catcher

<p>All, <br> I just purchased an RX100 (first version). I have an old version of Photoshop (CS3), so I'm using .dng converter to convert the proprietary Sony files to .dng. Upgrading Photoshop is not an option; nor is getting the newest LR as I have an old Vista 32 bit system. <br> Anyway, here's the question: when I convert the .ARW to .DNG the file sizes jump from about 20mb (ARW) to anywhere from 45-85mb (DNG). I've never seen anything like that from my Canon RAW files. I couldn't find much online, but I did find something that suggested Sony used codecs that were not compatible with DNG? <br> Anybody else have any experience with this? I'm using the same settings as when I convert my Canon 6D files and they're very close in size to the Canon Raw. Are these large files just something to live with or am I missing something?<br> Thanks.</p>

<p>When two photo.net members suggest calling Canon, I suppose it's wise to call Canon. So, I did. I'm pleased to report it was a fairly painless experience. <br> The person I talked to said that it should not be a problem for rebate purposes to purchase a Canon packaged kit (DSLR+Lens) for rebate purposes, even if the rebate only mentions that DSLR. <br> Unfortunately, she also told me that the rebate period ended yesterday. Oops. <br> Now I'll know the next time a rebate rolls around.</p>

<p>Thanks Sarah. I know I can call (and I may yet). But who knows how many layers of computerized horses I'd have to get through before I talk to a real one? And what are the odds that the real one will be the right one? (Maybe I've just had bad luck calling 800 numbers of large multi-national corporations!)<br> I was hoping for a less painful information-getting experience online. But, the number is helpful if needed. </p>

<p >All, </p> <p >Canon has a current mail in rebate going (ending tonight). One of the options is a Pixma Pro 100, plus paper, plus a canon DSLR. On the rebate form, several DSLR's are listed. My question is whether or not an official Canon Kit (DSLR plus lens) would count as the DSLR purchase for rebate purposes. Or, is it usually the case that Kits are considered separately by Canon for rebate purposes?</p> <p >I doubt many if any of you are experts on the intricacies of rebate rules, but I thought perhaps someone might have some actual experience with this rebate (or one like it). </p> <p >Here's a link to an official Canon website rebate form (note: this is a link to an expired rebate, but it's essentially the same as the current one): <a href="http://shop.usa.canon.com/estore/marketing/pixma-pro-rebates14/html-100/Canon_Direct_Pro-100_Printer-Camera-Paper_Combo_31MAR2014.pdf">http://shop.usa.canon.com/estore/marketing/pixma-pro-rebates14/html-100/Canon_Direct_Pro-100_Printer-Camera-Paper_Combo_31MAR2014.pdf</a> </p> <p >Thanks!</p>

<p>I just tried to download this directly from Canon USA through the link from the 6D page. It asked me for the serial number of my camera before it would let me download it. Has that been everyone else's experience? I've downloaded DPP before from the site and have never been asked for a serial number.</p>

<p>I went directly from a 5D (original) to a 6D. If I had the choice again I'd do exactly the same thing. <br> The 6D's high ISO images are much better than the 5D. I don't even bother bringing a flash sometimes anymore because I can use indoor lighting without problems. Others commented on the joystick/multi-controller--I used that joystick all the time on the 5D, and yet I had completely forgotten about it until others mentioned it. So, for me at least, I don't miss it in the least on the 6D. <br> One other thing that I don't think has been mentioned--the liveview on the 6D has made a world of difference for me. I didn't realize how much I would use it. For example, when doing portraits with f2 lenses I can quickly and immediately check that focus is correct before exposure (though, the AF has been fine for me--I rarely need to adjust). When doing landscapes, I can quickly zoom in and see whether everything I want to be in focus is. Again, I didn't realize how much I'd use that. For that alone, I would not go back to the 5D. </p>

<p>All, <br> Thanks for the feedback so far. Wayne, thanks for the link. Comparing the two lenses there shows an improvement in resolution, though again that's not clear to me how that translates to real world. Still, it's helpful to see. <br> Also, to clarify I do mean the 18-55 IS (not the non-IS original), but as I understand it there are now three versions of the IS 18-55. The one I have is the first of those three. <br> As I mentioned, I have wondered whether or not the one I have is defective in some way, but never pursued the matter. It's an inexpensive lens to begin with, so I never pursued it. Now that the STM is available (and apparently some improvement over any of the other versions with respect to resolution), it seemed like it might be the way to go. <br> This is outside the scope of my original question, but I've seriously considered getting the SL1 kit. The SL1 is not significantly smaller or lighter than my T21, but it was still noticeably smaller and lighter when I handled one. <br> Any other advice or comparisons would be much appreciated. </p>

<p>All, <br> Has anyone done any direct comparisons between the kit 18-55mm IS (not the II version) vs newest STM version?</p> <p>I have other (bigger, heavier) lenses for serious work on a (bigger, heavier) 6D, but I've always appreciated the small size and light weight of the kit lens on a small DSLR (T2i) for family outings or other occasions when smaller matters to me. However, I've never been at all happy with the kit lens, especially at the long end. I realize it's not L, so I don't expect miracles, but on my copy even stopped down the long end is simply atrocious, especially with resolution. Soft, muddled, low contrast. Maybe that's normal? Or maybe mine's a bad copy?</p> <p>In any case, I read online that people speak relatively highly of Canon's kit lenses, at least compared to other kit lenses, and in particular the new STM is getting pretty good press. </p> <p>My question is whether or not it's worth picking up. I've got limited funds so it's not easy for me to spend on camera equipment, even relatively inexpensive items. </p> <p>I'm most interested in resolution. Has anyone directly compared the original IS version (again, not the II version) with the STM? Or can anyone point me to something online?</p> <p>By the way, I looked at Canon's MTF charts and they do show an improvement for the STM veresion over original IS. But, I'm not always sure what that translates into in real life shooting. </p> <p>Thanks. </p>

<p>I'm considering purchasing a 6D camera. Maybe this is a basic question, but I've done some searching, even found the 6d instruction manual online, but haven't found an answer (or, maybe I have but I don't like it). </p> <p>My T2i has a self-timer continuous option. You can select how many pictures you want it to take (up to 10) after a delay of 10 seconds. This has worked very well for my family. We have small kids. For family portraits we set the timer on delay continuous for 10 shots. I set the exposure and focus. Press the button. Sit with the family. And we smile for 10 frames. There's usually at least one where everyone is smiling looking at the camera. </p> <p>Is this a feature that the 6D has? I have the original 5D and it does not have this feature, but I assumed that was just because it was older. But looking at the 6D manual, I don't see the function mentioned. </p> <p>If the 6D does not have this feature, what is a possible workaround? The 6D is wifi enabled, but the Iphone app (as best I can tell) also does not support multiple shots. Each shot would need to be triggered individually. The 6D instruction manual references Remote controller RC-6. But I'm assuming that then again I would need to press it for each exposure?</p> <p>Thanks for any info. </p> <p>PS, if the 6D does not have this function, does the 5Dii or 5Diii have it?</p>

I've tried to do some searching on this, but haven't had much luck. If there's a lot on this on the internet or in these forums that I've missed, any links would be appreciated. Here's my question: Older FD lenses are completely unusable on EOS cameras (with the exception of some adaptors). I'm wondering what it was about the old FD mounts that was restrictive enough to make Canon decided to change mounts when moving to EOS with the result that older FD lenses are unusable on new EOS cameras. Was it something physical or mechanical about the mount? Was there an engineering reason? I can't imagine that it was pure marketing. Maybe I'm wrong, but it would have seemed from a marketing perspective to be better to make sure the newer bodies were compatible with older lenses, even if the newer lenses might not be compatible with older bodies. On some other cameras (like Nikon) older lense are still useable on newer bodies, albeit with some loss of functionality. Why did Canon not go this route? Thanks.