JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2622 times:
Since most of you have read the glowing review about this camera I wanted to post another subject about this camera.
As a non-digital photographer who is getting ready to make the leap, what items and/or things would you suggest in order to get up to speed as quickly as possible on this camera?
What types of software would you get and use? I just saw a post about a program called "Neat Image". For example, would you recommend that I purchase it before I get my camera? Any other ideas and thoughts would be most appreciated.
From my estimations, 14 days and counting..........!!
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
I am buying the MkII with the hopes that Neat Image will be made obsolete because of lower noise levels! For high-volume indoor sports, having clean ISO 1600 images is what I am after. Neat Image works great, but takes too long for high volume stuff- even with the newer version.
As far as software I recommend Adobe Photoshop CS unless you already have it. An extra battery may be nice but supposedly the MKII is better in this regard as well. That is probably about it!
If you want to archive your images, you may want to come up with a way to do so on your computer- either with a RAID system or CD/DVD backup. I personally have the RAID system with redundancy backup on dual 160GB drives. Even those are filling up fast. With 8.5fps at ~8mb per raw file, your hard drive may fill up fast. I have had hard drives fail, so the RAID is a good investment I think, and it beats the time it takes to burn DVD backups.
But with just the camera, the software that comes with it, and a basic photo editing program you should have all the tools you really need.
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2548 times:
The concept behind RAID (redundant array of independent/inexpensive disks) is that a level one RAID will provide disk mirroring. A technique in which data is written to two duplicate disks simultaneously. This way if one of the disk drives fails, the system can instantly switch to the other disk without any loss of data or service. Disk mirroring is used commonly in on-line database systems where it's critical that the data be accessible at all times, but isn't generally necessary for personal computers.
While hard disks are cheap enough for building a RAID setup, what you will end up with is a bunch of hard disks sitting somewhere with all of your pictures on them. They will fail at sometime, you just cannot tell when.
CD/DVD technology has progressed sufficiently to the point where they have become extremely reliable and inexpensive. I have found that making two back up copies of the days shoot on CD, and then when I have enough to fill a DVD, I then copy individual days onto a DVD. I usually make two copies of that as well. Keep them in different locations for safety and you should be fine.
When making prints and storing in an album, I usually burn a CD of the albums images and stick it in a sleeve inside the album. That way years down the road, an original image file will be handy, as it is on the CD inside the album. Much better then negatives.
What you may want to do is visit some of the digital photography forums and read up on different organization methods. Ken is right. You are going to have so many more images then with film, and you will need an orderly method to catalog them, regardless of how you store them.
N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2463 times:
JeffM provided an excellent description of how RAID works, as well as smart backup techniques, but there's one point I want to make in addition to his: RAID itself is not a backup. RAID is great for providing some measure of redundancy, but if you are concerned about the continued integrity of your images, you must have an external means of storing your photographs (as JeffM does.)
RAID is great for making a big, reliable volume for storage, but if lighting strikes your computer, frying your drives, or your house burns down, then it doesn't matter how many drives your data is mirrored to; however, if you have an album full of DVDs stored at your office or in a safe deposit box, well, you'll be in much better shape. Another backup option would be to buy one internal drive and one external drive that connects via USB or Firewire; every so often, copy your image directory to the external drive and unplug it from your computer and store it someplace safe.
Overall, hard drives are getting big enough and cheap enough that I almost wouldn't recommend a RAID storage solution; the temptation of a false sense of security is a lot to overcome (believe me, I know.) If you get another big drive and are very conscientious about backing up your images to an external medium, then there will be very few situations where RAID will prevent you from losing data.
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
Planedoctor From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 286 posts, RR: 2 Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2459 times:
I do use CD's as well for important shoots (either family or client shots), but I still find them too small. DVD's might be an option but the burner I used was so darn slow I wanted to curse out loud. From what I have heard CD's don't last forever, either. I wish there was a perfect solution, but I have not found it yet. Are DVD burners significantly faster now than 6 months ago?
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 53 Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2453 times:
Good points about the RAID. They are not foolproof, and I have seen more then one array fail completely. Backing up is the answer. A pain, but good practice.
my hp DVD +R burner can write a 4 gig DVD in about 15 minutes, or there about. Speedy? No. Reliable? So far. Just don't put paper labels on them. I have found a few movies I have backed up, act funny toward the end of the movie. But I have not had an issue with pictures only. I usually burn a few days or weeks to multiple CD's of different brands, then when I have enough, burn to DVD. Only when I have tried the cd/dvd on two different desktops and my laptop, do I remove them from my hard drive.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2357 times:
If only ... I kinda think you'll know about it when someone gets one. Talked to my dealer Saturday, still no definite news. Apparently the person at Canon UK dealing with allocations has been away on holiday. Perhaps later this week ...
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2330 times:
The word I got was April 26th from the Canon Rep when he was in my camera store in Dallas. I am "supposedly" # 3 on "the list" at this store. I should be, since I've already paid them $4500.00 for it !!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
Now this 8.2 mp cam is hitting the scene
Don't think its so much the pixels that are the story here - 8mp isn't that significant a leap over 6mp - but I think this is the first DSLR that can go head to head with the best film SLR and hold its own, with no compromises except arguably the 1.3 crop (though many of us see that as a plus).
Add to that the amazing high ISO performance (which appears better than any high speed film), and I think this may be the camera that makes using film look a bit quirky (at least amongst the pro community).
Perhaps what is equally amazing is that if its pixels you're after you can get the 8mp in 5 different prosumer digicams now.
Just counting the days until I can turn theory into practice - I'm jumping like a scalded cat everytime my phone rings during shop hours
Pepef From Finland, joined Oct 2002, 440 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2293 times:
I just purchased an external hard drive with an USB 2.0 connection (160 gigabytes) as back up. Inexpensive and fast.
I keep the important photos on drive C: and also on the external hard drive. Once I burn a CD/DVD, I remove the corresponding files from C:.
I recently lost 17.000 images due to a corrupt windows registry and this prompted me to start thinking about back-ups.
About 15.000 were aeroplane images, so no real harm was done.
If this ever happens to you, get File Scavenger. Even after installing a new operating system (XP) and formatting the drive, this program found and rescued about 10.000 of my images.
Ejazz From United Arab Emirates, joined May 2002, 702 posts, RR: 36 Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2281 times:
My IBM HDD began to have problems and so as a precaution I backed up the entire drive onto an external Maxtor 300GB HDD. Little did I know that the 11 month old IBM HDD was so knackered it just backed up rubbish. Tried File Scavenger and another HDD recovery program and between them they recovered zero, ziltch nada of my precious aircraft and porn pics.
Now I back up every photo shoot and double check its on the external HDD and readable. Given up on CDs as too little can be stored on them when you consider the size of todays raw files.
As with Skymonsters CF card warning hope this info will help someone someday.
JayDavis From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 2000 posts, RR: 17 Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
One thing a friend of mine just brought up. If you get low priced 512mb flash cards, they will fill up rather quickly with 8mb images in RAW mode. He said you'd get about 24 shots per card, at best..........
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 529 posts, RR: 18 Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
That doesn't make sense - even simple maths tells me that 512/8 = 64!
In practice, RAW files are not of a constant size (depends on both the nature of the image and ISO). As noise increases file size I would also expect the MkII images to be slightly more efficient. I would expect to get around 60 on a 512mb card (I get about 80+ with the 10D).