Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

20D Mk2

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:55:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?

More about : 20d mk2

July 7, 2005 12:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?
Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:55:23 GMT, "traction"
<traction@nospam.today.com> wrote:

>Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?
>

You've heard something?
What?
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Related resources
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:55:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Damn. I must have missed it. I was out shooting some pix.

"traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:55:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>
> "traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
> news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?
> Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...

??
They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
July 7, 2005 1:27:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
>
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>>
>> "traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
>> news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D MK2?
>> Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>
> ??
> They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 1:27:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
wrote:

> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 

So what is your choice, genius?
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:37:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>> news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>>>
>>> "traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
>>> news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
>>>> MK2?
>>> Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>>
>> ??
>> They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 

Perection doesn't exist...never will...for any manufacturer...
:) 
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:32:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
> >
> > "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> > news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> >>
> >> "traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
> >> news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
MK2?
> >> Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
> >
> > ??
> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 

yet it still stomps the competition...
July 7, 2005 7:32:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
news:8n1ze.1879060$6l.514782@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>>
>> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
>> >
>> > "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>> > news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>> >>
>> >> "traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>> Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
> MK2?
>> >> Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>> >
>> > ??
>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>
> yet it still stomps the competition...
>
In what way? It certain leads in firmware updates
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:27:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Darrell wrote:
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:8n1ze.1879060$6l.514782@pd7tw2no...
>
>>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>>news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>>
>>>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
>>>
>>>>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>>>>news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
>>
>>MK2?
>>
>>>>>Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>>>>
>>>>??
>>>>They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>>
>>>They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>>
>>yet it still stomps the competition...
>>
>
> In what way? It certain leads in firmware updates


He's jealous. That's why he has to troll. I like my 20D but I don't have
to bad mouth the D70...
July 7, 2005 11:41:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
> wrote:
>
>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>
> So what is your choice, genius?

I use a Pentax *ist D, it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't needed
6 firmware updates in under a year.
July 7, 2005 11:43:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:ib2ze.18649$eM6.18132@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Darrell wrote:
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> news:8n1ze.1879060$6l.514782@pd7tw2no...
>
>>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>>news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
>>
>>>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
>>>
>>>>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
>>>>news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
>>>>
>>>>>"traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
>>
>>MK2?
>>
>>>>>Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>>>>
>>>>??
>>>>They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>>
>>>They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>>
>>yet it still stomps the competition...
>>
>
> In what way? It certain leads in firmware updates


He's jealous. That's why he has to troll. I like my 20D but I don't have
to bad mouth the D70...

The D70 has proven to be a reliable camera. Canon is always in a rush to get
unfinished cameras to market.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:02:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
> wrote:
>
>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>
> So what is your choice, genius?

Probably anything that does not lock up from time to time when you least
expect it.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:02:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1k5ze.17090$oJ.11904@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Pete D
<no@email.com> wrote:

> > So what is your choice, genius?
>
> Probably anything that does not lock up from time to time when you least
> expect it.

Maybe you shouldn't use Sigma lenses?

My 10D has never locked up. I haven't upgraded to the 20D because the
10D serves my needs just fine.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:02:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:070720050534309398%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <1k5ze.17090$oJ.11904@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, Pete D
> <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> > So what is your choice, genius?
>>
>> Probably anything that does not lock up from time to time when you least
>> expect it.
>
> Maybe you shouldn't use Sigma lenses?
>
> My 10D has never locked up. I haven't upgraded to the 20D because the
> 10D serves my needs just fine.

Same here.

Strange, but the thing I most wish my 10D had that the 20D has (even more
than the extra 2MPs)...is simultaneous RAW and jpeg file saving. This would
prevent a lot of headaches during review of a day's shooting.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:04:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in
news:Sa-dnUPHaLZyiVDfRVn-2g@rogers.com:

>
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell
>> <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>>
>>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>>
>> So what is your choice, genius?
>
> I use a Pentax *ist D,

More power to you - it's one of the better 6mpxel bodies.

Some of us needed more capable cameras, though.

> it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't
> needed 6 firmware updates in under a year.

Good for you.

Good for 20D owners, too, since there were only three - if you include the
update to add WIFI functionality.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 5:05:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eric Gill wrote:
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in
> news:Sa-dnUPHaLZyiVDfRVn-2g@rogers.com:
>
>>it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't
>>needed 6 firmware updates in under a year.
>
> Good for you.
>
> Good for 20D owners, too, since there were only three - if you include the
> update to add WIFI functionality.
>

I've used but one update. Had all of three lockups in about six months,
ca. 6-7,000 frames, one of which cleared by turning camera off and on;
other two by removing battery for a minute.

At the same time, I don't abuse my camera. Have no idea about Darrell's
usage, but Doug has openly stated how he abused his.

--
John McWilliams

I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
[Stephen Wright]
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:10:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark,
Why is that?
Paul

Mark² wrote:

>
> Strange, but the thing I most wish my 10D had that the 20D has (even more
> than the extra 2MPs)...is simultaneous RAW and jpeg file saving. This would
> prevent a lot of headaches during review of a day's shooting.
>
>
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:10:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:yvednQDKEN2741DfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
> Mark,
> Why is that?
> Paul
>

I don't mean review in-camera...rather review on either a laptop, or storage
device with screen.
Being able to view full-size jpegs of RAW files without having to convert
them FROM RAW file would be great...even if it's the smallest sized jpeg
dimension. As it is, you can only review a tiny jpeg version (I mean REALLY
tiny) inbedded in the RAW until you convert on a computer. That's what it
would be nice to avoid...


> Mark² wrote:
>
>>
>> Strange, but the thing I most wish my 10D had that the 20D has (even more
>> than the extra 2MPs)...is simultaneous RAW and jpeg file saving. This
>> would prevent a lot of headaches during review of a day's shooting.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:33:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:24:08 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:yvednQDKEN2741DfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>> Mark,
>> Why is that?
>> Paul
>>
>
>I don't mean review in-camera...rather review on either a laptop, or storage
>device with screen.
>Being able to view full-size jpegs of RAW files without having to convert
>them FROM RAW file would be great...even if it's the smallest sized jpeg
>dimension. As it is, you can only review a tiny jpeg version (I mean REALLY
>tiny) inbedded in the RAW until you convert on a computer. That's what it
>would be nice to avoid...

Why would you want view a jpeg at all. It's lossey and only has 8
channels.

Don't you use a RAW viewer which lets you see 16 channels and a large
color space such as ProPhoto RGB?


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 7:33:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v64rc1h90591nichec9cmuh3isuih263uc@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:24:08 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
> number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:yvednQDKEN2741DfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>> Mark,
>>> Why is that?
>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>>I don't mean review in-camera...rather review on either a laptop, or
>>storage
>>device with screen.
>>Being able to view full-size jpegs of RAW files without having to convert
>>them FROM RAW file would be great...even if it's the smallest sized jpeg
>>dimension. As it is, you can only review a tiny jpeg version (I mean
>>REALLY
>>tiny) inbedded in the RAW until you convert on a computer. That's what it
>>would be nice to avoid...
>
> Why would you want view a jpeg at all. It's lossey and only has 8
> channels.
>
> Don't you use a RAW viewer which lets you see 16 channels and a large
> color space such as ProPhoto RGB?

All of that is true, but completely unnecessary for quick review in the
field.
16 bits do NOTHING to change what you see on your monitor or device, and teh
lossy nature of jpeg has no effect on simply review in the field. 16 bit
only comes into play when making adjustments to color, etc. and lossy issues
only come into play when printing (artifact troubles) or when editing and
saving (loss). I'm talking about when I'm on extended trips where I don't
want to take a laptop, and where all I really want is to see a full res
image of what I've captured...so make determinations about the shoot. The
RAW conversions can come later when I return home.
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:06:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:1k5ze.17090$oJ.11904@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>>
>> So what is your choice, genius?
>
> Probably anything that does not lock up from time to time when you least
> expect it.
>
The lock up issue has been addressed long ago. I've used my 20D since the
first week they were released, had lockups, did firmware update, and I
haven't had a camera related lockup since. That's 10 months with out a
problem, and I've shot a lot of images, and so has my wife with hers over
the same time period. This lockup thing is taking on the dimensions of an
urban legend. Few, if any, are reporting lockups with the proper firmware
updates.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 8:08:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:Sa-dnUPHaLZyiVDfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>
> "Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
> news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>>
>> So what is your choice, genius?
>
> I use a Pentax *ist D, it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't
> needed 6 firmware updates in under a year.
>
>
>
Neither have I, with 1 done. There have only been 4 available...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 10:15:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:

>
>>>>Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
>>>
>>>??
>>>They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>
>>They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
>
>
> yet it still stomps the competition...
>
>

Unfortunately using the camera after it's been used to "stomp on the
competition" is a little hard to do with bits falling off from the impact!

Douglas
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 11:49:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
news:NfednSXZ89_tiFDfRVn-sQ@rogers.com...
>
> "l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:ib2ze.18649$eM6.18132@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Darrell wrote:
> > "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote in message
> > news:8n1ze.1879060$6l.514782@pd7tw2no...
> >
> >>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> >>news:Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com...
> >>
> >>>"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> >>>news:SDZye.7645$Eo.6977@fed1read04...
> >>>
> >>>>"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in message
> >>>>news:2vidnfqosdaL_FHfRVn-3A@rogers.com...
> >>>>
> >>>>>"traction" <traction@nospam.today.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:%yXye.1458$O22.1429@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Any news (rumours???) about the 20D replacement, presumably the 20D
> >>
> >>MK2?
> >>
> >>>>>Wait until Canon builds the 20D first...
> >>>>
> >>>>??
> >>>>They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
> >>>
> >>>They still haven't perfected it... ;) 
> >>
> >>yet it still stomps the competition...
> >>
> >
> > In what way? It certain leads in firmware updates
>
>
> He's jealous. That's why he has to troll. I like my 20D but I don't have
> to bad mouth the D70...
>
> The D70 has proven to be a reliable camera. Canon is always in a rush to
get
> unfinished cameras to market.


You were the one trolling....
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 2:18:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XeGdnVrEXPaIHlDfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
> Eric Gill wrote:
>> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote in
>> news:Sa-dnUPHaLZyiVDfRVn-2g@rogers.com:
>>>it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't
>>>needed 6 firmware updates in under a year.
>>
>> Good for you.
>>
>> Good for 20D owners, too, since there were only three - if you include
>> the update to add WIFI functionality.
>>
>
> I've used but one update. Had all of three lockups in about six months,
> ca. 6-7,000 frames, one of which cleared by turning camera off and on;
> other two by removing battery for a minute.
>
> At the same time, I don't abuse my camera. Have no idea about Darrell's
> usage, but Doug has openly stated how he abused his.
>

My 20D failure was not firmware, but a faulty pin unit. Under warranty, a
bit
slow but the job was done with no questions. Camera works fine. Early
rumours of problems operating in hot climates are not the case in my
experience, including 3 days this year +40 C, and 2 months in the high 30's.

It is exposed to extreme conditions including tropical humdity.

Dave
July 8, 2005 2:18:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

hyperoglyphe wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:XeGdnVrEXPaIHlDfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>
>>Eric Gill wrote:
>>>..................
>>...................
>>At the same time, I don't abuse my camera. Have no idea about Darrell's
>>usage, but Doug has openly stated how he abused his.
>>
>
> My 20D failure was not firmware, but a faulty pin unit. Under warranty, a
> bit
> slow but the job was done with no questions. Camera works fine. Early
> rumours of problems operating in hot climates are not the case in my
> experience, including 3 days this year +40 C, and 2 months in the high 30's.
>
> It is exposed to extreme conditions including tropical humdity.
>
> Dave
>

"Early rumors of problems operating in hot climates..."

Please, say me, what rumors??????? I'm very interested in it.

--
gutto@iis.com.br

Carlos A. B. Coutinho
Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Brasil
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:11:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:v64rc1h90591nichec9cmuh3isuih263uc@4ax.com...
>
>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:24:08 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>news:yvednQDKEN2741DfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>>
>>>>Mark,
>>>>Why is that?
>>>>Paul
>>>>
>>>
>>>I don't mean review in-camera...rather review on either a laptop, or
>>>storage
>>>device with screen.
>>>Being able to view full-size jpegs of RAW files without having to convert
>>>them FROM RAW file would be great...even if it's the smallest sized jpeg
>>>dimension. As it is, you can only review a tiny jpeg version (I mean
>>>REALLY
>>>tiny) inbedded in the RAW until you convert on a computer. That's what it
>>>would be nice to avoid...
>>
>>Why would you want view a jpeg at all. It's lossey and only has 8
>>channels.
>>
>>Don't you use a RAW viewer which lets you see 16 channels and a large
>>color space such as ProPhoto RGB?
>
>
> All of that is true, but completely unnecessary for quick review in the
> field.
> 16 bits do NOTHING to change what you see on your monitor or device, and teh
> lossy nature of jpeg has no effect on simply review in the field. 16 bit
> only comes into play when making adjustments to color, etc. and lossy issues
> only come into play when printing (artifact troubles) or when editing and
> saving (loss). I'm talking about when I'm on extended trips where I don't
> want to take a laptop, and where all I really want is to see a full res
> image of what I've captured...so make determinations about the shoot. The
> RAW conversions can come later when I return home.
>
>
Mark,
So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when
you review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather
then the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?

Paul
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 7:11:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:y7KdnRkPms1NUlPfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:v64rc1h90591nichec9cmuh3isuih263uc@4ax.com...
>>
>>>On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 13:24:08 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
>>>number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:yvednQDKEN2741DfRVn-3w@comcast.com...
>>>>
>>>>>Mark,
>>>>>Why is that?
>>>>>Paul
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't mean review in-camera...rather review on either a laptop, or
>>>>storage
>>>>device with screen.
>>>>Being able to view full-size jpegs of RAW files without having to
>>>>convert
>>>>them FROM RAW file would be great...even if it's the smallest sized jpeg
>>>>dimension. As it is, you can only review a tiny jpeg version (I mean
>>>>REALLY
>>>>tiny) inbedded in the RAW until you convert on a computer. That's what
>>>>it
>>>>would be nice to avoid...
>>>
>>>Why would you want view a jpeg at all. It's lossey and only has 8
>>>channels.
>>>
>>>Don't you use a RAW viewer which lets you see 16 channels and a large
>>>color space such as ProPhoto RGB?
>>
>>
>> All of that is true, but completely unnecessary for quick review in the
>> field.
>> 16 bits do NOTHING to change what you see on your monitor or device, and
>> teh lossy nature of jpeg has no effect on simply review in the field. 16
>> bit only comes into play when making adjustments to color, etc. and lossy
>> issues only come into play when printing (artifact troubles) or when
>> editing and saving (loss). I'm talking about when I'm on extended trips
>> where I don't want to take a laptop, and where all I really want is to
>> see a full res image of what I've captured...so make determinations about
>> the shoot. The RAW conversions can come later when I return home.
>>
>>
> Mark,
> So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when you
> review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather then
> the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?

Yes. It's fairly representative, just not as detailed. Also, to review on
another device with detail, you'd have to convert.
There is a very small jpeg file contained in the header information of RAW
files. -This should not be confused with camaeras that save a jpeg file
within RAW that is specified by the user... Canon, for example, let you
save jpegs of a given size within RAW files for faster extraction later
(instead of full conversion, which takes longer). It's more confusing
still, though, because with the 20D and 1D Mark II, you can now have your
camera save both RAW and jpeg as separate files...meaning no conversion is
necessary at all for full review of a full-size jpeg. The down-side is that
you using a lot of space on cards since you're saving two big files for
every shot.
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Carlos" <gutto@iis.com.br> wrote in message
news:42ce2ded@news.iis.com.br...
> hyperoglyphe wrote:
>> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:XeGdnVrEXPaIHlDfRVn-tw@comcast.com...
>>
>>>Eric Gill wrote:
>>>>..................
>>>...................
>>>At the same time, I don't abuse my camera. Have no idea about Darrell's
>>>usage, but Doug has openly stated how he abused his.
>>>
>>
>> My 20D failure was not firmware, but a faulty pin unit. Under warranty,
>> a bit
>> slow but the job was done with no questions. Camera works fine. Early
>> rumours of problems operating in hot climates are not the case in my
>> experience, including 3 days this year +40 C, and 2 months in the high
>> 30's.
>>
>> It is exposed to extreme conditions including tropical humdity.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> "Early rumors of problems operating in hot climates..."
>
> Please, say me, what rumors??????? I'm very interested in it.

A thread last year complaining about problems in central Australia at +35c
Message ID: 32eg7vF3m3o03U1@individual.net on 20051217:

" A lot of people have speculated about the reasons for these (not just
mine)
cameras acting up. I think in my case it is temperature related. It is high
summer in Australia. Daytime temperatures in Queensland are as often as not
close to or over 40C - sometimes up to 50C. The cameras get hot internally
on top of this and their top operating temperature is 44C. "

I don't know what happens when you exceed "their top operating temperature"
but the pictures are fine for my purposes and I couldn't notice anything
different. I live on the West side of Australia. My work takes me to the
North West (hot) including Marble Bar (Very Hot). It also takes me to our
Kimberley- Hot and wet. I took several hundred shots in 3 days at +40: the
camera was hot to touch.

March and April was in the far north. Hot and wet, always +35 My hardware
problem was unrelated to the temperature and fixed under warranty. I an not
experienced enough to judge the relative merits of this camera over others.
Suffice to say I like it! ;-)

Dave
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 8:23:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I don't know what happens when you exceed "their top operating
temperature"

Nothing very serious normally if this happens for restricted time periods.



1. Some circuits that dissipate power can become more hot (as the flash
capacitor charger - it you uses flash repeatedly), but this should be not a
real problem, at least in the temperature range that a human can live ;-).

2. The digital noise of the CCD increases as the temperature increases. This
(theoretically) should be noticeable.



Every part have a "Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF)", especially the heat
dissipating electronics and the sensitive moving parts as the shutter, the
bearing etc. This MTBF should be decreased as the component works out of the
"normal" temp area and should be decreased more as the conditions became
more extreme and for more time.



So I will expect that a camera that works often and for long time in
non-friendly temp environment to have earlier problems with lost pixels,
degrade performance, shutter failure etc.

--
Dimitris M
July 8, 2005 9:06:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks very much for the information. I live in these conditions (hot
and wet - Rio de Janeiro). I'll be more careful with my 20D in the
summer. :-)
Until now mine never acts different because of temperature. It worked
fine to me.
Thanks for your attention.
[]'s

hyperoglyphe wrote:
> "Carlos" <gutto@iis.com.br> wrote in message
> news:42ce2ded@news.iis.com.br...
>
........................
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>
>>"Early rumors of problems operating in hot climates..."
>>
>>Please, say me, what rumors??????? I'm very interested in it.
>
>
> A thread last year complaining about problems in central Australia at +35c
> Message ID: 32eg7vF3m3o03U1@individual.net on 20051217:
>
> " A lot of people have speculated about the reasons for these (not just
> mine)
> cameras acting up. I think in my case it is temperature related. It is high
> summer in Australia. Daytime temperatures in Queensland are as often as not
> close to or over 40C - sometimes up to 50C. The cameras get hot internally
> on top of this and their top operating temperature is 44C. "
>
> I don't know what happens when you exceed "their top operating temperature"
> but the pictures are fine for my purposes and I couldn't notice anything
> different. I live on the West side of Australia. My work takes me to the
> North West (hot) including Marble Bar (Very Hot). It also takes me to our
> Kimberley- Hot and wet. I took several hundred shots in 3 days at +40: the
> camera was hot to touch.
>
> March and April was in the far north. Hot and wet, always +35 My hardware
> problem was unrelated to the temperature and fixed under warranty. I an not
> experienced enough to judge the relative merits of this camera over others.
> Suffice to say I like it! ;-)
>
> Dave
>
>
>

--
gutto@iis.com.br

Carlos A. B. Coutinho
Rio de Janeiro, RJ
Brasil
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>Mark,
>>So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when you
>>review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather then
>>the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?
>
>
> Yes. It's fairly representative, just not as detailed. Also, to review on
> another device with detail, you'd have to convert.
> There is a very small jpeg file contained in the header information of RAW
> files. -This should not be confused with camaeras that save a jpeg file
> within RAW that is specified by the user... Canon, for example, let you
> save jpegs of a given size within RAW files for faster extraction later
> (instead of full conversion, which takes longer). It's more confusing
> still, though, because with the 20D and 1D Mark II, you can now have your
> camera save both RAW and jpeg as separate files...meaning no conversion is
> necessary at all for full review of a full-size jpeg. The down-side is that
> you using a lot of space on cards since you're saving two big files for
> every shot.
>
>
Mark,

Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer, do you need special
software to see the image? Would this software come with the camera?
Also, is the RAW image different between say a Canon and a Nixon? Or can
one camera see the other camera's RAW file? When you print the image can
you print from RAW or must you at that point convert to a common format
such as TIFF or JPEG?

Paul
Anonymous
July 8, 2005 9:20:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:feydnbrw1b2Zc1PfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>>>Mark,
>>>So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when you
>>>review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather then
>>>the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?
>>
>>
>> Yes. It's fairly representative, just not as detailed. Also, to review
>> on another device with detail, you'd have to convert.
>> There is a very small jpeg file contained in the header information of
>> RAW files. -This should not be confused with camaeras that save a jpeg
>> file within RAW that is specified by the user... Canon, for example, let
>> you save jpegs of a given size within RAW files for faster extraction
>> later (instead of full conversion, which takes longer). It's more
>> confusing still, though, because with the 20D and 1D Mark II, you can now
>> have your camera save both RAW and jpeg as separate files...meaning no
>> conversion is necessary at all for full review of a full-size jpeg. The
>> down-side is that you using a lot of space on cards since you're saving
>> two big files for every shot.
> Mark,
>
> Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer, do you need special
> software to see the image?

Yes. You must have a program that is able to interpret the RAW file.
Many file viewers are now capable of this.

>Would this software come with the camera?

Yes. Canon cameras come with software for viewing and converting, but it's
very clunky for all but the quick extraction of user-selected embedding of
jpeg files (the ones I note above that are for quick extraction).

> Also, is the RAW image different between say a Canon and a Nixon?

Each camera maker has their own RAW file type. Most major types are
addressed by photo viewers like ACDSee, Photoshop, and many others.

>Or can one camera see the other camera's RAW file? When you print the image
>can you print from RAW or must you at that point convert to a common format
>such as TIFF or JPEG?

You have to convert the data to tiff, jpeg, or another format.
RAW files are literally the raw data captured by the sensor. Remember that
ALL data is just code...until it is interpreted into something meaningful by
a program. RAW data code is not usable until it's interpreted and converted
into a format recognized as an image file.
-Mark
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 12:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark,
Thanks, that was very informative.
Paul



Mark² wrote:
> "Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:feydnbrw1b2Zc1PfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>
>>>>Mark,
>>>>So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when you
>>>>review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather then
>>>>the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes. It's fairly representative, just not as detailed. Also, to review
>>>on another device with detail, you'd have to convert.
>>>There is a very small jpeg file contained in the header information of
>>>RAW files. -This should not be confused with camaeras that save a jpeg
>>>file within RAW that is specified by the user... Canon, for example, let
>>>you save jpegs of a given size within RAW files for faster extraction
>>>later (instead of full conversion, which takes longer). It's more
>>>confusing still, though, because with the 20D and 1D Mark II, you can now
>>>have your camera save both RAW and jpeg as separate files...meaning no
>>>conversion is necessary at all for full review of a full-size jpeg. The
>>>down-side is that you using a lot of space on cards since you're saving
>>>two big files for every shot.
>>
>>Mark,
>>
>>Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer, do you need special
>>software to see the image?
>
>
> Yes. You must have a program that is able to interpret the RAW file.
> Many file viewers are now capable of this.
>
>
>>Would this software come with the camera?
>
>
> Yes. Canon cameras come with software for viewing and converting, but it's
> very clunky for all but the quick extraction of user-selected embedding of
> jpeg files (the ones I note above that are for quick extraction).
>
>
>>Also, is the RAW image different between say a Canon and a Nixon?
>
>
> Each camera maker has their own RAW file type. Most major types are
> addressed by photo viewers like ACDSee, Photoshop, and many others.
>
>
>>Or can one camera see the other camera's RAW file? When you print the image
>>can you print from RAW or must you at that point convert to a common format
>>such as TIFF or JPEG?
>
>
> You have to convert the data to tiff, jpeg, or another format.
> RAW files are literally the raw data captured by the sensor. Remember that
> ALL data is just code...until it is interpreted into something meaningful by
> a program. RAW data code is not usable until it's interpreted and converted
> into a format recognized as an image file.
> -Mark
>
>
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <oG9ze.7735$Eo.1451@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>Same here.

>Strange, but the thing I most wish my 10D had that the 20D has (even more
>than the extra 2MPs)...is simultaneous RAW and jpeg file saving. This would
>prevent a lot of headaches during review of a day's shooting.

Irfanview can read the user-selectable-resolution jpeg embedded in the
10D, or the fixed 2MP jpeg embedded in the 20D, just like it reads
JPEGs, if you associate the .crw or .cr2 files to it (you can open a
single raw without an association, but it won't cycle through a folder).
It reads them just as fast as if it were a folder of extracted JPEGs.

When you hit the delete button, though, even though you are viewing an
embedded jpeg, it deletes the RAW file. Very convenient, IMO. I delete
all the bloopers every time I dump the cards to the computer with
irfanview. 2MP is enough for me to judge keepers and losers - I don't
bother with the separate JPEGs.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:11:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:765uc19j6jl8mq8i15emauaclnfss8394h@4ax.com...
> In message <oG9ze.7735$Eo.1451@fed1read04>,
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>>Same here.
>
>>Strange, but the thing I most wish my 10D had that the 20D has (even more
>>than the extra 2MPs)...is simultaneous RAW and jpeg file saving. This
>>would
>>prevent a lot of headaches during review of a day's shooting.
>
> Irfanview can read the user-selectable-resolution jpeg embedded in the
> 10D, or the fixed 2MP jpeg embedded in the 20D, just like it reads
> JPEGs, if you associate the .crw or .cr2 files to it (you can open a
> single raw without an association, but it won't cycle through a folder).
> It reads them just as fast as if it were a folder of extracted JPEGs.

Ya, I think that's what ACDSee does too.
But portable storage devices don't, and if you don't want a laptop along
with you, it would be nice to have simultaneously written files of each
type, rather than being in the RAW file (IMO).

> When you hit the delete button, though, even though you are viewing an
> embedded jpeg, it deletes the RAW file. Very convenient, IMO. I delete
> all the bloopers every time I dump the cards to the computer with
> irfanview. 2MP is enough for me to judge keepers and losers - I don't
> bother with the separate JPEGs.

Right.
With a computer, that's pretty much what I do as well.
I'm really just thinking about an in-the-field scenario.
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:13:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <v64rc1h90591nichec9cmuh3isuih263uc@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Why would you want view a jpeg at all. It's lossey and only has 8
>channels.

You can see if the images are worth keeping, in terms of focus,
composition, etc. A JPEG is 90% there.

>Don't you use a RAW viewer which lets you see 16 channels and a large
>color space such as ProPhoto RGB?

All RAW viewers are very slow right now, and without tweaking any
sliders, they look pretty much like the JPEGs in many cases.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:16:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <y7KdnRkPms1NUlPfRVn-pA@comcast.com>,
Paul Schilter <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote:

> So if I understand this correctly, when shooting in RAW format, when
>you review the shot on the camera's LCD you're looking at a jpeg rather
>then the RAW picture so it's not representative of the true picture?

That's correct, at least for most DSLRs.

Personally, I shoot 100% RAW except the couple of times I've taken 5fps
movies on my 20D, but I probably have not seen even 20% of my images in
a RAW converter. Only interesting ones get RAW-converted (and some
JPEGs are already nearly optimal as-is).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:18:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <wmCze.7883$Eo.3985@fed1read04>,
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>RAW files are literally the raw data captured by the sensor.

.... after being rounded off to 4095 values.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:22:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Zzize.6195$HV1.5489@fed1read07>,
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

>Few, if any, are reporting lockups with the proper firmware
>updates.

I've had one episode of 20D lockups, and the battery was showing low
charge during that period, and then showing it high again after popping
the battery in and out again. This was over a period of an hour, in a
single afternoon, in 9 months of use. The problem went away when I
changed the battery, and did not happen again when I stopped using that
(old, and now barely chargeable) battery. I think the problem I had was
the camera and the battery not communicating properly, perhaps combined
with the power draw of the 100-400 lens.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:22:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:0v5uc1pg38jhbo6ugukb12p8hhbb66q117@4ax.com...
> In message <Zzize.6195$HV1.5489@fed1read07>,
> "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>Few, if any, are reporting lockups with the proper firmware
>>updates.
>
> I've had one episode of 20D lockups, and the battery was showing low
> charge during that period, and then showing it high again after popping
> the battery in and out again. This was over a period of an hour, in a
> single afternoon, in 9 months of use. The problem went away when I
> changed the battery, and did not happen again when I stopped using that
> (old, and now barely chargeable) battery. I think the problem I had was
> the camera and the battery not communicating properly, perhaps combined
> with the power draw of the 100-400 lens.
> --
>

That's that I meant by camera related lock ups. We had the same experience
with my wife's 20D, and old, aftermarket (EFilm) battery, once that was
discarded, then all was well, until we had some issues with a new Quantum
TTL module...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 4:24:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <Sa-dnUPHaLZyiVDfRVn-2g@rogers.com>,
"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>news:060720052115027739%rag@nospam.techline.com...
>> In article <Eamdneo4S6mMGFHfRVn-uA@rogers.com>, Darrell <spam@this.eh>
>> wrote:

>>> > They've been selling the 20D for nearly a year now.
>>> They still haven't perfected it... ;) 

>> So what is your choice, genius?

>I use a Pentax *ist D, it has never had a hiccup or lockup. I haven't needed
>6 firmware updates in under a year.

Not as big a user base to discover (sometimes rare) problems.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 9:54:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer,
> do you need special software to see the image?

Yes, but it is easy. For windows XP sp2 you can download this add-on
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05061501msrawthumb.as...
You need to have the ".net framework" already installed
With this add-on you can review and see thumbnails as if was JPG from
Windows explorer
________________________
> Also, is the RAW image different
> between say a Canon and a Nixon?

Yes it is. But the above addon supports both.
__________________________
> Or can one camera see the other camera's RAW file?

Absolutely not.
__________________________
> When you print the image can
> you print from RAW or must you at
> that point convert to a common format
> such as TIFF or JPEG?

Not necessary if you print from software that can read or support the raw
(for ex from Photoshop ot Nikon Capture). Of course, for the time, you have
to convert if want to print in a minilab.
--
Dimitris M
Anonymous
July 9, 2005 9:54:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dimitris,
Thanks for the RAW file viewer link, I installed it.
Paul



Dimitris M wrote:
>>Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer,
>>do you need special software to see the image?
>
>
> Yes, but it is easy. For windows XP sp2 you can download this add-on
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05061501msrawthumb.as...
> You need to have the ".net framework" already installed
> With this add-on you can review and see thumbnails as if was JPG from
> Windows explorer
> ________________________
>
>>Also, is the RAW image different
>>between say a Canon and a Nixon?
>
>
> Yes it is. But the above addon supports both.
> __________________________
>
>>Or can one camera see the other camera's RAW file?
>
>
> Absolutely not.
> __________________________
>
>>When you print the image can
>>you print from RAW or must you at
>>that point convert to a common format
>>such as TIFF or JPEG?
>
>
> Not necessary if you print from software that can read or support the raw
> (for ex from Photoshop ot Nikon Capture). Of course, for the time, you have
> to convert if want to print in a minilab.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:07:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <wmCze.7883$Eo.3985@fed1read04>, Mark²
<mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>
>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:feydnbrw1b2Zc1PfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>>
>> Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer, do you need special
>> software to see the image?
>
>Yes. You must have a program that is able to interpret the RAW file.
>Many file viewers are now capable of this.
>
>>Would this software come with the camera?
>
>Yes. Canon cameras come with software for viewing and converting, but it's
>very clunky for all but the quick extraction of user-selected embedding of
>jpeg files (the ones I note above that are for quick extraction).

I find the Canon File Viewer Utility (which came with my 10D) is very
effective at viewing the Canon RAW files, downloading them from the
camera, and converting to jpeg* or tiff. The only drawback is that it
does not integrate with PS, so to work on a .psd I have to make a tiff
and then open that in PS.

* I mean proper best-quality ones, not the thumbnails!
>
David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:07:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David Littlewood" <david@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ROfu9BYnZc0CFww2@dlittlewood.co.uk...
> In article <wmCze.7883$Eo.3985@fed1read04>, Mark²
> <mjmorgan@cox.?.net.invalid> writes
>>
>>"Paul Schilter" <paulschilter@nospamcomcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:feydnbrw1b2Zc1PfRVn-3A@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> Okay, so if you save the RAW image to a computer, do you need special
>>> software to see the image?
>>
>>Yes. You must have a program that is able to interpret the RAW file.
>>Many file viewers are now capable of this.
>>
>>>Would this software come with the camera?
>>
>>Yes. Canon cameras come with software for viewing and converting, but
>>it's
>>very clunky for all but the quick extraction of user-selected embedding of
>>jpeg files (the ones I note above that are for quick extraction).
>
> I find the Canon File Viewer Utility (which came with my 10D) is very
> effective at viewing the Canon RAW files, downloading them from the
> camera, and converting to jpeg* or tiff. The only drawback is that it does
> not integrate with PS, so to work on a .psd I have to make a tiff and then
> open that in PS.
>
> * I mean proper best-quality ones, not the thumbnails!
>>
> David

The one thing I DO use Canon's software for is for quick extraction of
imbedded jpegs from RAW.
Other than that, I open RAW directly in either C1 or Photoshop for editing,
etc.
!