- 9-10 fps with 1V and nicad pack (good for the action work which I do on a
regular basis)
- I doubled up on eos 1V's so if one breaks I'd still have a spare (I had
too many problems with my single R8)
- auto bracketing and 100% viewfinder on the 1v are important to me, these
are lacking on the R8
- digital upgrade path
JJ
TP
>By the way, as a sife note, the current? 90mm f/2.8 R, supposeldy based on the
>same design as the M version (or at least it was when I shot with one in the
>early nineties) is a superb lens for both its sharpness and its bokeh (perhaps
>a little too sharp, though not an ASPH).
Yes, but not at macro focusing distances.
That's where the Tamron really scores; it is one of a very rare group
of 90mm - 105mm macro lenses that have the optical qualities needed to
produce outstanding portraits as well as superbly sharp macro shots.
And it is the only one that is still manufactured in 2004.
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 5:53 PM
>Message-id: <c90f7v$82c$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>
Thanks, John.
Did you know that with an adapter you can still use those Leica R lenses with
stop down metering (and aperture priority and manual exposure I believe and
manual focus, of course) on your EOS 1vs?
The R9 (and R8?) has a digital back available for it (but probably very
expensive as you know).
What type of (action) work do you do? The 28-70/2.8L is/was a great lens - only
downsides are its size and weight, the 24-70 seems like more of the same
excellence, but people (except those at events) would probably get alittle wary
from always having one of those big boar lenses pointed at them as if you/I
were Rambo and they were our "prey" - in other words, its not exactly an
inconspicuous lens ;-).
Why did you choose the 17-40 over the 16-35?
Thanks and TIA
John J
>
> Did you know that with an adapter you can still use those Leica R lenses
with
> stop down metering (and aperture priority and manual exposure I believe
and
> manual focus, of course) on your EOS 1vs?
Yeah I did know but I'm not sure it's worth the hasle when I can just use a
Leica body instead!
>
> The R9 (and R8?) has a digital back available for it (but probably very
> expensive as you know).
I'm sure it will be very expensive. I wonder how it will compare with the
1Ds in terms of image quality, colour accuracy etc?
> What type of (action) work do you do?
I shoot cars for a bunch of Australian magazines and often need to shoot
action shots of the cars, eg pan shots, cornering, etc. Aside from that, I'm
often at Drag Racing or circuit racing events where AF really does help. I
always got by with my R lenses for these jobs but there's no denying that
using a zoom with AF is easier, faster, more reliable and practical than a
prime which is maunual focus. I've used the Leica 80-200 2.8, which is a
fine lens, but I could basically purchase 2x 1Vs and an EOS 80-200 2.8 IS
for about the same price, so I did. There were many other minor reasons I
decided to make the change but it came down to spending a lot of money to
upgrade some of my Leica gear, eg a couple of zooms, another R8/9, a motor
drive or I could spend a similar amount on the EOS gear and still have more
functionality ie AF and higher motor drive speeds.
The 28-70/2.8L is/was a great lens - only
> downsides are its size and weight, the 24-70 seems like more of the same
> excellence, but people (except those at events) would probably get alittle
wary
> from always having one of those big boar lenses pointed at them as if
you/I
> were Rambo and they were our "prey" - in other words, its not exactly an
> inconspicuous lens ;-).
>
> Why did you choose the 17-40 over the 16-35?
Because it is lighter and this is a real factor with the type of work I do,
see www.jjphoto.com.au for some examples. Most of the movement/action shots
on the web site were shot with an R 24 2.8 and an R8 (except the stationary
shots which are all with an RZ). I have used a 16-35 for a job prior to
buying the 17-40 and found the 16-35 a bit heavier than I liked. I had also
read that the 17-40 performed slightly better at the wide end, which
appealed to me. The 17-40 also allows for gels at the rear element, which
the 16-35 does not. The 17-40 is not a terribly good lens and I find I need
to stop it down to 8 or smaller to get good results, but this suits my
applications so it's not a problem. The lens does vignette quite alot untill
about f8, more than the 16-35.
Regards
JJ
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Tue, May 25, 2004 7:24 PM
>Message-id: <c9l7b01u448eocqqu...@4ax.com>
Tamron is definitely excelent in both arenas, though...
Barney
4ax.com:
> I think you rather missed the point.
>
> The 90mm f/2 is a general purpose telephoto lens that is optimised for
> portraiture.
>
> The 100mm f/2.8 is a special purpose macro lens that is optimised for
> extreme sharpness at short focusing distances.
> Therefore, you are going to have to decide what is your priority for
> this lens: portraiture or macro.
>
> If portraiture, choose the 90mm f/2.
>
> If macro, choose the 100mm f/2.8.
>
> Simple, isn't it?
In a way it is. However if the 90mm had the same qualities at close
range with it's lens wide open, I would not think twice to get that one.
(it can, however only at f 5.6) The 90 cannot focus as close as the 100
can however the 100mm lens is of older design and may not deliver as high
of a contrast and definition that the 90mm can.
Barney
Barney
> I don't have either the R 90 or R 100 however I use an R 80 1.4 with
> my R8 and I use a 100mm f2.8 USM with my Canon 1V. Both lenses are
> fantastic but if I had to pick one I would choose the 100 macro simply
> because you can shoot a portrait with the 100 macro but not the other
> way around. That is you can't shoot macro with the 90 2.0 (at least
> not without the addition of extension tubes).
>
Good point,
Barney
Barney
4ax.com:
> Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
> inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
> Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
> their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
Are you saying that it would be too sharp for portrait?
> On the other hand, depending how close you want to go (say up to 1:2),
> the 90mm f/2 ASPH can give some very acceptable results. The same
> *cannot* be said of a macro lens used for portraits, unless you are
> blind to the adverse qualities of the results.
Qualities such as the background not being as out of focus (smooth)
compaired to the 90mm? Any other qualities out there that you refure to?
Barney
Barney
> - I doubled up on eos 1V's so if one breaks I'd still have a spare (I
> had too many problems with my single R8)
> - auto bracketing and 100% viewfinder on the 1v are important to me,
> these are lacking on the R8
> - digital upgrade path
What's a 1v? Do you know what the % the viewfinder shows in the Leica
R8/9?
Digital upgrade path...Dec 1st is suppost to be the street date for the new
digital back for the R8/9 according to my local Leica dealer.
Barney
Barney
@arachne.labyrinth.net.au:
> Most of the movement/action shots
> on the web site were shot with an R 24 2.8 and an R8
Wow! How do you get the lights to streak with the car so frozen? Is the
camera attatched to the car somehow?
Barney
Barney
@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> Are you really evaluating the Leica 100 f/2.8 APO? I find it very hard to
> believe that you've ever used one. I own one, and find it to be an
> excellent portrait lens, as well as a handy macro lense. Apparently, my
> opinon is not unique:
I have read that the contrast on the 100 f/2.8 APO is high. (Maybe not as
high as the 90mm ASPH).
I have also read that the color on the 90mm is "trasparent" (according to
Leica) so I'm wondering how the color is with the 100 f/2.8 APO?
Is it strong? Saturated?
Trasparent? "what ever that means!"
It's really hard to see these differences of fine details on a computer
screen.
Thanks,
Barney
John J
> What's a 1v?
Eos 1v, a Canon pro film body.
Do you know what the % the viewfinder shows in the Leica
> R8/9?
>
98%, but it's the 2% that I can't see that can and have caused me problems.
John J
> Wow! How do you get the lights to streak with the car so frozen? Is the
> camera attatched to the car somehow?
>
Yes, it is.
JJ
>
> Barney
TP
>All true, Tony. But Iwas mentioning this lens for portrait work, not macro.
I know, Lewis. The point I have been making is that, in the vast
majority of cases, specialist macro lenses aren't ideal for portraits,
and general purpose telephoto lenses that are optimised for
portraiture don't make good macro lenses.
Your comments supported that point, for which I thank you.
;-)
TP
>It's really hard to see these differences of fine details on a computer
>screen.
Let's hope that film never dies, then.
;-)
TP
>TP <t...@nospam.net> wrote in news:k3p3b018gl5vl8gq1kaou2l0c7doao8vkh@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Maybe you can *shoot* a portrait with the 100 macro, but it will
>> inevitably be unflattering because of the optical design of the lens.
>> Specialist macro lenses almost all make bad portrait lenses because
>> their optical design results in unflattering portraits.
>
>Are you saying that it would be too sharp for portrait?
No. Sharpness is not an undesirable feature of a portrait lens, but
the harsh rendition of out of focus highlights that results from the
high degree of correction of spherical aberration that the designer of
a macro lens aims for can ruin its ability to make good portraits.
Let me explain why.
In macro work, there is almost zero depth of field. Therefore
backgrounds are so defocused that the quality of the rendition of out
of focus highlights is almost irrelevant. It is therefore possible to
design for maximum sharpness, which comes at the expense of a harsh
rendition of the out of focus elements of the shot.
This harshness only comes into play at typical portrait focusing
distances, where the greater available depth of field means that even
with the lens wide open, it is not possible to completely blur the
background. The quality of rendition of out of focus highlights then
becomes critical to the shot, when it hardly even mattered at macro
focusing distances.
Portrait lenses are optimised for sharpness and good, smooth out of
focus effects at normal focusing distances used for portraiture. The
two types of lenses therefore perform very differently.
>> On the other hand, depending how close you want to go (say up to 1:2),
>> the 90mm f/2 ASPH can give some very acceptable results. The same
>> *cannot* be said of a macro lens used for portraits, unless you are
>> blind to the adverse qualities of the results.
>
>Qualities such as the background not being as out of focus (smooth)
>compaired to the 90mm?
Yes, see above.
>Any other qualities out there that you refure to?
No, the quality of rendition of out of focus highlights is the
critical factor here. Yes, other qualities are important, such as
contrast, distortion and resistance to flare, but those apply equally
to both macro and portrait lenses.
Alan Browne
> Barney <NoS...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
>>Are you saying that it would be too sharp for portrait?
>
>
> No. Sharpness is not an undesirable feature of a portrait lens, but
> the harsh rendition of out of focus highlights that results from the
> high degree of correction of spherical aberration that the designer of
> a macro lens aims for can ruin its ability to make good portraits.
>
> Let me explain why.
TP:Why don't you post examples from your experiments, tests and experience?
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Neil Gould
> "Neil Gould" <ne...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote in
>> Are you really evaluating the Leica 100 f/2.8 APO? I find it very
>> hard to believe that you've ever used one. I own one, and find it to
>> be an excellent portrait lens, as well as a handy macro lense.
>> Apparently, my opinon is not unique:
>
> I have read that the contrast on the 100 f/2.8 APO is high. (Maybe
> not as high as the 90mm ASPH).
>
I don't find it to be objectionable at all.
> I have also read that the color on the 90mm is "trasparent"
> (according to Leica) so I'm wondering how the color is with the 100
> f/2.8 APO?
>
So much depends on the film that you're using that such comments are of
questionable value. I would suggest that you rent one from your Leica
dealer and shoot some film with it.
> Is it strong? Saturated?
>
> Trasparent? "what ever that means!"
>
> It's really hard to see these differences of fine details on a
> computer screen.
>
It's impossible to evaluate subtle differences based on images that have
been scanned and reduced to a size practical for viewing on-line. The
differences between film, development, scanners, and technicians all
become part of the equation.
Regards,
Neil
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Wed, May 26, 2004 1:14 AM
>Message-id: <c91935$1gag$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au>
Thanks for al the info, John. Seems like you have the best of both worlds --
Canon L for AF/movement and Leica R for more stationery subjects (and/or
whatever else you see fit to use it for).
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Wed, May 26, 2004 5:49 PM
>Message-id: <824ab0l9bi3qskol2...@4ax.com>
:-)
TP
>TP:Why don't you post examples from your experiments, tests and experience?
Because I am not in the least bit interested in the opinions of inept
snapshooters such as you. I have seen your contributions to the SI,
Alan, and they are pathetic beyond belief.
There is nothing you can teach anyone, other than a stubborn refusal
to learn and improve, and that's why you and your kind will never get
the chance to critique any of my work.
Have a nice day, and don't forget to brush those teeth. Yuk!
;-)
Barney
> 98%, but it's the 2% that I can't see that can and have caused me
> problems.
I'm afraid it's worst than that. I was reading the technical data from the
R9 booklet and here's what it states...
"23x25mm corresponds to 93% of the image area (96% vertical x 97%
horizontal), in conformance with the standardized 35mm slide format."
The good news of that (at least for me) is that my format of choice is
slides.
I would think that once the digital back is available (Dec 1st), the LCD
monitor will show all of what's being framed.
Barney
Barney
4ax.com:
> In macro work, there is almost zero depth of field. Therefore
> backgrounds are so defocused that the quality of the rendition of out
> of focus highlights is almost irrelevant. It is therefore possible to
> design for maximum sharpness, which comes at the expense of a harsh
> rendition of the out of focus elements of the shot.
>
> This harshness only comes into play at typical portrait focusing
> distances, where the greater available depth of field means that even
> with the lens wide open, it is not possible to completely blur the
> background. The quality of rendition of out of focus highlights then
> becomes critical to the shot, when it hardly even mattered at macro
> focusing distances.
>
> Portrait lenses are optimised for sharpness and good, smooth out of
> focus effects at normal focusing distances used for portraiture. The
> two types of lenses therefore perform very differently.
The weekend before the 4th of July is my local dealer's Leica sale. I
should be able to compair both lens through the viewfinder (both lens
wide open) and easily see the effects through the viewfinder.
Thank you everyone!
Barney
Neil Gould
Recently, Barney <NoS...@NoSpam.com> posted:
>
> The weekend before the 4th of July is my local dealer's Leica sale. I
> should be able to compair both lens through the viewfinder (both lens
> wide open) and easily see the effects through the viewfinder.
>
Why not stick a roll of film in the camera while you're there, shoot with
both lenses, and have it developed? That would supply you with a better
idea of the performance differences between these lenses.
Regards,
Neil
Dallas
> Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>TP:Why don't you post examples from your experiments, tests and experience?
>
> Because I am not in the least bit interested in the opinions of inept
> snapshooters such as you. I have seen your contributions to the SI,
> Alan, and they are pathetic beyond belief.
>
> There is nothing you can teach anyone, other than a stubborn refusal
> to learn and improve, and that's why you and your kind will never get
> the chance to critique any of my work.
But then why do you persist on promoting yourself as a photographer on
here? You have not an ounce of talent. We saw that on Shuttercity. Luckily
I saved those "works". Maybe I should put them up on a webpage somewhere
and link to them in my signature so that we can be constantly reminded of
your "brilliance".
Would you be offended if I did that?
--
I am a product of The Summer Of Love, 1967.
Lose the wings - then fly to me!
TP
>The weekend before the 4th of July is my local dealer's Leica sale. I
>should be able to compair both lens through the viewfinder (both lens
>wide open) and easily see the effects through the viewfinder.
You are unlikely to be able to tell much difference through the
viewfinder. Shoot some slow slide film, using a tripod or monopod if
possible. Shoot with the lenses wide open.
Alan Browne
> TP said:
>
>
>>Alan Browne <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>TP:Why don't you post examples from your experiments, tests and experience?
>>
>>Because I am not in the least bit interested in the opinions of inept
>>snapshooters such as you. I have seen your contributions to the SI,
>>Alan, and they are pathetic beyond belief.
>>
>>There is nothing you can teach anyone, other than a stubborn refusal
>>to learn and improve, and that's why you and your kind will never get
>>the chance to critique any of my work.
Can't see your post so replying to Dallas'
TP, you are a right prat. I just asked for a posting to support
your various theses on sharpness and oof textures. You instantly
turn that into a personal attack, which is for you, par for the
course. As to my shots in the SI, some are crap, some are quite
nice in my and the opinions of others. Since you have not posted
anything, despite shooting 50 rolls per average *week*, you
certainly have no platform to criticize from.
I am always unlearning and learning and improving my photography
and knowledge. You are still 'contributing' on a very narrow
range of subejcts that you know well, but in broader terms you
know very little, and you have NOTHING to show to prove
otherwise. Certainly what you say on the NG today is no
different than what you said 3 or 4 years ago ... so what have
you learend? Damned little it appears, and the upside potential
dwarfs your current portfolio.
But I'll tell you what. Post 7 shots of yours that exemplify
your best work. And I will say nothing about them for 30 days,
thus allowing my betters to 'critique' them first. Therefore, if
my comments would be too far out of line you will have the weight
of all these 'betters' to weigh against my comments.
I would think that with your extensive portfolio of shots based
on some 93,000 frames per *year* you could come up with 7
exemplary photos.
Hint, don't post what you posted a couple years ago. I hear they
weren't too hot.
Cheers,
Alan.
Barney
from this newsgroup and other forums, SO FAR I"m going with the 90mm.
Comapaired to the fact that I've been leaning towards the 100mm mostly
all of the time.
I do believe that the out of focus areas are better with the 90mm than
with the 100mm based on what I have read in this newsgroup and from this
website that has many examples of many Leica lens.
http://www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgalleryme
nu.html
The 90mm has a performance wide open that's equal to the 100mm and gets
better as it's closed down. The 100mm's performance stays pretty much
the same at all f stops (according to Leica's own website).
Even though the 90mm does not perform as well from 1.5 meters and closer
(focus wise and can be fixed by closing down), (according to Leica's own
website) I beleive I would not be using the lens for too many close up
works. And if I do, I'll just close down the lens.
Based on what I saw in the len's gallery menue, it seems that I would be
able to get more "normal" type work done with the 90mm when compaired to
the 100mm. I just don't need to be that close all the time.
Even though it would be nice to get really close like one can with the
100mm, I don't see myself using that feature as often and would like to
get the better quality from the 90mm lens.
100mm lens from about 1986
90mm lens from about end of 2002 or so. About 15 years newer in design.
Probably accounts for the better contrast, resolution and color (based on
Leica's own website.
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/putskolumne/12.pdf
Just to let you know I'm a student at SCC (Scottsdale Community College)
and plan to get the R9 and 90mm lens for the rest of all the photo
classes I'm taking.
Currently I'm using a Cannon Rebel 2000 with the zoom lens that came with
it. I hope to see an improvment with every aspect of the quality of the
image (even for my Leica projector when I shoot slides). I'll be getting
this system the weekend befor the 4th of July and I'll be ready to use
this for my 2nd B&W photo class this fall.
Even though I'm not a fan of digital photography (because of the quality)
it's nice to know that the R9 will have a digital back coming around Dec
1st of this year. (I guess about 4 grand extra!)
Thanks everyone for your help...
Barney
TP
>
>I do believe that the out of focus areas are better with the 90mm than
>with the 100mm based on what I have read in this newsgroup and from this
>website that has many examples of many Leica lens.
>
>http://www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgalleryme
>nu.html
>
>The 90mm has a performance wide open that's equal to the 100mm and gets
>better as it's closed down. The 100mm's performance stays pretty much
>the same at all f stops (according to Leica's own website).
>
>Even though the 90mm does not perform as well from 1.5 meters and closer
>(focus wise and can be fixed by closing down), (according to Leica's own
>website) I beleive I would not be using the lens for too many close up
>works. And if I do, I'll just close down the lens.
>
>Based on what I saw in the len's gallery menue, it seems that I would be
>able to get more "normal" type work done with the 90mm when compaired to
>the 100mm. I just don't need to be that close all the time.
>
>Even though it would be nice to get really close like one can with the
>100mm, I don't see myself using that feature as often and would like to
>get the better quality from the 90mm lens.
Great decision. Enjoy your 90mm.
;-)
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Sat, May 29, 2004 2:27 AM
>Message-id: <Xns94F7EE52657C...@68.6.19.6>
>
>All of the reading, searching for examples and getting advice from many
>
>from this newsgroup and other forums, SO FAR I"m going with the 90mm.
>Comapaired to the fact that I've been leaning towards the 100mm mostly
>all of the time.
>
>I do believe that the out of focus areas are better with the 90mm than
>with the 100mm based on what I have read in this newsgroup and from this
>
>website that has many examples of many Leica lens.
>
>http://www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgalleryme
>nu.html
SNIP
For some reason this link doesn't work for me, comes up with a question mark
and some odd alphanumeric characters (seems liie a "this webpage does not
exist/are you sure you typed in the right URL type of page/banner) - do you
have a working link to this R lens gallery? Thanks.
PS -Congratulations on choosing the 90, I wish you many excellent photographs
with it :-).
Barney
news:20040529145831...@mb-m02.aol.com:
>>http://www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgallery
>>me nu.html
>
> SNIP
>
> For some reason this link doesn't work for me, comes up with a
> question mark and some odd alphanumeric characters (seems liie a "this
> webpage does not exist/are you sure you typed in the right URL type of
> page/banner) - do you have a working link to this R lens gallery?
Yep, works for me. Remember that the link is word wrapped. What you may
have to do is copy and past the first line into the address area of your
web browser, then copy and past the last part of it at the very end of
the address in the address area. I'll try to post it again however
without the "http://" to help make it smaller.
www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgallerymenu.html
At least on my computer screen, that fits on one line. If the link does
not work by clicking it,you will need to copy and past it into your
address window of your web browser. If that does not work, put http://
in front of the www part of the link.
Let me know if you finally get it.
> PS -Congratulations on choosing the 90, I wish you many excellent
> photographs with it :-).
Thanks, I'll be letting you guys know. It seems that I may have to set
up some kind of web site to share what I have taken like many have done.
The thing is, my Dimage Scan Dual II is really hard to work with slides
(color that is) since I'm not very good at adjusting color. At least it
will be eaiser to do with B&W. I feel like I waisted money on that 35mm
film scanner.
Barney
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>From: Barney NoS...@NoSpam.com
>Message-id: <Xns94F9255F425C...@68.6.19.6>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20040529145831...@mb-m02.aol.com:
>
>>>http://www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgallery
>>>me nu.html
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>> For some reason this link doesn't work for me, comes up with a
>> question mark and some odd alphanumeric characters (seems liie a "this
>> webpage does not exist/are you sure you typed in the right URL type of
>> page/banner) - do you have a working link to this R lens gallery?
>
>Yep, works for me. Remember that the link is word wrapped. What you may
>
>have to do is copy and past the first line into the address area of your
>
>web browser, then copy and past the last part of it at the very end of
>the address in the address area. I'll try to post it again however
>without the "http://" to help make it smaller.
>
>www.itntokyo.com/users/nomoto/Galleryfiles/R_Sample/rlensgallerymenu.html
>
>At least on my computer screen, that fits on one line. If the link does
>
>not work by clicking it,you will need to copy and past it into your
>address window of your web browser. If that does not work, put http://
>
>in front of the www part of the link.
>
>Let me know if you finally get it.
Thanks Barney, that did the trick :-)
>Thanks, I'll be letting you guys know. It seems that I may have to set
>
>up some kind of web site to share what I have taken like many have done.
>
>The thing is, my Dimage Scan Dual II is really hard to work with slides
>
>(color that is) since I'm not very good at adjusting color. At least it
>
>will be eaiser to do with B&W. I feel like I waisted money on that 35mm
>
>film scanner.
>
>
>Barney
The scan II is not a flatbed scanner is it? Minolta scanners are supposed to be
pretty good, but are you using some sort of channel/menu setting that would
allow you to select color balance for the specific type of scanned original -
either E-6 or Kodachrome type slides as needed/depending on slide?
Barney
> The scan II is not a flatbed scanner is it?
I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
Minolta scanners are
> supposed to be pretty good, but are you using some sort of
> channel/menu setting that would allow you to select color balance for
> the specific type of scanned original - either E-6 or Kodachrome type
> slides as needed/depending on slide?
I have tried many of the different settings. The problem is the picture's
color simply does not look like the slide even after much ajusting. It
might get somewhat close after working with it for way too long and I find
it simply too much of a hassle.
It's much easier for me to project the slides with my projector and the
color is always right!
Barney
Sander Vesik
> cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
> news:20040530102508...@mb-m06.aol.com:
>
> > The scan II is not a flatbed scanner is it?
>
> I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
> flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
>
> Minolta scanners are
> > supposed to be pretty good, but are you using some sort of
> > channel/menu setting that would allow you to select color balance for
> > the specific type of scanned original - either E-6 or Kodachrome type
> > slides as needed/depending on slide?
>
> I have tried many of the different settings. The problem is the picture's
> color simply does not look like the slide even after much ajusting. It
> might get somewhat close after working with it for way too long and I find
> it simply too much of a hassle.
Could it be you haven't calibrated your monitor? Even a very basic claibration
will help quite a lot.
>
> It's much easier for me to project the slides with my projector and the
> color is always right!
>
>
> Barney
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>From: Barney NoS...@NoSpam.com
>Message-id: <Xns94FBEE189ADA...@68.6.19.6>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20040530102508...@mb-m06.aol.com:
>
>> The scan II is not a flatbed scanner is it?
>
>I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
>flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
>
Right, flatbeds scan prints and larger transparencies (with an adapter), your
scanner is a regular film scanner (as opposed to a scanner that's irregular and
doesn't get enough fiber in its diet ;-)).
>Minolta scanners are
>> supposed to be pretty good, but are you using some sort of
>> channel/menu setting that would allow you to select color balance for
>> the specific type of scanned original - either E-6 or Kodachrome type
>> slides as needed/depending on slide?
>
>I have tried many of the different settings. The problem is the picture's
>
>color simply does not look like the slide even after much ajusting. It
>
>might get somewhat close after working with it for way too long and I find
>
>it simply too much of a hassle.
>
Do you think either the scanner itself or the program you use it with is
defective and/or out of calibration? Sounds awfully odd...
>It's much easier for me to project the slides with my projector and the
>
>color is always right!
>
:-)
>
>Barney
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Wed, Jun 2, 2004 7:50 AM
>Message-id: <10861773...@haldjas.folklore.ee>
>
>Barney <NoS...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>> news:20040530102508...@mb-m06.aol.com:
>>
>> > The scan II is not a flatbed scanner is it?
>>
>> I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
>
>> flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
>>
>> Minolta scanners are
>> > supposed to be pretty good, but are you using some sort of
>> > channel/menu setting that would allow you to select color balance for
>> > the specific type of scanned original - either E-6 or Kodachrome type
>> > slides as needed/depending on slide?
>>
>> I have tried many of the different settings. The problem is the picture's
>
>> color simply does not look like the slide even after much ajusting. It
>
>> might get somewhat close after working with it for way too long and I
>find
>> it simply too much of a hassle.
>
>Could it be you haven't calibrated your monitor? Even a very basic claibration
>will help quite a lot.
SNIP
Now that's an excellent idea :-). (No sarcasm intended, its a good idea :-)).
Barney
news:10861773...@haldjas.folklore.ee:
>> I have tried many of the different settings. The problem is the
>> picture's color simply does not look like the slide even after much
>> ajusting. It might get somewhat close after working with it for way
>> too long and I find it simply too much of a hassle.
>
> Could it be you haven't calibrated your monitor? Even a very basic
> claibration will help quite a lot.
>
>
You know what's funny about that question is that I've had my Pioneer Pro
520 (hd set) ISF calabrated and I know the difference that a good
calabration can make.
My computer monitor is a NEC MultiSync FP1375X. It's a model that was
not available in many stores and had to purchace it through other means.
The feature I liked about this monitor (besides it was about the biggest
CRT I could get for a true computer monitor) was it's color temp
settings. Though I question if the "standard" setting is standard since
I know from the factory many things can be off. Gray scale too is very
important. If the gray scale is off, then all of the colors are off.
To answer your question, no, I have not had this monitor calabrated and
that may be a lot of what my problem is. Spending the money on this
monitor is not as important as having my HDTV set calabrated.
Barney
Barney
>>I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
>>flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
>>
>
> Right, flatbeds scan prints and larger transparencies (with an
> adapter), your scanner is a regular film scanner (as opposed to a
> scanner that's irregular and doesn't get enough fiber in its diet
> ;-)).
>
Then what's the difference between flatbeds and "drum" scanners. Why are
they suppost to be so much better? And is it true that 35mm film scanners
are catching up in quality compaired to drum scanners?
Barney
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Wed, Jun 9, 2004 9:23 PM
>Message-id: <Xns9503BB1612A5...@68.6.19.6>
>
>cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
>news:20040602224345...@mb-m23.aol.com:
>
>>>I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
>
>>>flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
>>>
>>
>> Right, flatbeds scan prints and larger transparencies (with an
>> adapter), your scanner is a regular film scanner (as opposed to a
>> scanner that's irregular and doesn't get enough fiber in its diet
>> ;-)).
>>
>
>Then what's the difference between flatbeds and "drum" scanners. Why are
>
>they suppost to be so much better?
Flatbed scanners are, as their name implies, used to scan a flat image, usually
a print (though there are adaptors for larger transparencies too) and prints
have less of a contrast range than transparencies which can go from a near
bullet proof black to clear. Drum scanners usually have a higher gamma or
contrast range than flatbed units and so can capture much more of the tonal
range of a transparency and usually at much higher resolution than either the
standard "cheap" desktop flatbed scanners or the film scanners (which also,
like the drum scanners, handle negatives and transparencies but at a much lower
contrast range and, resolution than drum scanners). There are other differences
too
And is it true that 35mm film scanners
>
>are catching up in quality compaired to drum scanners?
>
>
>Barney
>
>
Hi Barney:
They (film scanners) are improving in resolution and contrast range but drum
scanners still have the edge in both areas. If all you do are scans of your
prints a good flatbed scanner might do you fine, also, so might a good film
scanner if your slides/negs are not too contrasty (ie. don't have dense bullet
proof highlights for negs or dark shadows for slides) and you are blowing up a
print to about 16x24" (this is a rough guess of mine not actual experience).
For larger mural sized prints of exceptional resolution and range of a
contrasty scene a drum scan, though expensive (search around for prices) may be
a good thing to get for those extra special images.
TP
>
>Then what's the difference between flatbeds and "drum" scanners. Why are
>they suppost to be so much better?
In a 35mm film scanner, the film is only as flat as the mount allows.
In a drum scanner, the film is curved into the inside of a drum and
fixed there with oil, resulting in a very precise and constant
scanner-film distance.
The drum revolves at high speed and multiple scans are made, building
up detail. The achievable dynamic range is very much higher than even
the best flat film scanners.
>And is it true that 35mm film scanners
>are catching up in quality compaired to drum scanners?
Yes, 5400 dpi is now possible in a 35mm film scanner, but the dynamic
range still lags behind drum scanners.
There is a "half-way house" represented by the Imacon FlexTight range
of scanners which combine some of the features of 35mm film and drum
scanners. The scan quality is better than 35mm film scanners but the
dynamic range is still not quite as good as the best drum scanners.
Gordon Moat
> Barney <NoS...@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> >
> >Then what's the difference between flatbeds and "drum" scanners. Why are
> >they suppost to be so much better?
>
> In a 35mm film scanner, the film is only as flat as the mount allows.
> In a drum scanner, the film is curved into the inside of a drum and
> fixed there with oil, resulting in a very precise and constant
> scanner-film distance.
Just to add some information, drum scanners also use Photo Multiplier Tubes
(often just called PMTs), which function very differently than CCDs in film
scanners. The PMTs are largely responsible for the difference in dynamic
range, and in detail resolution, as well as edge definition.
>
>
> The drum revolves at high speed and multiple scans are made, building
> up detail. The achievable dynamic range is very much higher than even
> the best flat film scanners.
>
> >And is it true that 35mm film scanners
> >are catching up in quality compaired to drum scanners?
>
> Yes, 5400 dpi is now possible in a 35mm film scanner, but the dynamic
> range still lags behind drum scanners.
>
> There is a "half-way house" represented by the Imacon FlexTight range
> of scanners which combine some of the features of 35mm film and drum
> scanners. The scan quality is better than 35mm film scanners but the
> dynamic range is still not quite as good as the best drum scanners.
As nice as the Imacon (couple models) scanners work, they are still CCD
scanners. At their price point, they are quite good. The better Nikon, Canon,
and newer Minolta CCD scanners are now quite good, but still require a
certain level of operator skill.
One nice trick to help any CCD film scanner is to place the transparency film
into a glass mount. When doing this, adding one drop of drum scan oil to
either side can greatly improve the captured dynamic range, and the
resolution. It is much less messy than it sounds, and using only two drops
keeps any oil from getting into the scanner.
The same oil can be used on a flat scanner that can scan transparency film.
While it does involve cleanup, there is a noticeable quality difference in
the scan. This has been tried by some people using the better Epson flat bed
scanners, and the Canon 9900F. This brings us to flat bed scanner technology,
which is CCD based, though the difference is that the CCD is on a platen that
moves, and an optics system (lens based, often with mirrors) focuses on (or
near) the surface of what is being scanned.
High end flat scanners are quite good, and even some of the past are still
quite good, such as the older Linotype Hell scanners, and the somewhat rare
high end AGFA DuoScan. A newer version of one of the Duoscan models is now
made by MicroTek. The current leader in this technology is Creo, with their
iQSmart (and others) models, most with oil mounts included.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
<http://www.agstudiopro.com> Coming Soon!
brian
snip
> Just to add some information, drum scanners also use Photo Multiplier Tubes
> (often just called PMTs), which function very differently than CCDs in film
> scanners. The PMTs are largely responsible for the difference in dynamic
> range, and in detail resolution, as well as edge definition.
>
PMTs certainly do help increase dynamic range, but in and of
themselves don't contribute to the system resolution/MTF because they
are essentially just very sensitive light meters. Its the lens that
goes between the film and the PMT that makes all the difference here.
In a drum scanner you only have to image a single point on the film at
a time, so a high resolution microscope-style objective can be used.
Such a lens can deliver vastly better resolution and contrast than any
enlarging lens. All the PMT does is measure how bright each point is,
and it does this very well.
William Graham
"TP" <t...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:47egc0l5gicetmcm4...@4ax.com...
render the film useless thenceforth, or can the film be recovered and
cleaned to be used again?
Barney
Gordon Moat
Thanks for adding that Brian. Always nice to hear from you.
Gordon Moat
Actually, it is very helpful for the film, and a good way to remove dust, after
you wipe it off. One of the more common brands is Kami, in case you are looking
for this. It is very good at filling in scratches on film, and often much
better at small "repairs" like that than PhotoShop.
brian
>
TP
>As nice as the Imacon (couple models) scanners work, they are still CCD
>scanners. At their price point, they are quite good. The better Nikon, Canon,
>and newer Minolta CCD scanners are now quite good, but still require a
>certain level of operator skill.
>
>One nice trick to help any CCD film scanner is to place the transparency film
>into a glass mount. When doing this, adding one drop of drum scan oil to
>either side can greatly improve the captured dynamic range, and the
>resolution. It is much less messy than it sounds, and using only two drops
>keeps any oil from getting into the scanner.
>
>The same oil can be used on a flat scanner that can scan transparency film.
>While it does involve cleanup, there is a noticeable quality difference in
>the scan. This has been tried by some people using the better Epson flat bed
>scanners, and the Canon 9900F. This brings us to flat bed scanner technology,
>which is CCD based, though the difference is that the CCD is on a platen that
>moves, and an optics system (lens based, often with mirrors) focuses on (or
>near) the surface of what is being scanned.
>
>High end flat scanners are quite good, and even some of the past are still
>quite good, such as the older Linotype Hell scanners, and the somewhat rare
>high end AGFA DuoScan. A newer version of one of the Duoscan models is now
>made by MicroTek. The current leader in this technology is Creo, with their
>iQSmart (and others) models, most with oil mounts included.
That's interesting, Gordon, thanks.
I will file your post for future reference.
TP
>
>Does the oil that fixes the film to the inside of the drum in a drum scanner
>render the film useless thenceforth, or can the film be recovered and
>cleaned to be used again?
It is completely harmless, and easily cleaned off.
Remarkable stuff!
See Gordon Moat's very informative post suggesting that the oil can
also be used to good effect in 35mm film scanners.
William Graham
those drum scanners would come down.....Maybe one of the local photography
clubs has one that can be used by their members......
Sander Vesik
> cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in
> news:20040602224345...@mb-m23.aol.com:
>
> >>I'm not sure what a flatbed scanner is? However I don't think it's a
> >>flatbed scanner as it only scans 35mm film, not pictures.
> >>
> >
> > Right, flatbeds scan prints and larger transparencies (with an
> > adapter), your scanner is a regular film scanner (as opposed to a
> > scanner that's irregular and doesn't get enough fiber in its diet
> > ;-)).
> >
>
> Then what's the difference between flatbeds and "drum" scanners. Why are
about 4 times the resolution, 10 times the price and 8-10 times
(at least) less noise. As thinsg stand, there are fundamental
physics reasons why drum scanners will be better than any
flatbed, no matter how high end.
> they suppost to be so much better? And is it true that 35mm film scanners
> are catching up in quality compaired to drum scanners?
film scanners (though good film scanners tend to support both 35mm
and medium format) have been advancing faster than other scanners
for past 2-3-4 years so in that sense, they are catching up.
Lewis Lang
>over the other and why?
>Date: Fri, Jun 11, 2004 12:09 PM
>Message-id: <3c459ba.04061...@posting.google.com>
I second that minority ;-), and good info from both of you :-).
Mike
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ghryc.70993$3x.8469@attbi_s54...
>
> "> >
> Can I fry my eggs in it too? - Just kidding....Thanks. I wish the price
of
> those drum scanners would come down.....Maybe one of the local photography
> clubs has one that can be used by their members......
>
June if your interested.
It is a Isomet Model 455 20 inch color drum scanner with 26 inch x 20 inch
drum and controls.