November 23, 2014, 04:01:38 AM

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.

Messages - LDS

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Software & Accessories / Re: Adobe Lightroom 5.7 Now Available
« on: November 20, 2014, 05:22:35 AM »
They should be OK...there's still a little space between seven and infinity...
Actually AFAIK in Windows those numbers can't be larger than 65535... but there's still plenty of space to deliver minor version until Adobe is forced to switch to major version 6 for that reason alone.

Anyway last news indicate a Springtime 2015 release for Adobe 6, hope improvements include GPU accelerated operations and full High DPI support.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: The structure of a CR2 file
« on: November 17, 2014, 11:15:12 AM »
OK, that's pretty cool/neat.  A great reference!  It also might explain a little bit why every new model has a different RAW file that we have to wait for aftermarket software developers like Adobe to decode/reverse engineer.
Anyone else have a different take it this?  Am I missing something?

I do not believe Adobe has to reverse engineer new formats anymore, I guess Canon is giving it access to RAW files format, probably under an NDA. When some tools become so widespread among professionals, it would be a bit silly not to cooperate with their makers. DPP is a good tool for its price :-) but it cannot compete with LR or PS or other tools for professional use.

Just Adobe prefers to process the raw data with its own algorithms and calibration data, thereby it could take a little before support is available. Calibration data can be established on production cameras only, even if they hae access to pre-production ones something may change.

There's a Canon SDK available (, I don't know how much access to RAW data it gives, though.

Lenses / Re: The Next L Primes
« on: November 15, 2014, 01:16:36 PM »
Canon's latest zooms are a strong indication that the engineering process has become highly refined and that the next primes should truly shine.

It looks many overlook that a lens is not IQ only - there are other factors to take into account when selecting one - prime or a zoom, for example weight, dimensions, maximum aperture, ease of use.

Sure, the 70-200/2.8 is an excellent lens, but it's also heavy - even if it could become a macro one I would not use something so heavy for "walkaround macro" compared to the much lighter 100/2.8 macro.
Street photographers often prefers primes because are smaller. lighter and faster to use - no temptation to change the focal to "optimize framing" and maybe missing a shot.  When shooting portrait also, some bigger lenses may be somewhat intimidating for non-professional subjects.
And when there's a need to work quickly in low-light situation - or really need very shallow DOF, max aperture counts, and it's something you can't achieve with IS alone. Sometimes, it is the difference between returning with a photo, albeit not one with an astounding IQ, or getting no photo at all. "Strangely", there are some kind of photos you can easy sell even if the IQ will not DXOmark people scream....

With the European ELT at 39m and this one at 30m, all the ~8m class ones are going to look a bit outdated.

This is more in the 10m Keck telescopes (also in Hawaii) class, using segmented mirrors.

"Outdated" is a relative term in astronomy, and mostly refers to instrumentation that is no longer useful. "Smaller" telescopes don't become outdated just because larger ones become availabe - as long as their optics are good and are equipepd with the right instrument, they are still very useful when the "larger" ones are too busy on working on research outside the capabilities of the others - and sometimes larger telescopesa are not a direct replacement because designed for different capabiities - for example no ground telescope nor the future Webb space telescope has the UV light capabilities of Hubble, and even if ground telescope may have equal or even higher resolution, they can't achieve easily the results a space telescope can thanks to working outside most of the atmosphere - true "black" sky and wide field resolution even adaptive optics can't match. That's why some large field Hubble images are still unmatched, even from an "artistic" point of view.

Is it available for pre-order from B&H, yet?   ::)

Check delivery price before pre-ordering... you also need a 4000m mountain site to use it effectively.

Now that's a "Big White" !

No, it's not even an L lens.... no red ring around it...   :D

Looks like wie have limited choices this time... :/

Don't complain too much... the Italian one ( offers no cameras, - only some lenses and flashes.

Lighting / Re: Canon 600EX-RT and Sekonic L-478DR LiteMaster Pro
« on: October 29, 2014, 02:51:56 PM »
The question I guess is how many people will use a light meter with 600-EX-RTs.
There is interested in using multiple "small" portable strobes especially on location instead of larger albeit portable units - a meter may be useful especially if it also doubles as a full remote control for flash units - you're going to use them in manual mode and be able to change settings from the meter can be really helpful.
If the number of prospect customers is large enough to justify trying to obtain a license from Canon, Nikon, etc. - which may not be free, and maybe not even available - and the R&D and manufacturing expenses of supporting many different standards is another thing.
After all PocketWizard adapters can handle Canon strobes, thereby those interested and willingly to pay for  a multiple 600EX setup should have not much issues in getting adapters also - although it results in a more complex setup and troubleshooting if something does not work as expected.

Lighting / Re: Canon 600EX-RT and Sekonic L-478DR LiteMaster Pro
« on: October 29, 2014, 07:51:12 AM »
The manual (available here says it is PocketWizard compatible only - not with any other radio controls.

If I were a pro and it could really give an advantage over the competition for its foreseeable lifetime while it repays the expense and returns a real profit? Yes. Even at an higher price, if the profit is ok. For a pro, is a matter of ROI.

But I'm not a pro, I am not overly rich, and I have no reason to invest so much money for just a body in an already expensive hobby. So the answer is no.

It's the classic "one size DOESN'T fit all". Otherwise there won't be so many devices on the market at different price points. Not everybody wants, wish, or simpy can - afford the best of the best at a give price point.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 04:19:44 PM »
You can use something like this:

To isolate the 600EX/ST-E3 from the camera contacts (or use tape, the adapter is a somewhat safer because can't wear).

The 199A was a nice unit and powerful enough (GN 32. 100 ISO, 50mm), just the head moves only vertically, and in manual mode power can't be set. It uses battery holders which allows for quick changes of batteries (and keep spare ones together in your bag/pocket), something I miss in actual flash units.

If you wish to taste the feeling of an early 80s system and the unit works well, buy it, but it would be really useful for "quick" flash action with the A-1, otherwise your 600EX offers much more control.

You can find a lot of useful information about the A-1 and its accessories at

You can find electronic copies of the manuals here:

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 11:18:14 AM »
there was not any Warning about using new Flash on old Camera┬┤s,

Just because less people are interested in it ;) Usually people are interested if they can use some of their old gear on a newer camera, and usally some kind of compatibility is provided to ease (and lure) people in upgrading.

Also, older camera have usually less sophisticated electronics (but they could be less protected also).

The T90 was the first TTL camera from Canon, and started to use the four pin flash interface still used - don't know how much the signalling is compatible with later cameras. It used A-TTL, not the E-TTL used now. Again, how much they are compatible at the signal level I do not know.

The A-1 uses an even older non-TTL interface, and has only two pins - it would be interesting to know if Canon when adding pins changed the whole interface or if they are in some ways still compatible.

Anway, I'd be careful not to brick the old camera electronics feeding the wrong signal on the wrong pins... after all the A-1 has no TTL, and all it can do is setting the aperture and sync speed - but it did the other way round, you set the aperture on the flash and it was sent to the camera, not viceversa (flashes then could usually use just a limited set of aperture values for auto operations).

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: ST-E3 and Canon A-1
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:56:24 AM »
Because the A-1 was among the first cameras to be able to communicate (primitive) informations from/to the flash unit (IIRC flash ready, set sync speed and get the aperture set on the flash when using compatible units like the 199A) and thereby has more contacts than the single flash trigger one, beware what signals the ST-E3 could send to the camera if mounted in the hot shoe and contacts match. Otherwise, it should be safer to connect it to the PC sync port via an adapter - then using manual mode it should work without issues.
When buying an A-1, check for the mirror foam, and the shutter "squeak" issue. They could need maintenance.

Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:17:28 PM »
The easiest way to prevent most malicious attacks is to set up a User Account without Administrator priveleges.
That works only together proper permissions on files and directories, user privileges are exactly used to check what file they can access and how. Because on any PC there are different software running with different users - besides the logged on one for example there are services running with other users, many with the highest privileged one "local system", if you have something that could be modified by unprivileged user and then run by the privileged ones, you risk big troubles. My advice is: do not try to outsmart the system. There are often good reason if it designed that way. That's why OSX and other systems looks to be more secure. Unlike Windows, users stick to the OS rules, and usually don't care where software gets installed or data is stored, they let them go where they should.

Software & Accessories / Re: Windows 7 install
« on: October 18, 2014, 03:09:00 PM »
Pictures">Properties>Location. If you have two Windows Explorer windows open, you can drag and drop. No need to do registry edits.

The systems will take care of that you - if you do it through a system approved way. Once those capability were in Windows Powertoys, I didn't remember 7 had it readily available - the better. There are special system programming interfaces to get those folder from software applications, thereby the system has to know where they are or you can break some software if you move them improperly.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10