On 11/8/05 5:43 PM, "Jeff Spirer" <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
How much post-processing are you doing? What are the settings in the
camera? You have to remember that with digital, you are the
photographer and the lab, and without the work done properly, you
won't get great results.
None. The camera is set to RAW and I am opening the images in Camera Raw
hosted by Bridge (Adobe CS2). The problems I am referring to have nothing
to
do with processing but rather with the degree of distortion and sharpness
of
the images specially around the periphery of the lenses (particularly the
16-35mm zoom).
There are a lot of whiners and complainers on the net. There are
plenty of people who have done ads, magazine covers, etc. with these
lenses. If you think you can learn digital overnight, you're wrong.
I don't think I can learn digital overnight and am not attempting to do
it.
The issues I refer to on my original post relate to simple observations
accomplished by anyone (specialist or not) with the naked eye. I am
keeping
an open mind and even thought that I might have bad lenses that needed to
be
replaced. This is the reason I checked the reviews on photo forums to see
what other users had experienced with these lenses.
I've got a lot of stuff published and sold prints up to 13x19 from a
much lower cost setup. You need to spend some time to understand
what you have and how to use it.
I understand your point and appreciate your input. My original cost setup
was also lower and I can assure you that the images I was able to obtain
with my Nikon and the 17-35mm zoom were way sharper around the edges than
what I got from my current Canon setup.
I think if you told all the SI shooters this, they would laugh in
your face. Get real, if Canon was this bad, you wouldn't see their
stuff at every pro event. Canon or Nikon, real photographers are
doing high quality professional work.
I really like the camera body and think it is a superbly engineered piece
of
equipment. I don't think the lenses match the camera. I have a lot of
money
invested on Nikkor lenses and decided to switch to Canon when I realized I
wasn't being able to get a good setup for close-up medical photography
using
Nikon equipment. I have used Canon for medical photography and been happy
with their equipment compared to what Nikon offers for the same type of
application. This should show how open minded I am about new equipment and
how unbiased my opinion is in regards to either company. My switch to
Canon
was motivated by the fact that while Canon offered two macro flashes
(MR-14EX and MT-24EX) that sync with its digital SLR bodies in auto TTL
mode, Nikon doesn't even offer one (it is about to introduce its first one
now). Also whenever I needed to obtain magnification superior to 1:1 with
Nikon equipment I was forced to use a bellows, a bellows extension, double
cable release, an adapter ring, a lens mounted in reverse at the end of
the
bellows, compensate for light loss with the bellows and many other
technical
issues. It was a mess. All this done without the benefit of immediate
feedback one usually gets from using a digital camera. Canon solved this
problem and simplified this whole process by introducing one single lens
that takes care of all these issues: the MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1x-5x macro lens.
This lens achieves the same level of magnification achieved on the first
stage of a clinical laboratory microscope (5x). This is truly amazing.
However, the issue remains that the two lenses I purchased and expected to
get results from that at least matched those from their Nikon counterparts
were disappointing. The fact that so many photographers use Canon is not
necessarily an indication that these lenses are as good as they should be.
At one point one has to make a decision on what is more important. When I
moved from Nikon to Canon I did so motivated by the flash, the 1x-5x macro
lens and the ability to obtain better color reproduction by working with
macro flashes that could sync in TTL with my digital SLR camera body.
Despite this move I still recognize that if I am to consider the lenses
only, both Nikkor micro lenses are superior to their Canon equivalent not
only in quality but also in construction and craftsmanship.
Hmmm, you'd have to tell all my clients, the editors at SI, Newsweek,
Time, Fortune, and lots of other magazines this. And all the
advertising clients. And photographers like Lauren Greenfield, who
use Canon digital cameras, prints huge, and sells the prints for
thousands of dollars.
This could generate by itself a huge post. I don't want to go there. There
is more economics in the answer than technical and I am not really willing
to take the time to debate it. Digital is certainly more practical,
convenient and a huge time/money saver for publishers. People in general
may
be willing to accept certain compromises in quality for the benefit of
being
more efficient or producing faster results. Just as I moved to Canon for
the
improved setup for macro/close-up photography, others may be willing to
work
with Canon since it definitely offers better digital SLR bodies and accept
the compromise in regards to lenses.
I think you'll be a lot less frustrated if you take a class or two
and do a lot of reading.
Make no mistake. I am far from being a beginner. I may not be a
professional
in the sense that I make my living out of taking photographs but I take
photography very seriously. I have been doing it now for decades, have
read
more books than many photographers I know that do it for a living and have
lectured on the subject of close-up photography for medical purposes. I
also
understand that there are those who know more than I do and this is the
reason I posted my questions and comments here. I wanted to get others'
unbiased opinions, far removed from the Canon x Nikon inflamed debates
similar to those that usually spark between Mac x Windows users. I am an
unbiased user of both systems and have just invested my hard earned money
on
a system from which I expected results that should nothing short of
outstanding. This is not what I got. All I need to do is look at the
images
and the distortion and lack of sharpness are there, staring me in the
face.
Has anyone in the group used these lenses and experienced the same
problems
?
Is there a serious web site where I can find objective reviews on both
Canon
and Nikon lenses from tests conducted in a rigorous manner and by
individuals that have advanced knowledge in optics and lens design ? If
I'm
not mistaken someone posted a web address here another day about a new
site
just with review of lenses and associate with imaging-resource.com. Does
anyone know anything about it ?
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
Thank you in advance for your help.
Best regards,
Joseph
---
Dr. Joseph Chamberlain
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
