Ken Katz

Sitting at the Thanksgiving table last month and talking to my sister-in-law's cousin, who is a lawyer in reasonably large NYC law firm, we discussed the impact of AI. His law firm uses AI extensively as a cost cutting aid and to enhance analysis of cases and testimony. With respect to the inevitable copywrite infringement issues, he did not know how the law would settle this, or more likely, will need additional laws enacted in order to address these types of issues. Certainly changes in the licensing agreement that users agree to when reading (or a computer scanning) NYT articles would also be likely. Also found out that my doctor uses ChatGPT daily. Says it's like having the most brilliant doctor sitting right next to you, unless it is having one of it's hallucinations.

I have no expertise in the design or inner workings of cameras, but the first FD cameras, the original F-1 and FTb, were both simple match needle manual exposure cameras (excluding the complex F-1 servo EE finder). Not sure why meter manual would have been hard to implement in an A-1. FYI, I used the original F-1 for over 20 years and inherited an A-1.

The 5D mk iv is a great camera, but if money is not a factor (rarely of course), in 2023 there is no way I would not go with an R5. Sensor performance and resolution is significantly improved, and the R5 has very effective IBIS, excellent AF tracking, subject recognition, and face/eye tracking, which is purportedly easy to navigate. For sports, the R5 has a much higher frame rate, especially using the E shutter. Having used an EVF for 11 years, I am quite comfortable with it and would not go back to an OVF. The R5 has 5.7 M-dot EVF compared to the 2.3M-dot EVF I currently use, so I don't think it would be an issue for me. It is also nice not having to worry about AF sensor calibration issues. It is possible you may not need all this capability, but for me, excellent AF tracking alone would help keep up with grandchildren running around. And with my lowly Olympus EM-5 iii, I will occasionally shoot at frame rates in excess of what a 5D mk iv can do. The good news is that much of this capability has been incorporated into entry level cameras, like the R10 and R100.

When I export files from LR, I simply have it convert to sRGB color space for images that are shared on a website or with others (likely viewed on a phone, tablet, or digital frame), and when sent to printers that are not color space aware (like CVS). PNG seems interesting if it is as universally accepted as jpegs.

I used PWP for many years, mostly because of the low cost and not wanting to delve into the Photoshop universe. Started using PWP when I bought my first DSLR, a Canon D60, in 2002 (not the 60D which came out much later). PWP was much, much cheaper than Photoshop, and the original license was usable, without additional cost, for all subsequent updates. I transitioned to LR about 10 years later when I started using Olympus cameras in order to simplify my workflow, since I would have needed to use both the Canon and Olympus proprietary software to convert RAW files into 16 bit TIFFs, and PWP to process the converted files. I don't believe the RAW converter provided by Digital Light and Color worked very well for me at the time. It was certainly quirky, and I had a whole lot of large files floating around supporting each processed image (RAW, converted 16 bit TIFF, processed 16 bit TIFF, multiple masking files, and and JPEGs for exporting to printers and email). Johnathan was always helpful answering questions, and I am glad version 8 is available. Hopefully there is a user base for this.

The RP probably has the worst DR performance of any FF mirrorless camera, but while I generally loath using DxO data, a DR of 11.9 vs 12.8 for the Sony sensor in the EM-1 mkii is certainly lower, but may not be all that noticeable in the field. The RP's high ISO rating of 2978 vs 1312 for the Oly 20mp camera will be of greater consequence in low light. With my Olympus EM-5 iii (same sensor and AF system as EM-1 ii) 6400 ISO is the maximum I would use, and will generally need Lightroom AI powered noise reduction to get a good image. As an Olympus/OM user for over 12 years, I would be reluctant today to go with m43, but that discussion is best for another thread (I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss m43).

For indoor sports, f2.8 sounds right, with a fast enough shutter speed to capture a sharp image of people moving. I would take more noise from using really high ISO to motion blur of using too slow a shutter speed (unless that is the type of image you are trying to get). Recent advances in AI enabled noise reduction in processing software has bought additional high ISO usability. If you have enough light to stop down for greater DOF if needed, then go for it.

Some things in digital cameras have not changed just because of mirrorless. For cameras with sensors made with similar tech, an APSc sized sensor will have about a 2/3 stop advantage in high ISO performance compared with M43, and FF will have about a 1 stop advantage over APSc (with similar improvements in DR). If your friend shoots in available low light, this is still a factor. Most of the Canon kit lenses are also on the slow end, and as of now, there are not a lot of RFs lens options and Canon has mostly closed the door on third party AF RF lenses. M43 have tons of lens options at many price points. Fuji also an attractive option for camera body and lens choices, but I am less familiar with them. If your friend shoots stuff that moves, the advantage falls to Canon and Sony for very effective AF tracking and subject recognition in their low end offerings. Current Panasonic/Olympus AF tech in their m43 entry level stuff is far less advanced. Check DP Review for this. For FF mirrorless, the Canon RP or Sony A7ii (used) may work within the price point, depending on lens needs. The Sony has IBIS, so if there is a desire to use adapted MF lenses, you would have that going for you. I don't think I would get a first generation Sony FF. I don't think any Nikon Z FF bodies are within your price range, and they have not yet made much of a commitment to APSc.

It would be helpful if you would post examples of such blurry out of focus images, along with the camera settings you used, and if the subjects were stationary or moving. Also, do you have similar issues with other lenses, especially native RF lenses. Note that the RP and EF 24-70 f2.8 lack image stabilization, so is it possible that what you see is camera movement (what shutter speeds did you use?). The RP is purported to have a very competent AF system, but of course, it is not as advanced as the current top end R bodies.

Cyber Monday is still a thing, I guess, but it was invented as a result of people having faster internet connections at work, so they kept on ordering online after the Thanksgiving day weekend. One can also wait until the rumored R5ii is announced, again rumored to occur in the 1st Q of 2024.

If you look at the bottom of this page, there is an explanation as to why diffraction is independent of focal length. https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm I also do not have the technical expertise to explain this, but I have never seen anything to contradict this assumption. I believe you will need to live with some diffraction impact when shooting macro in order to keep a decent portion of the subject in focus, like with living subjects such as flowers and bugs.

Iphone 15's main camera is 48mp, and I believe the default images are set at 24mp, though you can shoot RAW and extract the full 48mp. Even with the interpolated 24mp files, if the image is shot in good light, well within the phone's performance envelope (no computational tech used), I don't think there would be a significant limitation on printed image size, depending of course on viewing distance. The more tech "tricks" needed, the faster the image will fall apart at larger magnification. Not bad for a device that is always in most folks pockets and can order food, a taxi, and tell you the weather.

A higher base ISO makes it more difficult to shoot at slower shutter speeds, though a 24mp FF costing $6K would not be the best Sony to use for landscapes. Canon has not yet made a mirrorless camera without a mechanical shutter, so perhaps that is what the next generation will have. I do not need such capabilities, but I would expect that Canon views Sony as it's chief competitor, and it is yet unclear how global shutter tech will be a factor. In the current PN world, if this new camera was a Nikon, there would already be over 100 postings to this thread.

The new Sony seems like a significant step forward in performance for digital cameras. No more banding, or motion distortion, 1/80,000 max shutter speed, 120 max FPS (1.6 second bursts), and flash sync at all shutter speeds (though flash power would be reduced if the shutter is faster than the flash duration). Don't think there have been any image quality tests, but base ISO is 250 and its a 24mp camera, perhaps reflecting some limitations in current technology, or that the camera was aimed at sports/reportage usage. I am not in the market for anything like this, but it is certainly a significant milestone. It is unclear when Sony will allow other manufacturers to use this tech, but Canon sure should be working on their version. I would expect a Canon R3 mkii would have it before it ends up in the purported flagship R1.

Thanks PapaTango (whoever you are). I may give your site a try using regular MS Chrome, not the Incognito setting I needed so to more easily bypass security and access PN right now. PN has been kneecapped by the expired certificate since Nov 4th. Its absolutely ridiculous that it has not already been fixed.

I am far, far less knowledgeable than digitaldog in these matters, but these may help: 1) Can't really answer, but it would seem to me that trying a few small prints and allowing the printing outfit to make adjustments would not cost that much. See if you like the results. 2) Since you are using a RAW based photo processing software (I am assuming you are not using a Smartphone as you main camera), it is unclear to me why standard 4x6" prints would not be acceptable. Almost all interchangeable lens digital cameras (all DSLRs and mirrorless cameras except for four-thirds and medium format cameras) the native images are in the 1 x 1.5 ratio, which is identical to 4x6" prints without cropping. When I prepare images for prints using Lightroom (export files), I have the software create files which are 1200 x 1800 pixels if I am printing an uncropped 4x6" print (300 ppi files). If I was exporting files for 5x7" prints, I would create 1500 x 2100 pixel files. FYI, images from Smartphones are not native 1x1.5, so a 4x6" print from them will need to be cropped. 3) When I export files for printing, I have Lightroom set sharpening for printing either glossy or mat prints, which is an option in the software. The files are sharpened previously to what I think is appropriate and this is additional sharpening done by Lightroom in file Export function. If I am uploading the files for viewing on screen, I choose that option for additional sharpening. You will need to check to see how ON1 does this. For printers that do not use color profiles imbedded in the jpeg files (like CVS), when I export files, I change with color profile to SRGB. Printers that cater to professionals tend to use the imbedded color profiles, so that would not be necessary. 4) Here you can experiment as I described in "1" above, or buy a device to profile your computer screen. I used the profiles and setting provided here instead: https://tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc-profiles-and-monitor-calibration-settings-database digitaldog may rightfully scoff at using these profiles instead of doing it myself with a profiling device, but for me it seems to work fine. Most important are the recommended settings for brightness and contrast. By using those settings I have reasonably matched the brightness I see on screen to the brightness on my prints. 6) There is a whole lot of available tutorials and books for the Adobe products, so there is likely help available for ON1.

Just finishing up adding "armor" to the inside of the Domke satchel with the help of Tacky Glue to build large enough padded walls from the innards of old camera bags. I like the form of a satchel / messenger bag but agree, a more conventual camera bag, like a Domke F6 is easier to work out of if you have many lenses (though I don't like needing to deal with 2 of those steel clasps). The large flap of the Domke F-803 works for me since it will securely keep in place without engaging the clasp. Most Temba bags allow you access through a zipper on the top without unclasping the flap. Thin profile satchels need to be left on the ground since they fall over easily (my own advise I did not heed back in September). I almost pulled the trigger on a refurbished EM-10iii for $300 from OM, but hesitated. Another EM-5iii would work but $600+ used is a significantly more than I want to spend an identical camera that will likely get little use, since I would not carry both around given the weight and my deteriorated vertebra. Thanks for your comments. I have time to ponder these issues.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1138973177/canon-officially-discontinues-eos-m-cameras-ef-m-system?utm_source=self-desktop&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source While only official in Japan (home market), where the M has sold well, the rest of the world will follow of course. No real surprise once the RF system was announced, but it leaves another Canon lens system orphaned. IMHO, Canon should have engineered the M mount to be compatible with their future FF offerings, like the Sony E mount, but alas, that did not happen.

Thanks for the suggestions to look at the Thinktank Retrospective line, and to also consider beefing up the padding in my Domke. I have already added a Domke wrap to line the bottom and lower sides of the bag, and added padded inserts to the sides and bottom. Still don't know if the minimally padded Domke bags are still appropriate for IBIS enabled cameras and IS lenses, but I do like their esthetics. I am usually careful with cameras, and have never previously damaged a camera body in over 50 years of using interchangeable lens cameras, but as we all know, sh*t does happen sometimes.

Repair / Bad camera Bag: I travel with a lightweight OMD system (E-M5iii / 12-40mm f2.8 / 40-150 f5.6 / 1 or 2 fast primes as needed. Transport using a padded Temba bag and usually transfer the equipment to a Domke satchel, which is more discreet and comfortable to use, though offers less protection than the Temba. Last month I arrived in Ljubljana, Slovenia (from EWR) and transferred the OMD system to the Domke. Before one image was taken, the Domke dropped about 1.5 feet to the floor. The camera was completely inoperative and entirely useless for the next 12 days. I expect that if the camera was still in the Temba bag, it likely would have survived. Also speculate that my ancient Canon DSLR's would have survived that fall. Shipping the Camera to Olympus NJ for repair cost $250, whereby they replaced the sensor (I assume it was the IBIS that failed) and was shipped back to me in 2 days. Backup body: I guess the moral of this story is that (a) need to retire the Domke and live with a better padded bag, and (b) buy and carry a backup body for these types of trips. I used to carry a backup but in the effort to minimize weight, stopped that practice. I was thinking of getting a EM-10 mk ii or mk iii, but I am open to suggestions. In a pinch an EPL camera could work, but the 12-40mm may be too much to handle comfortably. Need good IBIS and a camera with the 16mp Sony sensor. New Bag: Got a room full of old camera bags but most for a Canon DSLR and a few "L" lenses. The smaller Temba bag (DNA 9) or a Thinktank Mirrorless Mover may work. Nylon bags, so I would miss the Domke canvas, but don't want another big trip impacted like I had visiting Slovenia and Croatia last month.

https://retro-camera.ru/files/Olympus-OM-2-Manual-EN.pdf

With so many smartphones worldwide taking billions of photos a day, I am sure a few 100,000 of them are quite good. Frankly, I am bored by folks worrying about what types of cameras people use, and much rather look at the results. With or without carrying a so called legitimate camera with me, it is nice to always have a very capable device in my pocket that can also be used to make phone calls, find a restaurant, or summon an Uber.

As described by AJG, the mechanical linkage between the camera body and the lens needs to be maintained by teleconverter, so that the lens stops down when the shutter is activated. I would look at the front of the lens, using a 1 second exposure to see the iris in the 50 f1.8 operate with and without the teleconverter. It should mechanically stop down the same amount when using the same set aperture on the lens. Since a 2x converter eats about 2 stops of light, at the same aperture the required shutter speed needed to center the meter needle would result in 2 stops slower shutter speed with the 2x. Make sure the FTB's 12% partial meter is looking at the same subject when you check. Also, the FTB has a relatively limited low light meter capability, compared with a modern camera, which could impact results with the 2x attached.

A later model Nikon DSLR would be a good place to start, since for a long period of time, they had better sensors than comparable Canon DSLRs. Just to be a contrarian on this thread, since the buyer has no tie to any legacy equipment, the Sony a6400 and Nikon z50 are both available new with a kit lens for just under $1K, and the Nikon 2 lens kit option is available new for $1.2K. Modern mirrorless cameras with great sensors, advanced features, good video, and lens mounts which will survive into the future. If I needed really good AF of things that move, I would likely go with the Sony.

I guess this would depend on the distance and how bright it is outside. Assuming a bright sunny day, 100 ISO / 1/125th / f16 (sunny 16 rule), I would want my fill flash to have less than full exposure, perhaps 1 stop less. Using manual flash setting, according to the chart on the side of that little Vivitar flash, it should provide good fill for subjects 5 feet away (1 stop less light than full flash). Unfortunately, that little unit has just 1 automatic flash setting, f5.6 for ISO 100. This would be 3 stops under full exposure, assuming the lens is set for f16, and would not provide much fill. Of course would need to set the camera for S or M mode and the shutter at 1/125th (and need to monitor the resulting aperture provided by the camera's meter). IMHO, this procedure results in way too much brain damage, so I would look for an EOS compatible flash. The 200E Speedlight has an ISO 100 guide number at 65 ft, so on a bright sunny day, you can probably get an effective fill flash range of up to 5-7 feet. The built in flash on my Elan IIe provided decent fill flash at 5 feet or less.