1Ds MKIII and Optical Low Pass filtering

[Rob C]

What makes you think he was innocent before retirement? 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On the assumption that you and Ray are being funny - not too easy to tell without facial expessions to modify message - I am being serious here. There is a stage in life when everything feels possible and then, for one reason or another, that starts to slide away from you and is replaced with its opposite number. Once that bugger is there, he won´t let go; he does seem to come to visit when time becomes too available. Just a little message to warn about him was all...

Of topic yes, but common to all of us sooner or later.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Why don't you guys go out and take some pictures? I own a 1ds2 and a 40D, plus some 10K$ of L lenses... so far the only limitations I see are my own skills! the rest is bullshit!
saludos!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154543\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Naturally, you are being hit with whatever comes to hand - to mind - but I´m afraid that the actual thinking behind what you wrote is pretty accurate.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the advent of digital photography has brought to life a very exaggerated version of the film and developer syndrome which left me bemused for much of my lfe. That´s not to say that people who have this thing were not also capable photographers at times, and I have no reason to doubt that some of our resident pixel peepers are also as hot as hell with the production of really deep, insightful and incisive images. No, the problem for me is that it all seems so goddamn pointless: you get what the makers sell you and I do not believe they give a hoot about what you think. As an example, take our host´s battle to get a direct MU device from Canon: no greater fan can be found, I suspect, on the web, but have they paid the slightest attention to him?

As I have said so often, to the point of boring you even, were photography back in the 50s as it is now, I would never have dreamed of spending my life working in it. Photography was direct -a rapid, simple means of getting to a state where a visual idea was down on paper, for better or for worse, your soul was on show. I liked that sense of directness, the fact that once you had learned the simple techniques of maintaining temperatures constant and solution strengths up to snuff, that was it: the rest was in your eye, in your mind and in your natural sense of what looked right. Simple, quick and personal

I have played about with digital for some time now, the main reason being that after a heart attack I discovered that trying to empty large trays of fluid back into bottles through a funnel was a little beyond my strength to manage safely; equally, living in a country with endemic water problems, it didn´t seem clever to wash prints for an hour and RC papers (plastics?), though les wasteful, never pleased me that much.

So, yes, I had to learn to print via a computer. And it has not led to all that much glee. Ironically, the buzz now comes when I get something which resembles a good black and white, something which was a given for over fifty bloody years!

In that sense of the thing, Jorge, you are absolutely on the money. The new photography is not about image; the new photography is about computer technique and toys.

It is strange how so much has improved without anything getting any better.

(NOT an attack on anybody, so don´t take it as such - simply my feelings on the photo-world of now.)

Hasta la vista, hombre - Rob C

[Ray]

Naturally, you are being hit with whatever comes to hand - to mind - but I´m afraid that the actual thinking behind what you wrote is pretty accurate.........

.....No, the problem for me is that it all seems so goddamn pointless: you get what the makers sell you and I do not believe they give a hoot about what you think. As an example, take our host´s battle to get a direct MU device from Canon: no greater fan can be found, I suspect, on the web, but have they paid the slightest attention to him?......

.......It is strange how so much has improved without anything getting any better.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, Rob, I guess we could explain that attitude very briefly by quoting from your previous post.

There is a stage in life when everything feels possible and then, for one reason or another, that starts to slide away from you and is replaced with its opposite number. Once that bugger is there, he won´t let go; he does seem to come to visit when time becomes too available. Just a little message to warn about him was all...

Some people get what the makers sell them, others get what they choose to buy, after careful consideration and analysis of the features on offer.

The reason why Canon have not included a dedicated MLU button on their latest models is probably precisely because they do listen to the consumer. I don't think that Michael R is a typical Canon DSLR consumer. The average buyer of Canon DSLRs would probably consider a dedicated MLU button a waste of real estate. Most strangers I meet on my travels who happen to be using a Canon or Nikon or Fuji DSLR and whom I get talking to, don't even shoot RAW.

MLU is for those who are concerned about getting the maximum image quality their system can deliver. It's for people who are likely to be also concerned about the deleterious effects of an AA filter.

If you look at Canon's latest model, the 40D, you'll see a number of new features there that seem to appeal to popular demand, such as anti-dust sensor, a live-view LCD screen, a 14 bit A/D converter plus an extra 2 megapixels to at least give the psychological comfort of expected image quality improvement.

Perhaps most revealing of all, which really shows that Canon is listening to the problems of the consumer, is a system for reducing the chance of blown highlights.

Most people who make the transition from film to digital, as well as those who are buying a digital camera for the first time, will often accidentally blow highlights because of the lack of that very broad shoulder that film has. I bet it's been the subject of thousands of threads on photographic forums. "Why can't Canon implement an auto-exposure system that recognises there will be blown highlights and take automatic action to reduce the exposure.?"

Well, Canon have listened and they've introduced such a system in the 40D. It's not perfect and not quite what was asked for. As I understand, there's no analysis of the scene to determine if highlights are going to be blown as a result of the user's choice of settings. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this point.) There's a simple automatic reduction of ISO setting by one stop, followed by a brightening of the review which gives the impression the image has been correctly exposed. It might indeed have been correctly exposed by this reduction in ISO, thus protecting the consumer from her own incompetence. On the other hand it might have been drastically underexposed because the user's setting would already have produced an underexposed image or at best a proper exposure to the right.

Got to rush off now and take some photos. There some sort of parade passing by; part of the Loi Krathong festivities.

See you later, or as they say in Thai, Pop Gan Mai!

[Mark D Segal]

The new photography is not about image; the new photography is about computer technique and toys.

It is strange how so much has improved without anything getting any better.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154909\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob, No. In a fundamental sense there is no new photography. It was, is and will be about making good phtoographs, however defined. Without that the rest is useless. What is new is the technology. And this technology has opened a plethora of creative potential that never existed before or only existed with great difficulty and far less predictable outcomes. And it has reached the stage where the quality of B&W images is at least equal to and arguably exceeds the B&W of the film era. As for colour, there is simply no contest.

[Mark D Segal]

The reason why Canon have not included a dedicated MLU button on their latest models is probably precisely because they do listen to the consumer. I don't think that Michael R is a typical Canon DSLR consumer. The average buyer of Canon DSLRs would probably consider a dedicated MLU button a waste of real estate. Most strangers I meet on my travels who happen to be using a Canon or Nikon or Fuji DSLR and whom I get talking to, don't even shoot RAW.

MLU is for those who are concerned about getting the maximum image quality their system can deliver. It's for people who are likely to be also concerned about the deleterious effects of an AA filter.

If you look at Canon's latest model, the 40D, you'll see a number of new features there that seem to appeal to popular demand, such as anti-dust sensor, a live-view LCD screen, a 14 bit A/D converter plus an extra 2 megapixels to at least give the psychological comfort of expected image quality improvement.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ray, this is disturbing. It would never have occurred to me that anyone investing over 8000 dollars in a top-flight DSLR system would be using it to shoot JPEGs exclusively and would NOT be focused on getting the best image quality they can. Gosh those folks should donate their wasted money to charities and buy a good quality P&S for a fraction of the price.

I think the anti-dust feature is a good idea for all of us, and the live-view screen is also great for helping to anticipate and prevent blown highlights.  I agree that the extra 2 MP would go largely unnoticed in a print, and as for the 12 vs 14 bit business - the effect of that is less obvious - it will need some pretty careful analytical testing to say anything informed about it.

[wolfy]

Mark,
I was born innocent. It seems that some people are direct descendants of Adam and Eve and are born with lots of original sin, and some are direct descendants of ape-like creatures who lived in Africa about 5 million years ago and are born innocent.

Phew! Talk about getting off topic  .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154855\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

LOL! Love it!  

Proud to be among the second group.

Perfect accompaniment to the Darwin-Fish.

[wolfy]

On the assumption that you and Ray are being funny - not too easy to tell without facial expessions to modify message - I am being serious here. There is a stage in life when everything feels possible and then, for one reason or another, that starts to slide away from you and is replaced with its opposite number. Once that bugger is there, he won´t let go; he does seem to come to visit when time becomes too available. Just a little message to warn about him was all...

Of topic yes, but common to all of us sooner or later.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154904\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Is any assuming needed,...what with the facial expressions of smiley-faces and ape-like creatures all over the place?  

As a retiree who appreciates that time is the greatest luxury, I feel that the early "anything is possible" innocence has at last been freed of the impositions, obligations, and dictates of pre-retirement life, and can at last go out to play in this world of wonders. (Not to mention that a pocket-more-full of accumulated assets adds to that freedom.)

True, the "Life is too short" demon comes to sit on a shoulder now and then, but anyone immersed in living, rather than contemplating dying, pays him little attention.  

When retirees complain of "nothing-to-do", purposelessness, etc., I can't help but think that they should have gotten-a-life (beyond their job) along the way, which they could now be enjoying immensely. This view prompted by the reality of a fellow retired firefighter, who came back from retirement to ride a medic-unit (an often less-than-pleasant job) not out of any unquenchable desire to "help", but out of boredom and habit.  Contrasted with my own list of things to hopefully do, this firmly establishes that yes,...people are different indeed.

[wolfy]

Ray, this is disturbing. It would never have occurred to me that anyone investing over 8000 dollars in a top-flight DSLR system would be using it to shoot JPEGs exclusively and would NOT be focused on getting the best image quality they can.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely agree!

If those buying expensive, state of the art "Pro" equipment are not those seeking "best image quality", ...then who is?

I'm with Michael on this (and appreciate his continued "prodding" of the manufacturers).

Why have we "progressed" in so many ways, ...but left 40+ years in the past a feature that is undeniably useful in some situations (which is all that can be said of a great many "features")?

All I want is the simple complete MLU control I had in the early 70's on my Minolta SRT's.

C'mon Canon!  

[Ray]

Ray, this is disturbing. It would never have occurred to me that anyone investing over 8000 dollars in a top-flight DSLR system would be using it to shoot JPEGs exclusively and would NOT be focused on getting the best image quality they can. Gosh those folks should donate their wasted money to charities and buy a good quality P&S for a fraction of the price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154970\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark,
Why are you surprised. We had a review recently on LL of the Nikon D3 from James Russell who seems to have used the camera in jpeg mode for most of his shots. I bet there'll be lots of owners of that camera who will use jpeg most of the time as well as auto-exposure and the various programmed picture modes.

Isn't the trend towards making cameras that do all the thinking and automate everything that can possibly be automated? We've even got a feature in the latest Canon models that can recognise faces, auto-face detection   .

[Mark D Segal]

Isn't the trend towards making cameras that do all the thinking and automate everything that can possibly be automated?

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In a way - yes - and there are clearly situations where this really helps. But there remains - or one would hope - that steady clientele for excellence, which most of the time requires custom control image by image - and raw files.

[sojournerphoto]

Mark,
Why are you surprised. We had a review recently on LL of the Nikon D3 from James Russell who seems to have used the camera in jpeg mode for most of his shots. I bet there'll be lots of owners of that camera who will use jpeg most of the time as well as auto-exposure and the various programmed picture modes.

Isn't the trend towards making cameras that do all the thinking and automate everything that can possibly be automated? We've even got a feature in the latest Canon models that can recognise faces, auto-face detection   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155023\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I believe my camera has more modes than manual and aperture priority ae:) I do like autofocus though

Mike

[Ray]

In a way - yes - and there are clearly situations where this really helps. But there remains - or one would hope - that steady clientele for excellence, which most of the time requires custom control image by image - and raw files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155027\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Mark & Wolfy,
As readers and contributers to the LL forum we probably get a skewed impression of the (camera buying) general public's concern for maximum image quality.

Often only the top of the range 35mm film cameras used to boast an MLU feature, although with some models you could get around that by using the delayed action timer.

In a sense we're into the same territory as the suggestion for an adjustable AA filter, or the option of a choice of camera with AA filter, with weak AA filter or no AA filter. It requires a certain level of expertise to even know which you might prefer.

The benefits of MLU are equally nebulous. I use it with slow shutter speeds on tripod just to be sure. But when I've taken the trouble to actually test the benefits of MLU the results are very variable and the benefits seem to depend very much on other factors such as stability and design of tripod, total mass of camera and lens, presence or lack of the slightest breeze if outdoors, and of course the actual shutter speed being used.

And I forgot perhaps the most important factor of all; proper dampening of mirror slap. If Canon were to attach more importance to the MLU feature, in effect raising the status of the feature, it would be tantamount to admitting they had not done a good job in dampening mirror slap. This not going to improve sales.

[Rob C]

Ray

I don´t think that it needs Canon to admit to any sort of failing if they provide a MU facility; I think it would simply be another gadget for those who know no better and a Godsend for those who do. Win - win?

Wolfy

Retirement equating with time to do something you kept on the backburner rings a little hollow when you are a pro photographer - at least, one of those who didn´t just do it because he failed at everything else! It´s been my life, still is my only love outside family, but lots of other external factors kick in, some which never enter your head and are sometimes not even of your own direct making. Let´s hope you never encounter them.

Rob C

[Ray]

Ray

I don´t think that it needs Canon to admit to any sort of failing if they provide a MU facility;[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155179\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Rob,
I think they've always provided an MU facility except on their cheapest cameras, and even there indirectly with the auto timer. That's not in question. What some people are asking is that it be more instantaneously available, either have its own dedicated button with flashing lights or a more readily accessible main heading on the LCD menu.

[Rob C]

Rob,
I think they've always provided an MU facility except on their cheapest cameras, and even there indirectly with the auto timer. That's not in question. What some people are asking is that it be more instantaneously available, either have its own dedicated button with flashing lights or a more readily accessible main heading on the LCD menu.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155190\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry, Ray, I already knew that there was a route to it, but I was referring to a straight, one button device, which is what Michael has been campaigning for - shall try to keep the old mind more focussed on what it authorises the fingers to type...

Rob C

[wolfy]

Rob,
I think they've always provided an MU facility except on their cheapest cameras, and even there indirectly with the auto timer. That's not in question. What some people are asking is that it be more instantaneously available, either have its own dedicated button with flashing lights or a more readily accessible main heading on the LCD menu.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Guys,

Because we have drifted considerably from the OT, ands because a wider readership may have interest in the MLU issue, I am posting this in the digital camera forum as well.  
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=21124]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=21124[/url]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE TO MODERATORS -  If it is decided that the post duplication is unacceptable, please leave the link in the above paragraph here, and give preference to the post in the other forum.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Those with little use for MLU (or who BELIEVE that there is little use for it,) might consider these points:

1. A programmed camera is not always an effective substitute for a thinking photographer.  This means that when a "self-timer" is controlling the moment of capture (2 sec. delay?, 10 sec. delay? 30 sec. shut-down?), any sort of peak-moment capture is reduced to a wild guess. Hardly a "professional" feature. IMO, this is no "work-around. It is a poor imitation of user-control.

 [ Here are four (A-D)of many possible scenarios;
 
A.  You are using a tripod mounted long tele with remote release pre-focused on a distant offshore rock upon which waves break spectacularly. You wish the rocks(mermaid, whatever,) to be as sharp as possible, with whatever softness to the water you may create by your choice of shutter speed. You wish to capture the moment of peak splash height, like ...,...,...NOW! Oops, ...the self timer missed it by a mile (maybe because it "timed-out", un-noticed after some designer-decided 30 sec. limit).

B. Same set-up, different target. The osprey/eagle/pterodactyl is about to land on the edge of the nest, fish-in-beak, wings spread and claws out-stretched for touchdown, matching the outstretched necks of the fledglings straining to receive dinner. Another "NOW!" moment. Is the blind self-timer going to guess it correctly? My Donkey!]

C. Target - birds at feeder. Anyone know how quickly flitting birds can move from the "perfect pose" shot to a wasted one? The camera doesn't, that's for sure.

D. Two wild mountain rams at the moment of butting impact, dust flying from foreheads, some  hooves off ground? A distant, very "Now!"  moment. Perhaps capturable by YOU (especially with 8-10 FPS), ...but not with programmed interference from a self-timer.

Control means control!

2. Opinions differ as to MLU usefulness at any given shutter speed. However, anytime there is a POTENTIAL benefit from MLU, there is no arguing this fact:
Reduced or "damped" mirror vibration is not the same thing as ELIMINATED mirror vibration. Canon's providing real MLU would "admit" nothing except this incontrovertible fact. [ As to the nebulosity of MLU usefulness -- For an in-depth study of MLU effectiveness under  various conditions, timings, focal-lengths, etc. done by a serious, careful and skilled photographer, see first link below.]

3. Real user-controlled MLU was not limited to only the "top" models, at least in the case of Minolta in the early 70's (late 60's?). The SRT line was below their briefly offered "pro" model (can't remember the model designation).


There have been numerous studies of MLU usefulness. Here is a link to what I  consider one of the most thorough (The entire site is well worth visiting, ...and there is some intriguing Nikon vs. Canon opinion from this experienced pro.)

Fritz Polking index (See Workshop I - "Sharp Photographs"): http://www.poelking.com/index_e.htm


Sadly, this renowned photographer/author is now deceased. Notice is here:

Polking Passing (July 23, '07)-
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/news/master...lking-dies.html

Bottom line for me;

Give us back real user controlled (and simple) MLU. "Flip",...it's up. "Flip" it's down. I'll decide when.
 
Canon, this user will trade you one facial-recognition "feature" for one real MLU anyday!

Opinion. Correction welcome as always,

[Ray]

A.  You are using a tripod mounted long tele with remote release pre-focused on a distant offshore rock upon which waves break spectacularly. You wish the rocks(mermaid, whatever,) to be as sharp as possible, with whatever softness to the water you may create by your choice of shutter speed. You wish to capture the moment of peak splash height, like ...,...,...NOW! Oops, ...the self timer missed it by a mile (maybe because it "timed-out", un-noticed after some designer-decided 30 sec. limit).

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry Wolfy, that just won't wash. Mermaids never keep still. They're always wiggling their tail and preening themselves. It would not be a good idea to use a slow shutter speed on them.

I've got no argument against the usefulness of MLU. I always use it with shutter speeds of less than 1/60th on tripod, just to be sure to be sure.

I also agree completely that an auto timer has serious disadvantages for MLU purposes, but it's better than nothing. All Canon's professional and prosumer cameras have full MLU. The 300D didn't and probably the 400D doesn't. I haven't checked.

I personally would prefer to see the MLU option say under the auto-bracketing option on the first page of the menu rather than custom function #12. But it's no big deal for me, maybe because I don't use a tripod often. I'm always excited by new ways I can avoid using a tripod, such as CS3's excellent auto-alignment feature which opens up the opportunity for hand-held bracketing.

I have to assume that Canon does its own market research and I can only make a wild guess at the percentage of DSLR owners who use MLU, but it could be something like 1% on a regular basis; 5% occaisionally and 94% never.

I don't expect the world to organise itself around my wishes, you know.  

ps. copied to other thread

[Ray]

The preening I can do without,...but the tail wiggling sounds good. I like it on terramaids!   

Please describe "full" MLU with respect to what I called "real" MLU (Up when I say, down when I say, shoot when I say).

[I do not have a Canon "pro" camera. Was set to jump on the 1DIII, when all the AF discussion broke out,...still waiting for the dust to settle.]

If "full" MLU is the equivalent of old-time user-controlled MLU, for shots such as the examples I gave, ...then what is Michael always going-on about? (Maybe the other forum is the place to respond?)

Thanks,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155239\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Full MLU, I suppose is what I've got on my D60, 20D and 5D. Having set the custom function to 'enable' MLU, one presses the shutter button once to flip up and lock the mirror; one waits until the vibrating tripod legs have stabilised and then presses the shutter a second time which begins the exposure. When the exposure has finished, the mirror flips back down automatically and one is ready for the next shot.

[Rob C]

But none of this is a simple, honest, press-me-now-to-engage feature; there is something far wrong if you consider that messing about in menus is as efficient or as user-friendly as simply sliding a single catch or pressing a buton!

Okay, you want to ignore this, as is your right, but to so do does not make it so, if you see what I mean.

Also, I have to disagree with your notion of mermaid behaviour, Ray. I have shot one in a studio (she once became earth-bound as a Miss Scotland) but as the rock was wood and papier maché (sorry about circumflex - can´t make it work) she didn´t move at all on the basis of it being too much of a hazard. Now there´s a thought: a papier maché world to keep everything still long enough for menu-linked options to be kicked in!

Terramaids: now that´s an interesting take on birds!

Rob C