Found it, and I should have said film simulation, rather than emulation. Very cool camera, ridiculously expensive. Maybe look for a used one in a year or two.
Temporary diversion to the dark side of technology…the horrendous evil of printers!
I recently was framing some prints and posters that I have had for some time that were due some protection and one of them was an oddball size of 16"x20". I was able to get a reasonably priced frame in that size with the catch that I had to buy a two pack. So I have one left over.
At work I have finally been granted the privilege of my own office and so I was thinking to perhaps do some a print from my own photos to hang up on the otherwise bland off-white walls.
Has anyone done larger prints with digital photos to have guidance on what sort of resolution or pixel density / DPI would be good at this size? The internet seems to claim a minimum result of 300 DPI to get a clear enough image (image resolution for one axis / length of physical print on same axis, check both axis are over 300 DPI).
My first thought was that for a 16x20 frame, you most likely are going to have a mat (aka matte), which will reduce the print size quite a bit. I recently framed some of my wife’s grandmother’s B&W photos from the early 50’s. The frames were 16x20 and the prints 11x14 with a mat.
Recommended print/mat/frame sizes:
As far as a scanning resolution, here is a calculator:
I have quite a few photos hanging around the apartment but they’re rather expensive UV prints on alu dibond, some are framed, others are not. For printing I usually develop to 300dpi .tif files but that only really matters when I print myself which I rarely do. At least with the print service I use it’s all managed by their software and their prints are excellent (saal-digital for any Germans who are interested).
I prefer this kind of print since you can simply clean them with soap and water if necessary (my nephews ‘improved’ one of them with chocolate and cranberry sauce and it was easily cleaned off.They’re even weather resistant if you want to hang them outside.
The largest print I have is 120x80cm, a couple of prints are in 90x60cm and 45x30cm but most are 60x40cm. My parents have a panoramic that I did in 175x45cm above the house door. That was a 350€ print btw.
120x80 is around 200€ with a aluminium profile as a means to hang them up, if you want it framed you can add 100€
The large panoramic at my parents just after the new door was installed (175x45cm)
120x80cm, framed (~160€ during a sale)
I also have made a calendar this year, I’ll take some pictures in a moment.
A few pages out of my Calendar for 2023
I ordered 10 at a price of 20€/Calendar. They’re my go to Christmas presents for friends and family.
My sister got a special 2024 family planner with pictures of my three nephews (she needs the planners at least half a year ahead to plan holidays etc).
@Derbysieger I may have a line on a used EF 70-200, I have to see what variant it is, the F/4 or the F/2. - being offered by a photographer I met at CYYZ who has recently gotten himself the RF 100-500L.
I know the aperture and price would of course be a factor, and I have to account for getting the EF/RF adapter as well - but in your opinion to you think that would be a good addition in my lineup where I already have the 100-400 (which is not an L lens, f/5.6-7.1)?
At present I had been planning to make the RF 24-70 my next lens, and saved some for it already.
I had also considered the 28-70 monster - but recently have discounted it for the extra cost and lack of stabilization as I am tinkering with video a bit and the R10 does not have IBIS. It is also much larger and wouldn’t pack well into my smaller bag that I can currently still pack in my motorcycle saddle bag.
My thoughts are that at either a steady F/4 or F/2.8, I could do much more at low light while still telephoto (up to 200) but that has a heavy overlap with the 100-400 and doesn’t cover the higher zoon of 200-400 range, so the debate is if the aperture benefit really overrides doubling up on the focal range.
Definitely check which version it is, there are a lot of them. If it’s the EF70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM or the EF70-200mm F2.8L IS III USM it’s a no brainer. If you can get the Mk II for ~$1000-1200 or the Mk III for around $1500 I wouldn’t think twice. Of course you’ll have to get the adapter and it’s gonna be heavy (the Mk II more than the Mk III but they’re both chonky). If it’s the EF70-200 F4L IS USM I’d only go for it if it’s sub $1000, might be difficult to get sub $1000 if it’s the EF70-200 F4L IS II USM, IIRC that’s still fairly new.
However the other options aren’t bad either but image quality has gone way up with the latest versions.
It is a F/2.8, asked about variant and what he’s looking for price wise.
Yea, a MkII is double the weight of my 100-400, plus extender weight.
At least weight is good for video lol, free stability from the momentum of the added weight!
He has the RF version of the lens in his collection as well it turns out, and said it was his favorite lens until the RF version. I can see not getting the RF version like you said before until there is a really good reason - like being paid for your work and wanting the lighter load to carry around.
Maybe not terribly related to this thread but this photo from reddit today made me happy so I will post it here.
Cannon EOS R5 RF 28-70 F2
Mark II, $1200 CAD.
Retail on that new right now is $2800 CAD.
Retail on used is $1800 CAD.
Used online like Ebay and Canada’s equivalent to the US’ Craigslist (Kijiji) is about $1500 CAD.
IMHO it’s definitely worth getting that combo. The EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM is one of my favourite lenses. It’s the only EF lens I still use all the time.
That 28-70 lens is a reviewed really highly for good reason and it shows!
The capture of the rotor tip whirls is really a cool and unique thing I haven’t seen like that before.
Yeah, it’s an incredibly good lens, unfortunately with a price to match the insane engineering
Price tag should read:
Professionals and Lottery Winners ONLY
I got the lens, just need to get the adapter!
It looks almost ridiculous on the R10, since it is a mirrorless crop sensor camera - which makes it really compact (although not as much as those new models that came out, the R50 I think it was).
What I got:
The lens, a free camo wrap pre-installed, the accompanying lens hood, rear cover, tripod mount ring, and original box.
The lens cap & carry bag.
I got a replacement lens cap for $10. As well the higher-end EF->RF adapter with control ring.
Also purchased a protector filter and a circular polarizer for it. The front element was very clean and the rear element needed a light cleaning. I got a cleaning kit as well to take care of that, and after cleaning the front element noticed a tiny, tiny little scratch on it towards the outside edge. I don’t think it will be any issue, you do have to try to find it to even see it. The rear element cleaned up nicely.
I’ll post a couple test photos that I took a bit later. I have had a long day of other errands being run and this was a spontaneous thing to jump on. The images look quite good and I can see how it highly overlaps with the 100-400 so far in daylight and there may be a tossup of which to carry there as the RF100-400 is much lighter and longer zoom.
The 100-400 functionally is a 160-640mm lens on my camera.
The 70-200 functionally is a 112-320mm lens on my camera.
In lower light though, this will be a no brainer as the RF100-400 is too slow and the ISO climb needed makes for very noticeable noise.
Today had already planned to hit up the camera store to get CPL filters for my other lenses, as I have wanted to try out the effect in different situations. Unfortunately, they are all different sizes. Seems Canon doesn’t really standardize the filter size unless you are all-in on L series lenses.
49mm for the RF-S18-45
43mm for the RF50mm f/1.8
67mm for the RF100-400
77mm for the EF70-200
I thought about using a 43-49 step ring on the 50mm, but 43-49 seems to be a unicorn that does not exist. As well, there are no other 49mm lenses in the lineup. The 50mm lens shares it’s 43mm thread with the RF16mm lens at least. So I figured I would get both sizes and if/when I sell the 18-45 (and perhaps the R10 with it after a future camera upgrade) - I’ll throw them in as gravy on the sale.
Heh, even with L series lenses it varies. Most are 77mm but I have L Series lenses with the following filter threads:
RF 100mm F2.8 L Macro IS USM
EF 70-200mm F2.8 L IS II USM
RF 24-105mm F4 L IS USM
RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
RF 15-35mm F2.8 L IS USM
Pretty sure the 28-70mm F2 L USM is 82mm as well
The 28-70 is 95mm just to hurt your wallet even more. The 24-70 is 82mm though.
Right , I guess you physics does have some requirements when you want to design an F2 zoom lens
I don’t recall if I posted this before but for anyone that could use it, I made a full spec spreadsheet of all the RF/RF-S lenses (excluding any that may have been announced in the last few months - let me know and I’ll add it).
Link is read-only to my OneDrive.
I have highlighted what I own in green and my potential TBD wishlist is the yellow but those can be cleared if you save a copy.
Lets me compare all the lineup at once, and I added crop sensor equivalent focal lengths for reference too. CAD pricing as well.