i have the 17-40 and its razor sharp and spectacular

perhaps canon found problems with noise on new sensor and delaying the sales because they are desperately trying to fix the problem! LOL!

so much talk about low noise on 50D, I bought one, and guess what, it has more noise than 40D and 400D even at ISO 100. Image quality is not bad, but far from low noise. Canon lied to us. Thed didnt make any improvement in terms of noise, at contrary they made it even worse. 15MP on this sensor is a bit too much.

How can you say Canon lied to you?  If that was the case, there would be a class action lawsuit from every direction against Canon for false advertising and everything else regarding the product.  There were plenty of samples available from many sources, so its up to you as a consumer to have a look to see if you like (or accept) the quality of the product you are going to buy.  Don't blame Canon for a responsibility that rests on your shoulders.

As a sidenote:  Nikon cameras (from a Canon user) seem to be very good too.  However, the noise is nicely masked by the fact that they have huge amounts of NR done in camera JPEG to compensate making their photos look a bit plastic too.  There have been many questions regarding this.  What bothers me is that RAW files are not compares, its always in-camera JPEG production.  So people from the outside look and say:  OOOH it looks so clean.  Meanwhile, its not the power of the sensor thats awesome, its some stupid mathematical algorithm thats compensating.

As for Canon taking too long, there was a problem with the focus (if I can believe my rep) and they have held back until they can update the firmware so that the out of box camera doesn't have any immediate flaws.  Interesting? yes..  Surprising? no... mainly because the same sort of thing happened to the 50D

I'm just curious to see how well the autofocus will perform in sporting situations and wildlife shoots

Quote from: whitechild on November 12, 2008, 11:28

Today, all (eight, and maybe ninth will be the same) my rejections on fotolia were type: "Your photograph did not reach our desired level of aesthetic quality." So, I am asking my self, are my photos really so ugly, or maybe this is some new reviewer, or he has only one button for rejection, he's right and other reviewers on other sites don't know what is good photo, or it's maybe something else? 
 

how in the world we can answer to your question, when you didnt provide samples of rejected files? maybe they were that ugly. we dont know until you show them to us.

for a seasoned stock veteran who's been around for a while, whitechild probably knows what he's doing - especially if he knows how to accept rejections as he's stated.  He will probably post again saying that SS and DT and every other agency accepted at least one photo.  Which I wouldn't say is ridiculous.  Fotolia has been a crapper of a site for accepting new photos.  this is probably because they were so terrible at building up a database that they accepted everything they got in 2006 and early 2007.

Somehow they still get sales (and so do I)

a lot of people dropped their pre-orders at Henry's

and i was considering it but henry's is working on a way to compensate - but 8gb card isn't going to cut it really - but a second battery might

one dollar off bme

Its a nice attempt at the shot above but it really doesn't look very real.  More surreal if that.  For a shot like that, the greens should be much more bluish given the cloud cover.  Its a great start, but it just looks a bit off.

I just bought a couple of Singh-Ray grads, and i think they are great.  If you use them correctly (which means not all situations will be the best for them) then you have a better chance at getting it right in camera.

There are several situations where HDR will serve your needs better, but a lot of high profile nature photographers use the filters.  and who wants to be in front of computer instead of in front of the landscapes and behind the camera?

Quote from: ichiro17 on October 28, 2008, 18:46

Is it faster? no one has even mentioned the processing speed.  Does it matter? not really.  Why?  because 52 seconds to 45 seconds isn't going to make a difference in anyone's life.

you couldnt be more wrong. This is just a test on 10 files. I usualy have a batch of 200-300 raw images to process (other thay I had 1000 images from cousin's wedding), and it IS important is it going to be processed in 1 hour, or in 30 minutes.

I was expecting better performance, because they were announcing that new CS4 can use GPU for processing images, with CPU, for better performance. From this test, I dont think it uses my GPU. Maybe my graphic card is old and useless for PS. lol. Or it uses GPU for some other operations...


I will play with it in next few weeks so I will know the difference better.

Okay then, lets do the math.

Assuming you want it to take 10 seconds less to process 10 files, that means 42 seconds instead of 52.  That means 1 second per file, which means 300 seconds per 300 images. 

On a set of 300 images, you save 5 minutes.  It also means 4.2 seconds of total processing per file, which is nothing. Anything more is just trying to ask for miracles, unless of course you want the process to be done for you in camera. 

In my opinion, (and I've changed my workflow) the more efficient way to streamline is to cut out manual tasks through actions in Lightroom and Photoshop and do less manually - or at least have the computer automate most of it.  You can then pump out more final versions of files than having to worry abuot raw processing times.  Allocating resources properly is more than half the battle in cutting down production times

nice...much better system...much faster...big difference...maybe

you must really value 13 seconds if you wanna make a huge upgrade over that though

Its not about speed.  its about different options to process and how well it does it.  I've heard lots of people say CaptureOne is better at high ISO than Camera Raw.  Is it faster? no one has even mentioned the processing speed.  Does it matter? not really.  Why?  because 52 seconds to 45 seconds isn't going to make a difference in anyone's life.

PS - IF you aren't running a 64 bit operating system, you might want to consider it.  could pump data out faster and potentially get your files out quicker

a little early?

Yes they have

Just bought a 5D MK II and got an 8GB Extreme III compact flash card for free with it

I accidentally ordered this from my distributor instead of a compact flash.  I would like to get rid of it since I don't need it and I'm asking $40 USD + shipping (which is exactly what I bought it for)

If anyone is interested please let me know