LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
There is supposedly a serial number range which is affected, and you can send it in for warranty repair to get what they are calling the "blue dot fix" (as the boxes they come back in have a blue sticker on them). So, Canon isn't calling it a recall, but you can get the sub-mirror replaced for free if you think your camera is affected, which certainly sounds like a recall to me.Originally Posted by Unfiltered
Looking at it again, the pixel pitch of the 1Ds MkIII is (6.4 µm) actually less dense than the 40D (5.7 µm), so...perhaps there is hope that the noise won't be too bad. Not like it matters for me personally though, as that body is way out of my price range, so I will have to keep driving my 5D until it dies
As for the vignetting, I have to say I haven't run into it that much on the 5D (same physically sized sensor as the 1Ds) using most decent primes, but that is definitely true with zooms, you really need the L glass to avoid it. I would also imagine that at 21mp, the sensor is going to start out resolving the cheaper lenses, so you are going to want to hang some pretty fancy glass on it.
I fondled a D300 this morning. Bigger screen is cool. Functions on the screen is cool. Live view is cool. Everything else I can live without, really. Noise Ninja is my friend.
Also, I'm told that it could be a month or so before accessories like the battery grip come out. Boo.
I'm going to save up for the D3. And then I'll never purchase another DSLR again.
Not a bad call. It's not a major upgrade. The D300 is more like a D200x. For me, I also like the improved high ISO, better AF, and for some of my work, image authentication. And since I like to shoot my kid's sports, the DX lens multiplication factor is a good thing. I also like the physical size. I had a D1x before the D200 and it felt clumsy. Going to the D200 was like when I went from an F4 to a F100. It felt good. The smaller body is just so much easier to handle and carry.
That said, the D3 looks like something special. I'm actually thinking about selling my medium format equipment and getting a D3 somewhere down the road. Then I will have the D300 to travel with and the D3 for those occasions where I really need it. Either that or hope the D400 incorporates the D3 technology. In the meantime, I'm thinking about that new 14-24mm 2.8 lens but there is no release date for that yet.
Yeah, I'll post what I put together...when I can get the programs I'm attempting to use to put out something that looks half-ass-decent. So far, the only thing I can get the processors to put out is drastically under-exposed-looking garbage.
The down side of HDR is that it is very easy to get washed out bland looking images because you are tying to display a lot of information in a very small space. In the end it all comes down to the tone mapping, you have to find a curve that preserves your highlights and your shadows, while still being steep enough in the tones you care about to give contrast. I find I seem to get the best results when I use the Local Adaptation option when converting from 32 bits/channel to 8 bits/channel, that way you can directly manipulate your toning curve (you can click and hold with your mouse over an area of an image to see where it is on the tone curve to make it easier to steepen or shallow out and area you are interested in). It is still something that I am very bad at. It also helps to start with an image that you will care about seeing the extreme highs and lows, and as it turns out my attempt at the sunset was a very poor example as it would have looked great just in silhouette, but at least you can see it is working (and this image seems to be suffering greatly from the Lightroom export debacle)
Alright. Since Sam has uploaded his crappy image, I guess I'll upload mine.
These were taken yesterday at the Reagan Library.
I think the initial problem I was having (using qtpfsgui) was that I was trying to combine too many images that had too little an exposure difference between them. I then downloaded and tried Photomatix and it seemed to work a bit better, but when I chose fewer images to combine (i.e. every fourth image in a sixteen-image bracket), it worked better yet.
I think that I shot wrong to begin with. I think a two-stop exposure difference between images is the minimum you'd want. Also, I think that maybe this wasn't the best setting/picture for the attempt. I figured it would be, what with the bright day through the windows of the building in front of Air Force 1 and that darkness inside, but I can't seem to get things matched up well enough to allow a properly exposed window-view and interior at the same time.
Sam, are you using CS3 to create your HDRs?
Posting Permissions
201Likes
VF
Reply With Quote
