Chuck: Can we have a firmware update for 5d?

[Jack Joseph Jr]

I think that Canon corporate, as opposed to Canon Chuck, couldn't give a rat's behind about what users think of those dumb print buttons (and the lack of a dedicated mirror lockup button). Corporate thinks that they are going to sell printers because of that button.

To be honest I would like to replace my Epson R800, the Ink Eating Monster, with a Canon printer. If I did I would probably use my 5D's print button a few times to fiddle with the software. But after that forget it, even Canon JPGs look much better after a visit to ACR4. For event on-site printing do they think I'd use my camera instead of Express Digital Darkroom? Not a chance.

Come on Canon!

PS. Even the simple request for the don't rotate on the LCD but apply orientation to the image for the 1D Mark II N and 5D has gone unanswered. Do we have to wait for Nikon to offer better sensors in their feature-rich bodies?

 

[Alan Rew]

Chuck,
I know that for some people the print button on 5d is useful, but for most
>90% that is a useless button. Can we have a firmware update for these:

1. Being able to program the print button too? Or a custom function to assign Mirror Lock Up to Print button

2. Have "Rotate on Computer and not on camera" function like what we have on 30d.

Other members who support this thread voice your opinion.

Thanks
Ramesh
www.world-of-photos.com

I'd vote for being able to assign the 'print' button to mirror lock-up. Maybe an extra custom function - and once you've programmed that in, why not assign several possible settings via that one custom function?

The 5D is a bit like a 'consumer' level camera if you look at some the features it has and the way it is sold:
1) Print button.
2) 'Dummy Mode' green rectangle on the mode dial.
3) Sold in 'kit' form with one or more lenses.

Are Canon's marketing department aiming this camera at rich novices?

BTW I requested the option of a RAW histogram on the old RobGalbraith forums, an idea which a few other people (including Andrew Rodney) expressed enthusiasm for, but Chuck rejected the idea at the time as not being very useful (I can't remember his exact words but that seemed to be the essence of it).
I'd bet that more 5D users would use a RAW histogram than a print button

Regards,

Alan

 

[John Sheehy]

BTW I requested the option of a RAW histogram on the old RobGalbraith forums, an idea which a few other people (including Andrew Rodney) expressed enthusiasm for, but Chuck rejected the idea at the time as not being very useful (I can't remember his exact words but that seemed to be the essence of it).
I'd bet that more 5D users would use a RAW histogram than a print button

Not just 5D; any camera that shoots RAW should have a RAW histogram. Camera makers are pathetically out of touch with the needs of their users. Nothing is more relevant when choosing exposure than the RAW results; it matters not a whit what color space you want to use, what the white balance is, what saturation and color tone settings you set the camera to; the RAW data, unless it is clipped (or in the upper highlights of the lowest ISO of some cameras) is totally linear, and is best recorded close to RAW saturation, even if this involves changing the color of the lighting to optimize the individual channels. People shooting things like red flowers in deep shade literally under-expose the RAW data by 3 or more stops satisfying the JPEG/histogram!

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

... any camera that shoots RAW should have a RAW histogram.

I beg to differ. A Raw data histogram will usually have most of its information bunched up to the left of the histogram, with a long low tail to the right. The scaling of such would still not allow to judge highlight clipping, which actually is what we do need.

It would already be very helpful if there would be a per channel clipping indicator. It could take many forms, a blinking dot alongside the gamma adjusted histogram would already suffice but one could think of more informative displays like a percentage or absolute number of saturated sensels. It's a longtime wanted feature. Being able to zoom-in on the image and see the affected output pixels blink, would be the pits, but that would require Raw processing while zooming which slows down the operation.

Bart

 

[Alan Rew]

I beg to differ. A Raw data histogram will usually have most of its information bunched up to the left of the histogram, with a long low tail to the right. The scaling of such would still not allow to judge highlight clipping, which actually is what we do need.

It would already be very helpful if there would be a per channel clipping indicator. It could take many forms, a blinking dot alongside the gamma adjusted histogram would already suffice but one could think of more informative displays like a percentage or absolute number of saturated sensels. It's a longtime wanted feature. Being able to zoom-in on the image and see the affected output pixels blink, would be the pits, but that would require Raw processing while zooming which slows down the operation.

Bart

That's an interesting point. But, in that case, how about a histogram showing the saturation distribution of the 'sensels'? i.e. how many are 100% saturated, how many 99%, how many 98%, ... down to the noise floor at '0%'.

But I like your idea of just a count/percentage of saturated (=> may be clipping) sensels, which is the minimum info we're after that we currently don't get from the camera.

If somebody sets their camera to shoot RAW or RAW+jpeg there ought to be a custom function to choose the RAW-based display instead of the jpeg-based display we currently get.

Does anyone have any other ideas about the RAW data could be presented?