Someone gave xrapidx a 40D

bwana said:
Sure its what they all attempt to do (including aperture) but it takes time and resources. Canon is also apparently pretty forthcoming with their stuff apparently
Click to expand...

Well, I'm still seeing a huge difference between the way my images look in DDP and Aperture and Lightroom, which suggests that Canon is keeping their routines to themselves.

bwana said:
I guess I'm suggesting a more usable preview (which aperture currently loads if you've got quick preview enabled) than the one they give you now.And yeah - that does sound like way too much effort esp if you use Apertures Quick Preview. ;)
Click to expand...

What would be really cool is if Aperture let you decide, on a photo by photo basis, which file you want if there are two, and/or let you set a bias for one or the other.

bwana said:
It also probably fills up memory cards 30% faster?
Click to expand...

That's why I have the 8GB ones - can still fit 500 odd on a card.
 
koffiejunkie said:
Well, I'm still seeing a huge difference between the way my images look in DDP and Aperture and Lightroom, which suggests that Canon is keeping their routines to themselves.
Click to expand...
Strange - I do know that DPP handles lens corrections which afaik the others don't. Still isnt enough for me to want to use it though :)

koffiejunkie said:
What would be really cool is if Aperture let you decide, on a photo by photo basis, which file you want if there are two, and/or let you set a bias for one or the other.
Click to expand...
For you maybe but I like RAW, rarely shoot JPG and even less often shoot RAW+JPG.
koffiejunkie said:
That's why I have the 8GB ones - can still fit 500 odd on a card.
Click to expand...
2gb is still my largest though I am considering a move to 4gb :)
 
koffiejunkie said:
I look through the JPEGs before I import the RAW, delete the ones I'm not happy with, delete the RAWs corresponding to the rest, and import. I don't see the point of keeping the RAW around if I'm happy with the JPEG.
Click to expand...
Just interested: why don't you only shoot RAW only, then use something like faststone (PC) or xnview (PC & Linux) (or even Zoombrowser) to view them?

I always hang onto the decent RAW files - the okes are getting better and better with their techniques for RAW software and you maybe able to do something stunning with a so-so pic somewhere in the not-too-distant future. But then that's me, I battled to throw away some pretty crummy slides...
 
bwana said:
Strange - I do know that DPP handles lens corrections which afaik the others don't. Still isnt enough for me to want to use it though :)
Click to expand...
Since Adobe bought out RAW shooter (which became Lightroom), I've been using DPP. I went through a stage of using RAW Therapee, but their handling of the 40d files was horrible for a while, so I switched to DPP. Been using it for the best part of a year as a precursor to using an image editor (PSP) as a finishing tool.

BTW, the lens correction routines only works for certain Canon lenses.
 
bwana said:
Strange - I do know that DPP handles lens corrections which afaik the others don't.
Click to expand...

Sorry, my typo.

bwana said:
Still isnt enough for me to want to use it though :)
Click to expand...

Stop using the kit lens :p

bwana said:
For you maybe but I like RAW, rarely shoot JPG and even less often shoot RAW+JPG.
Click to expand...

I guess this depends partly on how the camera processes the image, and there's more than a little personal taste involved. For the majority of good light shots and long exposures, I'm happy with what my camera does.

BigAl-sa said:
2gb is still my largest though I am considering a move to 4gb :)
Click to expand...

Last time I bought (two months or so ago) the Extreme III 8GB was the best value for money, both in terms of space and performance.

BigAl-sa said:
Just interested: why don't you only shoot RAW only, then use something like faststone (PC) or xnview (PC & Linux) (or even Zoombrowser) to view them?
Click to expand...

Why would I? The extra space used for the JPGs on the card doesn't bother me - I have around 40GB worth of CF. In the end I save more space after sorting through the day's shooting (which takes a few minutes).

BigAl-sa said:
I always hang onto the decent RAW files - the okes are getting better and better with their techniques for RAW software and you maybe able to do something stunning with a so-so pic somewhere in the not-too-distant future.
Click to expand...

I only delete the RAW for the images that came out satisfactory on JPG. The so-so ones remain in RAW for this precise reason. Maybe not so much because software is getting better, but because I'm getting better with it (or less terrible with it) :)

BigAl-sa said:
BTW, the lens correction routines only works for certain Canon lenses.
Click to expand...

Adobe and Apple still relies on reverse engineering to do those things. That is why some hardware is supported and some not.
 
I see on ebay there's a 'rare' 50mm f/1.8 with metal threading - what are the chances?
 
xrapidx said:
Ah - thanks.

New question - which filter removes reflections on water, i.e. if I were taking a photo of something in a shallow tide pool?
Click to expand...
Polarising.
 
koffiejunkie said:
From what I've read, the older one is better - both in built and optical quality. The lens mount is metal, as far as I know. So if you can get one, it's maybe worth at least checking it out. They tend to go for more on eBay than the plastic one costs new.
Click to expand...

It was going for $50 :)

Lemme try find it.
 
I'm getting two of these on all my photo's - am I correct in assuming its dust? It looks a bit big. The pic is uncropped.

Whats the best way to clear it? When I take the lens off the camera, and lock up the mirror - I can't see anything on the sensor?

IMG_0309sq.jpg
 
xrapidx said:
I'm getting two of these on all my photo's - am I correct in assuming its dust? It looks a bit big. The pic is uncropped.

Whats the best way to clear it? When I take the lens off the camera, and lock up the mirror - I can't see anything on the sensor?
Click to expand...
Definitely sensor dust. You usually can't see it with a naked eye, you need a gadget like this to see it. If you have a blower try that (search this sub-forum for blower, someone found an interesting blower in your valley). Otherwise, you can try Bwana's brush method, or failing that, take it into a place like Orms, I'm sure they can do a wet clean for you. Whatever you do, don't use your mouth to try and blow it away. Also, don't use canned air - those aren't always as pure as they should be, and they can cause freezing (condensation) on the sensor through adiabatic expansion of the gas.
 
Last edited:
I have a blower that I use. One of those ones that you squeeze.
I do not use air in a tin as this contains propellant nor a compressor as this may contain moisture.
I lift the mirror and make sure that I do not touch the sensor.
The one professional repair place I know uses a compressor that has a whole lot of filters in place.
 
Last edited:
xrapidx said:
I'm getting two of these on all my photo's - am I correct in assuming its dust? It looks a bit big. The pic is uncropped.

Whats the best way to clear it? When I take the lens off the camera, and lock up the mirror - I can't see anything on the sensor?

IMG_0309sq.jpg
Click to expand...
Using the kit lens at its widest take a shot of a solid, bright object (sky perhaps) with the an aperture of f/22. When you look at the results the FOD will be inverse to where it appears in the photo. IOW top left on the photo means bottom right on the sensor.

And use my brush method at your own risk! I have a spare camera so if I bugger things up I can always send mine in for repairs (which at this time of the year mean two+ months!!!!!)
 
bwana said:
Using the kit lens at its widest take a shot of a solid, bright object (sky perhaps) with the an aperture of f/22. When you look at the results the FOD will be inverse to where it appears in the photo. IOW top left on the photo means bottom right on the sensor.
Click to expand...

I did that :) And I could clearly see the two particles - the reason I used the above picture is because I left my camera with the test picture at home :p
 
Will the dust image thing (can't recall name) be able to 'remove' something that big? I haven't been able to update it on the camera, keeps failing.

Lastly, are the two particles worth getting the camera cleaned? Or should I leave it and do it manually?

Thansk guys :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X