jonglass

<p>Good question, I bought a cheap hood for it. which helps. but isn't perfect, of course, but I am able to frame and compose shots. In such situations, you really have to depend on the meter and your instincts for exposure, though. For me, though, probably 90% of my shooting, if not more, this isn't an issue at all. Maybe I have a high tolerance for these things, though. :-)<br>

-Jon</p>

 

<p>I never write on photo.net, but follow the 4/3 thread via RSS. Your post got me thinking, though, and while I don't want to offer this as advice, here are my thoughts...<br>

If you are seriously considering m4/3, but aren't sure if you really want to commit to it, the E-P1, if it's cheap enough, seems to me to be an ideal starter. It's the absolute basic, but covers all the important bases. Also, if you like it, you can build up your lens collection, and wait for the perfect-for-you model to come out, or, simply buy the latest if you really think that m4/3 is for you. On the other hand, if you decide you don't like the format, beyond the extra niceties that the E-P1 is lacking (electronic, attachable EVF, built-in flash, etc.), you can sell out easily enough, and not be out a ton of money. I only own the E-P1, and I love it! I have yet to feel the urge to update to the latest E-P3. Oh, and I also own an E-30 with the gorgeous 12-60, and it almost _never_ gets used, except on the rare occasion I truly need its features (off-camera flash, remote control, super-fast AF and shooting speed, and eye-level VF). I love my Pen that much. Hope my thoughts help.</p>

<p>You need to switch the review view to the histogram view. That view shows the exposure details.</p>

<p>I say go for the FL36R. I use mine on my E-P1, and it is no larger on that than my Vivitar 283 was on my older, film kit. In use, it doesn't feel the least bit top-heavy--or at least any more top-heavy than any other combo I've used in the past. If you like, I can take a picture of mine together, but I bet googling the combo will turn up results. In fact, here's a page: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EPL1/EPL1A.HTM<br>

I considered other brands, specifically because I wanted smaller, but in the end, I'm very glad I went with the FL36. <br>

-Jon</p>

 

<p>@Henrik. I think that if there is a problem, it is not just the lens, nor is it just the shutter curtain, but resonance. The vibration is at such a frequency that causes the lens to amplify the vibration. <br>

However, I wonder if this review is indicative of a real problem, or just a fluke. Others, it seems, have not been able to duplicate the results--at least not to the extent of this review.<br>

-Jon</p>

 

<p>It seems to be difficult to verify. I have noticed a very slight different, but only at 100% magnification, but at any view size that would be normally looked at, you can't really tell. Others have claimed they couldn't find any difference. It's truly a pixel-peeping type of issue, IMO. After fretting, and shooting a bunch of pictures, I decided to stop worrying about it, and just kept shooting. I suppose that if I had a photo that had to be tack-sharp, I would avoid the shutter speed range between 100th and 200th of a second, but honestly, I don't bother worrying. That seems to be the opinion of all who have done their own investigating.<br>

-Jon</p>

 

<p>I don't know that you can enable it. Art filters take so much processing power that even in movie mode (which is a much lower resolution) you only get a few frames per second. Maybe it was movie mode you are remembering. Try using it. You get less than 10 fps with it, so it's sort of like continuous shooting mode. ;-)<br>

-Jon</p>

 

<p>Hi. First post on Photo.net's Oly forums (and first post in a few years, in fact). I have come to the ePen from an ancient Canon D30. I have to say that I think that the shutter on the ePen is significantly slower than my old Canon. by "significantly", I mean enough to miss a shot on occasion. I have AF set to the AEL/AFL button, just like on my Canon, so all my shutter does is set exposure. It definitely feels slower. That said, I've only noticed it when shooting my super-hyper 5 yr old. But she's lightening in human form. ;-) <br>

If you want this camera for sports or hyper kids, you might want to look elsewhere. On the other hand, for most other things, I think it's just fine. I like it so much, in fact, my oldest daughter now owns my Canon. I have no more use for it. :-)<br>

-Jon</p>

 

<<<As a long-time Pentax user I am pleased to see them bringing out new models. Like

the previous poster I too am glad they have dropped the silly names but they are still

shooting themselves in the foot by adopting a naming convention in which the HIGHER

numbers have LOWER functionality - that is the reverse of every other consumer goods

manufacturer. The K110 is like the K100 but without the image stabilization.>>>

 

Well, Canon do it too! Their top of the line models are always 1, and then, maybe a 3, and

5, and then double-digits. The more digits, and the higher the number, often, the lower

the model.... It's not unique. And I seem to remember that some stereo company did

something similar, but my brain is fuzzy on that point at this moment.

 

In any case, I think I'm glad I held onto my Pentax glass when I bought my Canon

camera. ;-)

 

-Jon

R Jackson , may 07, 2006; 07:50 p.m. said:

<<The Nikon D200 is the only digital camera I'm aware of that allows in-camera multiple

exposures.>>

 

I can't be sure, but I believe the Pentax *ist D was touted as doing multiple exposures, and

maybe the DS, as well.... but it's been a long time (anybody want some spare Pentax A-

series lenses?) ;-)

 

-Jon

As to your iPhoto problem, I didn't notice that anybody mentioned it, but if you aren't

using the latest version (6), you might not be able to download your RAW images. I had to

upgrade to version 6 to get D30 support (not the new 30D, but the older D30). iPhoto

didn't support my camera, and may not support yours either.

 

As others have mentioned, you can get Image Capture to download them, but if you want

to use iPhoto, you may need the upgrade...

 

Also, in order to get the Canon software to work, you will need to use Image Capture to

change the application used. Open it, open its preferences, and if you want to use Canon's

on, try its "Camera Window" software. There is the main app, and others that it opens,

based on what's plugged in, so choose the "Camera Window" app, not others...

 

-Jon

Are you quitting the software you are using to download the files? Or are you using the

Finder. If you are using extra software, and not quitting it, it may be the culprit--mounting it

again, because it thinks it needs it. If you are using the Finder, then it is just a glitch. It

happens to me on occasion, and I just pull the card, click Close on the warning dialog, and

go on. I think that what sometimes happens is that an open application decides it needs it,

and doesn't let it go. I've just never bothered trying to figure out which one. :-)

 

-Jon

Another thought--and one that matters to me, is that the shutter on the 30D is rated for

something like 100,000 actuations. the XT is something like 30,000? If you plan to own this

thing for a long time, or shoot a lot of photos, then I would think that the 30D would win on

that argument alone. :-)

 

-Jon

I think people kind of make this harder than it has to be. I'll share what I do, and then you

can decide for yourself....

 

First of all, the word "gamut" in its simplest sense means "range" or "scope." So, your color

gamut means color range, or the complete scope of colors. I think it's simple to

understand that you cannot hope to capture all the colors--all the final tonal differences in

your camera, and more-so reproduce them in a print. However, certain color gamuts in

your computer have different ranges. Typically speaking, when you print to your average,

consumer ink jet printer, and in your average photofinisher, they are capable of producing

the least amount of color tonality. If you send a photo to them that has colors outside

their range--well, think of audio, and what happens when you drive your speakers or

amplifier too hard--you get distortion. In color, things just don't look right. So, you want

your color gamut to match where you are going....

 

To simplify your choices, let's say that Canon's "wide gamut" color profile gives you the

greatest tonality, "Adobe RGB" gives you less, but more than sRGB, which gives you the

least. However, sRGB images will look fine in other color spaces (because it's smaller--less

data) but the others, opened in the sRGB space can look really wonky. You don't want to

do that. :-)

 

That said, I don't like to limit myself for working, so when I bring a RAW file into

Photoshop, I bring it in from DPP as a 16 bit TIFF file, using Canon's wide gamut setting.

 

Then, when I'm all done with it, I will convert or change the color profile to sRGB or aRGB,

depending on how I want it output..... but typically, I move to sRGB for the final result--

but that is one of the last things I do.

 

There, I hope that helps you. Remember, you only need to decide on sRGB towards the

end, especially if you are shooting RAW. If, however, you are shooting JPG, you will need to

decide what you are going to do with it up front.... In such cases, the safest option is

sRGB, but you do risk losing something.

 

-Jon

Could I throw my voice into the fray, and say "Bunkers!" to what everybody else has said so

far. :-) Last April, when my Nikon Coolpix 990 died, I agonized over which camera to get,

and finally settled on Canon (moving from my Pentax manual focus equipment), and then

came the agonizing decision over what body. At the time, I believe the 20D was brand

new, and the 10D was the mainstay, along with the 300D. I believe that while I was

agonizing, the 350D came out, thus making my decision even more difficult! In the end,

however, I was able to get a D30 plus a 28-80 Sigma for well under $500. Why did I

choose the D30?

 

Well, first of all, the D60 wasn't/isn't worth the extra you would pay, and the 10D was still

too expensive, and also has some drawbacks that D30 doesn't have (speed, noise). The

dRebels are not, IMO, worth the money as they are not as hardy as the D30, so what did

that leave me? A D30 is quite cheap as a first-timer's foray into digital, but as to its

benefits?

 

 

Well, it was the first dSLR which people (namely Michael Reichmann) claimed vied with

35mm film. Secondly, its lower resolution meant lower noise, and I had seen some

complaints at the time, both here and other places, that the D30 had less noise. I doubt

this is true for the 20D, but I can say that my photos are almost noise-free up to 800 ISO,

so long as they are properly exposed. Another benefit for the D30 is smaller file sizes. I

can shoot about 150 RAW on a 1 Gig card, or well over 300 JPEG, at top quality. Not only

that, but I can even use a 64 meg card for JPEGs! Try doing that with a newer camera! :-)

This means that my supply of older 64 meg cards is still useful. But not only that, I can

store more on my hard drive, and process them much faster than 6 mp or 8 mp images.

These are things to consider. Also, due to the smaller file sizes, I suspect that the D30 is

actually faster in actual use than even the 10D, when it comes to file-write times, and

burst speeds. I know that if I'm shooting JPEG, I almost cannot outrun my buffer, shooting

at almost maximum speed. I know I've shot off over 20 photos without any perceptible

slow-down--and this is at almost 3 fps. But in any case, the colors are warm and and rich,

IMO. Strangely enough, when I finally downloaded and started using Canon's Digital Photo

Professional, my older images became even more rich and beautiful!

 

So, it's _only_ 3mp. I have printed straight out of the camera at 11x14, and the photos are

beautiful! I have also "resed up" some photos to 20x30 at 300dpi, and even those look

just great printed out by a photo lab. Sure, there may not be the detail that a 6mp image

has, but once you look at it from a normal viewpoint, I doubt your average person, even a

discriminating one, would see much of a difference. The D30 is simple, ergonomic, and a

delight to use. I would love to get a more modern camera, but honestly, until the 30D

came out, none of the other cameras caught my attention. You can put a Tamron 19-35

f3.5-4.5 lens on it, and be very happy with it, and do it for less than a body-only for

newer models. I just did a search on eBay, in fact, and see that recent D30s have gone for

about $300 for the body only, and the 10D (which is the only other Canon I would

consider) is still going for about $700.

 

I would offer only two caveats.

1. Make sure it has a low shutter count. You can do this by asking the seller to shoot an

image for you, and send it to you untouched. Unless they have reset the counter, you

should know about how many photos have been taken by the number in the image name.

But this is important because Canon has rated its shutter at only 15,000 actuations.

2. That viewfinder issue.... It is a bit of a pain. As someone else mentioned, you can get a

Pentax with a much better viewfinder for only a little more. If he is used to a decent

viewfinder, the D30's is small, and has no eye-relief for glasses (which I wear).

I guess that the third caveat is that they are getting old, and I presume that there will be a

greater failure rate among D30s than newer cameras, but I suspect that Canon built this

thing quite solid, and so it is less of an issue than it could be. In any case, if you can hold

the camera and try it before buying, that would be best.

 

the upshot is that I think your friend would and could be satisfied with the D30. I know I

am.

 

Oh, and another lens to consider that is cheap, but, in my experience, has decent quality

is the Sigma 28-80 f3.5-5.6 II zoom. It has wonderful macro capabilities, and makes an ok

all-around lens. In 35mm terms, it's the equivalent of a 45-128 or thereabouts. Yes, it is

cheap, but I have no complaints re: color, focusing and flare. Resolution may not be the

best, but at 3mp, it isn't so important. ;-) Also, it doesn't distort too much that I've noticed

(most likely due to the crop factor).

 

-Jon

 

P.S. I have some images posted on the web if you want to see them. Just drop me a line via

email.

I was going to say that in my experience with print film, I don't notice much difference in half-stops, but whole stops. You don't see it in prints made in a shop, but you can see it on the negatives and scans, but 1/2 or 1/3 stop differences are really redundant, IMO. With slides,--definitely as narrow as you can get, but with negatives, as broad. That was my film practice. Oh, I guess I did say that.... ;-)

And if you are desperate to pop K or KA mount lenses on your Canon, there is this, the EOS K mount:

http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html

 

Granted, it's a custom, hack job, but I've seen results from this combo and it works.

 

-Jon

<<However, I realised I have the 24-105L + 35L and so there wasn't any point in spending lots of money for 17-24mm of the 17-40L/17-35L lenses.>>

 

From my perspective that overlap is a Good Thing. This can keep you from having to change lenses more often, and on a dSLR, this is a good thing. Don't think of that overlap as wasteful, but a convenience, so you don't have to remove the lens to get just a little bit extra length. If you look at it that way, your are losing nothing. I guess I started seriously thinking this way when I got a 19-35, which overlaps my longer lens in the range of 28-35. It's no big deal, but having that little bit extra is a blessing, not a loss, in the end.

 

That's my perspective. Also, from some things I've read here and on other sites, optical quality should be a top consideration for the 5D, so it's likely that the extra Canon quality is something else you should consider.

 

-Jon

Well, in answer to the original question, I'm a cheapskate. ;-) I did a Google images search for grey card and McBeth cards, and ended up printing out one of each on matt 4x6 photo paper, and they sit in my camera bag. When I'm uncertain, I shoot a photo with them in it, up close, and then shoot what I was planning to shoot. I then shoot in RAW. Later, when I've imported into DPP, I use the click white balance, and play with it until satisfied. I suppose I could use some better equipment, but so far, it's been a relatively painless operation for my purposes. :-)

 

-Jon

My impression has always been that Canon seems to be preferred amongst sports shooters, while Nikon has the press corp shooting news. It also seems that NG has a preponderance of Nikon shooters, despite the fact that Canon is a big sponsor of theirs.

 

Another impression--right or wrong--Canon has really good technology, and people who upgrade constantly, to keep at the crusp like Canon, while People who have a deep investment in Nikon lenses appreciate the fact they can use their older glass with newer cameras--even if they have to pay to have the lenses upgraded to work--at least they can do so.

 

Now that I've said the above, I wonder what others think?

 

-Jon

Well, I, for one, am very glad you are able to sit there and write to us! It sounds like it could have been much, much worse for you. I hope that the others involved in the crash fared no worse than you.

 

-Jon

<<Copy your RAW file prior to editing using DPP then compare the two files - you'll notice the DPP edited file has changed (assuming you save the changes ;) ) which is why I've got two copies of each raw file - the straight 'from the camera' and the DPP'd raw file.>>

 

I wouldn't think that would be necessary. DPP has an option for reverting to either the previously saved recipe, or to the original RAW file. In that case, I figured that if I ever wanted to do something different, and didn't want to lose my original recipe, I would then make a copy, and revert the original, keeping the copy. It uses far less space than two copies of everything! ;-)

 

-Jon

Not that my opinion counts for much, but I have two lenses that have been saved by attached skylight or UV filters, and sadly, my newest lens was not, because I did not have a filter on it. Actually, in its case, it is only a dented filter thread, which makes attaching filters in the future a difficult task. I now have a UV filter screwed to it, and I've already dented that! I don't normally bang these things around. In fact, the first two lenses were saved several years ago, and the new lens just happened--but it got hit twice by lightening in one week!

 

That said, I'm not a big fan of keeping filters on for everything. It's just that in my case, I've been saved twice--no, three times now--by having one, and lightly damaged a lens that was not protected. That's my experience.

 

-Jon

I also wish we knew what data was used for the histogram, whether one channel, all three,

or just the luminance. However, for me, the most important part is that blinking hilight.

Personally, I would wish I knew if it was blinking when only one channel was blown. In my

experience with three cameras (Canon A60, Nikon CP 990, and my D30) the red channel

seems to be the most prone to going over the crucial 255 level (out of 256 shades of gray,

255 is the highest, and 0 is the lowest--a value of 255 means you have hit 100% and no

data is left--like empty film on a slide) I don't know why that is. My hunch would tell me

that, because green gets twice as many sensor spots as red and blue, that it is least likely

to get blown out, but why red most frequently?

 

Now, as to the reduced dynamic range of jpegs over RAW. I've read in more than one place

(disclaimer:I'm not an expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express a couple weeks ago--

and yes, I did take a shower there) that jpeg images interpret the data logarithmically,

while RAW data is stored linearly. The practical meaning of this is that the dynamic range

capable in a RAW is contained in the jpeg, only that the least significant bits are thrown

out in the act of compressing the dynamic range to the 256 levels. The practical advantage

of RAW is that you can use other means _of your own choosing_ to later pack and pick the

bits you want. Whereas the jpg converter in the camera is limited to pre-determined

formulae. As I said, I'm no expert in this, but from all I've seen in my experience, this

seems to hold true. In other words, you must eventually throw out something when

converting to a printable image (8 bit). The advantage of RAW is that you get to pick which

ones, and how to do it.

 

This is a fascinating discussion to me, across the threads. I sure hope that somebody who

truly understands all this stuff will comment. ;-)

 

In the mean time, here is one article on the subject. I've added the anchor for RAW

conversion to the url:

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html#Raw_conversion

 

and some other articles, just to add confusion to the subject. ;-)

 

http://www.poynton.com/notes/colour_and_gamma/GammaFAQ.html#linear

 

And of course, the requisite Ken Rockwell article:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

And a refutation:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

 

-Jon

I've got the Lowepro EX 160:

http://www.lowepro.com/Products/Shoulder_Bags/classic/EX_160.aspx

 

It holds my D30, a flash and an extra, short lens. It also has belt loops(or whatever) on the back, so you could sling it from your hip if you want--but it's kind of big. I always hang it from my shoulder.

 

I found mine at Best Buy. They probably still have it.

 

-Jon