alexandru_petrescu

<p>So here we go 4 years later we see Eye-Fi in the freshly announced Canon EOS 60D:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"EOS 60D [...] August 2010 [...]<br>

Recording Media <br />SD/SDHC/SDXC card, via external media (USB v.2.0 hard drive, or via Wireless LAN (Eye-Fi card*))<br>

*Canon cameras are not guaranteed to support Eye-Fi card functions, including wireless transfer. In case of an issue with the Eye-Fi card, please consult with the card manufacturer. The use of Eye-Fi cards may not be approved in all regions, or from one region to another, please contact the card manufacturer for status of approval in the country/region of use."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am surprised to see WiFi in SD in Canon EOS this early, having initially predicted it for 2011 at best. I am also surprised to see Canon actually _mentioning_ a non Canon product assembled in a body, be that tagged with a non-guarantee.<br>

This goes faster than I can think of.<br>

Alex</p>

Mark U, SD wifi cards have same range as pcmcia cards or as cards built-into laptops' motherboards (Centrino), or as builtinto some phones using ARM processors - using much lower power than available in a SLR. The main factor influencing range is power consumption limits not antenna dimmension (which is only influenced by wave-length, which for wifi is very short 2.5GHz, which is dictated by a country-level law-making organization).

On another hand, Canon can very well protect their WFT product by not providing a software driver for the sd wifi card into the camera body... until user and market pressure makes them realize much smaller product is necessary and possible.

On yet another hand, people seem to enjoy big 1 cameras so they'll supposedly enjoy big wifi units as well.

Finally, Canon already produces a point-and-shoot camera (Ixus) that has wifi built-in, thus much smaller than a wifi sd card. Kodak and Nikon do too. That technology could easily be migrated to a SLR, provided the need is apparent.

Just for the sake of information... PhotoRecord can also 'Print' to MS Office Document Image Writer (a virtual printer) into a 'mdi' file, which is read then by MS Office Document Imaging and can be saved by it into a TIFF file (no jpeg). Unfortunately that TIFF is not understood by DPP, nor by Elements, but by other software (vuescan works).

The software delivered by mypublisher.com is advantageous in that you download it on your PC and create the album locally (As opposed to other albums sites where you mix the frames remotely, more time-consuming). However, it has very limited formatting features compared to PhotoRecord.

Not sure how much 600aud is.

There are also alternative-mount lenses. For example, a new Zeiss ZF Distagon T* 2.8/25 is 700eur. It mounts on Nikon so one needs a Nikon-to-Canon mount adapter. There's no auto-focus. There may be focus-confirmation red blinking depending on the adaptor. One should 'stop-down' meter.

The complete new Zeiss offer is at: https://photo-shop.zeiss.com/Categories/Objektive

Or so I've been told by the Internet... never tried.

Hi, I use a Canon EOS digital SLR and a Canon recent A4 printer.

<p>

I would like to print albums with family photos. Canon provides a tool called

'PhotoRecord' that looks good at arranging, framing, texting. But it can

<em>only</em> print to an attached printer. With my printer an album is

expensive in ink. So I'd like to print it as a TIFF or JPEG that I then upload

to a photoalbum site (mypublisher.com is an example, but there are others).

<p>

<b>

So, what are the alternatives to Canon's PhotoRecord software? It should allow

me to print or Save As the album as jpeg or tiff. And have good traditional

album layout/framing/texting.</b>

<p>

I've checked HP Album Printing (sw bundled with a hw scanner) but it's very

limited in framing capabilities. I've checked the description of the Album in

Photoshop Elements 5.0 but it seems it can't create <em>real</em> albums, only

pdf diaporamas and web albums. The pnet site has only one question in this

space, unanswered.

<p>

Until I see alternative tools, I can create the album with PhotoRecord, print to

a PDF driver, and finally render the resulting pdf file into jpeg with Elements.

However, I'm afraid of loss of resolution/gamut during this process.

<p>

<b>

Any thoughts in this space of software for real photo albums are welcome,

thanks.</b>

Nigel, it's normal RAW files show more noise than jpeg because they're raw. DPP (Canon's Digital Photo Professional) knows to eliminate this noise very well, when converting to jpeg, I'm quite happy with results even at 3200.

But. But. There are some issues with some jpeg viewers that won't understand correctly the jpeg generated by DPP and still show eg the white little spots on a black background when viewed reduced size. It's a particular case I was in.

So, if you offer details about: what viewer? what pp you used to convert from raw to jpeg? PC or mac? then useful step-by-step advice can come up.

<em>What I need to know is if the different picture style are being recorded in the raw file ACR reads</em>

<p>

Recorded by whom? Camera, DPP or RIT? I think that both DPP and RIT put the content of the pse (Picture Style file) into the cr2. I've checked this by removing the picture style file from harddrive and both RIT and DPP can still develop correctly the cr2 with the indicated Picture Style. However, while DPP can go back and forth between the style in cr2 and builtin-dpp styles the RIT can't (unless, of course the pse files are present).

<p>

Also, I think the format of the pse file file is proprietary, thus I don't think ACR CS2 can read Picture Style files. Besides, there are no pse files for the basic Standard/Monochrome/Neutral/etc styles.

<p>

Windows XP SP2's RAW Image Viewer doesn't care about picture styles.

<p>

That's why I think one can't play with Picture Styles in ACR CS2, but I've never tried.

It's still a big BUG for ZB and DPP to produce different results out of same Picture Style. They should produce same looking jpeg.

I thought Picture Styles are universal, in such a way that even printers respect them, covering all production chain, from what you see on camera's LCD to what you see on print.

It's disappointing to see it may not be the case.

<em>2. Open those photos in ZoomBrowser's "Process Raw Images" (not DPP, its algorithm is slightly different than the cameras, while ZoomBrowser's is the same as the camera)</em>

<p>

I was surprised to find this is indeed true - ZB processes RAW images differently than DPP, results are different. I've just processed a image in "Portrait" style and jpegs from ZB and DPP are completely different! Not only in color but also file length (5762 DPP and 7352 ZB), inspite using max quality jpeg on both options. Besides, I find ZB quality in Portrait to be much better (always thought DPP POrtrait lacks).

<p>

Besides, it seems ZB includes Nostalgia, Clear and Twilight styles built-in (not sure whether they come from my camera or built-in newest ZB version) - in DPP they disappear each time I quit DPP.

<p>

And, the 'development conditions' saved by ZB (dvp file) seem to be different than the 'recipe' saved by DPP (vrd file) - ZB complains 'model doesn't match development conditions' when opening a vrd.

<p>

It's strange these are practically two competing tools from same manufacturer. DPP has more features (Trimming/Stamping, variable noise reduction, curve, jpeg curve) but ZB seems to give out better jpegs (when just picture style)...

Sorry, copy paste fault. These work now.

<p>

http://www.cyberoot.com/raw/50L/<br>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/443027<br>

http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePages/200608/24/20060824132917_ADF830/20060824132917_ADF830.dbp.asp<br>

http://photo.blogger.ph/2006/09/25/canon-50mm-f12l-usm-full-size-samples/<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/rebel%20xti.shtml<br>

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IMTv<br>

Other hands-on informal discussions:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/443027

http://kamerabild.mkf.se/ArticlePage...ADF830.dbp.asp

http://photo.blogger.ph/2006/09/25/c...-size-samples/

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...el%20xti.shtml

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-...?msg_id=00IMTv

What's weather sealed...

70-200/4nonIS is an L: it resists in difficult weather conditions better than non-L lenses.

Dust and Weather Resistance (DW-R) advertised recently (5-7 years) by Canon means mostly a rubber around the lens mount (just like a rubber around a water resistant watch's back).

However, there are other design features in L lenses that make them more resistant to severe weather, than non L. For example, front lens element usually doesn't extend even when zooming (it's all in the lens housing); other example is that there's a minimal set of holes around the front glass, to allow air in and out while zooming, but prevent dust entering. Also, the focus and zoom rings are more precisely tight on the lens housing.

Something that also protects against severe weather conditions is attaching the lens hood. Ls come with it, non L purchased separately.

Simon, I used the 5D during the very heavy flooding, Dallas, March 2006. Kept it under my umbrella and my coat, took it out only when shooting. With 17-40/4. All afternoon and evening.

It obviously got several water droplets all over body and lens. But I carefully swiped back at hotel - it still works fine.

I congratulate myself for having always weared it around the neck - it didn't fall while I was knee-deep in water.<div></div>

I don't know. This, together with the lens manuals - one can't find on the net. One may get someone else to scan a copy, or search on the peer-to-peer networks. Or look at the numerous ST-E2 reviews.

<p>

What would you like to know about ST-E2? Specs? USage? Troubleshooting?

<p>

The ToC in the manual looks like this:

<p>

Nomenclature<br>

Readying the ST-E2<br>

Readying the SPeedlite (slave stting)<br>

Basic Wireless E-TTL II/E-TTL Autoflash Operation<br>

Wireless Multi-Flash E-TTL II/E-TTL Autoflash Operation<br>

Applications<br>

Troubleshooting<br>

Specifications<br>

What lens more precisely?

The image from the digital sensor is usually much higher quality than average film. It however exposes any lens fault much clearly too (higher contrast).

I.e. a kit lens will show in your face how bad it is, more so than showing it with film. But, I guess it wasn't a kit lens (35-70 or so) on the EOS 5. I guess it is a 28-135? That should do pretty well on the 5D too.

My 50/1.4 used a lot on elan 7ne, and rebels, on professional film - is very good on the 5D too.

Thanks for the info on raw embedded image could be jpeg. It is interesting to know. I'm using a 5D.

In the current version of Canon software there is no option to "extract a jpeg" or anything similar; there's only 'convert and save' and 'batch process' and no sub-option suggests jpeg extraction.

I've downloaded breezebrowser and 'extracted' a jpeg from the cr2. The extracted file is 1744kb and resolution 2496x1664. Picture Styles Standard, Neutral and Monochrome are respected, as you suggested with in-camera parameters. An interesting thing is that extracted jpeg's exif contains owner and serial number (as opposed to DPP 'development' from raw which would not include these two tags).

The strange thing is that I applied the same kind of 'extraction' operation from Microsoft RAW Image Viewer (needs SP2 on XP) on the raw, then 'Save As Jpeg' and it output a significantly larger file (2648kb vs 1744kb), at same 2496x1664 resolution. This tool has no knowledge of Picture Styles.

I'm thinking, if that were pure inclusion the extraction would give out exactly same jpeg file out of a raw, regardless of tool used (BreezeBrowser or MS RAW Viewer).

Anyways, it's good to know a jpeg seems to be there included.

<em>Also, someone in the forum told me that if I shoot RAW a medium jpg will be automatically imbedded but I don't think this is happening, as I can't find any jpg's when using photoshop elements or the canon software.</em>

<p>

Well, I think it is happenning. The raw obviously contains compressed data of the image (because it's smaller than a tiff of 8mpix file, and length is variable between each content) but not sure whether the format of the compressed embedded photo is lossless jpeg or something else.

<p> Also, the talk about embedded jpeg comes when discussing DNG files as well (another raw format).

<p>

However, there is no means neither in Camera nor in Canon software to set parameters for creating that embedded compressed file (is it jpeg?). There's no means either to extract that particular (jpeg) from the raw. The only possibility is to 'develop' the raw into another jpeg, and for that Digital Photo Professional offers a plethora of options (see Batch Process button, or File->Convert and Save).

<p>

<em>So is raw just raw and would YOU shoot that way?</em>

<p>

I shoot only raw no jpeg when I don't have enough space on card, and when converting all raws to jpeg can be quick (e.g. fast computer, or time to spare). Some other times I shoot raw+jpeg so I have the jpegs readily available for long term storage, out of camera (I store raw+jpg+dng).

<p>

In general I find a good idea to shoot only raw, provided enough time for computer I have available.

<em>So my question is whether the focus assist of the ST-E2 works with the off center points of the 20D/30D/5D or buying the unit solely as a non flash focus assist for the weak off center points of my 20D/5D is a total waste of money...</em>

<p>

As mentioned previously, ST-E2 does cover all focus points of 5D. However, I did find at least one subject situation (on a white wall) on which ST-E2+leftmost/rightmost focus point can't focus, while the ST-E2+center point can focus.

<em>I wonder, they can easily do this in cheap lenses like the 85/1.8 USM and 28/1.8 USM. Why can't they implement it in any of their 50mm lenses?</em>

<p>

I think it has to do with the number of elements? Both 85/1.8 and 28/1.8 have more elements than 50/1.2 (10 vs 8). Would one prefer more elements and IF/RF or less elements w/o IF/RF but better IQ.

<p>

Just a supposition, I think there are more tradeoffs involved than just that, am no optical expert. But I'm pretty certain one shouldn't relate the 50/1.2's absence of IF/RF to a worse image quality than 85/1.8 or 28/1.8. Maybe to more dust, ok, but it has DW-R too ("dust and weather resistance").