Russ Isabella
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
Thanks Matt. Glad to hear you're happy with your MKIV.
John: I'm certainly hoping this camera continues to be a bright spot  though I can't say I've ever had that question about my choice.
j.brevard: Thanks. They don't seem hot on my calibrated monitor (plenty of detail in the white unis), but as you say, even if they are, that's on me and not the camera.
Thanks Darren!
Jim: Clearly it's not a decision to be taken lightly. I too put a lot of thought into it and at this point, there's no turning back (of course, if that were completely true I'd have sold my 1DsIII by now!).
James: You're welcome. And I know of that sinking feeling you speak of. I'd had my camera for a few days when the vibe surrounding it "out there" took a serious turn for the ugly. Since I hadn't yet shot an event with it, I was nervous. Now I've shot two events and I'm feeling very good about the camera. I think that feeling should continue to grow with more use. Certainly I hope that's the case. One thing's for sure: it's a complicated beast that appears to be capable of doing many different things in many different ways. Ultimately, I think that's a great thing, but it also ups the learning curve. Good luck with yours.
Thanks, Beau. Agreed: color and image quality are very nice.
Michael:Thanks. To answer your questions.... With regard to microadjustment, I used a method of shooting from a tripod at a tape measure at 45-degrees to the sensor plane. For most of my lenses, I ended up making very minor adjustments (+/1 5 or less in most instances as I recall). For my oldest lens (200/1.8) and my 70-200/2.8, the adjustments were much larger, and I was not at all confident in my procedure. When I shot my first event with each of these large-adjustment lenses, I decided to un-do the adjustments and just go with "0" and I think that (realizing my adjustments weren't likely to be accurate or necessary) was a good call because both lenses seemed to do very well at the zero micro-adjustment setting. As for jpg size, I was referring to the camera setting ("L") rather than the setting for what was posted. These were shot as L jpgs, then reduced to 700 pixels on the long side for posting. Mostly, I was pointing out that what I've posted was not converted from RAW but out-of-camera jpgs. I'm pretty sure that users of Photoshop CS4 have access to updates to ACR that allow for conversion of MKIV files. So PP software in most cases has caught up to this most recent Canon release. The photos I've posted were edited in PS CS3, but in most cases, very little PP aside from resizing. No post noise reduction.
|
. This is about the camera performed.
). And thanks.