Really impressed with Canon these days.

There is a 4 seat Lotus!

If I wanted to transport 5, I'd use my other car!

If my point is being missed, you buy a product because it does certain things, not because it can't do one thing!
 
Half the posts in here are nothing to do with the subject matter whatsoever. Some meandering off on tangents about cameras from the past and life experiences ... :D

Was the original post not just a simple question? how do you feel about Canons current line up? :/
 
Cagey75 said:
Half the posts in here are nothing to do with the subject matter whatsoever. Some meandering off on tangents about cameras from the past and life experiences ... :D

Was the original post not just a simple question? how do you feel about Canons current line up? :/
Click to expand...
What are you on about, this is about cars isn't it?! :D

In seriousness, they got a great current line up, with cameras for each niche, whereas Nikon just seem to be pumping out bodies with little tweaks on every 6 months. If Canon updates, or releases a brand new body (6d) it's for a reason, and because that current body doesn't yet exist.

The updates on Canons are alway significant updates.

I quite fancy replacing my 50d (my default sports body and backup) with the 7d2 now, that's my only problem....
 
odd jim said:
I hate to say it, but it sounds you weren't really using it properly, or to its full potential.

You certainly shouldn't be 'missing detail' shooting in raw, far from it, and the colours can be tweaked of course to how you want it. Metering you can change.

I see it all the time, people suddenly buy a dslr but completely fail to get the best from them as they only scratch the surface with them then give up.
Click to expand...

Spot on - these days it all seems to be down to the latest and highest specc'd camera but if that camera can't get you a better picture then it doesn't matter what the specs.

And a better picture 95% of the time is down to you.

I had my first DSLR, a 350D, for 5 years until I felt it was time to move on, first to the 450D then finally to FF (Canon 1Ds MkII) which I now use.

A few weeks ago I was sorting out my photos on a HDD and looked over some old shots with the 350D and realised that, apart from the filesize (8MP as opposed to 18MP) there was very little difference in the quality of the photos produced with the 2 cameras.
.
 
odd jim said:
What are you on about, this is about cars isn't it?! :D

In seriousness, they got a great current line up, with cameras for each niche, whereas Nikon just seem to be pumping out bodies with little tweaks on every 6 months. If Canon updates, or releases a brand new body (6d) it's for a reason, and because that current body doesn't yet exist.

The updates on Canons are alway significant updates.

I quite fancy replacing my 50d (my default sports body and backup) with the 7d2 now, that's my only problem....
Click to expand...


I purposely left out the car posts though ;) :D
 
petersmart said:
Spot on - these days it all seems to be down to the latest and highest specc'd camera but if that camera can't get you a better picture then it doesn't matter what the specs.

And a better picture 95% of the time is down to you.

I had my first DSLR, a 350D, for 5 years until I felt it was time to move on, first to the 450D then finally to FF (Canon 1Ds MkII) which I now use.

A few weeks ago I was sorting out my photos on a HDD and looked over some old shots with the 350D and realised that, apart from the filesize (8MP as opposed to 18MP) there was very little difference in the quality of the photos produced with the 2 cameras.
.
Click to expand...
I bet your keeper rate is better now though :)
 
odd jim said:
I bet your keeper rate is better now though :)
Click to expand...

Er - not really since I tend to take literally thousands of photographs and discard the bad ones :)

Recently went to Ireland to the Millstreet Horse Show and took about 3000 photos over 3 days so including the ones of my family came back with about 4500-5000 shots.

Now sorting through them.

EDIT: The main difference now is that I know more about what the 2 cameras are capable of than when I first got them which can make a real difference to the pics.
 
Last edited:
Lol nope!
 
Now, a Fiesta ST Id take...
 
odd jim said:
I hate to say it, but it sounds you weren't really using it properly, or to its full potential
Click to expand...
It's possible, of course. Maybe the new camera just made it easier to get the results I wanted, and I succeeded because I didn't have to learn so much about it to get the results. I still take better pics with the new cam than with the old one. On a humoristic side note, I took quite a lot of nice pictures with a €170.- compact, too, before I bought a DSLR :)
 
AchimT said:
It's possible, of course. Maybe the new camera just made it easier to get the results I wanted, and I succeeded because I didn't have to learn so much about it to get the results. I still take better pics with the new cam than with the old one. On a humoristic side note, I took quite a lot of nice pictures with a €170.- compact, too, before I bought a DSLR :)
Click to expand...
That's not a humorist if note.

It's the actual relevant point.

If you took pictures you like on a cheap compact, it means the camera is less important than you've made yourself believe it is.
 
woof woof said:
It's your certainty and dismissiveness that I find so staggering.

As for stretching a lot of your statement, I think I was very brief. There's the basis of a book there and if not a book then certainly a case study in a professional journal.
Click to expand...
Yes my response was brief, because I didn't want to derail the thread. There are other threads on the Foveon sensors, and hundreds of web pages too. And they hold up the point that Foveon is a a technology with promise that will probably never achieve it's ambitions, because Sigma don't have the resources.

That's if you believe that it's not fatally flawed from the start (which I do).
 
Back to the current Canon lineup.

1dx, excellent
5dIII excellent
6d excellent
7dII no-one knows yet
70d just enough of improvement to keep them in the game
All the other DSLRs it's time the sensor was upgraded
EOS M total rubbish compared to it's competition, which is reflected in the sale price, which has dropped like a stone.

The compacts, I've no idea really.
 
I agree with Cannon its a great product to buy for.Its technology is really awesome but somehow its mirror-less cameras are really not that great other brands like fuji ,Olympus are way ahead of them.Still i would recommend cannon to anyone.
Yes Eos M is an huge Let Down.
 
Last edited:
New comers are told, real men use raw, but are rarely told quite how raw it is.
they expect a super jpeg, but end up with something that looks far worse.
All the inbuilt research and adjustment that goes into a satisfactory jpeg is lost.
what you get is what seems to be the uncooked ingredients with out any idea of how to cook them.

The beginner is then faced with a massive learning curve. With little indication he will ever achieve any thing better, or even as good as his previous jpegs.

Even though most people would like to get better results, a large number see no fun in learning stuff, and spending time just for the sake of it.
It all depend on why you take photographs and what you want to achieve...Even how anal you are... if working on raw files will ever seem worth while.
There is no doubt that it can achieve the best results... but at a high cost in time spent learning and doing, Not only with the processes involved, but also knowing what you should be aiming for, at each stage, to get your desired final result.

Some people will never find it a worthwhile investment of their time and energy. Others just taket it in their stride.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
New comers are told, real men use raw, but are rarely told quite how raw it is.
they expect a super jpeg, but end up with something that looks far worse.
All the inbuilt research and adjustment that goes into a satisfactory jpeg is lost.
what you get is what seems to be the uncooked ingredients with out any idea of how to cook them.

The beginner is then faced with a massive learning curve. With little indication he will ever achieve any thing better, or even as good as his previous jpegs.

Even though most people would like to get better results, a large number see no fun in learning stuff, and spending time just for the sake of it.
It all depend on why you take photographs and what you want to achieve...Even how anal you are... if working on raw files will ever seem worth while.
There is no doubt that it can achieve the best results... but at a high cost in time spent learning and doing, Not only with the processes involved, but also knowing what you should be aiming for, at each stage, to get your desired final result.

Some people will never find it a worthwhile investment of their time and energy. Others just taket it in their stride.
Click to expand...

TBH I think one of the problems with beginners learning to use RAW is all the contradictory advice they get.

They're told they have to have Photoshop or Lightroom to process it but all they really need is a simple editing program (many of which are free).

Then all they need to do is use the program which comes with their camera (like DPP) to turn the RAW into a TIFF file (or even a JPEG) to edit it - TIFF is better because it is lossless.

And any editor can easily handle TIFF or JPEGs.

When I changed from using RAW to shooting in JPEG my workflow was simply changed by one step - convert the JPEGs into TIFF files for editing.

And I still use PhotoPlus X2 which I bought for £12.00 years ago as a special offer - and I still use it because it does everything I need.

for a beginner - simples!
 
petersmart said:
TBH I think one of the problems with beginners learning to use RAW is all the contradictory advice they get.

They're told they have to have Photoshop or Lightroom to process it but all they really need is a simple editing program (many of which are free).

Then all they need to do is use the program which comes with their camera (like DPP) to turn the RAW into a TIFF file (or even a JPEG) to edit it - TIFF is better because it is lossless.

And any editor can easily handle TIFF or JPEGs.

When I changed from using RAW to shooting in JPEG my workflow was simply changed by one step - convert the JPEGs into TIFF files for editing.

And I still use PhotoPlus X2 which I bought for £12.00 years ago as a special offer - and I still use it because it does everything I need.

for a beginner - simples!
Click to expand...
 
"petersmart, post: 6489170, member: 10934"]TBH I think one of the problems with beginners learning to use RAW is all the contradictory advice they get.

They're told they have to have Photoshop or Lightroom to process it but all they really need is a simple editing program (many of which are free).

Then all they need to do is use the program which comes with their camera (like DPP) to turn the RAW into a TIFF file (or even a JPEG) to edit it - TIFF is better because it is lossless.

And any editor can easily handle TIFF or JPEGs.

When I changed from using RAW to shooting in JPEG my workflow was simply changed by one step - convert the JPEGs into TIFF files for editing.

And I still use PhotoPlus X2 which I bought for £12.00 years ago as a special offer - and I still use it because it does everything I need.

for a beginner - simples!
Click to expand...


There Is a massive difference between editing a file and raw conversion, they serve a different purpose.
There are many free file converters to change between file types like tiff and jpeg, and an equally large number of basic editors,,
But none do the same job as a raw processor.

To use a raw converter to simply change it to a tiff, only does the last part of the job. It would take no advantage of the massive data available in the raw file.
 
Last edited:
Phil V said:
Back to the current Canon lineup.

1dx, excellent
5dIII excellent
6d excellent
7dII no-one knows yet
70d just enough of improvement to keep them in the game
All the other DSLRs it's time the sensor was upgraded
EOS M total rubbish compared to it's competition, which is reflected in the sale price, which has dropped like a stone.

The compacts, I've no idea really.
Click to expand...

Hey, sorry for the stupid question - Are Canon likely to update the 6D any time soon? MK2?
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
There Is a massive difference between editing a file and raw conversion, they serve a different purpose.
There are many free file converters to change between file types like tiff and jpeg, and an equally large number of basic editors,,
But none do the same job as a raw processor.

To use a raw converter to simply change it to a tiff, only does the last part of the job. It would take no advantage of the massive data available in the raw file.
Click to expand...

But for a beginner, which is what you were talking about, if, as you said, the learning curve can be too steep then my way gives him a much easier option, so he (or she) is much less likely to give up.

"There Is a massive difference between editing a file and raw conversion, they serve a different purpose." - a distinction without a difference surely since both JPEGs and RAW are both files.

"But none do the same job as a raw processor." - all a RAW converter or processor does is convert the RAW file into a viewable file since a RAW file is just a huge collection of data which cannot be viewed until it has been converted into a TIFF or JPEG or other viewable file.

And regardless of what is in a RAW file it still ends up as a JPEG in a browser or printed.

Be honest can you really tell whether a finished photograph started life as a RAW file or a JPEG - if you go through my Flickr pics is there any difference between the ones I take in JPEGs and in RAW - or anyone else's for that matter.

For a beginner (and for me) shooting in JPEGs is easier, takes up less file space and I can view the full JPEG in my browser without having to bother with a special viewer.
 
b0redj0rd said:
Hey, sorry for the stupid question - Are Canon likely to update the 6D any time soon? MK2?
Click to expand...

Since it has only just come out I would say not very likely.

Why - is there something you think can be improved on?
.
 
Memory is cheap as chips. Just shoot both if you're a beginner, then you have the raw to go back to at a later date when you've learned more skills.
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
But for a beginner, which is what you were talking about, if, as you said, the learning curve can be too steep then my way gives him a much easier option, so he (or she) is much less likely to give up.

"There Is a massive difference between editing a file and raw conversion, they serve a different purpose." - a distinction without a difference surely since both JPEGs and RAW are both files.

"But none do the same job as a raw processor." - all a RAW converter or processor does is convert the RAW file into a viewable file since a RAW file is just a huge collection of data which cannot be viewed until it has been converted into a TIFF or JPEG or other viewable file.

And regardless of what is in a RAW file it still ends up as a JPEG in a browser or printed.

Be honest can you really tell whether a finished photograph started life as a RAW file or a JPEG - if you go through my Flickr pics is there any difference between the ones I take in JPEGs and in RAW - or anyone else's for that matter.

For a beginner (and for me) shooting in JPEGs is easier, takes up less file space and I can view the full JPEG in my browser without having to bother with a special viewer.
Click to expand...

The Raw processing stage is where you make all the major reversible adjustments before any data is lost to conversion.
To colour balance
Exposure
Highlight and shadow adjustments
contrast
Colour profile
Noise control
base sharpness.

It is sometimes best to make more than one raw conversion if you wish to "exposure fuse" or use different settings for different areas of the frame.

Pixel level (subject level) changes are done at the later editing stage on the converted file and are not reversible.

As you see Raw processing and editing are very different in, method, intent and result.
 
rjbell said:
Memory is chip as chips. Just shoot both if you're a beginner, then you have the raw to go back to at a later date when you've learned more skills.
Click to expand...

Cheap as Chips...........

Absolutely It would be wise to save a raw file or a dng (more universal and smaller) because as time goes on most will find their early efforts to be far less than they had hoped or believed them to be.
Also processors get better over time. The more recent Adobe raw processor can get Far more out of an early Canon 40D than the one available at the time.. less noise, better sharpness, wider tonal range and recovery. Almost like a new camera.
 
petersmart said:
Since it has only just come out I would say not very likely.

Why - is there something you think can be improved on?
.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it has only been 2 years approximately - I don't know much about Canon's 'normal' upgrade policy, but the 7D has been around for a lot longer.

As for improvements - Software wise (I hope they actually release this in the form of an update as opposed to a new camera I'd have to purchase) the way GPS is switched on/off is annoying, the menu system is a little confusing (this is my first DSLR). Hardware .... More cross type auto-focus points? Really, not a great deal, but I probably would purchase a 'mk2' 6D if it has the auto-focussing ability of the upcoming 7D mk2 - whilst retaining the low light ability of the 6D of course.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Cheap as Chips...........

Absolutely It would be wise to save a raw file or a dng (more universal and smaller) because as time goes on most will find their early efforts to be far less than they had hoped or believed them to be.
Also processors get better over time. The more recent Adobe raw processor can get Far more out of an early Canon 40D than the one available at the time.. less noise, better sharpness, wider tonal range and recovery. Almost like a new camera.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the typo.
 
b0redj0rd said:
Fair enough, it has only been 2 years approximately - I don't know much about Canon's 'normal' upgrade policy, but the 7D has been around for a lot longer.

As for improvements - Software wise (I hope they actually release this in the form of an update as opposed to a new camera I'd have to purchase) the way GPS is switched on/off is annoying, the menu system is a little confusing (this is my first DSLR). Hardware .... More cross type auto-focus points? Really, not a great deal, but I probably would purchase a 'mk2' 6D if it has the auto-focussing ability of the upcoming 7D mk2 - whilst retaining the low light ability of the 6D of course.
Click to expand...

No chance. Thats called a 5D.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
The Raw processing stage is where you make all the major reversible adjustments before any data is lost to conversion.
To colour balance
Exposure
Highlight and shadow adjustments
contrast
Colour profile
Noise control
base sharpness.

It is sometimes best to make more than one raw conversion if you wish to "exposure fuse" or use different settings for different areas of the frame.

Pixel level (subject level) changes are done at the later editing stage on the converted file and are not reversible.

As you see Raw processing and editing are very different in, method, intent and result.
Click to expand...

"To colour balance
Exposure
Highlight and shadow adjustments
contrast
Colour profile
Noise control
base sharpness."

All of which I can do in DPP, in PhotoPlus X2, and in Neat Image.

"It is sometimes best to make more than one raw conversion if you wish to "exposure fuse" or use different settings for different areas of the frame." - All of which I can do in my HDR program (EasyHDR Pro 2)

"Pixel level (subject level) changes are done at the later editing stage on the converted file and are not reversible."

Not quite sure what you mean here because all changes are done on a pixel level.

But as I already said if you cannot tell whether a finished picture was shot in JPEG or RAW then FOR A BEGINNER it makes no difference and using a simple editing program for JPEG can be a lot easier until he gets experience.

For a professional it may be different since he cannot afford to make any errors and RAW can give him the ability to recover more than a JPEG may.

And I also NEVER edit my source JPEGs - they are always stored and only used once to create the TIFFs.

So to reiterate this was about BEGINNERS and whether shooting RAW or JPEGs, FOR THEM it can be easier to start by simply changing RAW to TIFFs then editing them rather than spend out for a RAW conversion program they may have a great deal of difficulty in mastering.
.

.
 
When you work on a raw file in any raw processor you change nothing on the raw file itself. you just add a script saved as a side car or in a dng within the file itself .
. No pixels are changed at all.
Changes are only made to the saved tiff or jpeg file. Following those instructions.
Camera jpegs have already been processed by the firmware, from the raw data captured at the exposure. All the extra head room has already been discarded.and is no longer available for adjustments that might be desireable.

certainly jpegs can be manipulated, but only the data that remains. Nothing can be brought back.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
New comers are told, real men use raw, but are rarely told quite how raw it is.
they expect a super jpeg, but end up with something that looks far worse.
All the inbuilt research and adjustment that goes into a satisfactory jpeg is lost.
what you get is what seems to be the uncooked ingredients with out any idea of how to cook them.

The beginner is then faced with a massive learning curve. With little indication he will ever achieve any thing better, or even as good as his previous jpegs.

Even though most people would like to get better results, a large number see no fun in learning stuff, and spending time just for the sake of it.
It all depend on why you take photographs and what you want to achieve...Even how anal you are... if working on raw files will ever seem worth while.
There is no doubt that it can achieve the best results... but at a high cost in time spent learning and doing, Not only with the processes involved, but also knowing what you should be aiming for, at each stage, to get your desired final result.

Some people will never find it a worthwhile investment of their time and energy. Others just taket it in their stride.
Click to expand...
I found working with raw files fairly straight forward from the get go, it's all pretty self explanatory. Even from the start I was getting better images than I was shooting jpegs.
 
petersmart said:
TBH I think one of the problems with beginners learning to use RAW is all the contradictory advice they get.

They're told they have to have Photoshop or Lightroom to process it but all they really need is a simple editing program (many of which are free).

Then all they need to do is use the program which comes with their camera (like DPP) to turn the RAW into a TIFF file (or even a JPEG) to edit it - TIFF is better because it is lossless.

And any editor can easily handle TIFF or JPEGs.

When I changed from using RAW to shooting in JPEG my workflow was simply changed by one step - convert the JPEGs into TIFF files for editing.

And I still use PhotoPlus X2 which I bought for £12.00 years ago as a special offer - and I still use it because it does everything I need.

for a beginner - simples!
Click to expand...
If you're going from JPEG to TIFF it's a bit pointless. It's not lossless as you've already lost data using the JPEG as the master file? There is no logic to do this!
 
Last edited:
Personally I like recent Canon stuff, the short primes with IS grabbed my attention and I bought the 35mm F2 IS - it's been an awesome little prime to use on FF and crop for video. Also impressed with the specs of the 7D2, looks like a nice solid progression forward from the mk1 and again has some nice provisions for video (which I don't shoot often, but it's nice to be flexible). Low price full frame in the shape of the 6D, new versions of their popular lenses with f2.8 and f4 IS, it's none of it particularly exciting stuff, just solid progress.

Canon are pretty reliable and people count on that - I'm very familiar with my old 5D, but I know I could pick up a new 7D2 tomorrow and use most of the features straight away and get it shooting the way I wanted :)
 
guess you wouldnt lose anything on subsiquent edits.

i shoot raw then put them through dxo as im lazy, and dxo is better than a77 jpg engine, plus you get all the corrections it does, and noise reduction and edits if i want to
so raw doesnt need to be a scary process, but it is a multi step process

the dp line is far from perfect, but if you can work around its issues then they really are wonderful little boxes...
the new samsung 28mp sensor might be a rival in some ways, but you would need really exceptional lenses for it
 
Yes and no. They make great kit, but there are some features lacking, or more specifically held back or disabled (like 4K or RAW HD capture in video mode). Quality control of lenses could be also better and I wish they made them more durable and less plasticky, a bit like Zeiss, or I hate to say - like latest Sigma lenses.

I am pretty sure I will love 5D mkIV, and I would be very happy with 1DX. 5D3 is great but deep shadow noise is sometimes a little annoying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top