Forum Replies Created
I believe I figured this out with the help of Tim Grey. I imported the same image into LR4 once using Copy and then once using Copy as DNG – it was shot uncompressed. Sure enough the file sizes were different (72MB vs 39MB) yet both had the same pixel dimensions (7512 x 4992). Additionally, if you opened each image in PS6 the file size in PS6 was exactly the same for both images. Apparently, when you import using Copy as DNG it uses a lossless compression. It certainly reduces the storage requirements but I for one will use Copy even though there should be no data loss on repeated openings of lossless compressed files. Call me paranoid!
My files also come in at 45MB and I am shooting uncompressed. I checked to make sure I was shooting uncompressed by looking at how many images a 32G card would hold which is roughly 400 images. If I then changed to compressed then it shows I can capture close to 600 images. As another comparison, I looked at the images I import from my Nikon 800 that I only shoot in raw but convert to DNGs on import and they show a little less than 45MB. I guess I'm not understanding something here. Can anybody explain?
Thanks for the quick response!
I like the triptych!
Very nice image Jack! Here is a new image I shot last week in Port Townsend, WA. This is a self portrait shot with the 12 sec self timer.
Having recently purchased an 800E my views have changed as to what I would want in an S3. There is the only one thing that would interest me in buying an S3.
-More pixels (I’m sure I’m in the minority on this one)– I never thought I would say that but I’m printing very large images now and I would like more megapixels if they are of the same quality and they do not sacrifice the ISO range. I use to say I needed 1 more stop in ISO range but with the 800E it has become my higher ISO option.
The other things that would improve my satisfaction with my S2 are firmware update related – particularly a one button 100% view. I would like a zoom lens in the 30-90 range. I frequently shoot in tough conditions and would like to have the option of not having to change lenses.
I do believe they are committed but I do worry that will not keep up with the pace of innovation that is needed for the S2 to realize it's full potential. We all know they have the best lenses that money can buy. When you look back at their pace of firmware updates and the development of the lens line they are slow!
I use the Singh-Ray variable ND filters all the time. They make a thin version in additional to their regular version and neither causes vignetting on the 35mm.
I have been there a few times and on my last visit Leonard was heading to the hospital – he looked very ill. I'm glad to see he is doing well! It's an amazing place to photograph as well as the rest of the Salton Sea. Nice job!
Thanks for the comments. A 30-90mm zoom would also be great then I could add the 120mm and I'm good. This would allow for long walks around a city without carrying a backpack. My current debate is whether I keep both my 30mm and my 35mm. Right now I'm thinking of selling the 35mm. Lugging both is too much extra poundage!
I guess they are shipping now as I will get my lens tomorrow
Thanks for the link. It appears that are not shipping in the US yet.
Does anybody know if they are shipping the 30mm yet? If so, are there any initial impressions. Thanks
Thanks Al for the info. I was also curious how David used it on his fall color shoot.
Maybe you can help me understand the application for this focal length of a TS. I use a 17mm TS and a 24mm TS on my Canon and use them frequently – especially the 24mm. Since I do mostly landscapes, seascapes and cityscapes there may not be a need of a longer focal length TS. Any insight on potential use would be helpful. Thanks
