Messages

91

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Adobe RGB or sRGB please?

« on: September 25, 2012, 02:55:13 PM »

I shoot RAW, so as was just pointed out I can just select whatever colorspace i like after the fact. But i always use sRGB. years ago i took some test shots and printed the images myself in both adobe and sRGB. The images had lots of green foliage. The human eye is most sensitive to green, and if memory serves me green shows the largest improvement in colorspace range when you compare sRGB to adobe. So if adobe was going to be an improvement, this would show it. End result, the images looked slightly different, but just barely and I couldn't say i liked the adobe more.  stick with sRGB. you don't want to start fooling with adode unless you have lots of time and money to spend. you don't want to start moving sliders around , adjusting an image when you can't really see what it is you're doing. so you need a new monitor. you probably don't want to see what they cost, and that's only the beginning of the fun.

It's actually a fallacy that Adobe vs sRGB is only about the greens. People base that on a single 2D slice of the 3D gamuts and all they see is a giant chunk of green added.

Crazy saturated intense greens are actually somewhat rarer to come across in nature so it's actually reds, purples, oranges, yellows that are where you'd see the most difference between say ProphotoRGB and sRGB viewing on a wide gamut monitor. Try to make a deep red rose or deep purple petunia look realistic in sRGB and it just can't be done, same for many flowers, use prophotorgb and a wide gamut monitor and suddenly they look vastly more like real life. Shoot a sunset and in sRGB some bright saturated cloud bands disappear but pop back right out at you on a wide gamut.

I have noticed the differences mentioned for the colors highlighted and in deep blues being more realistic and more accurately portrayed.

92

Canon General / Re: Space Shuttle Endeavour's Last Flight

« on: September 24, 2012, 11:02:41 AM »

Awesome I envy you being in an area where you catch the shuttle.

93

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Something wrong with my 1DX

« on: September 22, 2012, 04:44:35 PM »

LOL fantastic responses.

bdunbar my condolences.

94

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS 7D FW2.0: Problems anyone?

« on: September 21, 2012, 05:29:12 AM »

I have had no issues with either update.  I just followed the instructions exactly to include removing the battery for at least 2 seconds.  I am knocking on wood nothing shows up.  I hope all who have experienced glitches with a recovery see no more issues and those who have lost use let us know what the issue was so that everyone will know what to do to correct the issue and hopefully avoid it.

95

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS Bodies - Developing ranges....

« on: September 19, 2012, 11:01:58 AM »

I reckon there is still room for a xxD line. But the numbers is running short. So let us move it up to the xD line. I mean come on, nothing except for the sensor on EOS 6D is really xD standard.

7D Mark II - Top APS-C

7D body
100% VF
10 FPS
Deep buffer
1 x CF + 1 x SD
3"2 fixed LCD 1040k
61 point AF
f/8


8D - Semi Pro APS-C

60D body
97% VF
6 FPS
1 x SD
3" swivel screen
19 point AF

Nice upgrades, hope they happen.

96

EOS Bodies / Re: Is that really it for Canon at Photokina 2012?

« on: September 19, 2012, 10:57:18 AM »

Before this descends, as it always does, into madness, I'd like to point out: with the exception of literal, sales driving events in the camera world (holiday season, which now drives itself, regardless of the holiday is celebrated, due to competition) and things like the Olympics . . . releasing based on shows and not around your R&D/production abilities is not really the greatest thing.

"We" come to expect it, but Apple is a prime example of how we all really need to adjust our expectations and the companies need to do what is actually possible, to maintain their reputation.  Don't announce something because everyone else is, announce it when you can provide it.

Look at the 'o-noes' from the non-iphone5 launch in the spring of last year; everything pointed to Apple moving their iphone dev cycle to match the ipod which announces every September.  Then, they expected a whole new phone one year after the old one was released, which isn't really the pattern.

No, we shouldn't expect anything else from Photkina, Yes, we should expect something else at a different interval.

Look at the powershot series, updates and availability they seem to have down to a formula, which is great.  They need to do the same with DSLRs, and maybe we only get new models every 4 years, but if the quality is better, the equipment takes better shots, then so be it.

Do we have good cameras? Yes.  Do we have great cameras? Yes.  For some, the sky is falling, we've been told so many times, especially in the last few weeks.

There WILL BE no credible rumors until the social media attention lovers see something else shiny and stop winding everyone up.

+1 to some ridiculously large power number.

97

EOS Bodies / Re: 7D!

« on: September 17, 2012, 11:10:41 PM »

Here we go again. APS-H will reappear when one of two things happens:

• Nikon and Sony release an APS-H body, or
• Someone captures a verifiable action shot with their 6D of Bigfoot riding a unicorn.

I think the Bigfoot/Unicorn shot has the better odds.

 LOL, My money is on the picture.

98

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon EOS 6D Official Specs

« on: September 17, 2012, 10:34:03 AM »

A thought I just had: There seems to be a lot of concern on this post as to who will buy this camera. That this camera won't sell well. And my response to this is.... Who cares? I would be totally fine if this camera only sells 1 unit worldwide (and that would be to me of course...). We should really be less concerned with Canon's sales numbers and more concerned with our own creative output.

Best response I have seen on this thread.

99

Macro / Re: Triffids

« on: September 11, 2012, 03:30:37 PM »

Gorgeous shots

100

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Raw, mRaw, sRaw of JPEG

« on: September 08, 2012, 08:49:41 PM »

I shoot raw + small JPEG.

Full raw because (a) DxO will not process sRaw or mRaw, and (b) when I process raw, I want to get as much as I can from the photo.

Small JPEG because (a) often I don't need more than that, e.g. to send to family members who print 10x15, and (b) if I want more than that, I go straight to raw.

Thanks, I have been using DxO and am planning on purchasing a license.  I did not know that it does not support mraw or sraw.

also thanks to all who have responded, your information and thoughts are most helpful.

101

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: How much for a USED 550d (or 600d)?

« on: September 07, 2012, 07:06:27 AM »

I am seeing prices for used around $400 to $475 in the US.  Sounds like your expected price range is about right.

102

Street & City / Re: Night Skyline

« on: September 06, 2012, 07:19:21 AM »

The vantage point to get this shot is from the northeast unfortunately.  Lights are off in the morning so no getting the blue hour shot your described even in reverse.  No way to get the ball in the shot from the west.

Probably should crop it since the angle is from above to remove the mountains from the view.  Might work better taken when there is snow on the mountains for a greater impact.  Definitely plan on doing that to see the results.

103

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Raw, mRaw, sRaw of JPEG

« on: September 05, 2012, 06:48:37 PM »

Unless you're limited by a very old/slow computer, shoot full size RAW.  You can always downsample later. Once you've thrown data away, you can't get it back.  Exception might be a deadline situation with no time for post, when JPG is necessary.

Thank you

104

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Raw, mRaw, sRaw of JPEG

« on: September 05, 2012, 06:47:50 PM »

I did a test a while ago on my 7D, RAW vs sRAW.
I don't have time to find the original thread, gotta go to work, but the conclusion was that RAW delivers better noise and detail compared to sRAW, when scaled to the same size.
sRAW is only for saving card space, nothing else, if you want quality go RAW.

Thanks for the info.

105

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Raw, mRaw, sRaw of JPEG

« on: September 05, 2012, 05:31:54 PM »

What size file do you shoot in and why? 

What advantages and disadvantages do you feel your file choice has?

I am currently shooting in raw but am considering the smaller raw sizes.

Thanks in advance for sharing your info.