Comments on: Goal Oriented http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/ Mon, 14 May 2012 06:43:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Samantha http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-116 Samantha Thu, 16 Apr 2009 07:52:20 +0000 http://fivetwentythree.com/?p=268#comment-116 Update, should anyone care : All have been accomplished, save for finishing the spring cleaning, but that is meandering its way along. And AJT : you also have the option to shoot in raw mode (my 5d saves them as CR2) which is what I do. Other than that, I don't know, and honestly, don't really care. Update, should anyone care : All have been accomplished, save for finishing the spring cleaning, but that is meandering its way along.

And AJT : you also have the option to shoot in raw mode (my 5d saves them as CR2) which is what I do. Other than that, I don’t know, and honestly, don’t really care.

]]> By: AJT http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-96 AJT Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:00:39 +0000 http://fivetwentythree.com/?p=268#comment-96 Actually, while you're talking digital cameras... Maybe you can explain this enigma to me... Why is it that even "professional" digital cameras use JPEG to store the photos? It's a lossy format, after all. Granted, few people can "see" the difference provided the quality is high enough. But wouldn't PNG or lossless TIFF be a better choice? Yes, the files are a bit bigger, but in today's Terrabyte world (Gigabytes are just not enough), why should that be an issue? It also bugs me that so many cameras not only insist on using JPEG, but use 2x2/1x1/1x1 subsampling when encoding the JPEG. Quality just isn't quite as near-lossless as 1x1/1x1/1x1. Again, file size might be bigger, but who cares? Especially for original masters. Just a bizarre way-of-things that bakes my noodle. Actually, while you’re talking digital cameras…

Maybe you can explain this enigma to me…

Why is it that even “professional” digital cameras use JPEG to store the photos? It’s a lossy format, after all. Granted, few people can “see” the difference provided the quality is high enough. But wouldn’t PNG or lossless TIFF be a better choice? Yes, the files are a bit bigger, but in today’s Terrabyte world (Gigabytes are just not enough), why should that be an issue?

It also bugs me that so many cameras not only insist on using JPEG, but use 2×2/1×1/1×1 subsampling when encoding the JPEG. Quality just isn’t quite as near-lossless as 1×1/1×1/1×1. Again, file size might be bigger, but who cares? Especially for original masters.

Just a bizarre way-of-things that bakes my noodle.

]]> By: AJT http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-95 AJT Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:50:12 +0000 http://fivetwentythree.com/?p=268#comment-95 Recommended new vacuum: The Dyson Ball. Fast (what with the ball), powerful and it won't give you tinnitus. Does it seem weird that I pick up on THAT out of all the cool stuff you mentioned? 8-) AJT Recommended new vacuum: The Dyson Ball.

Fast (what with the ball), powerful and it won’t give you tinnitus.

Does it seem weird that I pick up on THAT out of all the cool stuff you mentioned? 8-)

AJT

]]> By: Samantha http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-86 Samantha Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:22:04 +0000 http://fivetwentythree.com/?p=268#comment-86 @TC - The main difference that I've noticed between the XSI & the 5D is the frame cropping. The Rebels aren't full frame, and it makes a huge difference. I haven't been doing a lot of personal photography projects lately (actually, I've had none), and have been mostly focusing on shooting for SG, so having the full frame is really working to my advantage. Canon is also releasing a new Rebel in the next few months, which is comparable to the current version of the 5D (the Mark II). @TC – The main difference that I’ve noticed between the XSI & the 5D is the frame cropping. The Rebels aren’t full frame, and it makes a huge difference. I haven’t been doing a lot of personal photography projects lately (actually, I’ve had none), and have been mostly focusing on shooting for SG, so having the full frame is really working to my advantage.

Canon is also releasing a new Rebel in the next few months, which is comparable to the current version of the 5D (the Mark II).

]]> By: tc http://fivetwentythree.com/2009/04/goal-oriented/comment-page-1/#comment-85 tc Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:58:31 +0000 http://fivetwentythree.com/?p=268#comment-85 Consider the 24-105 in lieu of the 24-70. The 24-105 is a little more general purpose as a walk around lens. Look at the 17-40 instead of the 35mm. The 17-40 can be found for $600, its an L lens, and a great performer, and its a great price. Its an older (technology) generation lens. the 24-70, 24-105 and 17-40 are 77mm filter size lenses. If you start purchasing filters, migrating to a common outer ring size will save a boatload of money. If you have to have a prime, think about the 50mm f1.4 EF lens. Its around $400 and considered by many to have L optical performance. (Its a 58mm filter size - however, as its a smaller diameter, the filters are cheaper.) Since your photos appear (to me) to lean towards black and white style, keep in mind that the 24-105 and 17-40 perform (transmit) very well in the IR range, many other lenses are optically coated to block IR. (Yes, I own an IR camera, however, you might consider getting a 72R infrared filter to experiment with.) I am quite interested in your opinion regarding the difference in shooting with the mark 5 versus the xsi. I have an xti and on the outer fringes of wondering if an upgrade is warranted. I was thinking about the 50D or the latest rebel - mainly for the digic IV processor and the full sized sensor. I don't really want an image larger than 15megapixel - I have chewed through two hard drives with images. Consider the 24-105 in lieu of the 24-70. The 24-105 is a little more general purpose as a walk around lens.

Look at the 17-40 instead of the 35mm. The 17-40 can be found for $600, its an L lens, and a great performer, and its a great price. Its an older (technology) generation lens.

the 24-70, 24-105 and 17-40 are 77mm filter size lenses. If you start purchasing filters, migrating to a common outer ring size will save a boatload of money.

If you have to have a prime, think about the 50mm f1.4 EF lens. Its around $400 and considered by many to have L optical performance. (Its a 58mm filter size – however, as its a smaller diameter, the filters are cheaper.)

Since your photos appear (to me) to lean towards black and white style, keep in mind that the 24-105 and 17-40 perform (transmit) very well in the IR range, many other lenses are optically coated to block IR. (Yes, I own an IR camera, however, you might consider getting a 72R infrared filter to experiment with.)

I am quite interested in your opinion regarding the difference in shooting with the mark 5 versus the xsi. I have an xti and on the outer fringes of wondering if an upgrade is warranted. I was thinking about the 50D or the latest rebel – mainly for the digic IV processor and the full sized sensor. I don’t really want an image larger than 15megapixel – I have chewed through two hard drives with images.

]]>