v.anisimov

Is he doing it for fame or money?

Marc - I agree with your sentiment. One point though - hasn't it always been the case with art? I saw a doco on Vincent Van Gough, he was hopelessly behind on technical skills in his art academy classes... Not only that, he changed his style virtually every year, depending on where he lived and who he was with at the time. At one stage he copied Japanese drawing styles. What I'm trying to say is this - perhaps every photographer has to go through the stage of "surreal colours". Some will develop further, some will go back, some will go left or right in style. It's all about what fits your ideas, colour is one of the tools.

Marc - I like your image called "Asian Shadow Play" - it is simple and beautiful in every way.

 

Myself, I don't mind oversaturated colours. Reality can be both bleak and more colorful than any photoshopped image... I find the opposite annoying - many feel they HAVE to do BW, whereas a lot of images look better in colour...

Aren't the 20d's ISO speeds a bit conservative? E.g, in the dpreview.com review, it states its ISO 100 is more like ISO 200 and so on.

 

I use my 20d for metering too I usually double the readings for a film camera

"...I find that I am better off using auto white balance shooting RAW files and adjust the white balance in the RAW converter..."

 

You still need a point of WB reference. E.g, a white object you can click on. In mixed lighting it's often difficult to guess the right WB. It can also vary in different parts of the frame.

I just adore posts with the subject line stating the name of the product. Imagine a car forum with a post like "Ford Focus" instead of something more descriptive like "Ford Focus - suspension issues". Or "Lumix DMC L1 - viewfinder quality".

'cause them zooms is blurry dude!

Probably lens (purple fringing?) - not entirely "digital".

In your hypothetical case 250 is better, if "...the human eye can't tell the difference between a print at 300 dpi and one at 250 dpi..."

 

I don't think "the higher dpi contains more "detail"... The software merely fills gaps between neghbouring pixels, it doesn't create new detail.

"...shoot RAW + L Fine; that way, all of the images don't need to go through the RAW processing; only the images that need tweaking to the dynamic range, etc. Do you agree with him?)..."

 

I disagree. In-camera JPGs become redundant. I used to shoot RAW+L fine only to find myself discarding the JPGs. Because I already have everything in RAW, it's easier to apply same settings to groups of RAW files (WB/levels/sharpness etc) and then run everything in batch to output in JPG. (I use DPP).

To me, the F30 is a terrific low-light camera. If I had one, I'd mostly shoot at iso 800, 1600 or even 3200. At iso 1600-3200 the lossy nature of JPG would be one of my last concerns with an F30. I'd be happy to resave f30 JPGs once or twice if need be.

I don't use any eyecups on my 20D. I find it's much easier without them. Bigger viewfinder, easier to cover for tripod work, can't lose anything.

I agree with Jon Jacobson. A proper fail to fail-safe your photography is to use two cameras, not one camera with many cards. Cards are only one of the components that can go wrong. A large card per camera and you're laughing

"...I use CD (no plan for using DVD) for backups and I match my memory card size to that..."

 

How many hard disks have you got on your PC? Will hundred and fifty 1gb hard disks be safer than one 150gb?

"...the one card I've had fail was one of my newest and least-used cards..."

 

Technical devices are more likely to fail in the initial period. I'd use a card for a few days first before doing something important with it.

"...EVFs will improve, but they will not become faster or more responsive than an optical viewfinder..."

 

Good stuff, Godfrey. First your said EVF will never be as good. Given the overwhelming evidence, you're now saying EVF will not be faster than the speed of light. A safe bet indeed.

 

On the other hand, the speed of light is not a constant. Light moves faster in cold vacuum. A deeply frozen EVF with fibre optics may prove to be faster than the atmospherical speed of light at 20'C. Hence, even your safe bet may be proven wrong one day!

That's the common wisdom - all eggs, one basket.

 

However, I suspect the likelihood of card failure skyrockets with each insertion/removal in the camera's CF slot. Dust particles and corrosive liquids will surely love frequent changes and use each opportinity to get inside both the card and the slot. Hence, I vote for one 4gb card.

"...But let's not get into a silly debate on this subject..."

 

You first.

 

"...As I said, there is a big future in these devices..."

 

You didn't. ikeminded people believed cars were dangerous at speeds higher than 30mph and planes will never be commercially viable.

"...at the speed of light and there is no EVF possible that will operate at close to that speed, particularly in low light..."

 

Godfrey - I don't buy this argument. The latest generations of fighter jets are using EVF-style technology to fly suprsonic jets in aerial combat. How much more responsiveness do you need? It's all a matter of cost. Currently only the military seem to be able to afford such technology. Soon enough it'll be available to everyone.

 

Also, electricity is also unbelievably fast. I'm not good at physics but it wouldn't far off the "speed of light" for most applications. Most high-tech circuits will involve optic fibre anyway, hence the "speed of light". A future EVF will feel as fast as an optical viewfinder PLUS there'll be NO MIRROR BLACKOUT.

Agree with Ellery. A value-drive couple is unlikely to re-order anyway. If you don't give them a proper CD, then you'll achive two things: (a) they'll print/scan from whatever they've got; (b) they'll bag you (and for a good reason). I.e, your future sales may suffer.

 

The whole deal sounds dodgy. If most people expect to get a "ful res" CD as part of the package then that's what you should give them. How'd you feel if you bought a car and the dealer charged you extra for the wheels? "...Sorry, we never discussed the car comes with wheels..."

Sorry Dean, no reason to get defensive and feel insecure. I agree with your case for an LCD on a low-standing tripod, it can get very inconvenient with an SLR.

 

Actually I'm a strong believer that the current SLR technology has no future (I made a few posts on the subject). The future belongs to cameras with a good sensor and electronic viewfinder (EVF). The current EVF technology is lacking in refresh speed and resolution. Once it's fixed, there will be no reason whatsoever to have a flipping mirror, hinges and other mechanical parts in a camera.

 

On a side note, the F30 is still a great choice for when you can't carry a bigger camera. Its low light capabilitis are fantastic and you'll never need a flash. I love my FEDs too, I still have a FED-3 my father gave me for my 12th birthday.

I think we should give the guy a bit of slack. By his admission, he studied photography in the 50s and is probably like 150 years old now. I salute you, Ed Greene! I wish we all had the energy and wit at your age.

Agree with Michael. You only lose quality when you re-save JPGs.

 

On a side note, I used the F10 for some time and it was great. However, I wouldn't be so concerned about the presumed JPG losses with such camera. The F10/F30 are designed for low light, candid photography. One doesn't expect to use it for a 20x30" landscape poster where every bit of quality matters. I felt comfortable editing and re-saving once as JPGs at the lowest compression setting. With an iso 1600 image from an F10, JPG losses are the least of your concerns.

"...R1 will actually suit my shooting preferences better, and be somewhat more convenient for tripod shooting, than I've found with DSLRs or SLRs..."

 

Sounds like your decisions are equipment-driven, rather than purpose driven. Ask yourself - what are shooting? More importantly, WHY are you shooting? One doesn't have to have a camera, you know.

 

I suggest the Fuji F30 as the ultimate P&S. I used its predecessor F10 and was blown away by the pocket size body with an f2.8 lens and almost dSLR-like iso 800 and very usable 1600.

 

The Sony R1 gives you an all-in-one package with a fixed lens and live LCD. Great stuff, but how is it going to be "more convenient for tripod shooting"?

Where are the moderators? Mary Ball anyone? Where is she?