Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 4, 2005, 11:53 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

JPEG Fine is very fast (keeps on going for a while), so no worries there. It's compression quality is pretty good IMO (I don't thing that extra fine is really worth the extra space if you're shooting jpeg anyway). But, I'm sure others may disagree.

Raw is pretty fast, too. If you get a Sandisk Extreme III, it will shoot at around 1 frame per second, *after* the buffer is full.

Unless you're trying to capture every nuance in a fast paced sport like a tennis match, I doubt you'd have a problem with one using a fast card (write times to media are actually much faster than the 7D, but the 5D has a smaller buffer).

Personally, I'm usually more deliberate with my shots (versus the "machine gun" approach). So, the 5D is certainly fast enough for my needs, but different users have different requirements in a camera and lenses.

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 1:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

NOONER,

Neither the 5D nor 7D offer a .tiff mode.

the 7D is limited in .MRW burst mode

the next best alternative (for MAXIMUM image quality in 'long' burst mode) is extra fine .jpeg

if you get the 'oh my god' shot during a burst it would be a shame not to have the extra (albeit slight) quality of extra fine

Check out the January, 2006edition of Popular Photography Magazine.

They require a .jpeg file printable at 2400x3000 (300 dpi)

Lol, John



ps. just the ramblings of a 45+ years experience ignoramous

pps. may we have the links showing your published work(s)

ppps. #11 of a 12 count burst in extra fine (printable 8x10 at 300dpi):





Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 1:51 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

You still don't get it. TIFF is the normal format for Pro publishing. I never said the camera takes TIFF. After converting RAW you produce a TIFF image. The best alternative in burst mode is RAW not extra fine. You get true 300DPI depending on the megapixel size not the MB size of the file. The only difference between fine and extra fine is compression, they are still JPEG. I don't want to argue with you as I know you don't understand the principles here. My experience is longer than yours but who cares. It's how much you've learned.
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 2:11 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

you are orrect

but, the original issue ("I really want something with a decent JPEG burst mode; I'd like to be able to shoot at least 7-8 pics.") was the 5D's limit of 3 shots infine burst mode

i merely suggested that for a couple of extra bucks you can get a near perfect 12 shots in exta fine with the 7D (but NOT THE 5D)

MRW (minolta's RAW) would let you apply 'darkroom' type correction, but, if the camera is set correctly and usd with proper procedure you would not be able to tell the difference in the print (up to 16x20)

the 'commercial' user will take your .TIFF file and convert it to .JPEG for printing

john


bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 3:12 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

One last thought. Because of the 6 MP limitation an 8x10 would be ~250 DPI and a 16x20 would be ~125 DPI without interpolation. At 16x20, posterization would outweigh file gathering format.
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 3:30 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

capture image in MRW

convert/process using PSE 3.0 (8 bit 'depth')

crop (usually 8x10 or 10x8 )at 300dpi [yes, PSE interpolates]

edit BEFORE SAVING AS JPEG (duh)

save as jpeg (quality 12) - why bother with tiff?

viola !

pro quality print at 8x10

consumer quality print at 11x14

poster quality print at 16x20

pro quality print at 16x20 if ordered from a web based lab (such as mpix.com)



? 6 meg limit ?

how could you get a 35 meg tiff file ?

i actually know the answer !

the manufacturer INTERPOLATES the 'data' from the ccd (or cmos) sensor

the entire digital process should better be called a "circle jerk"

however, the convenience far outweighs the shortcomings

film will always be superior, but digital is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much more convenient and practical

until they can make chips on the molecular level !

BUT WHAT DO I KNOW ?
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 3:32 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

farewell, nooner, i bid thee well
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 6:40 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

bernabeu wrote:
Quote:
...film will always be superior, ...
Don't mean to throw a bucket of gasoline on the fire, butI haven't heard anyone make that statementfor a couple of years. I might even agree with it if the comparison is between a b/w negative from an 8x10" view camera and any b/w digital rendition, but hard to believe the "always" otherwise.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 7:02 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

John. Before I go... the 6 megapixel limit refers to sensor size which will limit resolution. You keep going back to FILE size which is different. I won't go on, but maybe do a little reading and it will become clearer. In any event I wish you the best and if your pictures please you that's all that really matters not what I think
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2005, 9:42 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

a 35mm kodacolor gold iso 200 negative contains about 45 meg worth of data captured on the molecular level



the top of the line hassie has 22 meg worth of digital



i have a 16x24 print (made by kodak way back when) of a fall scene from a 35mm neg from a $59 vivitar rangefinder (one with the original zeiss lens) on which you can count the leaves in each tree

(got lucky with the 'critical aperture) the point is the resolution

with a Mark 2 this shot could not have been printed larger than 11x14 !



i think that without interpolation and software (whether in camera or computer) ALL DIGITAL STINKS

with software it is so convenient that it is practical

goodbye all

bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 2:09 PM.