Hi Wilber, When I went fully digital I resolved myself to learn as much as possible about the digital process and what you can and must do to get the same or better image quality from digital as from film. While moving to shooting motorsports fully digital was relatively easy, the change to architecture was much harder of the two to learn to do well because of the post processing required to correct for perspective digitally that you cannot make with the camera and the short contrast range and resulting compression typical of digital cameras.
I used to shoot medium and large format for an ad agency in L.A. over 30 years ago and there has not been much progress made if any in lenses for cut film cameras since before or after I left the agency. But on the other hand within the digital photo realm there has been a TREMENDOUS amount of change even in the last 2 years. I can tell you without a doubt that if you are NOT using some of the widely available tools for digital post capture correction and enhancement you are leaving a lot image quality on the table even for portrait work. BTW, there is at least one good program to correct for edge of the frame linear distortion you are complaining about and it's even cheap to buy why aren't you using it to solve your problem? Don't get me wrong but IMO one of the differences between a professional and an armature is the depth of his commitment to a quality capture and post capture processing. This expertise is why clients are willing to pay a professional even though anyone can go out and buy a digital camera and shoot a job on the cheap. Don't short change your work and don't under value your work, show your expertise and skill level and charge appropriately for it I say. The linear distortion produced by the 19mm Leica while small is still easily measurable if not as easily visible. I'd say that the Canon EF 15 2.8 FF fisheye is nearly as sharp as your 19mm Leica but of course it's wider and has all that nasty distortion to contend with. Of course a Leica 19mm doesn't distort as much as the short end of an EF 16-35 2.8L zoom, it's a very simple wide angle prime not a retro focus ultra-wide angle 2:1 zoom with a 16mm short end. There are VERY few f/2.8 ultra-wide angle zoom lenses produced let alone a lens that can produce this level of image sharpness and low linear distortion. Much of the error produced by the EF 16-35 2.8L lens when used on a DSLR body is due to the physics involved with digital sensors and the current sensors themselves. I've used the EF 16-35 2.8L lens on both film and FF DSLR's and the digital body images exhibit problems that are not easily seen on chromes. Cheers/Chip > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Wilber > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:57 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [inbox] Re: EOS Advices needed for lens purchase > > > Ah Chip-not nice to Assume! For I too am a professional > photographer (36 yrs > worth and Certified with the PPofA). Yes I realize the lens will give you > distortion (especially wide angles close in) but for 25 yrs I shot with > Leica-my all time favorite lens was the 19 f 2.8 and it DID NOT > distort like > the 16mm end of this lens does. I guess those 3 mm's make a difference (I > guess size does matter). I work mostly with people now and do not use > Photoshop for correction of distortion-but can tell you that when > shooting > groups I have to be careful with the folks on the end that I not > get them to > close to the edge (With this lens) or they will distort-even if > the camera > is squared -most people don't have too many straight lines. I switched to > the Canon system for the auto focus ability and am very please > with it. When > I do on occasion do architectural images I go back to the Cambos > ( 8x10 or > 4x5), even there I have a 75mm Rodenstock Grandagon that has some slight > edge distortion. Perhaps I have two lens that are not up to snuff. > I do realize that it is NOT the fault of the lens-but with this > tool it does > seem more extreme than I feel it should be. Maybe this is part of > the nature > of a zoom lens. After lurking (did not realize to erase that > little line at > the bottom) for about 3 yrs I just figured it was time to get > into the chat. > Cheers Wilber > > > * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
