steve_dunn2

I found them to be a useful resource for reviews and tests. The forum section, well, once in a while I'd end up there from a search engine. I guess I'll have to look for other sources for reviews going forward. Darn.

Page 177 of the original manual and page 185 of the version 2 manual cover the camera's mini HDMI connection. From your description of the monitor's connection, though, it sounds like it's DVI, not HDMI. DVI comes in a bazillion flavours including analog, digital, and a combo of both. DVI connectors that include digital support are generally compatible with HDMI if you have the right cable. Look at the Wikipedia page for DVI to confirm whether this is what you have and what flavour it is, as you'll need a cable that's compatible with it.

I suspect the target market for this is not so much people looking to upgrade from a 6D but people looking to upgrade from something older and/or lower in the product line. For instance, I'm a hobbyist shooting with a 7D, and if a new body was in the cards for me (which it isn't at this time), I think Canon has pretty much nailed it with the 6D II. Not that the 6D wasn't good, but I think they're closer to the bullseye with their second shot. If I already had a 6D, then I definitely wouldn't be upgrading; there's nowhere near enough there to make it worth the cost. It's on my Christmas gift list, alongside other things nobody will ever give me like a new car, but hey, a boy can dream, right? And if 2023 is a good year for me financially, then I'm probably trading up to a 6D II late next year (and two of my lenses are full-frame so they'll work just fine).

ExFAT is widely supported, with Windows and MacOS both having supported it for over a decade, and there's also support in more recent versions of other operating systems including Linux and iOS, so unless you're running an antique and/or niche OS, your computer should handle it.

It's generally a good idea to use a tripod rather than handholding if you're trying to judge sharpness. The usual guidelines on how to get the best from a tripod apply (not extending it any higher than necessary, for instance). Also, if available (I don't know the 620's features), consider using the following features: Mirror lockup: flips the mirror up and out of the way a few seconds before taking the picture, so that vibrations caused by moving the mirror have time to die down Remote shutter release: you can't press the shutter release button on the camera without contributing a little bit of shaking to the camera, so using a remote release lets you trip the shutter without touching the camera Self-timer: if you can't use a remote release, the self-timer allows the vibrations from you touching the camera to die down before taking the picture

Any Canon EF lens with IS should be fully functional even with this old body; I can't speak for compatibility with non-Canon lenses. I agree with Mr. Seaman's assessment of the 28-135 - it was my main lens for several years and I was happy with it.

This is an industry standard. Design rule for Camera File system - Wikipedia

Many things in Elements work at 16 bits; some only work at 8. I don't have a list of which is which; perhaps there's one out there somewhere. This is definitely worth looking into to see if it would be a problem for your workflow. Or just download and install it; I believe it runs as a fully-functional trial for some period of time, so you could run through your workflow with it and see if there are any 8-bit showstoppers for you. This would also let you discover if there are other things you depend on that aren't supported well or at all (e.g. PSE's limited support for colour spaces).

Yes. I also archive to external hard drive. Every egg has a copy in more than one basket.

Taping the pins prevents the extender from being detected, so if you're in a situation in which the lens + TC is too slow for your camera's autofocus system (for many EOS cameras, that means slower than f/5.6), autofocus will still try to work. But it doesn't change the physical limitations of the autofocus system. Bottom line: depending on the lens (and focus length for some zooms) and body, autofocus may work well, poorly, or not at all.

I'd go 32". I replaced a 24" 1920x1200 with a 32" 2560x1440 and I'm happy with it - no scaling involved. I don't think I'd want to go with a dot pitch that's much smaller, and when photo editing, I don't want to have to stick my nose right up to the screen to see at a pixel level. So if I had the choice of a 4K monitor at either of the sizes you mention, I'd definitely go with the 32".

I upgraded from the 28-135 to the 24-105 several years ago, back when I was using a 20D body (8 MP). I did not do formal testing so all I can report is my anecdotal experience. I found that the 24-105 was sharper than the 28-135. On my 7D (18 MP) I am still pleased with the 24-105. As both bodies use APS-C size sensors, I can't comment on how the two lenses would compare on a full-frame body.

I wish I could help you with all of this, but my experience has been that DPP is not well documented. Sure, the documentation says how to turn settings on and off, but if you want technical detail on what exactly the various options do or in what circumstances they should or shouldn't be used, well, you're pretty much on your own. For a good laugh, try looking at the documentation for the HDR tool and see if it actually helps you understand how to adjust the sliders to get the result you want. (Spoiler alert: it doesn't.) DLO works, and it works well. But it works slowly, and as you've noted, it doesn't give progress updates; your CPU usage spikes for a while, and then all of a sudden the image changes. It's been like that for however many years it's been since they added it. On the issue of the extender, the problem is that there have been several versions of each extender over the years, and they don't all share the same optics, so they can't all use the same correction data. The lens knows whether there's a 1.4x or a 2x, but not which model*. I wish there was a way to set a default in DPP - for instance, I only have one 1.4x, and it's the only one I've ever had, and so any time I open an image that used a 1.4x, I want DPP to default to the version I have. But no. I have to set this every time I open an image. DLO's lens aberration correction uses a mathematical process called deconvolution. The details are beyond my decades-old recollection of mathematics and optics so I can't explain how it works (if your math and optics knowledge is better than mine, perhaps the Wikipedia page will help you), but I can attest to the fact that it does work. Feel free to send Canon your feedback. Just don't hold your breath on seeing it implemented. I don't believe they've ever made any improvements that I've suggested to them. *: if you've ever wondered why there are more pins on the front of the extender, and on the back of compatible lenses, than on the front of the body and the back of the extender and non-compatible lenses, this is why. Inside the extender, two of those three pins are shorted together; which pins they are depends on whether it's a 1.4x or a 2x. That's how the lens knows whether it's a 1.4x or a 2x, and also how the lens doesn't know which generation of extender you're using.

It would have to be a horrendously old version of Elements to be unable to open a 16-bit file; I'm pretty sure Elements has been able to open 16-bit TIFFs for at least a decade. Once the file's open, then yes, you'll find that many filters don't work on 16-bit data, which is what the linked article discusses; if you want to use those filters, you'll have to convert down to 8 bits (which Elements can do). But I've been working with 16-bit images in Elements for many years, first using ACR to convert and (for the last few years) using Canon's DPP to convert my RAW images to 16-bit TIFFs which I then open and edit in Elements (currently using Elements 12).

I also assume it is a fraud. The bad English in the Subject: line was the first clue.

I loved ECF on my Elan 7e, too, and wish Canon hadn't dropped the technology. If your son ends up with a 1V, the 420EX will be pretty compatible with it. The only feature that likely won't work perfectly is autofocus assist, as the 1V's AF layout is substantially different; he'll likely find that AF assist works well on some AF points but not others. E-TTL will work just fine, though, and I'd expect the other features (second-curtain, high-speed sync, and wireless multiple flash if he also gets a master unit like the ST-E2 or a higher-end EX flash) should be fully supported.

Nope. The 430EZ supports A-TTL and TTL, but not E-TTL; the same is true of at least most (maybe all? I don't recall) EZ units. They'll work with all EOS film SLRs, and probably even a T90, but the only EOS DSLRs that are compatible are some of the ones from the 1990s that were basically film cameras with a digital back. All the EOS DSLRs from about 2000 onwards require an E-TTL flash (i.e. an EX model).

The 420EX was introduced along with the Elan 7/7e, which is why I bought them together :-) They are perfectly matched with each other. Of the three cameras you mention, the two Elans both support E-TTL and will have full flash functionality with the 420EX. The 1N does not support E-TTL, so with that body, the flash will revert back to plain old TTL operation (as it will with any EOS body that doesn't support E-TTL, all the way back to the very first bodies in the 1980s). The 1N doesn't support high-speed sync* or wireless multiple flash setups, but as far as basic flash functionality, it will be fine. I can't say with certainty how the autofocus assist light on the flash will work with those, but I suspect it will probably work well with all three, since the Elan 7's autofocus layout is basically a superset of the layouts on the other two. As far as E-TTL being E-TTL, pretty much. If your flash supports E-TTL and your body supports E-TTL, they will work together, regardless of film vs. digital or how old or new they are. (Newer digital bodies support E-TTL II, but that's purely a difference in the metering algorithm used by the body; there is no difference in the flash.) *: I believe there was an optional firmware update for the 1N that added a very limited ability to do high-speed sync. But since you can't just stuff a flash card with a firmware update into a film camera, this would have been something that an owner would have had to pay a Canon service centre to do. I doubt most 1Ns on the used camera market would have this.

As far as bit depth, I would take more over less. Whether it makes a practical difference will depend on a number of factors, including the scene, ISO, and what processing you do. You may find there's more useful data in shadows with a greater bit depth. As you point out, it's a relatively small file size difference for the extra two bits. For compression, I don't know whether your camera does lossy or lossless compression. I'm a Canon shooter, and Canon's RAW files use lossless compression. If your camera uses lossy compression, well, it's up to you, but to me, lossy compression would erode one of the benefits of RAW files (that none of the data will be thrown away between when you take the shot and when you start editing it), so I personally wouldn't use it.

What version of DPP is this? Does the documentation for that version say it supports the SL1, which is a couple of years newer than either of the two other cameras you mention? The latest version of DPP (at least, on Canon Canada's site) is 4.6.30, and it claims to be compatible with both Windows 10 and the SL1. As I have neither of those, I cannot confirm that from personal experience.

The focus confirmation indicator tells you that the autofocus system has detected that the subject is in focus, so it should only be expected to work in situations in which the autofocus system is expected to work.

I am not a lawyer but I suspect that giving them a copy of DPP would violate the licence agreement. But since you already have DPP and the right to use it, how about using DPP yourself to produce (say) 16-bit TIFFs for them? DPP can do batch conversions so you don't need to sit there doing each one individually. If you're confident that you everything right in camera, you don't even need to do any adjustments - the camera records its settings (picture style etc.) in each file and DPP can use each picture's in-camera settings. Or if some need adjustments, DPP also has an easy way of copying the settings (white balance etc.) from one file to as many others as you like, so if there are several photos that all need the same settings (e.g. if they're shot under controlled circumstances), you only need to get the settings right on one. The recipient can then open the high-bit-depth lossless TIFFs in their choice of photo editor.

I don't know what chargers Canon uses in the UK, but the charger for my 7D here in Canada has no problem with either the 120V we use here or the 240V you use in the UK. I've used it in both the UK and a few EU countries; all it needs is a plug adapter since Canada, the UK, and the EU use different plugs from each other. The same is likely true with yours. Look on the charger to see what voltages it can use, and look up what Vietnam uses, and you'll probably find the charger is compatible and needs only a plug adapter. The same is true of most reasonably modern personal electronic devices; all the chargers I've had in the last several years for cell phones, tablets, and NiMH batteries have been multivoltage, so the plug adapter is all they've needed.

It works for me. But I think you wanted the site help forum --> Photo.net Site Help

Your 28-135 was introduced back in the film days, so yup, it works with film cameras :-) Actually, I used to use the 28-135 (and 300/4 IS) with film bodies. Since IS is doing exactly the same job (stabilizing the image that the lens projects onto whatever detects the light), it works the same way.