catcher

<p>I know the OP question was about sensor size, but how about the size of the 'box' getting the sensor to where you want it to be to snap the picture? I've had Canon FF, Canon APSC, Fuji APSC and Ricoh APSC. Pixel Peeping on a computer screen the Canon FF was better resolution-wise and noise-wise, but when comparing all of them something struck me: for <em>my </em>needs, when I made prints in the real world, the differences were simply non-existent. So, I joyfully dumped the Canon FF (and FF lenses!) and consolidated to the Fuji system. Now, I carry a camera with me far more often then before, which means I take pictures in places now that i wouldn't have with FF. So, in that sense, for me, clearly the APS-C Fuji is better--because the Canon FF wouldn't have even been there. <br> Of course, others needs vary, so what I'm willing to haul around for what purpose will be different from what others are willing to haul around. </p>

<p>If you don't need a zoom, the Ricoh GR is fantastic. I carry it around regularly in my pocket. APSC sensor. Fixed 28 2.8 (equivalent) lens. I've had an RX100 which is also pocketable, but while it had a zoom I found it slower to use than the Ricoh, and the difference in sensor size makes a big difference in image quality (for me, at least). I also have a Fuji X100s which is great in its own right--I prefer <em>using </em>it to the Ricoh, but I prefer <em>pocketing </em>the Ricoh, which means in practice the Ricoh is actually with me more. </p>

<p>Are zooms essential to her work? I know Sam Abell (former National Geographic Photographer in the documentary style) said that the vast majority of his shots were with a 28mm lens and a 90mm lens. I think David Allen Harvey ordinarily shoots with just a 35mm fixed lens. As I recall, Abell usually carried two cameras--one for each lens so he didn't have to switch. Of course, two cameras weigh more than one, but, then again, two small primes with wider apertures may weigh less than a large zoom lens. </p> <p>So (if possible financially) how about an APS-C ricoh GR with 28mm (equivalent) 2.8 lens (no viewfinder, though) [[or Nikon A, or Fuji X100s or T [i've had both the original X100 and X100s--the newer versions are worth it for handling]] and a Canon SL1 with the cheap canon 50 1.8 (would be 80mm equivalent).That would be a light set up. Plenty of aperture for low light, natural light work. Wide angle for groups and indoor; moderate tele (equivalent) for portraits. </p> <p>The screen of the Ricoh works fine for me in bright light--not ideal, but it works--and it's so small I throw it in my pocket for walks every day. It hardly weighs anything at all. Yet, with an APS-C sensor the image quality is great. </p> <p>Finally, as someone else mentioned, it's not just weight that often keeps my 6D 24-105 combo home. It's the fact that every time I point it at someone they look as though I've got a bazooka pointed at them. No one takes my Ricoh or X100s or SL1 seriously which makes it far easier to go unnoticed. </p>

<p>I got an email from Adorama this afternoon with an itemized invoice. I'm impressed with the quick response--especially on a holiday for them. That's great service. I'll submit this receipt and hope it works this time.</p>

<p>Robert,</p> <p>It was the one that came in the box. However, the one I received through email was the same. </p> <p>I contacted Helen (thanks Helen) who forwarded the information to another person at Adorama, though because of Sukkot it will be next week before I hear back. </p> <p>I was just curious if anyone else had experienced this, or if it was just bad luck on my part. Years ago I remember hearing horror stories about Canon rebate programs, but it seems overall it's gotten much better. </p>

<p>All, </p> <p>I purchased from Adorama a 70D+Pro-100 Printer+13x19 Printer paper to take advantage of a $350 rebate. I submitted all required documents, but was notified by mail today that I was denied the rebate. This was because the receipt I submitted--the one given by Adorama--did not have the individual prices of the items. The receipt listed each of the items individually, but only gave one total price for all three together, not individual prices for each. </p> <p>I'll contact Adorama and then the rebate center, but I wanted to know whether anyone else has had a problem like this. I know Adorama is reputable, but I'm surprised that the receipt they sent was (supposedly) not the correct one for rebate purposes. </p> <p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I appreciated very much everyone's suggestions, so I thought I'd briefly update what I did. I ended up building essentially the system in the OP. I also added a second SSD. I use it for first importing photos/videos and editing them. Then, once done, move the files off to HDDs for storage. <br> The system flies. Even though CS3 can't make use of the extra ram the processing is noticeably faster. Bridge works smoothly. <br> Premiere Elements 12 is as smooth as butter--I'm actually not dreading going back and sorting through and editing old family videos anymore. <br> I still plan on getting Lightroom, but haven't yet. <br> So, again thanks for the help. Also, for anyone else considering building their own machine, it's actually not that hard. I'd never done it before, and wouldn't consider myself particularly knowledgeable about computers. But there's plenty of information online to help. I'm not sure that I saved much money, but I was able to get much better parts, and only get exactly what I wanted for the money. </p>

<p>Thanks Wouter and Eric. </p> <p>I picked that motherboard because it was one that Newegg suggested with the cpu. I don't know anything about mother boards. I'm doing some more research. In your view, what do I NEED on a motherboard. What could I live without? I wanted to make sure it has USB 3 for quicker file transfer times (but maybe they all do now?).</p> <p>I agree about the powersupply. In my research (and to my surprise) that was one of the items people/sites repeatedly said not to skimp on. So, I've learned a bit about that and have in my budget room to pick a good one. </p>

<p>Thanks all, for the feedback. I think I'll probably give my original list a go since Photoshop CS3 will be a minor part of what I do overall. Lightroom and Premiere Elements will be my main workhorses. I'll keep checking back here if anyone else has more thoughts or suggestions. </p>

<p>From Adobe: "If your startup disk is an SSD, there is no benefit to selecting a different disk for your primary scratch disk. Using the SSD for both your system startup disk and your primary scratch volume performs well. And, it's probably better than using a separate hard disk for scratch. "<br> <br> This specifically addresses Photoshop CS4 and above, but I'm assuming it would be the same for CS3? Lightroom too? (This presumably assumes that you SSD is large enough as well, of course).<br> <br> But, it sounds like one or more of you have had a different experience. I'd value what you think of the above advice in light of your experience. Tech pages don't necessarily match the real world! And, again, this page doesn't directly address Lightroom (nor Premiere Elements 12)<br> <br> http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/optimize-performance-photoshop-cs4-cs5.html#main_Scratch_Disks</p>

<p>Eric, I see you were saying having two SSDs, but not for a scratch disk. Rather, one for OS and LR and another for importing and editing images. Do you have a 'feel' for how much of a speedup you saw? LR went from clunky and stuttery to smooth as butter? Or . . . </p> <p>Also, CS3 is the older 32 bit version which means (I think) that it can only access 2-3GB of RAM anyway. If that's the case, how much difference would 16-32GB make? (I wouldn't be doing lots of things in the background at one time). </p>

<p>Thanks for the quick responses. <br> I've seen different recommendations on the RAM. My Photoshop use is actually light. Most of my editing would be done in Lightroom, plus the video editing in Premiere elements. If Photoshop use is light, would 32GB RAM still be worth it?<br> As for the scratch disk, I'd seen some things online suggesting that an SSD effectively took care of it simply because of the faster read/write times. But, it sounds like some of you have had experiences where two is still worth it. Is this primarily for Photoshop or Lightroom as well?</p>

<p>I'm going to build my first pc. I've done lots and lots of searching on pc building and my head is spinning!<br> My current desktop is nearly 7 years old (HP Media Center with Quad Core 2.4Ghz running 32 bit Windows Vista. 4GB RAM.) My old unit has served me well but it's starting to feel really slow. The limitations I'm running into are primarily, but not only, with video editing. I recently purchased Premiere Elements 12 to edit family videos. It's cumbersome and slow. Furthermore, I'm planning on purchasing lightroom 5 and I think my 32bit system will come with limitations.</p> <p>So, since it's been nearly 7 years, my wife agreed to let me start all over (in hopes it might last me another 7 years!). This computer will be mostly for photo editing (Using Lightroom and CS3--No need for me to upgrade to newer PHotoshop version) and some moderate video editing (fairly simple and relatively short family videos). No gaming. </p> <p>So, here goes. For the new computer I'm thinking:</p> <ul> <li>Intel i7-4790k (fast 4ghz, but I'm not planning on overclocking. So maybe the i7-4790 or 4790s would work?)</li> <li>ASRock Fatal1ty Z97X Killer Mother board</li> <li>16GB Ram</li> <li>SSD for OS, programs, and LR catalogs (HDD for storage) --no need for separate scratch disk if using SSD?</li> <li>Windows 8.1 64 bit (I've got 8 on a laptop and I don't mind it. I've read it's a bit less resource intensive than Win7)</li> <li>I'm shooting for around $1000 (including case, power, etc.)</li> <li>From what I can tell, Premiere Elements 12 won't make much use of a Graphics card?</li> </ul> <p> I'm not necessarily interested in having the highest spec'd computer for the sake of it. I've read quite a bit about benchmarking but I don't have much of a feel for what that all means in the 'real world.' I don't want to pay money unnecessarily for a computer that will save me a few seconds on video or photo editing. But a few minutes, I'll pay for! And again, I'd quite pleased if it would last me another 7 years.</p> <p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>Ruben and David,</p> <p>Thanks for those. I'll have a look at them.</p>

<p>David, <br> I can think of a number of reasons. Perhaps I'm going about my usual work-a-day life and don't have my large SLR with me. Perhaps using an app could help me compose, then return at another time with the camera. Or, perhaps I'm schlepping around lots of gear in a bag or case and am trying to decide whether or not it's worth unpacking the camera for a shot. Or, perhaps Im' trying to be relatively inconspicuous, and could compose relatively unnoticed using a smart phone instead of putting a big camera to my face. Then use the camera quickly at just the right time to remain unnoticed. </p> <p>Or maybe not. I've not used one of these apps. I'm curious what Ruben uses. I'd like to give it a try. </p>

<p>Ruben, <br> What previsualization app do you use? I didn't know there was such a thing, but it sounds like it could be useful. </p> <p>I still think the 'focal length' crop could be useful. My 28 IS is much smaller and lighter than my 24-105. If I know I'm not going to need to zoom way out, or if light weight and small form factor are more important to me for some reason than zoom, then having the ability to crop in camera on the fly would be useful (at least, to me). </p> <p>Also, I suppose another way to do it would be instead of having fixed 'focal length crop' have a 'zoomable' crop set to 3:2 aspect ratio. So, in live view, you can digitally zoom, take the photo and have the camera do the crop in-camera. Sure, this is limiting if compared to cropping on the computer. But, at least for me, I'd like to spend less time in front of my computer. </p>

<p>I'd encourage you to consider a 24-105mm. Mine is always on my 6D. I have the bad habit of pixel peeping and mine holds up very well. At similar focal lengths it compares favorably to my 70-200 4 IS and prime lenses. Maybe I'm lucky, but it's the one lens I wouldn't part with for its great image quality and versatility. </p>

<p>I mentioned above the aspect ration crop option in LiveView on the 6D. Does anyone use or find that feature helpful for any application? That seems like a fair analogy to me--if that's a useful feature, then I don't see why a 'focal length' crop option might not be useful either (again, keeping in mind I mean moderate cropping--not 28 to 200). I don't use it often, but I've found that seeing and composing in 4:5 or 1:1 instead of 3:2 all the time has its uses. So, maybe a moderate digital crop would as well. </p> <p>Yes, this kind of feature would be most useful to .jpg shooters; and yes, I would imagine that 6D owners are perhaps more likely to shoot in RAW. However, personally I'm finding that I want to spend less time in front of a computer screen (even a 24"!). If I can nail exposure the first time, as well as white balance, etc. then I don't have to post-process. </p>

<p>All good points/questions. <br> First, yes, one could obviously do it in post-processing; but then you couldn't see the composition as its happening. The purpose of doing it in live view is that you could see the crop in 'real time'. The live view image would digitally 'zoom' to the pre-determined crop area and then save only the crop area as the image. The 6d already does something like this with aspect ratio--you can select, for example 1:1 and then liveview only shows on the LCD the 1:1 crop ratio (or perhaps crop lines--can't recall off the top of my head) .The jpg image is outputted automatically by the camera in 1:1 ratio (RAW remains unaffected). My idea is simply to do a 'focal length' crop, but functioning like the aspect ratio crop does currently. </p> <p>Second, of course cropping a 28mm lens to 200mm will mess things up. I'm only suggesting very moderate cropping--28mm to 35mm or 50mm. Yes, there will be some change in depth of field but from 28 to 35 it won't be much; and for any images with small apertures wouldn't matter much anyway. </p> <p>Third, megapixels of course aren't everything--by digitally zooming you're also zooming into any imperfections in the lens itself, or cutting into apparent resolution. But, again, from 28 to 35, for example, it wouldn't be much. And, the loss of pixels wouldn't be much either. On my 20MP 6d digitally cropping to 35 would still give me a roughly 15MP image (I think--my math could be off). That's still more than my old 5D would do. </p>

<p>How about this for a future Canon firmware update (one can dream)--In LiveView, the option to select a crop that is equivalent to a fixed focal length (or some proportion). For example, if I have a 28mm mounted on my 20MP 6D body, I could, through liveView 'crop' the field of view (and resulting image) to a 35mm or 50mm lens. There would of course be costs--a drop in MP and a change in depth of field. But, with 20mp there's some to spare; and for many subjects the depth of field change would be unobtrusive. Plus, for the possibility of very modest 'digital zooming' while carrying only one small, light lens (instead of bigger zooms or several primes), I'm game. </p> <p>Anybody else think that sounds like a good idea? Any possibility for practically implementing that <em>now</em>?</p> <p>(PS--I believe the newest Ricoh GR does this. It's a 28mm fixed lens but you can select it to automatically crop and display through the LCD the field of view of 35mm and 40-something mm lens--at a cost of megapixels, of course).</p>

<p>It must have something to do with converting so that the .DNG is compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 or earlier. I wonder what the difference could be, though? I convert Canon 6D files with no problem. What would be different about Sony .ARW files from the RX100?</p> <p>Oh well. </p>

<p>All, <br> Thanks for the continued input. I've attached (I think) an .ARW file from my RX100. When I convert this to .DNG I get a file around 79MB. I'm using Adobe Converter 8.3. I have it set to make it compatible with Camera Raw 4.6 (I'm not going to update to a newer version anytime soon). To be clear, I do NOT have it set to embed the original raw file. <br> If anyone has a hankering to give it a try, here's the file: <a href="https://app.box.com/s/fos5bi87jirtir47k5av">DSC02255.ARW</a> </p>

<p>Thanks for the responses. <br> Just to confirm, I did NOT have it set to embed the original raw files. </p>

<p>Update: Because I'm using CS3, the last version of Camera Raw I can use is 4.6. When I got the huge .DNG files after conversion, I had DNG Converter set to be compatible with CR 4.1. I tried doing the conversion with compatibility set to 7.1. That produced an reasonable file size--just about the same size as the .ARW. But, of course, I can't open it because my version of Camera Raw is too old. <br> So, I guess that's the problem. Anybody know why that would be the case? What changed in recent versions of Camera Raw that would make it possible to have a .DNG file one half to one third the size of a .DNG file for an older version of Camera Raw? Anybody got any idea of a workaround?<br> I suppose it's not a huge deal. I can still edit the files. And storage is pretty cheap, all things considered. </p>

<p>I do not have it set to embed the original raw image. So, that is not it. <br> Does LR5 use a different converter? Will, is this with an RX100 (first version)?</p>