October 30, 2007 at 2:11 pm · Filed under Photography
I noticed at Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) that Sony has released an update for its α700 digital SLR.
Here’s a quote from Mark Weir, the senior technology and marketing manager for Alpha and Cyber-shot cameras in Sony Electronics’ Digital Imaging and Audio Division.
“Sony is releasing updated firmware for the DSLR-α700 camera, as well as updates for the Image Data Converter and Image Data Lightbox bundled software applications. The camera firmware update improves image sharpness and reduces noise under certain circumstances. It also improves flash control at very short distances with non-ADI control lenses. The updates for the bundled software applications correct the functioning of such features as image display and file type indication. These updates relate only to early production Firmware “Ver.1” models, which were manufactured through early October. Firmware “Ver.2” models (press Menu & Display together to check) already include this upgrade. Although these improvements are subtle, it is recommended that customers make the update to improve the camera and application software performance.”
Sony owners can get the latest information on their products at Sony Electronics’ customer support web site at www.sony.com/support.
There is a lot of information availably on the Internet about intellectual property rights (IPR), including copyright of photographs. Unfortunately for us Canadians, most of what we see on TV and on the Internet describes IPR under the laws of the United States of America. And although U.S.A. laws are similar to ours, there are significant differences.
Because of mass media originating south of the border, general knowledge of many U.S.A. laws and legal practices is so pervasive in Canada that many of us mistakenly assume they are Canadian laws. In the case of IPR, this could turn out to be a costly assumption for some unlucky photographer.
Not being a lawyer, I wont offer any specific advice other than to suggest that photographers living in Canada, who want to protect their intellectual property, would be wise to do Canadian-based research into the subject, and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) Web site is probably the the best place to start that research. For those particularly interested in Canadian copyright, here is a link to the CIPO’s A Guide to Copyrights.
If you have an image that you want to enlarge significantly, here’s a tip that I learned recently.
Before we begin, bear in mind that whenever you want to resize an image (Photoshop’s Image » Image Size with the Resample image option selected and set to Bicubic), make sure you start with a nice sharp high-resolution original. Enlarging a soft, fuzzy or low-resolution image will not likely yield acceptable results.
For best results, I suggest that you restrict your enlargements to a maximum of 50%, i.e., 150% of the original image. And the closer you restrict your resizing to 110%, the better your final image will be. On occasion, however, you’ll want a really high-quality enlargement of, say, 800% of the original.
If you have access to specialized software such as onOne Software’s Genuine Fractals, go ahead and resize away—even 800% enlargements should look just fine. If all you have is Photoshop CS2 or CS3, however, you can still make 800% enlargements—just do not do it in one step, but make sure you use multiple steps, resizing in 10% increments each time until you have an image about 800% of the original. Using 10% increments, you’ll avoid almost all of the downgrading of quality usually caused by the software’s resizing and interpolation algorithms.
A final word of caution. If you are using the JPG format, do not save intermediate results and use them in subsequent steps—JPG is a lossy format and the image will degrade slightly each time you save it. It’s best to go through all steps and save your final version in JPG format, or save intermediate results as PSDs or TIFFs.
October 24, 2007 at 1:15 pm · Filed under Photography
I find the in-depth reviews at Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com) among the best available, including those in print magazines. Recently they posted a review of Canon’s high-end prosumer EOS 40D digital SLR.
This is a serious camera for serious photographers, amateur and pro alike. The review concludes with a “Highly Recommended” and the following comments:
“When I first started using the EOS 40D a simple description came to mind: that this is a ‘well sorted camera’. It feels well rounded - the result of years of evolutionary improvement, it delivers in almost every area, and it inspires confidence. From a usability point of view the viewfinder feels larger, ergonomics are good, the user interface is clear and easy to learn, there are no in-use performance issues, metering and auto-focus show good consistency and the results speak for themselves; colorful (yet accurate) detailed images with low noise even at high sensitivities.”
October 23, 2007 at 11:09 am · Filed under Photography
The Imaging Resource Newsletter has a detailed review of Nikon’s high-end prosumer (entry-level professional) digital SLR, the D300.
The Nikon D300 is a pro-grade model in every respect expect perhaps its DX sensor’s crop factor of 1.5x. Apparently, the…
“D300 displaces the D200 at the top of the prosumer DX lineup, but it does not replace it. The D200 will live on. But D200 owners in particular will be especially drawn to the D300’s new features. The camera’s increased resolution, 14-bit A/D conversion, and a frame rate of six frames-per-second will pique their interest. The new Scene Recognition System that merges data from the AF system with data from the 1,005-point metering system for greater accuracy and better tracking will draw them closer; the new 51-point AF system that fairly dominates the DX-sized frame and includes 15 cross-type sensors will make them chuckle with joy; and the 920,000 pixel, 3-inch LCD will make them check their bank balance for available funds.”
Personally, I favour the D300’s 1.5x DX crop factor over Nikon’s much more expensive D3’s full-frame FX model as it gives my lenses a 50% longer reach and gets me into wildlife photography at a much more affordable price. For example, my longest lens is a Nikkor (Nikon) 80-400mm VR zoom, for which I paid less than $2,000. At its longest end this translates to 600mm (1.5 X 400mm) f/5.6 on my Nikon D80, which has a DX sensor. With an FX sensor, I’d have to lay out $8,000 to $10,000 for a lens of comparable quality glass and maximum aperture size to obtain that much reach—or, at the very least, $5,000 to $6,000 for a 300mm f/2.8 lens and 2X teleconverter combination.
October 22, 2007 at 11:03 am · Filed under Photography
J.D. Power and Associates has awarded Nikon’s D Series digital SLR top spot in their 2007 Digital Camera Satisfaction Study. On a 1,000-point scale, Nikon’s D series digital SLR cameras earned a score of 822 index points, making them the highest-ranked camera line among digital SLRs in four areas of customer satisfaction: picture quality, performance, operation, and appearance and styling.
You can read Nikon’s press release covering this prestigious award here.
October 19, 2007 at 12:34 pm · Filed under Photography
For those of us who like to frame our prints, it gets pretty expensive when we use custom made frames. That’s why I like to crop my photos to fit on standard size photo paper. However, it seems that photo paper manufacturers—at least in their over 8.5″ X 11″ sizes—increasingly are adopting ISO (International Standards Organization) paper size standards, which are used in Europe and elsewhere outside of North America. In Canada, and apparently in the U.S.A., however, pre-made photo frame manufactures do not follow ISO standard sizes. Therefore you end up buying larger-sized paper and trimming your print to fit one of the standard frame sizes—an irritating and expensive practice.
This has become a pet peeve of mine, i.e., trying to match prints made on standard photo paper to pre-made photo frames. And it seems that Jeff Revell (Jeff’s Photo Gallery Blog) shares my annoyance with the mismatch (see Jeff’s “rant” here). And for an industry representative’s unofficial response, see Scott Kelby’s recent post here.
“We are excited about creating a vibrant third party developer community around the iPhone and enabling hundreds of new applications for our users. With our revolutionary multi-touch interface, powerful hardware and advanced software architecture, we believe we have created the best mobile platform ever for developers.”
So, this should make Leo Laporte a happy man. The Tech Guy or the Chief Twit as he’s also known is one of the iPhone’s biggest boosters and he plugs this overpriced, over-hyped tech toy incessantly on his radio show and podcasts. The iPhone is even featured sometimes on his Canadian-based TV show, which is not available in any country in which the iPhone is available for sale—go figure.
About the only criticism Leo ever seems to make is that Apple does not allow third party applications on its hot product. Well Leo, Steve must have heard your pleas for he promises “…to have an SDK in developers’ hands in February.” Now ain’t that just great, folks?
For more on this, with a lot of discussion, see Engadget.
October 16, 2007 at 9:04 am · Filed under Photography
Canon U.S.A. has announced the development of two superteles: the EF200mm f/2L IS USM — aimed at portrait and indoor sports photographers; and the EF800mm f/5.6L IS USM, whose performance it is said will surpass the current 600mm f/4L. Canon will exhibit prototypes of the new lenses at PhotoPlus Expo, taking place at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York City, October 18 to 20.
You can see previews of these lenses at Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
For information about the use of this Web site, please read the Terms of Use.
Comments: Opinions expressed in comments are not necessarily mine. Comments are open to all, but are moderated and I will delete racist or offensive material, including use of foul language, hateful words and sexual content.
While I accept anonymous comments, I dislike the practice and seldom respond to them.
External Links: External links are provided for information purposes only. I do not endorse and am not responsible for the content of external sites—use them at your own risk.
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site. These companies may use information (not including your name, address email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
