July 25, 2014, 07:16:48 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - scottburgess

Pages: [1]
Software & Accessories / Batch process to fix missing EXIF data?
« on: May 16, 2014, 11:57:59 PM »


I'm fiddling with a new pinhole cap lens.  The obsessive-compulsive part of me wants to batch fix the EXIF data to show "Pinhole" under the lens information, and add in the correct approximate aperture and extension tube info too.  I have or have access to the usual Canon software, Photoshop/Bridge, and a couple other tools. 

Does anyone have a quick batch workflow for patching EXIF data in multiple files?  As far as I know the fields I want to modify exist automatically from the camera (though most viewing/editing software will ignore fields with blank data by default).

Of course, if someone is knowledgeable about adding an identifier chip to the pinhole cap, that could be a fun project, though I don't know if those can be programmed to take into account the use of extension tubes.

Lenses / What about those lens weights?
« on: May 08, 2014, 09:24:33 PM »
Are you doing curls with your lenses lately?  Is your photo pack dragging you down hills?  Or is all the fuss about the weight of today's lenses just for wusses?  After a discussion of gear weight elsewhere, I saw Bryan's review of the Sigma Art where he cleverly provided the build data for many 50mm lenses, along with dates of manufacture.  Dropping them into a scatter plot yielded the attached chart.

At least this confirms what we would suspect.  None of the lenses in his review built prior to the year 2000 weigh more than 400 grams, while 6/10 of those after do.  There are a few notable lenses missing, and this only covers 50mm, but the data here was handy so I nabbed it.

So what do folks think?  Is smaller and lighter better for you?  Or do you prefer higher quality and damn the pounds?  Have you swapped down to a mirrorless ILC, or would you own and use both ILCs and SLRs?

EOS Bodies / A speculative thought on Canon test bodies
« on: April 20, 2014, 03:41:49 PM »
Some rumors have indicated that Canon bodies in test eat batteries, which got me to thinking...

Suppose the new bodies are testing a triple-sensor design.  That is, light is pushed through a trichromic prism to three CMOS sensors, one each for RGB.  It is essentially a very old idea, but eliminating the Bayer sensor would improve both low light capability and effective resolution.  Such a design would be bulky and would eat batteries, but it is a potential pathway to improved capabilities for high end DSLRs.

I suspect such a sensor array at around 40Mp (x 3) would be competitive with current MF cameras.

Just a thought.  You may now return to your regularly scheduled rumors.    ;D

Lenses / Speculation: Year of the Lens
« on: February 28, 2014, 09:08:18 PM »
Lots of lenses on sale at B&H.  Perhaps the rumors of new lenses are true, and we're in for a surprise or two this year as Canon and Nikon respond to the surge of quality third party designs.

So what strategy does everyone thing Canon would employ, and which would you prefer: a) mark ii versions of L lenses that are reasonably competitive with the new Sigmas and Zeiss glass, with a bit higher price point than current releases, or b) a whole new SL line ("Super Luxury") that beats the pants off of the competition, but at prices closer to the Otus?

Or perhaps you think Canon could do both?

EOS Bodies / Moving sensor: an attractive option?
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:35:11 PM »
Suppose Canon executes a technology exchange with Hasselblad for this technology:

Would you be interesting in having this as an option on your camera body, despite the long exposure times?  What cost limit would you put for adding in this feature?

Third Party Manufacturers / The Sigma SLR Strategy?
« on: February 15, 2014, 04:28:10 PM »
Many company moves make sense to me, but I still haven't figured out why Sigma is still producing their Foveon-based SLR bodies, or for that matter any SLR bodies of their own.

Do they believe they will eventually win substantial market share in SLR bodies with so many stronger players?  Do they mainly want to hang on to potentially valuable patents in case of industry contraction?  Is there a solid future for the Foveon sensor, and is this the best way to use it?

I'm not knocking Sigma here.  I think they are arguably the most successful of the independent lens makers and as such can probably continue making a decent living.  But what precisely is the value derived from making their own SLR lineup?

Someone please help me understand this one.

Third Party Manufacturers / An Era of Mergers?
« on: February 15, 2014, 03:57:42 PM »
Thought it would be fun to start a thread about the possibility that we are entering an era of mergers and corporate closings in 35mm/compact photography companies.  Business analysts frequently say there are too many players in these markets and a shakeout is inevitable, but it has not really happened yet. 

Some general questions:

So are the analysts right?  Who might buy whom, and for what reasons?  Who will go down swinging because they have no technology or patents worth selling?  What companies are best positioned to weather the tough times over the next several years?  What data can help us forecast their futures?

Some more specific questions:

Are Canon, Nikon, and Sony swamping the market with too many SLR body choices, forcing competitors out?  (Perhaps relevant here: "Too Many Choices," Consumer Reports, March 2014.)

Is there any photo company Canon should buy?  If so, why?

What might become of offerings from Olympus, Pentax/Ricoh, Sigma, Panasonic, Leica, Zeiss, Samsung, etc...?

Please share data, analysis, and your reflections on this!

Pages: [1]