|
1st
February 2006
For readers who are considering buying a new digital single
lens reflex this year first you should read http://www.bythom.com/2006predictions.htm
its lays out in a pretty clear manner what will probably
happen this year.
Elsewhere
I have read that Canon currently has 59% of the SLR. market
and Nikon is currently at 30% so I would suggest that
if you are considering an SLR. of any other brand you
could be on a one-way street for updates with either bodies
or lenses.
A
switched from Nikon to Canon several years ago because
of their huge advances in anti-stabilisation lenses, Nikon
have sort of caught up but Canon have obviously a major
lead in this area, however the new entrants into the SL
R. market Sony and Panasonic are both pretty sharp in
this area
I
also read that the current Canon 5D is an incredible camera
and they go on to say "what if, three years from
now, they had a 5D descendant that had the specs and price
of the 20D, only with a 20mp FF sensor? Is that possible?
Canon keeps doing things that are ahead of the curve".
It
is also obvious when I buy software to convert Raw files,
that everything is made, more or less, for Canon. My professional
friend who went the Nikon direction has very little choice,
so at the moment it is a little bit like the Apple --
PC scenario that there is much more software for the PC
as everyone knows, or should know.
There
are of course two wild cards in this equation and that
is Sony and Panasonic, both have taken over or are amalgamating
with known SLR's, and both have a good background in building
non interchangeable lens cameras, however the companies
that they have the alliance with were never the market
leaders so they will need to come up with incredible technology
to make something of their new alliance.
Then
there is the discussion on shooting Raw versus JPEG, I
equate it as this, it is like taking your negative film
to an amateur lab or a professional lab. Of course it
was always much faster taking your film to an amateur
lab, they would have done in one hour, where as a professional
lab often took three to five days.
This
is exactly the scenario for JPEGS versus Raw, JPEGS you
get a usable image now, Raw takes longer, but gives you
more control and the ability to make every print a wonderful
print. JPEGS on the other hand are a compressed image,
this means that the computer in the camera converts and
compresses all of the raw data into a file format called
a JPEG, and it throws away all of the surplus data that
was captured during the original exposure. Then this format
throws away more information every time you altered it,
in a computer and then save that file.
It is always recommended that you convert to JPEGS to
a TIFF, which of course means that you converting a file
that has had lots of data thrown away into a file format
that saves everything. Of course there are some cameras
that save in the TIFF format and often they take up more
space on your camera card than a Raw file. So instead
of going around in circles do all of your serious photography
in the Raw format and stay all those light years ahead
in image quality.
Raw
has the added advantage that all of the data that is on
the sensor is stored in the Raw file format, the only
thing that influences the data is the ISO setting which
affects the sensitivity of the sensor. All the fancy things
you do by measuring the colour temperature, shooting a
white card first and adjusting the camera and everything
else is only beneficial if you are saving in JPEG in Raw
all of this adjusting of the camera is a non event as
the only thing the raw format does with it is store the
information in a EXIF file which is for information only
and does not affect the stored data.
Your
processing software, I use Raw Shooter, may take this
EXIF data and use that information to give you a starting
point in the software which you can totally ignore without
any detrimental effects in the use of the program all
the final result.
|
|
Lenses
with anti-shake technology:
The
latest generation of anti-shake lenses work equally well
for stationary subjects as well as subjects that require
panning action such as sporting events and chasing 5-year
olds.
Though
many variable aperture zoom lenses in the slower 3.5 -
5.6 f/stop range incorporate anti-shake technology as
a means of making "slower" lenses practical
to use under low light conditions, both Nikon and Canon
also offer anti-shake technology in their faster 70-200/2.8
AF lenses.
While
you might think it's not necessary to smooth out the action
when using faster lenses outdoors, the higher resolution
imaging sensors found in top-of-the-line DSLR cameras
from Nikon and Canon have added a new wrinkle into the
mix, namely the fact they are sharper than their film-based
SLR counterparts
The
newest generation DSLRs such as Nikon's D200 and D2x,
and especially Canon’s full-frame EOS 5D and EOS 1Ds,
have pushed the resolving power of the best lenses these
manufacturers have to offer.
Even
though Canon manufactures over 50 lenses, they only recommend
about a dozen of them for use on Canon's full-frame DSLRs.
On film cameras, all of Canon's EF lenses work well. On
the EOS 5D and EOS 1Ds however, Canon strongly recommends
you stick to their "L"-series and macro lenses
if you plan on producing large prints from your image
files.
The
same holds true for pictures taken with the higher resolution,
APS-sized, CMOS chips found in Nikon's D200 and D2x.
The
bottom line is if you want to get your money's worth from
any of the current high-end DSLRs, think twice about your
choice of lenses.
Choosing
your Computer
If
you are considering updates on computers perhaps you should
read http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1745930,00.asp
there it states that Apple has basically lost the race,
not today, but many years ago when they formulated their
marketing program.
Figure's from the W3C, which monitors online activity.
As of December 2004, the Mac share as measured by online
activity is 2.7 percent (Linux is 3.1), with all the rest
going to various flavors of Windows.
Evidence of this is very obvious when you go into a software
shop and find one piece of Apple software for every fifty
of PC. To me that a little bit like buying an SLR. that
has just one lens available that will fit it, you just
would not do it!
Comment:
I have always compared the Apple computer to a beautiful
Ferrari or Lamborghini.
They
are absolutely beautiful to look at and incredible to
drive, but I compare the software as the fuel and in my
dreams these incredible car's run on an incredible fuel
is not available everywhere, so I cannot use these cars
as often as I would like in fact some places I cannot
even drive to.
The
Apple's absolutely incredible to look at and incredible
to drive, but the range of software, which is the fuel,
is severely limited. In fact some things that you can
do on the PC are just not possible on the Apple, and some
things that you have many good programs for the PC, you
may be lucky to find one piece of software that is written
for the Apple, however being fair, some things you can
do as well perhaps better on the Apple.
But
if you like something really beautiful, and easy to drive
and very expensive and all these other things do not matter
to you perhaps you are the ideal candidate for an Apple.
All
links Built on this web site are built with Axandra web
site promotion Software
|
