What are you on about, this is about cars isn't it?!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 ...
Was the original post not just a simple question? how do you feel about Canons current line up? :/
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.
What are you on about, this is about cars isn't it?!
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....
I bet your keeper rate is better now thoughSpot 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.
.
I bet your keeper rate is better now though
Lol... I can't even be bothered reading the thread.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 ...
Was the original post not just a simple question? how do you feel about Canons current line up? :/
There is a 4 seat Lotus!
If I wanted to transport 5, I'd use my other car!
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 DSLRI hate to say it, but it sounds you weren't really using it properly, or to its full potential
That's not a humorist if note.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
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.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.
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.
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, 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!
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.
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.
Hey, sorry for the stupid question - Are Canon likely to update the 6D any time soon? MK2?
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.
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.
Since it has only just come out I would say not very likely.
Why - is there something you think can be improved on?
.
Sorry for the typo.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
No.Hey, sorry for the stupid question - Are Canon likely to update the 6D any time soon? MK2?
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!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!
A 5d mk3 you mean??No chance. Thats called a 5D.