Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

And they would never be able to sell it for any amount of money even if they knew that it has a negligable impact on the optics. Compacts are completely different matter though, my Canon S3 has a little ding in the lens and it's always present as a faint dark circle, but it's so faint that it's usually only visible against solid colours like the sky (and I don't even have any clue how or when it happened)
 
A compact has a sensor that's so small that just the DOF could make it visible.
 
nomix said:
Conclution: A UV filter might be better than nothing in very specific circumstances. But in other circumstanes, it will make matters worse. The lens hood is still what we'd advice for protection.
Click to expand...

It's hard to see any damage from the broken filter in that picture and there's no close up of the lens that was hit without the filter so it's hard to make a direct comparison. Considering it was shown later that a filter can indeed save your lens from a serious scratch I think it's worth considering for protection from impact.

I wonder whether the kind of impact shown in the first test, with a blunt object, might be likely to damage the internals.

Perhaps a hood and a filter?

(actually I don't use filters for protection)

But then you're just wiping off a dirty filter instead of a dirty front element. Might be an advantage if you decide to sell the lens later on, though.
Click to expand...

Yes but it's easier to clean. I also wouldn't hesitate to use whatever means necessary to clean a filter which can be replaced whereas cleaning the front element makes me a little nervous (even though perhaps it shouldn't). And like I said, if you're in a hurry and need to keep shooting you can just remove the filter. At a boxing match and sprayed with blood, a rally and sprayed with mud, a pron shoot and, well you get the idea.
 
Unless the filter gets broken and gets stuck, which happened in earlier tests. Using both seems a good idea as it protects the front element from dust and liquids, while the lens hood protects the UV flter from breaking, which can lead to very grave damage.
 
That's why I'm usually quite anal about having both a lens hood and a filter... These days with strong and bright sunlight, I usually go around with a CPL, or an ND. I also usually go around and shoot in aperture priority with my 14-54 at f4 or f8-f11 to the the deepest depth of field without suffering from diffraction...
 
The 14-54 doesn't really suffer diffraction that's noticable before you go past f/11 at 14mm. It's good wide open. It's good middle apertures. It's good up to f/11 across the focal range, which give you the DOF of f/22 on FF given the same equivalent focal length.
 
Right! I'm going here as one of three official festival photographers. Am I looking forward to it? Yes, I am. See ya bastards!

:p
 
So I bought myself a 550D/T2i/X4 and took some test shots to compare it to my 20D only to find that CS3 doesn't support RAW files from the 550D. Doesn't seem to be any way to update, only to convert to DNG first. And then my laptop is going to struggle to deal with 100MB files. Damn.
 
sifu said:
update your adobe camera raw...
Click to expand...

hansvonaxion said:
CS3 doesn't support RAW files from the 550D
Click to expand...

To elaborate; CS3 uses 4.x, CS4 uses 5.x and CS5 uses 6.x and the 550D/T2i/X4 is only supported in 6.x, or CS5 effectively. If you buy a new camera you'd better be ready to update your PS.

I might switch to Elements because basically all I do now is use the RAW converter (exposure, recovery and WB) and then levels, sharpness, and a few other things. Right now I have the full CS3 suite which is taking up valuable space (only 20GB free space on HD!). I may even have a copy of Elements cos the give it away free with printers sometimes.

Is there a way to uninstall CS3? There's an uninstall folder in library>application support>Adobe>uninstall but there's just a bunch of files, doesn't seem to be an uninstaller.



Edit: I DL'd the DNG converter and used that. Here's a 100% crop of the X4 and a 100% crop of the 20D after upressing it to the same pixel dimensions of the X4. I'm doing this for my own interest, to see if it was worth upgrading, but thought I might as well post here.

Now I'll have to figure out why the exposure is so different - the sun was going behind the clouds (Murphy's law) so that may have been a factor.

X4_MG_0006.jpg


20Dupsized_MG_4586.jpg
 
Last edited:
could be, could be..

so its not backwards compatible.. weird. 350d works fine with 3 and 4...
 
sifu said:
could be, could be..

so its not backwards compatible.. weird. 350d works fine with 3 and 4...
Click to expand...

The 350D came out around 2005, it was sold alongside my 20D.

When Adobe updates their camera RAW they don't bother releasing an update for previous versions of PS. I guess to encourage people to update.

I don't see why they need to keep changing the RAW file format. There really should be a standard. I guess DNG could become the standard but it just adds an extra step in the workflow.
 
One thing I'd love is if they just kept the same profile-thingy when they made new cameras. That an orf from an Olympus camera just was an orf, independant of the camera. I just don't buy there's more differences than the camera idenity in the RAW file anyway..
 
RAW files are just direct dumps of sensor data, so it makes sense to me that each new sensor produces different output and thus needs to be processed differently (hence the requirement to update RAW converters).
 
Not really. Pentax uses DNG if I'm not mistaken, and you don't have to update your ACR to use new DNG files from them.

So it can work.

So, I went on the internet today, and I found this. Short documentary series I did on some cooks at a festival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top