DickArnold

I am an experienced LR user. The first thing i would learn is functions of what I call modules starting with the Library, Develop, Map, slideshow, print and web modules with emphasis upon Library (where you store your pointers to your files), develop (where you modify files one at a time) and Print. Victoria Bampton's book The Missing FAQ is an exhaustive compendium of questions and answers pertaining each of these and more. It is worth buying IMO. Import some pictures to start through a card reader. Move them from the import page to the library or develop module and start experimenting. This is what I did to get going several years ago. Make sure you understand the import process and the functions of the three basic modules. These were new to me and I think they were the basic hurdle in understanding for me. Once I got the drift i was on my way to work in LR. The problem I found with sequential video tutorials was that I had trouble understanding LR as a holistic system. . These tutorials provide good descriptions of separate functions. I think understanding the over arching architecture is important before learning its components . What i have learned has come from processing a lot of files and I still have lots more to learn as I am no expert and I speak from my own experience. As a former wedding photographer who processed through photoshop, LR is a lifesaver for batch processing lots of pictures. .

I think I joined PN in 2006 or 07. I have learned a lot here from several members like such as WW, or the late Nadine O'hara. The early years were better because of more lively participation. I posted a question about the viability of PN a while ago that got over 300 responses. I think the site has picked up some since then although much of the user activity has been driven by just a few regular posters. I am comfortable here, still. I like this place much better than DP Review or Fred Miranda that tend to be more clique driven. argumentative and judgmental. I hope PN will improve but we have been waiting a long time for that to take place. Still I am a PN loyalist and I will renew in March hoping to continue learning from others here.

So to talk about Jordan's point. I ran a business for several years where I did weddings, PR, portraits and newspaper work including lots of sports. Though retired I am on my second mirrorless system. I had a studio and one could do portraits with almost any system. I think the Sony A7RII would be fine for weddings which were my major source of cash flow. The same is true I think for most PR work which for me was mostly head shots. As for the newspaper I did most regular journalistic shots with a moderate zoom. However, tomorrow I will photograph at a large swim meet. I am taking a big white zoom lens and a 7DII because I want a lot of keepers and I want to stop action. I like my new M3 and it will go along for head shots. This in my humble opinion is evolution not revolution. In real life I managed large scale scientific programs. I don't like fuzzy numbers and I try to refrain from unfounded speculation so I have no prediction. Having done weddings as a sole proprieter without help doing both video and stills at a moderately large wedding is quite a handful to take on. It's not the actual photographing but the post processing that would be hard. I stayed ahead of my competition with a repuation for fast delivery of still product.

Well, we will see. As a former research Director I was continually amazed at how bad we were at times trying to predict the future of the technology we were working in (aviation GPS). I own a mirrorless system but it is a niche system. I used it last night to photograph a dinner party. It works well. But as I said earlier I will use a DSLR to shoot a swim meet this coming weekend. There are always unforeseen problems when pioneering a large technoligical change such as the logical move to remove the mirror in high end cameras. One major issue is the electronic delay, however small, to the speed of light in trying to generate a real time electronic image in a view finder. Even with faults I am a firm believer in peer evaluated research in trying to predict the future of any technology. We make enough mistakes using scientific rigor as opposed to anecdotal SWAGs. One thing I have learned is that all of this is run by fallible human beings and the future from a scientific standpoint is never quite meets our overly optimistic prognostications. Such endeavors usually take longer and cost more than predicted. We just have to wait and see what happens.

I am going to shoot a large swim meet this weekend. I will take my 7DII and 100-400 II. I will also take my new EOS M3 and one lens to shoot heads as I get arm weary. The 100 per cent 7DII OVF is clearly larger and better than the Canon EVF on the M. I just checked out the 7DII by shooting shooting ten frames at 10 frames per second at 400mm on fast moving cars and could read the license plates clearly on all cars coming directly toward me at a quarter of a mile and closer. I could not do this with the M although I have a 55-200 that is pretty good. I bought it the M because I wanted a light camera to use at social events and to use on the street. BTW David Smith I have seen some of the pictures you posted lately. I thought them to be quite under exposed and not very distinct. I have seen those guys on the video before. One of them reviews cameras and obviously makes videos.

I don't know if the game is about to change but I just bought my second mirrorless full kit with the Canon M3. It contains the 22 mm f2, the 11-22 WA, the kit 18-55 stm, and the 55-200. Last year I sold a similar Sony N5N kit. I like the small size of both. I paid a little over a thousand for M3, EVF and lenses. I still have and will keep my 7D2 and L lenses for sports and wildlife. The M3 fps is slow and the evf lags a bit in initial capture but works great in bright light. However it has a 24Mp sensor and like the original M produces high quality images. I really think mirrorless is coming. While I understand there are better mirrorless cameras than the M3 my specific priorities lie in image quality and price. The Canon M lenses are according to most reviews are good quality and inexpensive and that allowed me to make the buy. The Sony A7 bodies are quite good but out of my price range particularly when I have to maintain a mirrored system as well. I have a large investment in Canon lenses but I probably won't use them on the M3 as I bought ir because I live in a lively seacoast town where there a lot of boats and water and I like to go walking with a light kit with WA, kit lens and maybe the 55-200. They fit in a small bag. I like to shoot people. I will seriously consider a full frame body when and if you can seriously shoot sports with it and use the legacy Canon lenses; and, when it can capture multiple pictures as well as my 7DII which is pretty damn good at 10fps and has exceptional capability to capture moving targets This is a standard that any mirrorless system in my opinion a mirrorless camera has to meet to replace my mirrored body. After taking a few pictures with the new M3 the 7DII with the 100-400 II seems awfully damn big and heavy.

Shun. Try doing weddings. I had my own business. It is stressful because you only get one try at a wedding and the pictures mean a lot to the customer. It requires marketing skills until a good referral base is built up. That takes at least a few years. It involves really getting along with customers. It involves getting to know the customer and pleasing that customer. It involves getting all the formals done in a thirty minute period between the ceremony and reception. For me it involved busting my butt to deliver quickly as a way to stay ahead of the competition. I had a small portait studio and I served a couple of corporate customers. I did what they wanted. Above all it involves doing what produces cash flow and that for me more than anything else like newspaper sports, or portraits the cash from weddings kept the business going. I second everything that Jeff Spirer said.

Gerry and Arthur. Thanx for your replies. Great picture Gerry. I am excited about my M3. Good cheap lenses. Some idiosyncrancies but good pictures at 24MP. Gerry the 150 also banks to the right, too.

I am 83 Gerry and Arthur. At this age I do not have the patience to read all of what you two guys wrote. With photography i am not a luddite. I am one with my former profession of aviation. I learned to fly in the fifties when one had to master stick and rudder flying with accompanying skill and the satisfaction that went with it. I hand flew old Super Constellations while making low visibility approaches and landings. The Connie had round engines with propellers. Pilots today IMO are not pilots IMO but automated systems operators. I must confess, however, that the systems operators do not kill themselves as often as did my genre of pilots.. I long for the good old days when the pilot flew the airplane whereas today the airplane flies the pilot. BTW I just bought a complete Canon M3 kit to accompany my already complete 7D2 kit with which I still shoot sports. These are much better tools than in the in the days when I photographed weddings with film.

The FAA and DOT have published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for non-recreational UASs. It is far too long to reproduce here but it can be found in a web search. I am too tired to read all of it but that means there will be public hearings and the public may make written comment. There is no permanent rule yet as I understand the process. It does however define expected commercial uses. Publication of this rule will take a while. Incidentally I saw a Canadian Video of a manned unmanned aerial vehicle. A guy climbed aboard a vehicle with I think eight rotors that looked just like a UAV. He flew it for maybe thirty seconds over water and then landed it. It looked like it was battery powered and had what appeared to be a UAV stabilization system. It had a platform that he stood on, He landed it in the water. Not much battery life maybe. My guess is that it weighed about two hundred pounds with batteries and passenger or pilot. A good way to bust ones ass.

I photographed high school sports for years with professional gear. There are newspaper photographers doing amateur sports all over the country. Thousands of Dads and Moms shoot all kinds of organized active sports. We are not just talking about pro sports. I am leaving this argument as DPReview pretty well settled it. Anyway we keep talking past each other and the basic argument has become repetitive and to my way of thinking boring. . Having had my own photo business and done newspaper work I am interested in what works. I shoot swim meets in major venues. I come out of a three day meet with five or six hundred pictures. A majority of them are action centered. I want sharp properly exposed keepers that I can process quickly for posting. The 7DII is far better for these purposes than anything I have ever used. When Sony puts out something better I will probably try it. David your posts are well written and you have livened up Photonet some so I thank you for that. Eric it has been a pleasure.

I agree that a ten pound goose has denser substance than most drones. I have handled several different drones and they are quite light and fragile and maybe frangible in conflict with compressor blades on a large jet engine. What we ought to do is what we did with chickens when jet engines came out and throw a bunch of them into jet engines on test stands and see what happens. This may help to define the problem. I bet we could determine a mass and substance that is frangible and exempt drones with those characteristics. Although that presupposes that we make ingestion of drones by jet engines acceptable. I think some of those chickens became frangible and the engines kept running. Temperatures around turbine blades get up over 1800 f. They certainly got cooked on the way out. That also would provide information for drone construction. You can't get much data solely waiting for accidents to provide it. Trying to register a million drones without developing a massive registry is not practical IMO. We have to exempt a lot of them by evaluating potential hazards, size, mass, operating areas with actual risk analysis. Enforcement will be a nightmare. This large fine levied by the FAA is a great deterrent. The FAA has never had enough inspectors to do their job of monitoring the aviation industry. It relies on designees in industry for significant supplementation. However designees with Matt's qualifications and interest could be a great help. Airline maintenance inspections are largely records of inspections based upon industry compliance as shown in the records. Almost anything suggested for drones requires significant regulatory budget and personnel. That is why I think important we avoid a shotgun approach to tame this ever growing beast and target our approaches. BTW I am just thinking out loud. Lastly, built in electronic limitations are gaining acceptance. IMO it is the way to go. UAV proximity sensors should be high priority. It is the electronic version of the old "see and be seen and avoid".

Brad,I came within about ten feet of a C-130 over the Ho Chi Minh trail, All I could see was the Landing gear pod as I went by it. I will guarantee you that I was not worried about my long term future. I was worried about the next fifteen seconds of my life as I dove under him. The big problem in Class B airspace is that you fly instrument approaches where you cannot see in front of you in cloud and there is no way of knowing that a drone may be in your flight path when you break out of the overcast with little latitude to take evasive action close to the ground. That is unless drone operation around airports is monitored and strictly controlled. The FAA has made rules but such things are legitimately worrisome to pilots. Ask Sullinger what a 10 pound goose can do.

What I said above is that the nature of the threat has to be defined before you can act against it. I agree with the ALPA concern as I would be concerned were if I were still flying today. I think Brad has legitmate concerns but so far there is not enough empirical statistical evidence to determine where enforcement, registration and drone equipage should be directed. This is very new to the aviation and airspace milieau. It's like firing a shotgun at a flock of birds hoping to hit one. My father taught me to pick a single target if I hoped to hit a duck. It's the same here. Just where should DOT or the FAA put their emphasis. With forty-five years working in aviation or flying airplanes or being an aviation bureaucrat managing programs I would not like to manage this one inside the FAA. There is a limited budget for all of these things and there are not enough Congresionally appropriated program funds to cover every thing that is needed. The legislators are also the first ones to excoriate bureaucrats when things go wrong. This is one duck who has had his tail feathers singed. So we have to find the right duck in the flock to aim at. That is still being determined. I started flying in 1954 and I know that there is a lot of blood behind the historic development of aviation regulation. An old quote "It takes an unusual amount ot tension to create significant progress" The first blood will probably create that tension. We'll see. It is one thing to pass a law and totally another to appropriate enough money in a specific budget line item to fund it and to authorize the additional hires to enforce it.

Correction. I left a couple of words out of the second sentence. It did not work well even after several tries...........

My Sony 5N achieved 10 FPS (read the specs as it only did initial focus) and mounted a very good Sony EVF. Even after several tries work well for competitive swimming because of delay from sensor to EVF while initially acquiring the image prior to pressing the shutter button. Shutter lag is not what I am talking about. It is, specifically not keeping up with the swimmers through the viewfinder so as to be disconcerting even in single shot mode. Maybe the A7rII is quicker but it is not possible technically to get rid of the image lag altogether. From what outside reviews of the A7rII I have read this delay is perceptible to the photographer. I did use the 5n to good effect for head shots of swimmers as my Canon gear for action was heavy. I used the 5N for I think about three years. I did not like the lenses and thought they were pricey. I have already commented on the Sony menus. A further comment on Canon full frame price point. If the M3 now costs under a thousand dollars with EVF and lens and if Canon keeps it simple they could probably keep the price point under 1500 usd with lens and EVF. Even If they kept the M mount my current M lenses would not work with the new sensor, I don't think.

I just read Canon Rumors and they speculate that the full frame camera will require M mount lenses for several plausible reasons. That will place a limitation on such a camera. I have an adapter that in my use has slowed some of more older lenses in focusing using the original EOS M. To move on, there is still a lag, however small between the actual time an actual image is received at the sensor and when it is shown in the viewfinder when using an EVF. This was verfified in at least one very competent review of the A7rII. I have also verified this myself using a Sony EVF. I have no reason to dispute this reviewer or the actual electrical laws that apply as some processng has to take place however fast.The reviewer suggested that one become accustomed to the lag and incorporate that acclimatization in the shooting process. My own experience is that it is a little disorienting when using ten frames a second for fast action in the swimming photography.

I have an EOS M. It has some significant drawbacks. One is excessive shutter lag. Number two you cannot use the lcd in bright light and it will not mount an EVF. It does not have a moving lcd.. The M3 has one. The M3 has somewhat corrected the shutter lag to a degree. The M3 has an external extra cost evf which makes it larger. I suppose that a full frame M variant would have some of these issues The EOS M3 is relatively inexpensive at under 700 dollars with EVF and my M and its lenses were a real bargain. A lot depends on what price level Canon wants to compete at. I think may be the Sony A7 series has gotten Canon off their collective butts. A Canon lens mount would recruit a lot of those of us who have sunk a lot of money in Canon lenses, flashes etc. So the Canon rumors picture does not show an EVF. So far the few M lenses that are out are excellent at very low prices. The M lens mounts are smaller than those on APS-c dslrs. That probably would have to change on a full frame body. If Canon could stay under two grand with an internal EVF and a full frame and APS-c lens mount they could grab a large share of the potential A7 market. I think the use of Canon EF legacy lenses in important. The best thing about my M and M lenses is picture quality.

I am a former professional photographer having owned my own photo business. I think Grainger is a very good photographer. I value his opinions. I thought his remarks about the Sony were unbiased statements of fact. I rushed out about three years ago to buy a Sony NEX 5N, lenses, adapters and EVF. I tried to shoot sports with that combo. It did not work with the EVF because there is a lag in presenting the image on the EVF. As long as circuitry involved there will be some delay in displaying the picture to the view finder. OVFs have no delay. The emount lenses were expensive compared to my Canon EOS M lenses that were better and cheaper. I thought and still think the Sony menus were a nightmare. The pictures from the slow shutter responce M were and are better because of the lenses. I know that the A7 is much improved both in shutter delay and menus? However, because I shoot fast action sports I could not use the NEX system for that. It was good for parties, portraits and landscapes. See my PN gallery. I paid 1800 dollars for my Canon 7D II. It is the fastest camera in terms of capture, tracking, focusing and shutter responsiveness I have ever used especially when coupled with new EF 100-400. Keepers are the name of the game for me. I am sure the A7 picture quality is better than the 7DII although I recently photographed paid models outdoors in fog and drizzle and got some decent usable pictures with it. My early jump to mirrorless shows how much I value this shooting without a mirror but IMO we are not there yet. I sold the 5N.

My experience with an EVF does not have to do with shutter lag per se. It has to do with delay in showing an image when shooting fast action at 10 FPS like swimming or b-ball. It has to do with initial visual capture of a subject and focus prior to pressing the shutter. What you see with an optical finder is what you get. There is no perceived delay at the speed of light. I had a NEX 5N with an expensive EVF. I felt I was always an instant behind the curve. For me it was disorienting. I tried several times to shoot swimming with that combo. It did not work for me. There are other problems in low light and dynamic range as stated from reliable sources. The EVF was highly useful on the 5N when not engaged in shooting action. The OVF in my previous 7D and now 7DII is clearly better in the side by side comparison I made. Maybe EVFs have gotten better. Maybe I just don't have the skill to use them. I have learned to compensate and lead a swimmer going up and down doing butterfly so perfhaps with practice I could learn to use one. The 7D2 is the fastest capturing, focusing, and tracking camera I have ever used. That is important to me as it leads directly to more keepers.

I think I will weigh in. Quite sometime ago I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. After that I joined the FAA and wound up the Integrated Product Team Leader for GPS and Navigation research, development and acquisition. The office of the Secretary to my knowledge does not possess the technical expertise nor the budget to take on major programs. The FAA budget is done by line item by program and that is where the contract money is appropriated. It is my guess that the Secretary wanted some visibility (he is a polictical appointee) so he announced the program. He is supported by the FAA and when i was responible for the GPS R&D budget no matter who announced what about GPS they had to come to my organization for R&D because we received the appropriation by line item for specific programs. So you can bet the FAA is de facto supporting the Secretary. UAV regulation is a tough thing to manage for anyone. As Matt rightfully said one has not yet bashed an airplane, and I would say "yet". The threat is amorphous and ill defined. The big question is where do you place resources when you have such an ill defined threat I am also an experienced pilot. So I view the threat from a bureucratic view and also from a pilots view. I flew in Viet Nam and I know what worried me there. A drone weighing a pound or less does not worry me much but a forty pound drone could do some real damage. So classification of these aircraft by weight and actual capability to do harm would seem appropriate and makes good sense. Doing this could exempt a great many drones. The larger drones probably should be registered perhaps. We ran into a problem in assessing airline aviation hazards because there are so few airline accidents these it is hard to define trends. Yet, these accidents still happen. We have no real trends with drones. It seems to me that the bigger and more expensive they get the more responsibly they are operated motivated by investment protection if nothing else. There is also a strong political factor that I don't have explain in all of this. What I hope is happening is what happened long ago in aviation and that is aviation manufacturers, airlines and the FAA working together. RTCA a non-FAA organization that develops consensus standards for equipment certification, design and manufacter based upon FAA and industry input. If I were in the FAA today I would certainly not want the drone job because "if you don't know where you are going any road will get you there" Matt I understand your concerns because bureaucracies sometimes react badly and for the wrong reasons. I just hope whover does this upcoming regulation uses some common sense.

David. I agree. The future holds a lot of promise. I can't believe that I am shooting at ISOs today that I wouldn't have dreamed of just a few short two or three years ago. It is going so fast sometimes it costs a lot of money just to keep up with it.

What you see through an optical finder is what you get. There is no lag below the speed of light.This the critical ocmponent of the shot. I think EVFs are fine for most work and the next mirrorless camers I buy will have one. From a practical standpoint I just could not make the NEX work particularly when trying to shoot ten frames per second at moving target.. Maybe it was me and not the camera. An EVF was essential on my previous NEX camera because one could not see the lcd in bright light. There are EVF difficulties with low light and from what I read dynamic range; but some people say the latter is true of all canons. I jumped into mirrorless a while ago because I would really like to get rid of the mirror. The 7D2 has a remarkable focusing and tracking system that gives me more high volume keepers than any camera I have owned. From my experience with my for EVF, I cannot envision how an EVF could play into that scenario. Particularly at ten frames a second. Perhaps that can be attributed to my lack of understanding or my skill. I use my 7DII for a lot of things. I do landscapes with it and have recently produced quite satisfactory pictures with paid models among other things like NE fall foliage. If it the Sony A7 is not used for sports then if I had one I would have keep a 7DII or something else as well. So how does that effect my view for the future? I think the issues I raised above have to be resolved before I spend 3k or more on a mirrorless full frame body. As I said I would like it to be from Canon because of sunk lens costs and ergonomics.

In Comparing an optical view finder to an electronic view finder I owned I found the EVF lacking. I shoot sports and until I can use an EVF to instantly evalute action I am reluctant to become enthusiastic about a full frame mirrorless ICL camera. After having used Canon for years I went to Sony NEX for a full array of mirrorless camera and lenses. I got rid of it for two reasons: the EVF and poor e-mount lenses. I think these same issues are holding Canon and Nikon back from the the mirrorless full frame markets. Having owned EOS M kit I like the Canon ergonomics better particularly with the menus and controls although I am a little disappointed in the EOS M3 which I am reluctant to purchase. I think they are a ways away from competing with the Sony A Sevens. Lenses are a huge deal and why, more than anything else I stick with Canon. I have a lot of sunk cost. Adapters are ok but I would rather stick to Canon bodies to mount Canon lenses.

Blood brings about change in aviation. It always has. One of these days a drone is going to get tangled up in a jet engine compressor and shut down an engine. We know that a small number of geese did this and shut down both engines on an airplane that wound up in the Hudson River. A fat goose weighs about 11 pounds or so pounds, I think. A single goose will usually will not cause an accident unless it causes a fire or a compressor to shed blades. Four of five geese are a different story. Until there is a collision that draws blood there won't be much accelerated action. This is not a unique scenario. Aviation licensing standards came about as aircraft became more complex and air traffic grew and people died in accidents. This partially regulated UAV operation is growing. I was looking at drones in Best Buy the other day. They are small and light for the most part. They weigh less than a fat goose although today they are allowed to weigh 55 pounds. I will guarantee that just about 55 pounds of anything will damage any airplane large or small moving at approach speeds. There are specific questions that need to be answered. They include what is the real accident rate between UAVs and other aircraft. There have been no known accidents as of yet although the near miss data shows increasing exposure. Manufacturers are beginning to install safeguards like airport data bases that can lead to a drone landing if one gets too near an airport, altitude limiters, and a rudimentary collision avoidance system. Airlines have collision avoidance systems installed that warn and dictate avoidance maneuvers. Something similar using simple sensors could be installed on UAVs. I wonder if a twenty pound UAV would set off an airline collision avoidance system. There should be testing for knowledge of UAV rules for all drone operators, IMO. Use of mini drones under four pounds should probably be exempt as their potential for causing damage is low but we should remember that birds don't weigh much either. We are in a growth period where many questions cannot yet be answered. We need to wait and see until we get a blood driven set of priorities. However this begs the question about what we do about the drone operations now and as they expand as the development of permanent regulations seems slow. There are interim regs now that allow waivers for commercial use and licensing. There are a significant number of unlicensed commercial operations already underway. As for shooting at drones that cure is worse than the problem it tries to solve. As I remember from my hunting days the kill range of a shotgun is only about 45 yards and trying to hit a moving drone with a rifle is difficult and would scatter spent bullets. What I fear is that the time will come when we are overcome by events as unstoppable UAV usage grows. But then again, if drones are strictly operated in defined areas by careful operators the problem may not be that large. However, that may not be reality as unauthorized use is already a problem. Today we have technology undreamed of a few short years ago. Drone manufacturers are adopting it. It may ameliorate a significant portion of the now perceived risk.