Messages

211

Software & Accessories / Re: Which Storage Devices ???

« on: May 18, 2011, 01:27:53 PM »

Technology is advancing so rapidly that no solution is guaranteed to last even ten years. I've used CD's in the past and provided we retain the ability to read them in the future they are as bulletproof as anything else. By that I mean CD's have problems of their own, as does everything else.

I am currently using a dual RAID external hard drive system. But all I can offer is to keep you wits about you as things change and export your saved files to a newer system in good time.

It is a concern for us all. I read a while ago that if the human race was wiped out overnight, in 10,000 years there would be nothing left to indicate we were ever here with the possible exception of stone carvings. Electronic records would vanish in milliseconds, never mind thousands of years.

212

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 15, 2011, 03:15:02 PM »

Justsomedude,

I've carefully examined all your examples and apart from random sharpness variations which I'd suggest are caused by hand holding the camera, they all seem reasonable. Certainly I have worse examples shot using Canon "L" glass handheld. It does not take much to just take that edge off. The only one I'd have reshot immediately would be the gym shot. 

Remember none of us stand still when we shoot. We might think we do, but in reality we all sway slightly.
 
To fully test for front/back focusing issues try shooting using a tripod, so that camera movement is completely ruled out as a possible cause. Apart from my motorsport images I use a tripod for everything, and for the bikes/cars I use a monopod! I've had too many otherwise good compositions lost due to camera movement.

213

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D focusing question??

« on: May 13, 2011, 08:46:26 AM »

As far as using DPP for noise reduction I totally agree Neuroanatomist. In fact I'd go further - it is also poor at sharpening in my opinion. I love it for RAW conversion and refuse to use anything else, but I have third party Photoshop plug-ins for both noise reduction and sharpening.

214

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS Branding in US/JPN

« on: May 09, 2011, 06:26:15 AM »

I tend to agree with the OP. Car manufacturers the world over are constantly making schoolboy errors when naming products and the same with boat names*. Uusing a numbering system, like Porsche and many others, makes a lot of sense.

*Embarrasing example: I once owned a small Caravela 25 sailing cruiser, coloured black and cream. I chose to use the Name "Pintado", which is a breed of Cape Petrel, as the colouring was similar and used an outline of the bird on the hull. Sadly I had not done enough homework: In at least one culture it was the name for chicken, in another wallpaper and there was even a rather famous "courtisan" by that name.

There have been dozens of cases like this due to marketing departments mess ups. I see no reason to tempt providence when a simple numbering arragement is so simple. 

215

Canon General / Re: Delays Abound?

« on: May 05, 2011, 09:20:02 AM »

Eyeone,

I tend to agree with Rob. While Canon obviously did not know the future when they made the decision to pull the planned 1Ds mk4, it was still a big mistake then and subsequent events have only made matters worse.

Be honest, do you really think Canon have been selling the IDs mk3 in any quantity for the last 2 years? Unless forced to replace a defunct body, everyone with a serious interest in the mk4 has been busy holding their breathe waiting. This cannot make any business sense however you look at it.

No, with or without hindsight, the 1Ds 4 should have been released back when it was originally planned, then Canon would have bought themselves time to redesign the camera from the ground up. 

216

Canon General / Re: Delays Abound?

« on: May 04, 2011, 01:29:48 PM »

I fully understand the reason why Canon and others might have to delay previously planned launches. What I do fail to grasp is why they choose to keep everyone guessing. It did not make sense before the disaster and makes even less sense now. Is it a peculiar Japanese trait?

I'd feel much more comfortable waiting for the 1Ds mk4 if I knew that it's specs were in line with my requirements. If they were not, I'd be able to look for alternatives but if OK, then at least I'd know that the wait was worth it.

217

EOS Bodies / Re: Ai Servo in low light

« on: May 02, 2011, 04:44:46 PM »

I assume everyone is aware that AI Servo is not designed to achieve a confirmed focus lock? If thats whats needed then AI Servo is not the right tool for the job.

Instead it is designed to do the best it can in the time before the shutter is released. So there are bound to be high failure rates when conditions are not good, low light certainly qualifies as one such.

218

EOS Bodies / Re: Digic 5 vs nikon lineUp

« on: May 02, 2011, 08:56:11 AM »

Canon have made claims for the next 1Ds along the lines of "Industry leading" dynamic resolution and noise control. I would assume that will trickle down to the rest of the range over time*.

I prefer Canon's current approach personally, high mp and crisp (but noisy?) RAW's. In their attempts at noise control Nikon tend to soften images in camera too much for my liking, I prefer to apply my own noise control remedies in post processing, but each to their own. I do admit my methods are time consuming.

*But then Sony will not be standing still either, the reality is that the high ground will be occupied by a manufacturer for fairly brief periods as others catch up and overtake. I don't see Canon or Nikon being able to dominate as they have done in the past. Sony must eventually want to come and play in their own right and it will become a three way battle.

219

Lenses / Re: What is your experience or practice regarding professional lense cleaning?

« on: April 30, 2011, 07:31:01 AM »

If a lens has to be dismantled for any reason, thats a repair, not a clean in my book.

220

Lenses / Re: What is your experience or practice regarding professional lense cleaning?

« on: April 29, 2011, 01:23:56 PM »

I must admit that having someone else clean a lens of mine is not something I'll ever consider. Its hardly difficult or even time consuming.

221

Lenses / Re: EF 24-70 f/2.8L II Patent Published

« on: April 25, 2011, 02:58:44 PM »

Jaki,

I've been very pleased with my "mark 1" version, so don't be too downhearted. The fact that theres a mark 2 version coming (bear in mind with Japans current situation it could be 12 months away) does not mean that the previous version is now useless. 

222

Landscape / Re: What's the longest you've ever waited for the perfect photo?

« on: April 25, 2011, 07:22:12 AM »

The large format landscape photographer Joe Cornish claims to be still waiting to get the shot that he knows a location in Scotland will deliver. He has tried many times already, each time walking all night up mountain tracks with his heavy equipment and to my eyes has already achieved wonderful images from the spot. But he is not satisfied. His eye for a landscape image is second to none in my book.

That's true dedication. Another landscape specialist camped next to a Canadian lake for three weeks solid before getting the lighting conditions he wanted. I admire that kind of single minded (sheer bloody minded might be another way of putting it) but although I consider myself to be very patient, I don't have enough to match either of the examples I've given, but wish I did. It's what sorts the real tog's from those that only play at it.   

223

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond

« on: April 24, 2011, 07:28:23 AM »

The word "photography" covers an enormous range subjects, interests, disciplines and so depending on an individuals special interests, I well understand that there will be differences of emphasis (I was about to write opinion, but that in itself is argumentative). In fact that's one of the things I like about it, its sheer diversity.

My own thinking is based on the fact that digital photography is still at the nappy stage and growing fast. Nothing will stop that, it's inevitable. Come back in 50 years and we could have an informed discussion on where it goes from that point, but right now anyone trying to stop the technology maturing is on a hiding to nothing. The typical dSLR is still a direct descendant of the film SLR at the moment. While there are signs that this might be about to change it's still not certain.

Unlike a lot of others, I look forward to the day when I have image files of 1000mb or more with DR that is twice as good as film ever was. We are certainly not at a digital  "Golden Age" right now so even if it was possible I for one do not want to stop the clock and don't understand others who do.

Due to commercial realities Nikon have been at the mercy of a  third party sensor manufacture and despite having one hand tied behind their back have played the cards they have been dealt very well. But I am prepared to bet that in reality Nikon would give give their eye teeth to have Canons sensor design and manufacturing facilities at their disposal.       

224

EOS Bodies / Re: Diffraction, MP and the great beyond

« on: April 22, 2011, 01:24:10 PM »

I remember reading a very interesting article on just this subject in Amateur Photographer written by Geoffrey Crawley -sadly now deceased.

His argument was that "popular thinking" was wrong on so many points. He had no time for those who claimed "12 mp is enough............" and instead argued that difraction is not as much of a problem as some would have us believe and resolution is a moving target  - always getting better, if at a price. He claimed that lens designers have known how to improve their products for a long time, but that it has not been financially justified. 

 As an example he referred to a decision made by the BBC in the 1950's to spend very large sums of cash on extremely high quality German lenses, but the results were extremely disappointing to say the least. The glassware was not at fault, but no amount of superb glass could improve things when the camera and film technology was the limiting factor at the time. Geoffrey claimed that this was exactly the situation with dSLR lens designs until now, with lens design having been carefully matched to the bodies being offered. He said newer, better glassware would appear as the camera sensor and processing justified it, until then there was no point.

We are certainly witnessing Canon in particular upgrading their range right now, ready for the next generation large mp cameras I for one  fully expect to be using. 

"Popularist thinking" seems to forget that ever higher mp's will give us ever smoother images as we have to stress the basic data less. It assumes we will never have more powerful computers or printers that will print at high ppi's than at present. Both these assumptions are obviously flawed.

One further point:  I can print at A3+ provided I got the framing right in camera, any cropping at all  the A3+ print exposes the flaws. If nothing else, the upcoming 50-100 mp images should give me more flexibility to crop.

225

EOS Bodies / Re: 37 Megapixel 1Ds Mark IV? [CR1]

« on: April 18, 2011, 05:02:41 PM »

While I like the idea of a proper medium format body, I don't think that a 37/40mp square sensor will be anywhere close to MF. I guess you have all been seeing the real MF players and know what's already in play so you don't need me to spell it out.

No, 37 or 40mp will have to be a bog standard 36 x 24 mm "frame" to have any chance of lasting more than 18 months as the "top dog". Even at that level it needs to have other headlining benefits, for entirely selfish reasons I'm hoping a world beating DR forms one such. I'm also selfishly less bothered by noise as I don't use high ISO settings.

It has been previously reported that Canon is investigating the possibilty of linking up with an existing MF manufacturer. Unless they are prepared to start from scratch and develop a medium format expertise and reputation slowly, I see this as their most likely way into MF, especially now that the company will have other major drains on corporate finance for the forseeable future.