ccrevasse

<p>I shoot raw, and save my raw files; therefore, I can chose which color space to work in, and change that selection depending on my needs. If I know the destination space will be sRGB (for instance, if the printer requires sRGB), is there any advantage to working in a wider color space then converting to sRGB, versus working in sRGB from the outset? Disregard considerations of keeping a "master file" in a wide color space; the raw file is my master file, and the color space can be changed at will. Thanks.</p>

Do you use Adobe Camera Raw 4.x/Photoshop CS3? If so, one option is to reduce the blue luminance slider under the "HSL/Grayscale" tab in ACR.

Actually, Canon did promise an improved AF system. This is from Canon's white paper on the 1DIII:

 

"The new autofocus system of the EOS-1D Mark III represents a complete reconsideration of professional autofocus. In addition to a new sensor chip, sophisticated new manufacturing technologies have made it possible to reconfigure the concave submirror and the very clever secondary image formation lens. The result is greater sensitivity, easier and more logical navigation, higher precision and significantly better real-world performance."

I'm not sure how anyone reading the Galbraith article can conclude that the autofocus of the 1DIII "is on par or slightly better than the 1DIIn." In most of Galbraith's graded autofocus categories, the 1DIIn exceeds the 1DIII, often by what I would consider a substantial margin. In case you don't want to read that far, Galbraith says in the upfront summary, "Looking at all of what we've shot with the two camera models in recent weeks, however, the EOS-1D Mark II N is the one that has delivered the most in-focus frames." I don't think the solution is to ignore the problem and just go take pictures, for if a camera doesn't focus well, everything else becomes irrelevant. Personally, I think this is a significant problem for Canon, especially with the advent of the Nikon D3 and D300.

My 1DsII showed that same striping almost two years ago. I sent it to Canon, who repaired it and returned it with these service details: "Replaced pcbassy.A2.check.clean." I have not seen the striping since.

I like the second, especially given the title. The first is of people playing on the beach. The second suggests the possibility that the man came from the ships and is leaving the frame to who knows where. The second also calls to mind Lord of the Flies. If it were my own photo, I would be bothered by the crooked horizon and cropped toes. Oddly, these details do not bother me in other people's photos.

Here on Lookout Mountain near Chattanooga the trees have been stressed by the hard freeze in April and the severe drought this summer, but so far I have not seen extensive leaf drop. Two weeks ago I traveled to Asheville and can report the same with respect to the path between here and there. What this fall holds I cannot say. Have you been to Desoto State Park in Mentone (Alabama) or Cloudland Canyon on Lookout Mountain (Georgia)? They are not so far from Birmingham and usually offer fine hiking and foliage in the fall, especially around the first of November.

I'm going back, at least for now: my 1DsII is off to Canon for its second shutter replacement. Fortunately, I still have a Contax 139, Zeiss primes, and, in the freezer, several rolls of Reala, NPH, and Ilford XP2. It should be fun, but I wouldn't be doing it if I didn't have to. I prefer the complete control digital gives me.

If someone uses adjectives such as "significantly" and "considerably" to distinguish these lenses, they are engaging in unhelpful overstatement. As nearly every formal test/review of these lenses has established, the image quality and AF speed are very, very similar, and the difference in viewfinder brightness (or background blur, for that matter) is far from "considerable." Eyal, you will have to decide which is more important to you: f/2.8, or greater range, IS, and a lighter, more compact design. Whichever lens you choose, you should not assume it will be free from defects. I doubt there will be any issue with the AF or IS, but you could compare the lens's sharpness against another of your lenses by photographing a bookcase, brick wall, or something similar at varying f stops, focal lengths, and distances. This will at least point out any glaring problem. Otherwise, just use the lens as you normally would, and if you are happy with it, then you have a good lens.

Lester, CS3 does not by default convert everything to DNG format. You can convert your RAW files to DNG if you wish, but it is not required, unless you wish to work in RAW and your camera's RAW format is not yet supported by CS3/ACR.

Try PTLens. It costs $15 and corrects lens distortion in about 5 seconds. Works very well with my 24-105, and no cropping is required for correction of distortion at the wide end of that lens.

 

http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/

My belief is that the best color space is the smallest color space which will hold your image. If the gamut of your image does not exceed sRGB, then there is no advantage, and some disadvantage, to using a larger color space such as aRGB. If you shoot raw, then you can select the appropriate color space in the raw conversion. If you shoot JPEG, you are better off using aRGB to increase the odds that your color space will be large enough. Either way, you must also consider your output device. If your printer can only print the sRGB color space, then there is no advantage, and in fact possibly considerable disadvantage, to sending your images to the printer in the aRGB color space. You may still want to archive your originals in aRGB for future use.

Another option is a camera raincoat. Mine just arrived, and it seems to be a fine product.

 

http://abetterphotoguide.bizhosting.com/camera_rain_covers.html

You can have full-time manual focus with this lens if you move focus to the * button, as I have done. However, I usually rely on autofocus with manual AF point selection. I don't know which camera you are using, but on my 1Ds2 I've set the Custom Functions so AF points are limited to 9 and AF point selection is initiated with the Quick Control Dial (CF 11-2 and 13-3). The Assist button calls up the center AF point. This set-up allows me to quickly choose an AF point appropriate for the composition so I don't need to focus and recompose. I generally have good results with focus accuracy, even at the widest apertures.

In terms of image quality, the Canon 24-70 is not necessarily an upgrade to the Tamron 28-75. Certainly, the Canon is better built. It is also much larger and heavier. However, my experience (on a 1Ds2) and Pop Photo's tests show the Tamron to have better image quality than the Canon. (The Pop Photo test reports for both lenses are available online.) Here's another test which compares the Tamron favorably to the Zeiss 35/2.8 prime:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html

 

Perhaps to a greater degree than the Canon, the Tamron may suffer from inconsistent quality. For example, my first Tamron 28-75 was sketchy, but my second is excellent. Depending on where your Tamron falls in the spectrum of quality, a Canon 24-70 may be a step up or a step down.

 

If this matters, I have essentially stopped using my Tamron 28-75 in favor of my Canon 24-105/4, which I find to be more versatile. I have fast primes for low light and shallow depth of field purposes.

I understand the RAW converter, and possibly the user interface with respect to RAW conversions, in ACR4/CS3 is the same as Lightroom. Is this true?

I have the Tamron 28-75 and a Canon 24-105. Using my 1Ds2, I compared the Tamron against the Canon 24-70, my 24-105, and another 24-105. The Tamron was sharper and had less vignetting and distortion than all three Canons at every aperture and focal length, including wide open. My results parallel the results of Popular Photography's tests of those three lenses, which you can review at the Pop Photo website. So, it does not surprise me that the image quality from your Tamron is better than from the Canon you rented. Where the 24-70 and 24-105 excel is in build quality and faster and quieter focusing, although the Tamron is neither slow to focus nor noisy, and I don't find the Tamron to be any less accurate in its focus. If image quality is more important to you than build quality and quiet focus, then the Tamron is a better choice. Plus, it's smaller and lighter, and if it fails due to poor build, you can buy two more and still be dollars ahead. As for the weight of the Canon "L" lenses causing camera shake, that has not been my experience at all. Personally, I find it easier to hold a camera steady if it is heavy rather than light.

The answer depends on how much external hard-drive space and how many DVDs you are willing to devote to archiving. I shoot RAW but decided not to save everything. Instead, I first weed out non-keepers, then process all keeper RAWs to maximum-quality JPEGs. I then discard all RAW files except for my "hero" shots. I convert the hero RAWs to DNG, keeping both the original RAW and the DNG. Then, I archive (on DVD and an external hard drive) my JPEGs for all keepers, and the JPEGs, original RAW files, and DNG files for the hero shots. My thinking is a maximum-quality JPEG processed from RAW is sufficient for my everyday shots, while I may want access to RAW data later for my hero shots. I don't save TIFFs because they are huge (my camera is a 1Ds2) and, in my opinion, offer no advantage over RAW files.

Canon 1Ds2 and 85/1.2

Actually, Paul, I believe the default settings you described are not specific to your camera. Rather, if the "auto" boxes are unchecked, I believe every RAW file from any camera will open with the settings you described (Exposure 0, Shadows 5, Brightness 50, Contrast 25, Saturation 0, etc.). White balance will be the only setting which varies. The reason your images appear underexposed is because you reduced Brightness to "0." I recommend unchecking the auto boxes and using the ACR defaults. You can still toggle between the unchecked defaults and the auto defaults by using Ctrl/Cmd-U.

Vinay, my understanding is that an IR lens filter does not negate the image-quality advantages that led Leica to use a thinner filter on the M8 sensor. I believe to a certain extent Leica may have had no choice given the short lens-to-sensor distance.

I don't really understand the big deal about putting filters on your lenses to avoid the IR magenta problem. Is it an optical issue? Quality filters in most situations cause little or no image degradation, and many photographers use UV filters or the like constantly. Is it a cost issue? I cannot believe that someone willing to invest in an M8 and Leica lenses is going to howl about having to pay an extra $100 or so per lens for an IR filter. The additional cost is simply insignificant. My basic understanding of this situation is that Leica deliberately under-filtered the M8's sensor to achieve maximum image quality, and M8 users indeed report a very high-quality file, except with respect to the IR issue. So there's a trade-off. Doesn't every camera have trade-offs?

Here's my 24-70 vs. 24-105 story. I have a 1Ds2. First I had a Tamron 28-75/2.8. I decided I wanted a Canon 24-70 or 24-105. I am not a lens-testing expert, but I conducted what I believed to be careful tests pitting the Tamron against a 24-70, two 24-105s, my Canon 50/1.8, and my Canon 70-200. The Tamron was sharper at every aperture and focal length than any of the Canon lenses at comparable apertures and focal lengths. The 24-70 and 24-105 were essentially indistinguishable, except that the 24-105 showed more distortion and vignetting. The Tamron had less distortion and vignetting than either. Nevertheless, the range and IS of the 24-105 appealed to me, so I kept the "better" 24-105 (there wasn't much difference, if any, between the two 24-105s). My thought was that I would use the Tamron except when I wanted to carry only one lens, when I would use the 24-105. Instead, I have found that I almost never use the Tamron. The 24-105 may not be as sharp as the Tamron, but it is a great lens nonetheless. Its versatility is very appealing. The IS is very useful. I wish it were an f/2.8 lens, but it is not. However, my story is similar to the stories of other people. Many people, perhaps most, who have both the 24-70 (or, in my case, the Tamron 28-75) and the 24-105 end up using the 24-105 most of the time. Is it a "better" lens than the 24-70? No. But you ask, "If you had to pick only one lens which of these would it be?" My answer is the 24-105.

If you have a camera manual, Leo, look on pages 63 and 64. I believe you will want to select "M-Reset" under "File numbering" on your camera's menu.

I apologize for asking a question which I suspect has an obvious answer, but

here it is. In CS2, if an image file is in sRGB, does it harm the image in

any way to run a "Convert to Profile" to sRGB? You may wonder why someone

would do this. This is why. Assume I shoot in raw, and process the images in

a color space appropriate for the image's gamut. In some cases this may be

sRGB, or aRGB, or ProPhoto. What I would like to do is adjust each image in

ACR, then run a batch operation on multiple images to add a standard levels

adjustment, sharpen, and save as an sRGB JPEG, so I can quickly generate some

usable JPEGs from my RAW files. However, some of the images may be in aRGB or

ProPhoto, so I will need to add a "Convert to Profile" step to the batch

operation. If the image is already in the sRGB color space, will running

Convert to Profile to sRGB create any issues?

 

Thanks.