b) the viewfinder shows about 95% of what is being captured filling in the entire area. that's why it looks closer. your 50mm lens has the same FOV as as 75mm lens on a 35mm film body.
c) if you had shot RAW, you could have set white balance after the fact when converting from RAW to TIFF/Photoshop. you might not be able to organize your work with IrfanView if it doesn't support PEF files. TIFF files aren't worth using because they are large and have already been reduced to 8-bit/channel mode. if you do little manipulation of your images, then RAW isn't an advantage. if you may need to do some extensive color adjustment, especially if you don't know which ones you might do ahead of time, then RAW is your best bet. i don't think it is worth using 512M memory cards on the *istD in RAW mode. 1G cards are the minimum useful. don't bother with the Pentax software since you have Photoshop CS. use the CS File Browser instead. Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:20 PM Subject: A busy little fairygirl.... > b) In regards to the focal length multiplication thingy - it appears to me > that when I look through a 50mm lens with the *istD, the subject does indeed > look closer than if I look through the same lens on my MZ-6. Ryan seems to > think that this shouldn't be the case and that it should simply be that it > is a cropped version of what I see in the MZ-6 - I know that there has been > discussions about this in the past, but I didn't see them, so I was just > wondering what the general concensus of this is? > > c) I haven't shot in RAW as yet, as I have only just got the plug-in set up > etc (and I haven't even bothered to install the Photo Lab software, I'd > prefer to just stick with PS and Irfanview). BUT, I noticed that the files > are HUGMUNGO (and TIFFS are even bigger) and with 512mb cards I can only fit > 30 or so images on the card!! I was wanting to stay with 512mb cards just > to get around the possibility of losing too many images should a card fail, > but with only 30 or so images per card - this is totally impractical when > shooting weddings etc. Just wondering what other wedding photographers are > using? I saw that yesterday someone began to discuss this, claiming that > most "Pros" shoot with JPEGs at their lowest compression. Wondering what > kind of difference this makes in comparison to RAW, quality wise? I would > need to be carrying around 8-10 512mb cards just for one wedding if I were > to shoot RAW, or at least 5 and have to download images to my laptop a few > times during the course of the day. On a practical level both of these > options are a pain in the arse and it would suit me much better to just > shoot JPG Large, if I could do it and preserve the quality that I need...
