Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 8, 2006, 9:45 PM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

StevieDgpt wrote:
Quote:
Drove as fast as I could to CC. Sure enough, KM 5D on closeout. Kit lens and body for a paltry sum of $535. Only had ONE boxed 5D in store stock.
Congrats! Super Deal.

To get the best out of the camera, shoot in raw.

There are a number of raw converters available that will work with the raw file from this model.

Visit the KM DSLR forum here for tips and advise on lenses.




JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 9:57 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 324
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
Congrats! Super Deal.

To get the best out of the camera, shoot in raw.

There are a number of raw converters available that will work with the raw file from this model.

Visit the KM DSLR forum here for tips and advise on lenses.
Thanks, I am heading to the forum for lens support.

Question regarding shooting in raw.... PaintShop Pro (Corel's equiv of Adobe PhotoShop) is loaded on my computer and PaintShop supports and processesRAW. Would I need a RAW converter for Adobe? If so, I would expect to need a converter for PaintShop as well. What is the purpose of the RAW converter?

Thanks in advance.
StevieDgpt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 9:58 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

Outstanding deal, and I certainly agree with your choice! There is a thread in the minolta forum (might be a buried a bit now) about the tamron 28-300, its going for $150 on ebay right now because a new version came out or something like that. Anyway, there are a few guys over there that seem to really like it.

The nice thing about going dslr is that if you can dream it, you can do it. Might take some work and some learning, but you know its possible. To me, that makes learning a bit more fun.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2006, 10:09 PM   #14
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

I don't keep up with PSP too much. But, their track record is not the best for raw conversion.

You're most likely better off using another product for that step.

By using raw, you bypass all image processing performed by the camera, and you replace it with a high powered PC running more sophisticated software.

It's bedtime for me (my wife is already in bed). So, I'll expand on this answer tmrw.


JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 2:25 AM   #15
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

The KM 5D seems like an obvious choice.

For your PS - have a look at the Panasonic FX01. I use it as a keep-in-my-pocket-all-the-time complement to my Canon 20D.

For some mixed up samples see http://peri365.blogspot.com

It's noise profile is far better than the LX1.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 9, 2006, 8:55 AM   #16
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

OK -- I promised to expand on this topic (raw conversion).

A camera's image processing is making decisions that may not always be what you want.

Manufacturers have to decide on what kind of tone/contrast curves to use to make an image that looks good to most viewers, and sometimes they use processing that can be a bit too contrasty (causing loss of detail in shadows and highlights), in order to give cameras owners a more "punchy" image straight from the camera. Ditto for things like sharpening (which can destroy detail if overdone).

They are also limited by the speed of the processor in the camera, as to the sophistication of the algorithms used, since they are trying to process images in a split second between shots.

As a result, you can usually do better if you shoot in raw, using a high powered PC to processs the data from the camera's sensor, without the limitations of needing to process it in a split second.

The Konica Minolta Maxxum 5D even outperforms the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II (Canon's most expensive Professional DSLR) for dynamic range shooting in raw and converting with ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), overexposing with both for best results, according to Dave Etchells tests with Imatest.

See the Dynamic Range Section here:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...M5DIMATEST.HTM

The individual photosites in a sensor are only sensitive to one color each, and with most Bayer Pattern CCD designs, you have twice as many sensitive to green.

The raw conversion algorithms take the values from the red, green, and blue photosites and combine them via sophisticated interpolation techniques so that all 3 colors are stored for each pixel.

The raw file has not combined the photosites in any way.

That's what the raw conversion process does (or in camera processing if you shoot in jpeg). There are a number of different algorithms used, and some are better than others. You can see some of the common ones discussed here (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader):

http://www.ece.gatech.edu/research/labs/MCCL/pubs/dwnlds/bahadir05.pdf

Here is another document discussion raw conversion techniques:

http://www.dalibor.cz/files/Ting%20C...erpolation.pdf

When you convert to TIFF using a raw converter you've gone through this interpolation process combining the values from the photosites. Ditto for shooting in jpeg (the camera is performing the raw conversion if you shoot jpeg).

Most converters are doing some additional processing, too (sharpening, contrast, etc.). Ditto for in camera processing (which is doing the raw conversion for you).

Personally, I'd save the raw files, no matter your preference in raw converters, as technology is continuing to improve and you may want to reprocess cherished images later using better tools.

For example, b
eginning with dcraw.c version 7.60, David Coffin started using AHD (Adaptive Homogeniety Directed) for the interpolation algorithms.

This was in part due to Paul J. Lee, whocollaborated with Hirakawa Keigo (the original co-author of AHD algorithm as part of his Ph.D thesis).

Once Paul fully understood the algorithm,he modifieddcraw.c to use it and gave a prototypeto Dave. After some comparison studies, Dave was convinced that AHDwas superior to VNG and other demosaicing algorithms.

Dave converted and optimized the prototype created by Paul J. Lee, integrating it into dcraw.c versions 7.60 and later (he's continuing to refine it).


So, products using some or all of David's code to perform the raw conversion also benefit from these improvements, while adding their own enhancements and features.

A number of other raw converters use some or all of David's source code for the demosaic part, while adding a GUI front end and more features to augment the conversion algorithms.

See the "Other Raw Photo Decoders" section here:

http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

UFRaw is one popular free product that uses David's code for the demosaic algorithms.

Newer versions of ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) also support your camera. But, you'd need either Photoshop Elements or Photoshop CS2 to use ACR.

IMO, the pioneers at improving raw conversion are really David Coffin (the author of dcraw.c), Mike Chaney (the author ofQImage Pro, ) and Eric Hyman (the author of Bibble

These guys were doing raw conversion years before Adobe started doing it with Adobe Camera Raw. Of course, Thomas Knoll (the original author of Photoshop) has played an important role with raw conversion since Adobe got "into the game", and Adobe Camera Raw is a better product than most anymore.

David Coffin's first efforts were primarily to improve images from his own Canon models. Mike and Eric were the first to work on raw conversion code to improve images from DSLR models (for example, the Nikon D1).

We owe a lot of thanks to all of them for leading the way, since the manufacturers' code left a lot to be desired for raw conversion from early models, and in many cases, the manufacturers' code (either in camera conversion or using their raw converter) still leaves a lot to be desired.

Technology has improved a lot over the years, and I believe that it will continue to improve (which is one reason I keep my raw files, so that I can take advantage of better raw converters later).


Here are some of the popular raw converters that support KM DSLR models. You'll also find some user reviews there. Some of them are free, too (and most have trial versions you can download if they're not free).

http://www.dyxum.com/darkroom/converters/list.asp


JimC 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 2:59 AM.