Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

Dr_Q said:
I think long exposure noise reduction is active for as long as the exposure itself was, just turn it off and use noise reduction software.
Click to expand...

But does it only kick in for "long exposures"? I think that might be what he was referring to with the "8 seconds" comment.

I can't say off the top of my head whether there's a minimum exposure time for Canon DSLR's. I've only tried it on longer exposures and in that case it does double the time required as you said.
 
I presume there's a threshold for it but it's possible that it is always applied, apart from your buffer filling up quicker than normal it wouldn't be so obvious.

On another note: Firefox is driving me absolutely mad. After version 3.0 for no apparent reason it only supports ICC version 2 profiles, this renders the ICC version 4 profile for my calibrated monitor absolutely useless. The only way I can view photos on the web (as they should appear) now is to download and open them up in PhotoShop...
 
Last edited:
Dr_Q said:
I think long exposure noise reduction is active for as long as the exposure itself was, just turn it off and use noise reduction software.
Click to expand...
Using software is not quite the same, as the camera takes a reference picture without opening the shutter, therefore showing only noise and hotpixels, and then uses this picture to calculate the difference between the two shots, which is what you want. So you won't quite get the same result with software.
I left it on, thinking it would only alter the way the camera behaves during long exposures, which would have been fine with me. Now I have to go back and fourth in the menu before and after I shoot long exposures.
 
Last edited:
I found that noise reduction software worked a lot better than noise reduction on my D200 (same sensor as the D80). It also stops the battery life getting absolutely hammered.
 
Dr_Q said:
On another note: Firefox is driving me absolutely mad. After version 3.0 for no apparent reason it only supports ICC version 2 profiles, this renders the ICC version 4 profile for my calibrated monitor absolutely useless. The only way I can view photos on the web (as they should appear) now is to download and open them up in PhotoShop...
Click to expand...

Only happens with some monitors. I'm also an unfortunate victim and I had to disable the ICC profiling in about:config.
 
Answer: there's 3+ levels of (non uber expensive) SLR bodies from every manufacturer (2 major (Canikon) and 4 minor (Greek Gods' Mountain, Pentax, Sony, Panasonic)) and they basically all have older versions. There is only one iphone.

Fun: ruined.
 
Not to mention the Canons have three names for each of their entry level DSLRs (XSi/450D/Kiss X2 and so on).

But even without that, is it really a surprise that there are more camera phones than DSLRs?
 
On one hand, no. On the other hand, people who only have camera phones are more likely to just upload EVERY SINGLE PHOTO THEY'VE EVER TAKEN on facebook and not flickr.
 
When I look at the images that come out of my phone, I get a little sad.
 
Inspired by this discussion, I thought I'd do an experiment. I know there's people here who don't believe IS is useful on a standard zoom, so for good measure, I did a very unscientific test.

doesiswork.jpg


All photos taken with E-3 and 14-54, at f/4 and 1/15s. I'll leave you to make your own desicions, but it appears to me that IS makes a difference at EFL28mm, even if just a slight one, and that it makes a photo at EFL108mm usable, where unless it would not be.

All taken on free hand, and keep in mind that the crops might look different from each other, as I had to budge slightly to put IS on and off.

:)
 
Last edited:
I like the IS on my 18-55 because I can use it to take 1/4s shots handheld. With spontaneous shots indoors and without a flash, those kinds of shutter speeds are easy to reach.

Not to mention IS is *hugely* useful if you're taking video. :)
 
IS is useful at any focal length -- I have no argument against that -- I just maintain that it's more useful at telephoto lengths.
 
And it's more useful at 500mm than it is at 200mm. It's still useful at 200mm. And it's very useful at EFL100mm.

I'm just tired of the argument there's little need for it, I've heard it time and time again, especially from FF users who say it's not needed, cause if it was, Canon and Nikon would put it in their 24-70s. And when Canikon does release 24-70s with IS, they'll hail it and say it's essential.
 
Yeah. I get that. But I have in all honesty heard people say that the reason there isn't IS on ie. the 24-70L is that it's useless on so short focal lengths.

:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top