Actually, it means that there is less difference in magnitude between inherent noise and photographic information.

Different design results in some advantages as the cost of different inherent noise floors. I do not have a 7D but was (very) disappointed with my5DmII in this regard and am (exceptionally) happy with my 1D.

In any event, it is just one parameter to be aware of an to mitigate with technique. (or go buy some other body that has different priorities in design and then work around other things)

Quite a good question really!

My answer(s): It depends and it evolves.

If I'm really just out and about it is a mid-zoom (an old 28-70F2.8 actually) and I suspect that is why so many kit lenses
cover this range that includes 50mm. The problem is that it is a master of all trades and an expert at none.

Over time this has switched to a 70-200F2.8IS (perhaps with a small 24 tucked in a pocket just in case). That lens absolutely gets the most use and is a better choice now I'm FF than when I was at 1.3x

If it is night, I'll switch to my 50 or 85 F1.2 (typically the 85).

I guess my interests just don't have a bias to wide and 70 or so up is just fine for most of what I do.

I might have used words like stuffy but this is a really great add to my list (thanks).

Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. - RWE

I have one as well. There actually are not 2 ways to focus it. As mentioned above, one sets the magnification and then adjusts the distance until the subject is in focus.

For some objects it can be easier to move the subject (think table top shooting).

This lens is actually just as easy to use as others at the same magnification levels (with the exception of the 100F2.8lIS which actually does autofocus and has some level of IS at macro - I also have that and prefer it at 1x). The real issue is that macro is an undertaking to be worked at. It isn't magic but does need a bit of learning and experience

That area is underexposed and the 'jeans' thing is pattern noise. You could:

- use a reflector (or flash) to fill the shadows
- revise your setup to reduce the light range
- give more exposure and lower the highlights
- use HDR techniques (aiming for a natural look)
- lower the shadows to black (masking the pattern noise)

In my experience, noise reduction does not help this much although LR 4 is *much* better at raising shadows without exaggerating this issue then LR 3. Some products (like PhotoNija) are much better at noise reduction than PS or LR alone.

Raw shooting would let you raise the exposure more without clipping and (hence) without having the shadows exposure descend into noise.

My pet peeves are:

- People who mistake rules of thumb for universal laws.
- People who think there is some moral superiority in 'doing it in the camera' or 'using manual' or standard shift cars.
- People who think; Well if film did it then it must be OK otherwise not.
- People who are stuck in the past (see the last few points)
- People who think that if something does not match their sense of aesthetic, then that thing has no aesthetic.
- People who think there is no value in simple commemorative shots

What makes you think there is any significant additional cost... cost.... cost....?

(sorry for the echo, but it is better than answering 3 times)

Oh, PS: If it works for their net profitability, what makes you think it did not save you money? If I didn't happen to use multi-spot metering (or insert any other feature), should it be removed from availability to others?

Is, like all stock photography, more about volume and keywording.

I hesitate to call this 'published' but it does illustrate how many simple images can make a bit of money by simply matching an editorial need.

http://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/2013/03/28/real_estate_law_edmonton_couple_sues_over_realtors_cottage_profit.html

It can also be useful to compose with room for a title or block of text

Can be had for the next 2 days at a greatly reduced rate

http://www.niksoftware.com/index/usa/entry.php?disc_id=northlight

Use the coupon code "northlight" to get the full discount which will end up costing: $126.65

I suspect that the 'for some reason' is that the resampling process has more intermediate pixels available at each step if you do it stepwise. This implies that the resampling algorithm isn't well written such that it deals with the challenge in some SW.

I've actually had a local electronics store tell me 'Oh those are not used any more so we do not carry them'

Harumph

Here is the translation:

We only sell low end point and shoots that use SD cards so that is all we carry. Can I interest you in downgrading to junk?

If you are resizing in any program the key is to resample (there are a couple of choices, the one above typically works fine)

Resampling means that the process makes up pixels that should 'work' around edges and as colours change. As you get extreme (don't except as an experiment) the image will get softer but will likely still look ok as a print at reasonable viewing distances.

Tethering is certainly one approach although it sends the actual file to the software you are using to tether (you can then move it to Picassa if you want - is that important to sharing with your client if you can see it in other SW??)

Another commonly used approach is to connect your camera to a large scree TV via HDMI and just show them the images.

Most people set the in camera jpg to large/fine which is the full resolution with minimal compression. You undoubtedly either reduced the resolution or increased the compression.

I generally find that exporting to jpg creates a file that is a bit smaller than the in camera which, I assume, is the result of either differences in the exact compression setting or in processing. One wonders if the camera has a bias to speed rather than compression??

Have a try at comparing the two images. You might see some compression artifacts in the smaller one (or not). The actual file size does not necessarily imply *visible* image degradation in JPG. The point above, that information not requited by the image is discarded is really key. At reasonable compression the discarded info really isn't needed by *that* image but be clear to treat that image as final rather than something you will subsequently re-edit (go back to the raw for that) precisely because it is missing info that might be relevant to what you are trying to achieve by re-editing.

Well, there is processing of any file to get it to the screen but for jpg, it is mostly hidden from you.

This is one reason that many people use either Lightroom or Aperture. Both these programs make raw files painless. They are also much less expensive and easier to use than PS while giving your most of the capability a photographer needs.

I use LR and it is laid out for very simple use of the development panel (you just work your way down a list of adjustments - they are ordered in the optimal sequence although you may need to go back and forth a bit). You are really not aware you are using a raw file as a user except that you have a lot more scope to work with the highlights and shadows. The other advantage is that multiple versions are managed for you without taking up additional disk space or creating multiple files (these are called virtual copies) and the original file is never modified (nondestructive editing)