Richard Spencer wrote:

> (revealing depth of ignorance) ... , er, but, the link to the G9 that
> you posted indicates that the G9 uses MMC cards. Are you saying that
> MMC & SD cards are interchangeable?

Evidently so. They're the same shape and size, but some of the connectors
are different. I think that MMC cards have more connectors for additional
functionality (in a mobile phone?), or it may be the other way around, I'm
not sure. Either way they both work in the camera.

The G9 comes with a 32 MB MMC card (Canon have a sense of humour, you can
get just 2 RAW files or 20 low quality jpegs on it, or 14 seconds of video).
So I bought an 8 GB SD-HC card instead. I don't think the MMC cards go that
high, and I think SD cards are more popular, aren't they?

Also SD cards have a small switch on the side that you can use to "lock" the
card. Useful if you have multiple cards, you can lock the used cards as you
fill them up.

This is the card I bought:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Transcend-Fl...16758&sr =1-4

Note that it's a Class 6, which is the fastest speed, so remember not to buy
a Class 2 or 4 card. The speed affects how long it takes a photo to save to
the card (very important for RAW files) and how long it takes to transfer
the pics to the computer.

Even though it claims to be 8 GB, it's actually only 7.5 GB. They're
obviously using the same "flexible" definition of gigabytes that hard drive
manufacturers use.

Annoyingly, Canon estimate the size of their RAW files to be 17076 KB,
whereas dpreview estimates them to be only 12500 KB, which is more accurate.
After taking around 200 shots, my average file size so far works out at
13669 KB.

Consequently Canon estimate only 460 RAW shots on an 8GB card, but I
estimate that I'll get 575, so the number of shots remaining is a misleading
underestimate. They've always underestimated, but not by this much. I
usually get 5-10% more on other Canon cameras, but this is 25% over!

BTW, file size depends on two main factors, one is how much sky you have in
the photo (so landscapes often produce smaller file sizes due to the fact
that sky compresses better), the other is what ISO you use. Higher ISOs
don't compress so well, so that's another reason why my files tend to be
smaller, usually sticking to the lowest ISO. I imagine they expect most
users to use higher ISOs more often.

The largest RAW file I've recorded so far is 19093 KB, which was taken at
ISO 1600. I took exactly the same scene at ISO 80 and it was only 12705 KB.
Quite a difference! There was plenty of sky in the image too!

Paul

The message <JrudnV5ga4LBWj3aRVnyhAA>
from "Paul Saunders" <pvs1> contains much wisdom!

VMT

Richard

Chris Townsend wrote:

> I've carried a compact in a pocket everywhere for years, going right
> back to an Olympus XA.

Yeah, I used that camera for many years, until I eventually wore it out and
it couldn't be repaired. A great compact for its day.

>> I think a
>> telephoto is more use generally for snapshots, since unexpectedly
>> interesting things tend to be further away rather than right next to
>> you.
>
> Maybe. Having been using the GR-D with its fixed 28mm lens I've had to
> get used to moving in close!

Not often possible with animals and aeroplanes!

I don't know why it is, but I just don't seem to use even the 35mm wide
angle very much on a digicam, yet not having a wider angle annoys the hell
out of me on an SLR. Perhaps that's due to the practical and conceptual
differences between using a viewfinder or an LCD?

> The last time I had camera gear damaged by water was over two decades
> ago when I fell in a stream I was fording and ruined a lens.

I've had fungal growth in some of my lenses as a result of using them in the
rain, in spite of doing my best to dry them out on my return. Camping trips
are a problem since you can't dry things out properly if it rains for days
on end. I've always carried silica gel of course, but it hasn't prevented
the problem.

> Are you talking about an underwater housing so you can use the camera
> in heavy rain or even in water?

Yep, that's the plan, I specifically want to take photos in heavy rain,
primarily waterfalls when they're at their peak. Horizontal spray can be as
much of a problem as the rain itself. I don't actually want to use it
underwater, but having said that, Gower is noted for its deep rock pools at
low tide, so there could be some fun possibilities there.

Unfortunately I'm having second thoughts about this underwater case.
Although it claims that "all functions are usable", from studying photos of
the case I can't see anything to control the shutter speed/aperture dial.
I've searched for info on this without avail, but noticed that some other
people have the same concern. Presumably underwater photographers just shoot
on auto, but this might be a deal breaker for me. I can't take serious
waterfall photographs without having manual control over my exposures.
Shutter speeds in particular have a huge impact on the look of the
photograph, and auto exposures are notoriously unreliable where waterfalls
are concerned.

I suppose at the very least I could have one exposure combination preset
with manual mode, two more with the custom modes, one preset aperture for AV
mode and one preset shutter speed for TV mode. On top of which I could
auto-bracket the exposures. That should give me a reasonable chance of
getting the results I want, but it would be so much easier just to be able
to make the settings I want.

Take a look for yourself. There are four buttons around the Function Set
button, but none for the dial surrounding them, which so far I've been using
more often than any other control.
http://www.camerasunderwater.co.uk/d...c21/index.html

> 13 seconds. The new GR-D II is said to be much faster.

That's good.

> I've gone up to 1600 with the 350D at times. The prints are okay but
> I'd only submit images taken at 1600 for publication if they were
> unique.

I accidentally took some shots at 1600 with my 400D today, and didn't notice
until I checked later. Actually, they didn't look bad at all compared to
1600 on the G9! While the G9 image quality is quite acceptable and pretty
good for a compact, it really isn't in the same class as a DSLR.

> There's an image taken at 1600 on my blog for December 28.
> Click on the image to enlarge it.
>
> [..]
>
> & one taken at 400 ISO with the Ricoh GR-D for January 10 this year.

Very nice. I particularly like the second one. I'd have taken a longer
exposure at a lower ISO and tried to sit still for longer! :-)

>> I'd have other categories in between, like action
>> shots or portraits in which more noise is acceptable.
>
> I guess I'm usually thinking about images for publication. If I wasn't
> I'd probably take everything on a compact.

Of course, and I have the same thing in mind for all my serious shots, or
high quality prints for sale. But don't forget, putting an image on a
website is also a kind of publication, but one with much lower quality
requirements. Many photos would be usable on a website that you'd never want
to make a print of, or sell to a publisher.

> I already have 300D batteries and 350D batteries. The 450D does look
> interesting though.

Yes. I'd buy one tomorrow if I had money to burn, but it's not that much
better than a 400D so it's hard to justify for me.

> Back in 86 I was using Pentax SLRs. The first Ricoh I used was in the
> late 90s - a GR1s compact, which is superb and which I still have.

I don't remember that.

>>> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
>>> with a larger sensor.
>>
>> Well there's always the Sony R1, and that has a 24mm zoom, but
>> that's not perfect either.
>> [..]
>
> 925 grams! Certainly not a compact.

No, but it is a digicam. Apparently the lens is worth the price alone. It
also has a look-down LCD that makes using it similar to using a medium
format camera. I quite like it in principle, but it has flaws, like a large
RAW file size and so on.

Paul

Phil Cook wrote:

> The guy is a Leica user too, so used to the "decisive moment" style
> using both eyes. With a Leica you can look at the world through both
> eyes very easily since the vf is on the left hand edge of the camera
> holding it to your right eye gives your left eye a clear view.

Yeah. My first camera was a Zorki 4k, which was effectively a Russian copy
of a Leica, so I've had some experience of that style of photography. I
never liked the viewfinder not matching the actual framing of the image
though, that caused me a lot of problems. I did like the viewfinder focusing
though, that was great.

Paul

Phil Cook wrote:

>> That confirms I want the 55-250!
>
> I've been wondering which tele to get. I have the 17-85 IS on my 400D
> and was thinking about which longer lens to get. I thought I had
> settled on the IS version of the 70-200 f/4 L.

I thought I'd settled on the new 70-300 IS, which also uses some L quality
glass. I think the quality is similar to the 55-250. However it's double the
price and much heavier, for only 50mm extra. Much as I'd like the extra
reach, the 55-250 is the better option for price and weight. Besides, I
still plan to buy the Tamron 200-500mm one day, which will give me the
insane telephoto reach that I crave (320-800 equiv), but that isn't a
backpacking lens!

> The actual size of the files doesn't matter these days memory cards
> are plenty big enough and relatively cheap.

The cards are, so that isn't a problem, but in spite of how cheap large hard
drives are these days, my snap happy approach to digital photography means
that they fill up fast. I'm already up to 2.5 terabytes with 8 hard drives!
It's getting silly! I really need to think more carefully about each shot
and exercise some self-control. Unlike my film days where cost limited each
press of the shutter, I now think nothing of taking 30 shots of a single
waterfall for example. Multiple exposures for HDR and panoramas are largely
to blame for this. It's great to have this freedom, but my hard drives are
filling up too fast!

>> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
>> with a larger sensor.
>
> That's a bit like the MLU button on a Canon DSLR though, everybody
> wants one but will they give us one?

Dream on...

While we're at it, why not give us half a dozen custom buttons? It's only
electronics.

Paul

In message <HLidnSJVw7jkTT3anZ2dnUVZ8rCdnZ2d>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> I've carried a compact in a pocket everywhere for years, going right
>> back to an Olympus XA.
>
>Yeah, I used that camera for many years, until I eventually wore it out and
>it couldn't be repaired. A great compact for its day.

The same happened to mine.
>
>>> I think a
>>> telephoto is more use generally for snapshots, since unexpectedly
>>> interesting things tend to be further away rather than right next to
>>> you.
>>
>> Maybe. Having been using the GR-D with its fixed 28mm lens I've had to
>> get used to moving in close!
>
>Not often possible with animals and aeroplanes!

Very occasionally with some animals!
>
>I don't know why it is, but I just don't seem to use even the 35mm wide
>angle very much on a digicam, yet not having a wider angle annoys the hell
>out of me on an SLR. Perhaps that's due to the practical and conceptual
>differences between using a viewfinder or an LCD?

Could be. I've never had a compact without a viewfinder. The GR-D has a
detachable one that is very bright though it doesn't give any info so I
use the LCD for that. Apart from anything else I can hold a camera more
steadily with my arms tucked into my sides then held out.
>
>> The last time I had camera gear damaged by water was over two decades
>> ago when I fell in a stream I was fording and ruined a lens.
>
>I've had fungal growth in some of my lenses as a result of using them in the
>rain, in spite of doing my best to dry them out on my return. Camping trips
>are a problem since you can't dry things out properly if it rains for days
>on end. I've always carried silica gel of course, but it hasn't prevented
>the problem.

Somehow I've managed to avoid that even on camping trips many months
long when it has rained for weeks. I've never even bothered with silica
gel. If cameras or lenses do get wet I wipe them dry. Otherwise I just
keep them in their cases.
>>Yep, that's the plan, I specifically want to take photos in heavy rain,
>primarily waterfalls when they're at their peak. Horizontal spray can be as
>much of a problem as the rain itself. I don't actually want to use it
>underwater, but having said that, Gower is noted for its deep rock pools at
>low tide, so there could be some fun possibilities there.
>
>Unfortunately I'm having second thoughts about this underwater case.
>Although it claims that "all functions are usable", from studying photos of
>the case I can't see anything to control the shutter speed/aperture dial.
>I've searched for info on this without avail, but noticed that some other
>people have the same concern. Presumably underwater photographers just shoot
>on auto, but this might be a deal breaker for me. I can't take serious
>waterfall photographs without having manual control over my exposures.
>Shutter speeds in particular have a huge impact on the look of the
>photograph, and auto exposures are notoriously unreliable where waterfalls
>are concerned.

I've used waterproof housings with GPS units and found it very difficult
to use the buttons.

I use manual controls virtually all the time. I would never be happy
losing that.
>
>I suppose at the very least I could have one exposure combination preset
>with manual mode, two more with the custom modes, one preset aperture for AV
>mode and one preset shutter speed for TV mode. On top of which I could
>auto-bracket the exposures. That should give me a reasonable chance of
>getting the results I want, but it would be so much easier just to be able
>to make the settings I want.
>
>Take a look for yourself. There are four buttons around the Function Set
>button, but none for the dial surrounding them, which so far I've been using
>more often than any other control.
>[..]

I see what you mean.
>
>> 13 seconds. The new GR-D II is said to be much faster.
>
>That's good.

It's also meant to produce better images though I would worry about
cramming the extra megapixels on the same size sensor. Surely that would
mean more noise at high ISOs.
>
>> I've gone up to 1600 with the 350D at times. The prints are okay but
>> I'd only submit images taken at 1600 for publication if they were
>> unique.
>
>I accidentally took some shots at 1600 with my 400D today, and didn't notice
>until I checked later. Actually, they didn't look bad at all compared to
>1600 on the G9! While the G9 image quality is quite acceptable and pretty
>good for a compact, it really isn't in the same class as a DSLR.

That's the same with the GR-D. I want a compact with the same quality as
a DSLR, as we used to have with film.
>
>> There's an image taken at 1600 on my blog for December 28.
>> Click on the image to enlarge it.
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> & one taken at 400 ISO with the Ricoh GR-D for January 10 this year.
>
>Very nice. I particularly like the second one. I'd have taken a longer
>exposure at a lower ISO and tried to sit still for longer! :-)

I did that and the moon blur looks really unnatural!
>
>>> I'd have other categories in between, like action
>>> shots or portraits in which more noise is acceptable.
>>
>> I guess I'm usually thinking about images for publication. If I wasn't
>> I'd probably take everything on a compact.
>
>Of course, and I have the same thing in mind for all my serious shots, or
>high quality prints for sale. But don't forget, putting an image on a
>website is also a kind of publication, but one with much lower quality
>requirements. Many photos would be usable on a website that you'd never want
>to make a print of, or sell to a publisher.

There's quite a few of those on my website, including the camping one
mentioned above.
>
>> I already have 300D batteries and 350D batteries. The 450D does look
>> interesting though.
>
>Yes. I'd buy one tomorrow if I had money to burn, but it's not that much
>better than a 400D so it's hard to justify for me.

For me it could be worth the step up from the 350D. I didn't think the
400D offered enough to be worth the money.
>
>> Back in 86 I was using Pentax SLRs. The first Ricoh I used was in the
>> late 90s - a GR1s compact, which is superb and which I still have.
>
>I don't remember that.

Similar quality to the Olympus XA. A fixed 28mm lens. The GR-D is really
the digital follow-up.

[url down]
>
>>>> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
>>>> with a larger sensor.
>>>
>>> Well there's always the Sony R1, and that has a 24mm zoom, but
>>> that's not perfect either.
>>> [..]
>>
>> 925 grams! Certainly not a compact.
>
>No, but it is a digicam. Apparently the lens is worth the price alone. It
>also has a look-down LCD that makes using it similar to using a medium
>format camera. I quite like it in principle, but it has flaws, like a large
>RAW file size and so on.

I'd rather have my 350D.

Chris

Paul Saunders wrote:

Another quickie. I got the lens adapter today (not the converters though) so
I can now attach filters to it, and a lens hood. My polariser exhibits
slight vignetting in the corners, but the infrared filter is perfect. With
the adapter attached it's starting to look more like a "proper" camera!

Today was my first chance to take some shots in bright sunshine, although I
didn't have time to go out for a walk. I took the opportunity to take some
infrared shots and I'm *very* pleased with the results - no noisier than a
normal photo and practically as sharp.

More info and sample pics later when I finish my website review, but it's
taking longer than I thought...

Paul

In article <JrudnV5ga4LBWj3aRVnyhAA>, Paul Saunders
<pvs1> writes
>Richard Spencer wrote:
>
>> (revealing depth of ignorance) ... , er, but, the link to the G9 that
>> you posted indicates that the G9 uses MMC cards. Are you saying that
>> MMC & SD cards are interchangeable?
>
>Evidently so. They're the same shape and size, but some of the connectors
>are different. I think that MMC cards have more connectors for additional
>functionality (in a mobile phone?), or it may be the other way around, I'm
>not sure. Either way they both work in the camera.

MMC cards came first and SD cards used the same spec but, as well as
some physical enhancements, they added a hardware encryption facility
intended for digital rights management. That is the contents could be
tied to the individual card to stop copying to another card - hence the
'Secure'.

For most applications they are interchangeable.

The message <qPqdndk6G9ikST3anZ2dnUVZ8qaqnZ2d>
from "Paul Saunders" <pvs1> contains these words:

> Besides, I
> still plan to buy the Tamron 200-500mm one day, which will give me the
> insane telephoto reach that I crave (320-800 equiv), but that isn't a
> backpacking lens!

In 1992 or so I bought for DM 100:00 in a Flohmarkt in Hanover a Soviet
1000m mirror lens, and that, most certainly, is not a back packer's job
- I think they were engineered for mono-pod use on iron curtain and
Berlin Wall watch towers. The lens comes complete with three various
coloured filters, presumably for black & white film.

With a T2 mount it will fit my Nikon D80, but I haven't yet found a
tripod that'll carry the bugger.

Richard

Mike Clark <mrc7> wrote:
> In message <fnpk60$md4$3>
> Chris Malcolm <cam> wrote:

>> Paul Saunders <pvs1> wrote:

>> > I use silica gel too. My main concern is on camping trips when it rains for
>> > days and humidity stays high. It's not so bad on a day walk where you can
>> > dry out the gear as soon as you get home.
>>
>> I had a long conversation with a silica gel maker who advised me that
>> if I wanted to dry out a wet camera I needed to put it in a sealed
>> container with at least the same volume of gel as the camera and
>> preferably twice as much in order to speed up the drying time. He then
>> helpfully gave me large bag to try the idea out. Although I've taken
>> it on a few walks, unfortunately since then I've never got the camera
>> or other senstive electronics wet enough to need the drying out bag
>> idea yet :-)

> You could of course stick the camera in a vacuum desiccator.

How much weight does one of those add to the camping backpack?

Paul Saunders <pvs1> wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:

>> Have a look at this where a guy took one as backup to a Leica.
>> [..]

> So clearly using the zoom uses more power than simply taking a photo. Using
> lateral thinking therefore, it may be that turning the camera off after
> every shot might actually waste more battery power than leaving it switched
> on, if you use the zoom repeatedly.

Some cameras without a motor zoom nevertheless have a power hungry
boot up sequence, so switching them off and on a lot is false economy,
especially if they have a good low power standby mode.

> And you can turn review off too if you're really obsessed
> about saving the battery, but it really would be a good idea to check the
> histogram and other details after taking each photo, unless you're sure you
> can trust them.

It's even handier if you can check the histogram *before* taking the
photo :-)

> I'm completely the opposite! I'm fanatical about image quality, and won't
> use anything other than ISO 80 at the optimum apertures of f4-f5.6. From my
> test images so far, I consider that ISO 400 and over are completely unusable
> and even ISO 200 offends me! The differences in quality are blatantly
> obvious at 100% magnification on a computer screen.

I once snapped a scene at night in wind and heavy misty rain, and not
having a tripod screwed it up to a very noisy high ISO and still
suffered image blurring camera shake. I regarded the shot as a
failure, and have been amazed to find that it's actually very popular
due to its much admired "atmosphere".

> THE STEADY HAND

> "The G9's imagine stabilization is the best I've ever used,"

> I can't comment on that, since this is the first time I've ever used IS. But
> that's comforting to hear!

> "The camera's ability to capture tack sharp images at exposures down to 1/2
> second with a bit of proper bracing made working with the G9 a real joy."

> Actually I took a reasonably sharp image at 1/2 second yesterday. It wasn't
> "tack sharp", but it was surprisingly good considering the shutter speed. I
> wouldn't normally go that low with a hand-held shot, but I was
> experimenting. I made a point of not using a tripod for any shots. I'm still
> in the process of familiarising myself with just how slow I can go
> hand-held.

It's often said of IS that while it greatly extends the range of
reasonably sharp hand held shots, it's never as sharp as a tripod
shot. I'll be interested to hear if that is true of this camera,
knowing that you're unusually fussy about sharpness.

> "The other major deficiency is the G9's noticeable shutter-lag. While not
> long by any objective measure, the delay between depression of the shutter
> and actual exposure makes capturing the decisive moment rather difficult. I'm
> sure that this lag is measured in fractions of a second, but it irritated me
> whenever my subject was something other than a stationary landscape."

> The odd thing here is that I haven't really noticed a shutter lag.
> Auto-focus lag yes, but even that is pretty quick. Certainly fast enough for
> my shots, but again, I'm not a "decisive moment" type of photographer.

Lots of people these days confuse shutter lag and autofocus lag,
possibly because they're too young to have learned manual focussing,
which is where the difference becomes obvious.

Paul Saunders <pvs1> wrote:
> Chris Townsend wrote:

>> I'd go for the Ricoh but what I'd really like to see is a compact
>> with a larger sensor.

> Well there's always the Sony R1, and that has a 24mm zoom, but that's not
> perfect either.
> [..]

Some people call non-DSLRs compacts, and some call them P&S (point and
shoot cameras for the non-technical). The Sony R1 isn't a DSLR, but
it's not compact, being bigger and heavier than a small DSLR, and it's
not a P&S, having all the control features and knobs you'd expect in a
DSLR.

I bought one partly speculatively because it turned up at a tempting
price requiring a quick decision while like you I was looking for a
high quality pocketable hillwalking camera. The more I've used the R1
the more I've come to like it. Problem is I've now spent my camera
budget and still haven't got a lightweight pocketable camera.

But if I lost 1kg in weight... :-)

Richard Spencer wrote:

> In 1992 or so I bought for DM 100:00 in a Flohmarkt in Hanover a
> Soviet 1000m mirror lens, and that, most certainly, is not a back
> packer's job - I think they were engineered for mono-pod use on iron
> curtain and Berlin Wall watch towers. The lens comes complete with
> three various coloured filters, presumably for black & white film.

Sounds good! What's the f stop?

> With a T2 mount it will fit my Nikon D80, but I haven't yet found a
> tripod that'll carry the bugger.

Have you tried using a trig point? ;-)

Paul

Paul Saunders wrote:

> I still plan to buy the Tamron 200-500mm one
> day, which will give me the insane telephoto reach that I crave
> (320-800 equiv), but that isn't a backpacking lens!

Just a day after writing that, Sigma have announced a new 200-500 zoom, just
take a look at this!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...igma250500.asp

Good grief! f2.8 at 500mm! And f5.6 at 1000mm with the supplied 2x
converter!

Trouble is, it weighs 16 kilograms! I dread to think what the price is...
:-(

Fortunately, for those who can't afford to buy the above lens (and hire a
sherpa to carry it), they've also released a new 150-500mm zoom with the
usual f5-f6.3 apertures.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08...igma150500.asp

This weighs 1.9kg, somewhat heavier than the Tamron (1.2kg) but it does have
some extra reach at the wide end and it includes image stabilisation,
although frankly, I can't imagine ever using a lens that long handheld! I
guess the IS would be useful for action photographers (probably with the aid
of a monopod), but I'd expect to use a tripod or bean bag with it. Worth
considering, but the extra weight puts me off. I wonder what the price will
be?

Paul

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:13:43 -0000, Paul Saunders wrote:

>> With a T2 mount it will fit my Nikon D80, but I haven't yet found a
>> tripod that'll carry the bugger.
>
> Have you tried using a trig point? ;-)

Wouldn't that be a bit heavy?