Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (
More info?)
In article <jjas619vgn1j8r9rggkmp800ttb0r7cfqs@4ax.com>,
Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2005 22:12:30 -0400, dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <vvop61diuj1pn7sta8b0l99j8q0nlul1gf@4ax.com>,
>>Owamanga <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>>The D70s is a minor update to an already-great camera. There's not a whole
>>>>lot you can really do to improve the D70 in firmware. I never updated the
>>>>firmware in mine at all; it was never necessary.
>>>
>>>There's loads of stuff they could do:
>>>
>>>Remove the flash sync limit of 1/500 and let it go right up to 1/8000
>>>(currently, this can be achieved with a piece of electrical tape).
>>
>> How? And why would you need to?
>
>How? it is currently an firmware restriction that has no basis in
>electrical or physical restrictive capabilities of the camera.
>Solution: Remove the limit.
This implies that the mechanical shutter is *always* fully open
at any speed, and that the electro-optical shutter does it all.
>Why? Because I'd still like to use fill flash in full sunshine when my
>shutter speeds may be higher than 1/500th, that's why.
O.K. I haven't hit that problem yet.
[ ... ]
>>>Make the histogram review separate the R,G & B channels.
>>
>> That would be nice. Perhaps selected by vertical button presses
>>while in histogram mode. (Currently, it switches to the previous/next
>>photos in the queue, and I think that could be sacrificed in histogram
>>mode.)
>
>I was thinking of all three at the same time, 3 color coded graphs R,G
>& B that overlay each other (and go white where there is a presence of
>all 3 for example) - similar to how the adobe RAW importer shows it.
O.K. I've not seen that, because I don't use Adobe. I would
like the ability to see each color individually, just to look for
interesting artifacts. I'm not sure that would offer any serious
benefit, but I do have the curiosity.
[ ... ]
>> Except -- isn't 100% zoom equal to *no* zoom? I agree with
>>wanting more zoom when checking out an image before going on to another
>>subject.
>
>Yes, terminology really, 100% zoom would be one pixel in the image to
>one pixel on the LCD. I suspect the reason they don't do this is
>because what you are seeing (in the case of a RAW or RAW+B) is the
>jpeg thumbnail stored in the raw file, not the raw data itself.
>Therefore it makes sense there is an upper limit as you get towards
>1:1 where you'll start to see jpeg artifacts.
O.K. A good reason for not implementing it, then. It makes the
camera look worse than it should.
>>>Add mirror lock up (there may be physical reasons why they can't), or
>>>even slow-mode (mirror flips up, waits for shaking to stop, then
>>>shutter opens).
>>
>> The latter may be practical. I'm not sure whether there is any
>>*mechanical* way to lock it up, and if not, that keeps drawing power
>>from the battery into the mirror solenoid.
>
>Yes, the solenoid would need to remain energized. I'd happily expense
>that more power in return for zero camera shake.
It depends on the circumstances. But I guess that if I were
working in a situation where the mirror shake was a serious problem, I
would probably not be taking enough shots to worry about the battery
going dry.
>>>Add a 'compress' feature that removes only the jpegs from the card
>>>that you get if you are shooting RAW+B.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Habit, and this may be peculiar to me. But I like RAW+B because it
>fits my workflow better, the jpegs are used to rough review files to
>decide which RAWs will be worked on in Photoshop. I carry now 3x1Gb
>cards and a 1x500Mb card, plus a 40Gb hard-disk card reader thing, so
>usually don't run out of space and can have the luxury of shooting +B
>
>However, occasionally I'm in an environment where I've separated
>myself from the camera bag and hard-disk card reader and am running
>out of space on the cards (last time I was in a mangrove swamp with
>just one remaining card that was getting full (not a good idea). At
>that time, I'd like to be able to tell the camera to dump the jpegs &
>reclaim the space because I need it. Instead I have to stop what I'm
>doing, and start editing (deleting) the pictures in the field to make
>more room. The +B jpegs take about 12-15% of a card - enough for
>another 20 or so RAWs on a 1Gb card.
O.K. For your shooting practice, that makes sense.
>>Why not simply select just RAW if that is all that you
>>want. If you want *some* of the Basic images, you would need to go
>>through and selective delete them. (Hmm ... I haven't run in that mode
>>much -- *can* you delete them separately?)
>
>Nope you can't (in camera anyway). Also, this would be as
>time-consuming as having to review/delete when in the field. I just
>want to tell the camera "damn, I'm running out of space, give me space
>for another 20 shots, I'll rebuild the preview JPEGs later on my PC if
>I need them".
Of course -- there is the option of getting another CF card
instead. If I found myself running short like that, I would get one or
two more 1GB ones. They don't take much space -- though they are more
expensive than I would like -- especially the 80X Lexars which I use.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http
/www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Facebook
Twitter