Forum Replies Created
Thank you Josh, the zoom arrived.
David convinced me that this would be a good addition for times when one is in conditions where changing lenses is a challenge. I shoot in snow and rain and dust a fair amount and changing lenses can be a challenge. My work around is to shoot a scene with all shots with the 120 and then go back again with the 35.
The size as you can see is pretty compact for a zoom, thanks to it being a slightly slower lens. This is more compact than the old 24-70 Canon zoom I used ten years ago. I was not worried about the speed, but more interested in still having a bright finder screen. I found the view screen plenty bright. Josh warned me that my split finder on the micro screen would be a challenge, but it works fine for me.
Some have complained about the shade, but it works fine for me.
I never bought the 70mm so additionally, this gives me a nice ability to cover that range too.
JackDavid K,
The last photograph is the one that sold, twice now.
Once in a B&W enlarged to 5 feet by 7.5 feet. and installed above a living room so the looking up is actually looking up. The photo is by the client just after installation before the lights were adjusted.A second sale was in color 24″x36″ is installed in an office in San Francisco.
I might be doing a longer report on how to print and frame photographs to 5 foot by 7.5 foot size sometime, if anyone is interested. It is an always technical framing challenge, but the S2 allows that kind of enlargement, which motived me to purchase it in the first place.
JackWonderful shot.
Joe Donovan should be proud of how well you learned from him, as did I.JackOK, I realize this is not from the roof, it is from behind the bench and the temp is a cool 22 degrees, but fortunately little wind down on the field.
The bench is heated, and the capes they wear on the bench are very warm.
Frankly, I over dressed for this assignment. I was too warm at times, as moving around keeps you pretty warm.
The shot is f4.8 at 1/1500 second. 640 ISO 24mm.
I wanted the crowd to be sharp and they are. These are shot for use in huge enlargements in the stadium entrance areas.
While the S is not designed for sports, it can work very well for crowd shots. With a 350mm lens, it would work well for football action too, But then one would want a bit higher ISO, not that it would be necessary.JackI was in room 4507 in the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Not inexpensive as you might guess. Third highest building in San Francisco. Glad the day was sunny. The windows open just enough to slip a 120 out the side. Another room wouldn't have allowed for that particular angle out the open window. The views through the windows were of both bridges, but I wanted this shot since I have a relative who lives on the side of Telegraph Hill. So while it looks lie a helicopter shot, I was able to be very steady, braced by the window.
The relative loved the shot. The resolution would allow a six foot print as it was a merge of three shots with the 120. Yeah, it could be a triptych, but I'm not doing it yet Kipper.
Here is another shot from the same building by Afar.com.
http://www.afar.com/highlights/the-height-of-luxuryThe Afar offices are next door but only 6 floors up.
I do a lot of highlights on Afar myself, but rarely with an S.
The travel site is excellent for scouting out shots when traveling. I suggest it to you all.
http://www.afar.com then type in your location you are interested to review. Good smartphone app too. I'll post an Afar M8 shot I took awhile ago in the M forum thread.JackEnjoy it. You have a lens that is still in short supply. Where did you get it?
JackThe key image has been linked to from TOP:
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2013/09/leica-on-high.html
It allowed viewers world wide to pixel-peep at the detail. Some have suggested that the lens is not as good as they expected from a Leica, so I blew up a segment at the edge of the shot after downloading it from red dot. i compared it to the image straight from LR5 to see if we had jpeg or web issues. We don't seem to in this case. Although, I would never print from a jpeg, only a tiff.
The viewer is evaluating a photo that could be printed 30″x20″ at 240 res, or 60″x40″ at 120 res. and then viewing the image from a few inches away.I think what is happening to viewers is they get to pixel-peep very closely and want to imagine a sensor that is 100 MP. The attached image is a blow up of what would be 2 inches x 2.5 inches at 270 res. But you are looking at it as if it were much larger here. Yes it would be nice to be able to see a person's eye color, but this is only 37.5 MP, not 120 MP. Net the lens is very good. The photo might have been technically improved if shot on a tripod, but none were allowed.
Jack
JackDale,
In answer to your questions and comments:
1.In the rain, the S shines, as it is a very water resistant system. No umbrellas are allowed in the stands as they would restrict the view of fans behind the umbrella. The rain stopped by the start of the game, but I had a rain parka with hood in case I needed it. Tripods are not allowed either, so for the shot I braced the camera on the railing.2. You don't need binoculars, you are able to see all the action from anywhere. Great sight lines, no columns, and seats are closer to the field than most stadiums. However, to follow the action, I recommend not looking through the viewfinder of a super-wide lens. Although amazingly enough, the S viewfinder is so big and bright, I could follow that touchdown play. The new video screens do aid in watching replays, and even though they are huge and HD, I watch the field.
3. One of the shots I posted may look a bit off color, but that was a view of the south end zone taken through tinted glass. I added it to give a reference for where I was when I took the key shot. I was positioned just below the bottom edge of the huge video board, which is well above the rest of the stadium.
4. I specialize in landscape and architecture, not sports, but this was all three.
Jack
JackMark,
Regarding framing cost, I have an amazing museum quality wholesale printer who estimated this will cost under $1,000. Normal framers wouldn't even try this. I will report the actual cost when I see it. I agree with you that canvas wraps can simplify framing, but when we have cameras that have this quality and resolution, printing on paper is amazing.
I have clients in cities outside Wisconsin, and shipping canvas wraps is very easy. Shipping a frame like this is a challenge. It would probably run $3,000. For a client in a 400 mile area, It is smarter to pay a friend to drive it in a truck to them, or have it framed in the client's city. In those situations the framed retail price would be over $10,000. One more reason that you don't see that many framed prints this size.
Dalethorn,
Joe shipped the print to me with a protective paper liner, and loosely rolled in a 12″x12″x48″ FedEx box usually used for shipping golf clubs. That avoided rolling the print up too tight, and protected it in transport. It was more expensive than a tube, by about $30, but the retail value of this kind of quality print makes the shipping a small part of the proposition.JackArif, Mark, Roger, and RVB,
Thanks for your comments. Joe and I have been coordinating ideas on how best to frame such large prints going forward. He was considering mounting frameless on aluminum, but services that we have found to do that, also unfortunately require their own printing. If anyone knows of a service that mounts ones own prints on unframed aluminum, please let us know.
For now, it will be framed using museum glass and a three layer matte, with a simple, clean, black, wooden frame. Because of the size, glass adds a great deal of weight, acrylic was considered to lighten the load. But acrylic with IR filtration is not only three times the cost of museum glass, it so easily scratches when cleaned.
To frame a 40″x60″ with a matte, plan on ordering a custom matte board of 48″x96″ for several hundred dollars in materials. The largest standard matte board comes in a size of 40″x60″ which costs a mere $25 for materials.
Net, to avoid further custom costs in framing with a matte boarder, others might choose to limit the maximum print to say 34″x 51″ keeping a 2×3 image ratio and allowing for a matte width of 3″ on a side and the use of a standard 40″x60″ matte board.
BTW, you can print images wider than 40″ on some printers, but if the maximum width of a custom matte board is 48″ you may not want to. Perhaps someone out there knows of a matte supplier who goes wider? When I have needed to print wider, I use a white linen liner in place of a matte.
It will be about three weeks for the frame to be finished.
JackMark,
I signed up for the S Arizona Trip in February. I hope to see you there, and I can demo this set up for you in person!JackI added this lens switch case pouch to the MindShift outfit:
http://www.mindshiftgear.com/products/lens-switch-case
This lens switch case is for me a distinct improvement over the ThinkTank skin 50 V2 bag or the lens changer 35 V2 as I can get lenses with mounted shades more quickly out of the lens-switch-case than I could the other pouches with their draw string closure. On those, the lens shade usually hung up. This has no draw string closure, but uses a zipper which opens wide enough for my 24mm with shade on, and is deep enough for my 120 with the shade on. The outer zippered pocket is good for a lens filter.
Again, MindShift is a part of ThinkTank, but designed more for hiking than urban carry.
This is not a protective case as it is not padded, but I don't need protection for the lens in this situation, just holding it.
If I were traveling light, I would have an S in hand, with a spare lens in this case on my belt.
JackThere is a $200 rebate offered ending Aug 31 on large Gitzo tripods.
Email Josh at Dale and they will get you the documentation and the tripod. Thanks Josh.
If you read earlier in this thread, you will have seen me saying I don't want to spend $800 on a 3 series when I already had a 2 series.
But I now stand corrected. The price is actually $899 for a GT3541 four section. And with the rebate, I would be spending $699. My old 2 series doesn't have the locked leg tighteners, and I was tired of that issue. Furthermore, while the collapsed size of the series 3 is within inches of the collapsed length of the series 2 as seen in the photo, an inch and a half over four sections adds to a higher tripod that I appreciated when I was testing out Mark's 3 series in New England. I am 6′ 4″
I deferred gratification for 18 months on this purchase, and the rebate made the difference. Now, any one want a 2 series for a bargain price?Jack
