RAW file format

[Groucho]

Glass doesn't get worse over time, but standards change. What was once considered good is not considered good these days. Lens designs have improved.

I don't buy that it's changed that much. Some coatings have gotten better, but a great lens from yesterday is better than a good lens of today. (Photozone has occasionally tested some older lenses and the good ones can easily stand up to today's lenses in resolution.)

Not to mention that a merely "good" lens from yesterday will have build quality that will shame all but the greatest of today's lenses. I get spoiled by the all-metal and buttery-smooth-controls on some of my older lenses. Probably the absolute smoothest focus ring I have used is on an old screw-mount lens that I got off eBay for about $25.

In case it wasn't obviously, I'm thinking older manual focus focus lenses here, more like '80s, 70s, etc than '90s. There's a reason older Zeiss, Voigtlander, Pentax, etc lenses are still popular and valuable. And don't let a Leica photographer hear you disparage older lenses! Or a medium-format shooter, etc.

And then there's the times that a lens has been replaced by an inferior version... which I believe has happened to every lens and/or camera manufacturer. Things don't always get better.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I don't buy that it's changed that much. Some coatings have gotten better, but a great lens from yesterday is better than a good lens of today. (Photozone has occasionally tested some older lenses and the good ones can easily stand up to today's lenses in resolution.)

Not to mention that a merely "good" lens from yesterday will have build quality that will shame all but the greatest of today's lenses. I get spoiled by the all-metal and buttery-smooth-controls on some of my older lenses. Probably the absolute smoothest focus ring I have used is on an old screw-mount lens that I got off eBay for about $25.

In case it wasn't obviously, I'm thinking older manual focus focus lenses here, more like '80s, 70s, etc than '90s. There's a reason older Zeiss, Voigtlander, Pentax, etc lenses are still popular and valuable. And don't let a Leica photographer hear you disparage older lenses! Or a medium-format shooter, etc.

And then there's the times that a lens has been replaced by an inferior version... which I believe has happened to every lens and/or camera manufacturer. Things don't always get better.

I suppose we'll just have to disagree. To some extent, it depends on the types of lenses you are talking about. Basic prime lenses are fairly simple and don't benefit much from advanced computer modeling in their design. That's one reason why those lenses haven't improved much.

Long telephotos and extreme rectilinear wide angles have much more complexity. With zooms, the complexity increases even more because so many elements move relative to one another. It is in those areas that lenses have improved dramatically. I can't think of any pre-1980s zooms that are still considered great lenses.

I've been shooting Canon for many years and I haven't seen any cases (except on the very low end) where they've replaced a lens with an inferior version. Some lenses have seen minor tweaks (like adding weather sealing), but most replaced lenses have seen significant quality improvements (28-70 replaced by the much better 24-70, 80-200 replaced by the much better 70-200, 17-35 replaced by the much better 16-35 and then the slightly better 16-35 II)

 

[Groucho]

Well, I am certainly talking primarily prime lenses. I do believe that a great old prime lens can still beat the best zoom lens of today - when you want the absolute ultimate image quality, the zooms need to be left on the shelf, and you don't need the newest lens.

My main point was that I can't help but take a little offense at the notion that if you aren't using the latest lenses, you're missing out in some way.

There are also unique "looks" you can get from various lenses that are hard to duplicate with today's lenses. The Russian Jupiter-9 lens, for example, has a whopping 15 aperture blades, which you won't mind on any "modern" full-auto design just because of the friction of that many blades. There are many other interesting older and unusual lenses (like the Russian tilt-shift lenses that provide more flexibility than the Japanese ones), I think one does oneself a disservice if one doesn't consider some of the more exotic options that are part of the fun of an SLR, IMHO. One might even find oneself writing sentences with lots of "one"s in them!

 

[Terri.M]

I decided to try to shoot some pictures RAW with my new Canon Rebel xt and the pictures turn out blank (black screen). I've looked on the canon site and tried googling that question but came up with nothing. Any idea what I could be doing wrong??

 

[Nikel]

Blank on the lcd or on the computer?

What mode are you shooting in?

 

[Terri.M]

Blank on both. I thought it was just the lcd but i downloaded them and they came out the same way. I'm shooting in Manual mode.

 

[Terri.M]

OK i'm embarrased now...i changed to AV mode and they are turning out fine. I should have thought to change modes before I asked!!

 

[Nikel]

Yeah, you may be just really under exposing in manual.

 

[Terri.M]

That's probably it. I have no trouble with my SLR but for some reason I can't get the hang of a dslr yet.

 

[jann1033]

That's probably it. I have no trouble with my SLR but for some reason I can't get the hang of a dslr yet.

that going to digital can be a real killer ( at least it was for me!)

 

[mabas9395]

I decided to try to shoot some pictures RAW with my new Canon Rebel xt and the pictures turn out blank (black screen). I've looked on the canon site and tried googling that question but came up with nothing. Any idea what I could be doing wrong??

RAW can help you solve many of your exposure related problems. Unfortunately, it only works if you take the lens cap off.

 

[Terri.M]

You are just kidding, right??

 

[Master Mason]

RAW can help you solve many of your exposure related problems. Unfortunately, it only works if you take the lens cap off.

Well, I guess if you painted the inside of your lens cap 18% gray it might be benificial as well.

 

[jann1033]

if you paint it white you can get some nice winter time effects, even in Fl.

 

[Nikel]

Nah, cause there'd still be no light getting in there.

 

[MICKEY88]

I had an artist friend paint a picture of Mickey inside my lens cap, that way Mickey is in every picture I take

 

[mabas9395]

You are just kidding, right??

I'm sorry, I probably shouldn't have worded it that way. I can only speak from personal experience that with my Canon, my RAW shots turn out better when I take the lens cap off (I shouldn't speak for everyone). Although I did get a new Photoshop book that is supposed to help me fix things like that in post processing.

However, I've heard the Nikon shooters brag that the new D3 can shoot with the lens cap on if you crank the ISO up to 6400. At first I was skeptical. But after reviewing some sample shot, I can honestly say that photos taken with a Nikon do look better with the lens cap on.

 

[barrie]

I had an inkling that Photoshop CS2 wouldn't work, but I ignored it.

Does anyone know if I have to use Capture NX to process raw files from the D300? Can PS CS3 or Lightroom handle them?

 

[Master Mason]

I had an inkling that Photoshop CS2 wouldn't work, but I ignored it.

Does anyone know if I have to use Capture NX to process raw files from the D300? Can PS CS3 or Lightroom handle them?

With updates yes. And if your using lightroom, after you import it, you can then open it in CS2

 

[GrillMouster]

You can work on D300 RAW files in CS2 if you convert them to the DNG (open source) format RAW file. You'll need to update to the most current version of DNG Converter and Adobe Camera Raw (both free) on Adobe's website.