steve_dunn2

<p>As Mr. Clark said, the sensor is designed with a certain base ISO, and anything above that means that the amplifiers have to be cranked up. There are some models that let you go below the base ISO, but it's not for real; for instance, if the base ISO is 100 and the camera offers a 50 setting, it's actually metering at 50 but exposing at 100 (i.e. overexposing by one stop) and then digitally compensating. The overexposure means you lose a stop of highlights. (High-ISO settings, particularly those denoted as H or H1/H2 rather than an actual number, tend to do the opposite: they underexpose and then digitally compensate; this is pretty much the digital equivalent of what pushing was in the film days.)</p> <p>There's no technical reason why the base ISO specifically has to be 100 (which is what Canon has used in almost all of its DSLRs over the years). But the noise level at 100 is so low in most modern DSLRs that there isn't much to be gained by designing a sensor with a lower base ISO. And since a lower base ISO would require more amplification at higher ISOs (and if the base speed is 25, 12, or 6, then even 100 becomes a "higher" ISO), you may well end up with more noise at those higher ISOs than you get with today's sensors. For most people, that's not a good trade-off.</p> <p>It's inconvenient to have to carry ND filters, but photographers have done it for a long time, and it's a better tradeoff to make niche uses require ND filters than to cause problems for most people's everyday uses.</p>

<p>I haven't done any wired off-camera flash, but perhaps I can offer at least a few hints that might point in the right direction.</p> <p>Is the flash actually supposed to auto-zoom when it's off camera? Auto-zoom makes sense when it's in the hotshoe, as the location and direction of the flash are known, but when the flash is off-camera, the body has no idea where the flash is relative to either the camera or the subject, so it doesn't make sense to set a zoom position to match the lens. Certainly, for wireless flash, the manual for my old 420EX says the flash goes to its widest setting, and while I don't have my 580EX II manual handy, I believe it does, too, for exactly this reason. Likewise, if the flash head is tilted, auto-zoom doesn't make sense, and it should default to a fixed position.</p> <p>What makes you suspect it's flashing only at full power? Keep in mind that a fair bit of light will be lost (or scattered outside the frame) by your flash accessory, so the flash will have to use a higher output than it would otherwise.</p> <p>If your camera body is new enough to allow you to use the camera's menu system to access the flash unit's settings, see if that works. That should confirm whether there's good communication between the body and the flash.</p> <p>Hopefully at least some of that will help solve the mystery.</p>

<p>Wouter, I can say from personal experience that Elements 8 and 12 are both compiled with that switch enabled (though there's a bug somewhere in 8 that limits its effectiveness; 8 actually allows the use of more RAM on a suitably configured 32-bit Windows system than a 64-bit one). The original poster is using Elements 11, and while I've never used it, it would be odd if it didn't also support more than 2 GB since both older and newer versions do.</p> <p>(Adobe has <a href="http://kb2.adobe.com/community/publishing/856/cpsid_85658.html" target="_blank">this document</a> on enhancing Elements' performance, including mention of support for more memory, but it fails to mention which versions of Elements include it.)</p>

<p>Troubleshooting this sort of problem can get into all kinds of technical issues, so let me warn you in advance that I'm trying to put this answer into relatively simple language, with the consequence being that I'm glossing over some technical details.</p> <p>I don't think it's an issue of hard drive space. Elements will use disk space for its scratch file if memory isn't adequate, but we're talking hundred of megs or at most a few gigs, and you have 150 gigs or so.</p> <p>As for memory, use Task Manager and/or Resource Monitor to see how much is actually being used, both overall and specifically by Elements. Also, if you're keeping other programs open in the background while using Elements, you might want to exit the other programs. On my previous computer (32-bit XP, Elements 8, 3.25 GB of usable RAM), having a couple of browsers and an email client in the background had a noticeable impact on availability of memory for Elements; on my current computer (64-bit Windows 7, Elements 12, 8 GB of RAM), Elements is happier than on my old computer, no matter how many other programs I have in the background.</p> <p>But Elements is a 32-bit program, and even on 64-bit Windows, the most memory a 32-bit program can use is 4 GB*. If the issue is that you're trying to run a grand total of more than 4 GB of stuff (including Windows itself plus all applications you currently have open), then adding more memory will likely help. If the issue is that what you're trying to do in Elements itself requires more than 4 GB, then you're stuck; you'll have to rely on the scratch file. This is why I suggest monitoring how much memory you're actually using before buying more.</p> <p>*: Traditionally, a 32-bit Windows program couldn't use more than 2 GB of memory. But there's a setting when compiling a program that allows it to use up to 3 GB on certain configurations of 32-bit Windows and 4 GB on 64-bit Windows, and at least the last few versions of Elements have been set this way. You're running Elements on 64-bit Windows, so Elements can use up to 4 GB of memory.</p>

<p>When I saw the unspecified 50 on your list, I thought it might be the 50/1.4 (you didn't say which of Canon's many EF 50mm lenses it is), a lens that's famous for the fragility of its focus hardware. But that wouldn't cause the same problem with the brand new 100.</p> <p>I haven't used a T3i but I can say that I'm pretty certain that none of the EOS bodies I've had, film or digital, have had a setting that would enable autofocus only on lenses with IS. So I doubt you've made a settings change that would cause this.</p> <p>Do you have any friends with EOS bodies who could test your lenses on their body? Standard troubleshooting technique: if you have a problem with items X and Y working together, and you don't know which one is causing the problem, replace X. If the problem remains, it's likely a problem with Y; if the problem goes away, it's likely a problem with X. (I say likely because it's possible that it's the combination, not one or the other. But usually it's one or the other.)</p> <p>Other generic possibilities for this type of issue:</p> <ul> <li>Dirty contacts on lens and/or body. It's not likely the body in this case as the body works fine with two lenses and doesn't work with two. But it might not be a bad idea to give the contacts a gentle cleaning. <li>Flaky AF/MF switch. Again, not likely since it's happening to two separate lenses, but if you haven't already done so, flip the switch to MF and back again. Sometimes there's a spot where the switch just doesn't quite make contact and jiggling it a bit can make it work. <li>I'm not sure what sort of focus confirmation indication the T3i gives or if it works with a lens in MF; on at least some combinations of EOS bodies and EF/EF-S lenses, with the lens in MF, the body will confirm when you manually get it in focus. Try that with one of your good lenses to see if your body supports it; if so, see if focus confirmation works with your two problem lenses in MF. <li>Reseat the lens. As with the flaky AF/MF switch, sometimes there's just enough play in the lens mount, even with the lens clicked into place, that it may work better if you jiggle it a bit. </ul> <p>Sorry I can't give you a definitive answer. Hopefully something out of what I wrote will be useful.</p>

<p>Adobe Camera RAW in Elements makes pretty good use of multiple cores, so going from two to four would in all likelihood improve performance for you. I haven't used the full Photoshop product or Lightroom so I can't comment on whether their RAW conversion performance differs from that of Elements but as they share at least much of the same code base they will surely make good use of additional cores as well.</p> <p>How recent is your CPU? This can make a significant difference, too. When I upgraded from a Core 2 Quad Q9550 (quad-core, good CPU but a few generations old at this point) to a Core i7 4770k (quad-core, current generation), it made a big difference to a number of photo editing steps including RAW conversion using ACR. The problem with upgrading to a newer generation is that each motherboard supports only a limited number of generations of CPUs, so you may have to replace not only the CPU but also the motherboard ... and newer CPUs and motherboards may require newer RAM, so you end up replacing a lot of parts.</p> <p>You might also look into other RAW conversion software. I use Canon equipment so Canon's DPP is an obvious option for me. If you're a Canon shooter looking for better RAW conversion performance, DPP is not the answer; it has capabilities well beyond those of Elements' hobbled version of ACR, but it's also significantly slower (at least for DPP 3.x; I haven't used 4.x yet). But if you use another brand, maybe their software is faster; ditto for third-party converters (which I haven't used so I can't comment from personal experience).</p>

<p>Canon Canada accepted the serial number for my 7D. I wonder ... if you're having trouble with the serial number validation on one country's site, it might be worth trying it on another country's site, just in case maybe there are differences in the Web site code or database of what serial number ranges are valid or whatever.</p> <cite>So I guess that DPP 4 will never support my trusty 5D.</cite> <p>I didn't see a statement as to whether they plan to continue extending this to support older bodies or if they're done. Canon does have a habit of dropping support for particularly old bodies in new versions of software and it's entirely possible that they don't intend to support all older bodies with DPP 4. But it's also possible that they will continue to roll out support for additional older bodies with subsequent versions. Time will tell.</p> <cite>Its a good thing that Adobe continues to support older cameras when they update their software.</cite> <p>Sure, but Adobe breaks things the other way: they don't support <em>newer</em> cameras. They used to keep supporting a few older versions of software with newer versions of ACR, but these days it seems that as soon as they do their yearly release of a new version of Elements, they make sure every subsequent version of ACR won't work with even the one-year-old version of Elements. That's hardly a good example of a company putting customers and compatibility first.</p>

<p>Canon just released DPP 4.1.50.0. Among other additions, it includes support for a number of older bodies which were not previously supported. Personally, I'm happy because they've added support for my body, the original 7D.</p> <p>There's a brief summary <a href="http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/dpp_4_1_50_available_with_support_for_more_cameras.do" target="_blank">here</a>. Canon Canada has added this version to their software download site; the same is probably true of Canon sites in other countries as well.</p>

<p>The 28-135 is a good lens by consumer zoom standards. The 24-105 is professional quality. I had the former when I got my 20D (8 MP, APS-C sensor), and I definitely noticed an improvement when I upgraded to the latter. I'm sure that on a 5D II you'd also notice that the 24-105 is superior.</p>

<p>I bought a used 300/4L IS USM back in the film days and loved it. It was very sharp, even wide open, with beautiful background blur; well built; convenient to use with its nice focusing ring and built-in lens hood; and reasonably easy to handhold thanks to its modest (for a professional telephoto) weight and IS. I added the 1.4x II and was happy with that combination, too.</p> <p>When I went digital with a 20D, I continued to love this lens for all the same reasons. With the 1.4x, I found it lacked some snap wide open but stopped down to f/8 it was fine; I'd probably have seen the same with film if it encouraged pixel peeping as digital does.</p> <p>Unfortunately, while I found 300 (and 420 with the 1.4x) to be useful for me on film, I found they were often too long on 1.6-crop digital, and needed something to fill the gap between that and my 28-135, so I ended up selling this lens to help pay for the 70-200/2.8L IS USM. It saddened me to see it go, although it did at least go to a good home (I sold it to another photo.net user).</p> <p>As for whether it's the best choice for your application, I'll have to leave that to the wisdom of others.</p>

<p>Short answer: it's extremely unlikely that an infected computer will actually infect a camera.</p> <p>Digital cameras are just computers with some optical stuff attached, so it's certainly possible to write malware for them. However, malware, like other software, has to be written for whatever platform(s) you want it to run on, so typically it's developed for one platform (mostly for Windows) and is incapable of running on any other. If it infects Windows PCs, it typically can't infect Macs and vice versa, even though they use the same CPUs. Your digital camera is likely unrelated to either of those OSes or to the hardware they use, so it should be safe.</p>

<p>Many (most?) of us who shoot RAW with our DSLRs get our files at a depth of 14 bits, use a RAW converter to give us 16 bits per colour per pixel (that's 48 bits), and edit our pictures at that same bit depth in our choice of photo editing software, most of which don't support more than 16 bits times 3 colours per pixel other than for HDR. So if you get a scanner that offers more than 48 total bits per pixel, or more than 3 colours per pixel:</p> <ul> <li>is it actually going to be of practical benefit to try to extract more data from a print than most cameras, even professional ones, can extract from an actual scene? <li>what software are you going to use that can actually utilize that many bits of data? </ul>

<p>It varies from one model to another, and I don't know the details for either of those bodies. For instance, my 7D's central sensor is cross-type even with f/5.6 lenses, which is pretty common for non-pro EOS bodies with cross-type sensors. It does have an additional feature; with lenses that are at least f/2.8, it switches into high-precision mode. I think the central sensor on my previous 20D had similar features but it's a few years since I've had that and my memory may be faulty. Some bodies, particularly pro ones (since they're more likely to be used with fast lenses more often than consumer bodies are), need a faster lens, usually f/4 or f/2.8, to enable the cross-type sensor; with slower lenses, they revert to only line-type sensors.</p> <p>The manual for my 7D describes how this works. Hopefully the manuals for your bodies do, too. Failing that, the Wikipedia page for the 40D says "Wide 9 point AF (all points are cross-type with the centre point having an additional f/2.8 sensitive cross-type sensor placed diagonally)" but a quick poke around didn't find me similar detail for the 5D. FWIW, since the 5D's AF sensor was based on that of the 20D, chances are fairly good it shares the same features on its central sensor.</p>

<p>I suspect the ones that show up as grey with an X have been edited and saved in a format that DPP doesn't support. And by format, I don't necessarily mean the file extension (.JPG, .TIF, etc.); many of these formats have options that aren't supported by all programs. As an example, if I use DPP to convert a RAW file and save it as a TIFF, it saves it uncompressed, and DPP has no problem opening such a file. If I then edit it in Photoshop Elements and re-save it as a TIFF, I have a bunch of options for how to save it, including multiple compression methods. If I choose ZIP compression, for instance, DPP can no longer open the file, and DPP displays it in grey with an X. There's nothing wrong with the file itself; Elements, Irfanview, and Windows Photo Viewer can all open it without problems. It's just that I've saved it using an optional TIFF feature that DPP doesn't support.</p> <p>On a more practical note, I think the same as others. If you're already editing them in some other program, and that program has the ability to resize them, why not just resize them there?</p>

<cite>32 bit XP users would seem to be out of luck.</cite> <p>Anyone still using XP shouldn't be in the least bit surprised if upcoming versions of whatever applications they currently use will no longer support it. That writing's been on the wall for a long time now, and the mainstream media covered the end of XP support earlier this year so even people who aren't geeks like me should have heard about it.</p> <p>But Vista, 7, 8, and 8.1 have all been available in both 32- and 64-bit versions, and all of these are still officially supported by Microsoft. Users of 32-bit versions of those may be surprised that they can't run the latest version of DPP. Having said that, I think most people who are serious about digital photo editing would probably already be running a 64-bit OS to avoid the memory limitations of 32-bit OSes.</p> <p>As for me, if Canon is releasing a half-baked version that doesn't even support their current camera lineup, including the model I own, then obviously I won't be using it for a while. Hopefully when they do release it, they'll have improved their multithreading support; it appears there's a lot of code in DPP 3.x that doesn't do anywhere near as good a job of utilizing multiple cores as many other programs (including Photoshop Elements, ACR, and PTLens) do.</p>

<cite>How does the camera manufacturer gain monetarily from producing a (temporary) unreadable file in any application but their own free software?</cite> <p>I don't know about any other manufacturers, but Canon's own software gets updated each time they release a new body, too; it's not just third-party converters.</p> <p>Now, I've never tried processing a newer RAW file in an older RAW converter (from either the camera vendor or a third party). I don't know if it doesn't work at all, or if it works but just doesn't support newer features or body-specific items like being able to display which focus point was used.</p>

<p>+1 to the suggestion of doing it in post so you have more control.</p>