tien_pham

<p>The maximum speed that your camera writes to this uSD ("u" stands for the Greek "mu." Mu-SD is micro-SD,) is the speed of the SD adapter.</p>

<p>If you burst often, this speed will definitely be a limit. No matter how fast the uSD. The only way to improve the writing operation is to boost the speed of the adapter. Higher speed of uSD just helps (very little) bit, because the faster an uSD is being written, the faster a SD adapter will refresh itself. But don't expect a tremendous boost in speed.</p>

<p>I have used both Class 10 SDs and the ("Pro") Extreme series SDs. Class 10 SDs are no match with the high speed Extreme ("Pro") series SDs.</p>

<p>Always remember: You got what you paid for.</p>

<p>Good products ain't cheap! The sellers ain't stupid!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You may want to rent the gear BEFORE you come to SA. This would allow you to test, debug, and familiarize yourself with the gears.</p>

<p>The 400mm sounds right. When I was in East Africa, I used my FF body + a Canon 400mm + a 1.4X TC. I rarely used the 100-400mm. But that was me. Your situations could be different. Really depends on the guide who drives the safari truck. He/she determines the shooting range.</p>

<p>The 100-400mm lens has small maximum aperture. That will limit you to shoot wildlife in the morning or late afternoon, when wildlife are most active and abundant.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>IRS scam. From Pindrop.<br>

As a reminder, US IRS *does not* make a phone *call*. They will *definitely* send you a letter, so that they'd have a concrete evidence in court.<br>

I know this is out of the photo.net's scope, but I think the article is significant, as it will bring awareness to people. Make sure you listen to the recorded audio.</p>

<p>https://www.pindrop.com/irs-phone-scam-live-call_analysis/</p>

 

<p>Yes, Igor. You are stepping the same path that I took.</p>

<p>I've also use 8GB cards for the same reason as yours. Besides, I want to make sure that my cards are compatible with my portable storages. Mine are 500GB UDMA Colorspace (storage) drives. Well, this type of storage is nice, e.g., upgradable feature, using replaceable hard-drives, etc. But because it uses hard-drive to store, it is vulnerable to shock and stresses, much as PC hard drives are. (However, I hadn't gotten any problem with them when they were transported on a non-paved dirt road.) Its firmware sucks! Typical firmware from Taiwan! Comparable drives/storages are more expensive though.</p>

<p>In the past, I already saw a guy using a Kingston 64GB card (and he had been shooting under the JPEG format too,) and could not back up his pix to his drive. Basically, he trusted his gears too much. All the gears (yes, all of them,) need to be tested before any trip, and always bring along back-ups (I was saved 3 times with this.) The testing is not just testing the gears, but it allows you to get familiar with your gears before going out to the field. Fiddling your gears while in the field is a very expensive experience to get to know them!</p>

<p>Basically, I bought bunch of 8GB cards (8GB x 8/day x 12 days, worst case scenario,) All are 8GB Sandisks (>30MB/s) and 8GB Lexars. Initially, Sandisks were made-in-USA. Now, they are al made-in-China. Same deal with Lexars. So shitty, I guess!</p>

<p>Anyway, these brands worked with my UDMA Colospace drives before. I think Kingstons and Maxells also work, although Maxell stopped giving out their cards lately. Kingstons are too slow for me though. I shoot only in the RAW format. It takes the full resolution of a DSLR. Therefore camera buffer and high write-speed cards are very crucial for me.</p>

<p>Don't shoot in JPEG. The standard of JPEGs is of 8 bits. That means, you are voluntarily throwing away > 5 bits (in the old days, a DSLR camera can only have 13 bits. Nowadays, it is 14 bits.) Shooting in the RAW format, not only preserving the IQ, it allows you to re-develop it later, once your post improves. This is a huge advantage of DSLRs comparing to film-based SLR.</p>

<p>Someone suggested you should bring your 5D. This is a very good suggestion, since DSLR have larger sensor than that of P&S. That means, the noise generated by a DSLR is much less than that of a P&S.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I did the calculation.</p>

<p>For me, it's maximally about 8 8GB cards/day, with the RAW format and burst shooting. Burst shooting is for wildlife. When I went to Africa, I stored all pix in those 8GB CFs and SDs (SDHCs) for those shooting 9 days. It was a 10-day trip. Remember, you lose about 2 days: Europe is ahead the US 1 day, 1 day for logistics (boarding, orientation, etc.,) and you may lose another day at the end of trip. Landscape shots take less memory card than wildlife shots.</p>

<p>Another alternative is to get a portable storage, but this kind of solution has problem of its own. If you get a storage, it tends to be used for the trips in the future. Depending where you will go and how to get to destination, the storage can shake and may ask you to format it. For example, if you have to get to a destination by a non-paved, dirt road, etc. </p>

<p>I figured out that memory card storage is relatively safer. Other words, if the memory cards are new, they rarely fail. Old cards tend to fail ("leaking," the solid state circuits cannot hold the correct logic state anymore.) And the high speed (>30MB/s, about 1.5 of 21MB, the full resolution of the 1Ds3.) CFs aren't cheap. In landscape shooting, the camera rarely fills up, thus does not need high speed cards. (Well, it did in my case. My camera is a FF 1Ds3, and I "configure" the shots around the morning light.)</p>

<p>CFs are definitely more expensive than the SDs. And the CFs have been stopped on new development. I don't know what the "dramatic" decisions are, beside the fact that Nikon "steals" the CF-SD (slot 1 - slot 2) configuration, thus "steals" Canon's customers, starting at the Canon 1DX time frame.) If this has been the only reason, then I think it is a stupid reason.</p>

 

<p>1. Depends on when you shoot. Low or high contrasty time/subject is harder for focusing.</p>

<p>2. Depends on what type of body you have, A 300mm f/4L + 1.4TC would have f/5.6 as the max aperture. Depending on the body, this aperture may be too small for focusing. Thus focusing would be slow. For example, it is not a wise idea to go 100-400mm with a 1.4TC. When you're at the long end and your body is 50D, your camera cannot make a focus!</p>

<p>3. Depends on which type of focus sensor is. A cross type sensor is better for focusing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't have to save a big TIFF file to keep a copy of the image before cropping.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A PS file doesn't have to be saved as a TIFF file. And it is really stupid to do so. A PS file can always be saved as a PSD file. This way, the file size is much smaller. Espcecially if a file that has many layers.</p>

<p>LR is good, much like DPP of Canon, but they both don't have the masking capability, yet. To do masking , users have to jump to PS. I may be wrong on this though. LR may have the masking capability in the latest version.</p>

<p>Without the masking capability, local adjustments cannot be achieved. The image thus cannot be optimized.</p>

<p>With local adjustments, life is good, as always.</p>

<p>The methodology that Dan described above works if an image is cropped in PS. But if Genuine Fractals is used, PS probably won't keep the uncrop info, as it does in the former case.</p>

<p>Regarding to methodology, I normally develop a RAW and save it to a file. This is my master copy. I then flatten, crop, and sharpen the master copy for a print, which will be saved as a 2nd file. This 2nd size tends to be larger than the web's size. Either from the master file or from the 2nd file, I then down-size the image for the web. For the web, I don't care (much) to use an already-sharpened image. I will have to sharpen it again though, because sharpening goes with size.</p>

<p>Having a full-frame master copy is convenient. You can set the working color space there, and use it to make variations for different color gamut in different devices.</p>

<p>I usually crop last. before sharpening. That means, I crop in PS.</p>

<p>1. What if a photo needs a retouch? If it is cropped first, in ACR or PS, it will need to be developed again. That means, you have to work on the post again.</p>

<p>2. What if you have to crop differently for an application, such as an exhibition for example? That means you will have to work on the post again!</p>

<p>3. Do you guarranty that every crop will be exactly the same, so that you won't have to work on the post again?</p>

 

<p>Do not confuse b/w fps and the number of shot. Say, if a camera specifies 3fps, it will be abe to be shot with 3 fps, regardless, say, you can shoot 5 or 10 shots. The time interval b/t the shot is 3fps.</p>

<p>One thing you may find out is to set, say, the ISO = 1600, the shutter speed is 1/2000, the aperture is max. The purpose is to see if the shooting parameters were too slow, so that the camera allows you to take only 2 shots at a time.</p>

<p>George's Camera.</p>

<p>Nothing special. You can shoot along the road or you can shoot at Shark Valley. Both locations are suitable for the morning shoot. There is a GBH often stalking and fishing right at the 1st spillway, right before the gate.</p>

<p>You will never have an exact color anyway, because:</p>

<ol>

<li>The color in the camera is an approximation of the real color. Depending of the color gamut choice, the camera will display an approximation based on the 3 prime colors, red, green, and blue that the sensor has been built with.<br /><br /></li>

<li>The LCD on the back of a camera will display an already-processed picture, regardless whether you took it in RAW or JPEG. After processing, the color of a picture may not look the same. For example, if you decrease (increase) manually the brightness of a picture, the color of that picture may look different compare to the original scene. Darker tone would always enhance and saturate the color of a photo. This fact has been discussed in OP (Special Issue, a tip by Moose Peterson).<br /><br /></li>

<li>Shooting RAW will postpone the color assignment to a photo. During the conversion step, eg., ACR step, the conversion software will ask you to select a color gamut of your choice, eg., Adobe RGB or sRGB. Depending on the selected color gamut, the software will approximate the color of the photo, based on the approximate, captured color of the camera. Therefore, a RAW picture often appears dull in color. One must do some post-processing to get the picture popped.</li>

</ol>

<blockquote>

<p>Feiso (<a href="http://www.feisol.com/" target="_blank">www.feisol.com</a>), a company in NC</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got it wrong. Sorry! It is <a href="http://www.feisol.net">www.feisol.net</a>.</p>

 

<p>Feiso (<a href="http://www.feisol.com">www.feisol.com</a>), a company in NC, has a product called photocart, used conveniently for traveling. According to what I know, the company is very reliable, has a great service. I wonder if anyone has used their products?</p>

<p>Jeff, you are correct in saying about the shift. It was me who really carried the discussions away! Sorry about that. I just want to understand any differences in those values or any perpectives, if there is any.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The physical distance the lens moves is the same but as a percentage of the frame height, its larger</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True. I uderstand now. We were refering different views of the same thing!</p>

<p>It is not very hard to orient your camere in a "portrait" orientation and still get a picture in the landscape view. This is because there is no reference for one to recognize the photo as the portrait or landscape format. Pointing a camera to the sky for example. You cannot tell the orientation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example, a 12 mm shift on a full-frame 35 mm sensor in landscape orientation is half of the frame height. On a “1.6 crop” sensor the same shift is about 80% of the frame height.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I still don't quite get it! If the APS-C sensor is smaller, the area is smaller, the area coverage of the shift should be less. How can a shift, say 12mm, can cover 80% of the frame height from 50% (half) of it? The sensor is smaller, hence smaller area (both height and width,) the shift is still the same (12mm), and you said the shift will be larger for the APS-C sensor?</p>

<p>Your 2nd paragraph is a moot point, depending on how the shooter orients the camera. If he/she orients his/her camera in the "horizontal" way, the tilt (up/down) may not be relevant. On the other hand, if he/she orients his/her gear side way ("vertical"), then shifting lelft-right may not be relevant.</p>

<p>I used the terms "horizontal" and "vertial" instead of "landscape" and "portrait" because one can hold the camera in the portrait format, but the picture taken is still in the lanscape format, especially if that person points up his/her camera to the sky. In case someone may wonder about them!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since when does the sensor lie further away?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the confusion. The sensor does not lie further away, but it is smaller than the FF, thus the coverage area of the sensor becomes smaller. I was thinking in terms of the left-right distance at the edge in my mind, for simplification of the reasoning when responding to the post by Jeff. Actually, I should be cleaarer when saying that in previous post.</p>

<p>Jeff,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>TS lenses offer only a half-frame shift in landscape orientation, and only about 1/3 frame shift in portrait orientation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What do you mean when saying "multiply"? Do you mean something else?</p>

<p>Could that be "divide" instead of "multiply"? I think when you multiply something w/ a number greater than 1 (1.5 or 1.6), the result will be larger. That means the tilt-shift lens would be able to move a greater distance. But the APS-C sensor is smaller, the sensor lies further away, thus the shift should be less.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you shoot a cropped sensor camera, the EFS 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better choice</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And of course, they have to make it 82mm thread! 17-40mm or 16-35mm is virtually not so important. The big deal is in the f/2.8 of the lens. And of course, in order to do this, so that it could be used as a hand-held lens, as well as to preserve the quality of a fast lens, 82mm is essential. Almost all L fast lenses have 77mm thread, until this lens. Note that the version 1 of this 16-35mm lens has 77mm thread! There must be a reason Canon changed the size of the front element!</p>

<p>John (Tran) is correct. Besides, faster lenses would be able to use as many cross-type AF points in DSLRs as possible.</p>

<p>Thank you Marc. Your info is certainly valuable.</p>

<p>I have some questions, since you had been in Brooks.<br>

1. How long can you be (allowed) on the viewing platform at Books?<br>

2. If you have to stay in line, waiting for your turn to be on the viewing platform, how long does it take?<br>

3. How long after you stay on the platform that you saw the bears catching fish?<br>

4. What kind of focal length that you use the most?</p>

<p>1. AF is dependent on the lens it uses, eg., faster lens AFes faster than slower lens, especially in a low-light environment.<br>

2. Lenses with bigger front element generally and theoretically AF faster than the similar lenses with smaller front element.<br>

3. AF depends also on the type of AF sensor used, eg., crossed or horizontal, or vertical.<br>

4. According to the image recording sequence, an image goes to the uP (Digic engines) after it achieves focusing and shutter has been pressed. It also relates to the format of the image, eg., JPEG or RAW/NEF. If shooting w/ the RAW/NEF format, the Digics will not be invollved!</p>