robert blu
quiet photographer
Before buying the M10 I was tempted by the DF but at the end I prefered the simplicity of the M10, which is still my suggestion for the initial questIon
When you want an M Robert, only an M will do...
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I could squeeze in used 6D by selling 5D MKII and adding cash I already have from previous sale. This will solve high ISO need I have for some years now, most importantly for family pictures. I used 5D with 50 1.2 and then 5D MKII with slower zooms, but clean ISO 12800 and slightly mushy 25000 for bw will eliminate use of the flash.
I still haven't decided about M-E 220 I have. Maybe will follow advice from few years ago and get beater M240 for everyday with/on me camera. My days of lugging around 5D on the streets as everyday camera are over.
I still haven't decided about M-E 220 I have. Maybe will follow advice from few years ago and get beater M240 for everyday with/on me camera. My days of lugging around 5D on the streets as everyday camera are over.
Henry
Well-known
I have used the 5diii, m9, and m240 and I would rather have the 240 with me any day. It's not the ISO (I don't really care) but the shutter for the m240 over the m9 to me. I shoot them about the same anyway (base ISO for most situations, or boost it all the way and who cares?)
As for the 5d3, I cannot imagine dragging it around with me for anything but an event or wildlife photography. It's too much for an everyday camera at this point in my life.
As for the 5d3, I cannot imagine dragging it around with me for anything but an event or wildlife photography. It's too much for an everyday camera at this point in my life.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
After using of 5D and Bessa L, m9 shutter doesn’t bug me at all 
Henry
Well-known
The mk3 added the “silent shutter”—it isn’t really silent, but it’s much quieter.
The loud recock in the m9 always annoyed me. It didn’t keep me from using it, and I’m not a candid photographer so that wasn’t it, I just didn’t like it.
The loud recock in the m9 always annoyed me. It didn’t keep me from using it, and I’m not a candid photographer so that wasn’t it, I just didn’t like it.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Why here is so few, not just on this forum, but globally of those who could handle Monochrome files, exposures?
I could see in your book how it must be done, I have seen maybe couple of more Monochrome users on-line who are capable.
But the rest...
M10M already been screwed :
https://youtu.be/Q65Q5sgJvh8?t=657
https://youtu.be/XU4rjFXfupU?t=486
Is Monochrome extremely difficult camera to have correct exposures, good looking images?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I almost voted today for "something else"...
Been accused for not reading M-E manual in another thread, I decided to check if newer M or Q has common for aimed to be professional cameras S, M, L DNG/RAW files sizes. And if I understand it right only one size of DNG file, Q can't even compress it and files are 40 MB.
This is not acceptable for my needs, processing and storage capacity.
It looks like I will be better served with camera which supports different sizes of DNG/RAW files. Like under 1K USD FF EOS RP.
I mean, it just wrong to me to sell all gear and have camera which gives files I see no need, have no accommodation for.
Sorry to make it all for nothing...
Been accused for not reading M-E manual in another thread
, I decided to check if newer M or Q has common for aimed to be professional cameras S, M, L DNG/RAW files sizes. And if I understand it right only one size of DNG file, Q can't even compress it and files are 40 MB.This is not acceptable for my needs, processing and storage capacity.
It looks like I will be better served with camera which supports different sizes of DNG/RAW files. Like under 1K USD FF EOS RP.
I mean, it just wrong to me to sell all gear and have camera which gives files I see no need, have no accommodation for.
Sorry to make it all for nothing...
shawn
Veteran
Even if that is the case that is extremely easy to work around. Put the DNGs through Adobe DNG converter (free) and you have the option of applying lossless compression, lossy compression and you can also resize the DNGs if desired.
My M240 can apply DNG compression (lossless) in camera and the file size is about 26 mb. If I put it through DNG converter with lossy compression on that drops to 8 mb. If I leave lossy compression on and resize to 10 megapixels the file size is 3.6mb.
I use DNG Converter on Sigma Quattro DNGs and it cuts their file size just about in half with lossless compression.
Shawn
My M240 can apply DNG compression (lossless) in camera and the file size is about 26 mb. If I put it through DNG converter with lossy compression on that drops to 8 mb. If I leave lossy compression on and resize to 10 megapixels the file size is 3.6mb.
I use DNG Converter on Sigma Quattro DNGs and it cuts their file size just about in half with lossless compression.
Shawn
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thank you! It is so nice something from Adobe is still free.
How long does it take to compress hundred files from M240?
shawn
Veteran
I've never used it for the M240 but as a test I set the M240 to uncompressed DNG and took a shot. The file size is about 48mb. I took one of those DNGs and make 99 more copies of it.
I set Adobe DNG converter to losslessly compress the files and preserve the pixel count. It compressed all 100 files in 17.4 seconds. This is on a 2015 Macbook Pro. The file size was about 27mb each.
If I did the same thing but lossy compressed the 100 files it took 53 seconds and the files were about 7mb each.
If I set it to resize to 10megapixels with lossy compression it took 46 seconds and the files were about 2.6mb each.
Shawn
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Thank you so much! This is fast! Reply and processing.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Might you not buy the next size larger SD card?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
It is about storage and processing. Sorry, nothing to do with SD card. And just in advance. Buying larger HDD and more CPU, RAM just because camera is missing s, m and l DNG is not smart. IMO.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Ko different size raws mean nothing to me and most other pros I know. If I had a choice, which I do not need, I would save at the max size anyway. Storage is CHEAP.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I'm not pro in photography. I can't write off taxes on new computer, ram and graphic card. Or buy fancy Mac and pay every month for crashing Adobe.
Nor I have time to deal with metadata and data migration from one storage to another just because I have huge files for absolutely no reason. My time is not paid for it. Storage is cheap only to buy. My time isn't.
I'm paid for motion image delivery, processing at another job, just content is not mine. But even in production they are not adequate if they demand non-compressed. I follow my profession in my hobby
We are not even 4K at most of the industry. And my home printer is Letter maximum.
It is enough for me. I don't need pro starus in photography
Are you sure you would need a new Mac with more RAM? I use a 6-year-old iMac (with 16Mb RAM and no fancy graphic card) and it runs fine processing 35+megapixel DNG files from Pentax K-1 (36.4Mp) and Leica S2 (37.5Mp). No write-offs here either, using non-crashing Adobe Lightroom Classic annual subscription.
Or buy fancy Mac and pay every month for crashing Adobe....
Henry
Well-known
If you aren’t interested in post processing, and you don’t mind compression, there is zero reason to keep DNG/RAW files. There isn’t a point in compressing them losslily. You are probably better off just converting them to either JPEG or HEIC. I say this because, from my understanding, the lossy conversion of DNG files just runs them through a JPEG converter and then puts them in a DNG package. Nothing wrong with that, but you don’t gain a ton by keeping them as DNG files after you convert them to lossy.
It’s largely the same as the reverse, where you take a JPEG and convert it to DNG, you aren’t doing anything to the JPEG, the program just takes the JPEG and wraps it in an envelope. DNG is just a very specialized TIFF, which has supported JPEG compression for a long time.
So, don’t bother keeping things as DNG if you go lossy, it’s a waste of your time and effort, and it makes the files harder to read on most platforms, or at the very least more annoying.
It’s largely the same as the reverse, where you take a JPEG and convert it to DNG, you aren’t doing anything to the JPEG, the program just takes the JPEG and wraps it in an envelope. DNG is just a very specialized TIFF, which has supported JPEG compression for a long time.
So, don’t bother keeping things as DNG if you go lossy, it’s a waste of your time and effort, and it makes the files harder to read on most platforms, or at the very least more annoying.
Henry
Well-known
Oh, and if you are thinking about a Canon RP, just wait a bit when the R5 comes out people will be unloading their R bodies like crazy in an “upgrade frenzy.” I’m sure you could get one for even less.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Yes, I'm holding till R5. Which is June this year or later.
Within another thread where I asked about dull and oddly exposed M-E files, I did some practice following recived advices. I was taking dng and JPEG and realized how dng gives me more room for even slight editing. JPEG is obviously worse for it.
My optimum resolution is 10-12 MP. Compressed M-E dng isn't much bigger. I prefer raw, dng storage due to periodical request of tiff files. I also store edited files as JPEG with 2800 pixels on long side. Well enough for home prints and sharing.
As for Mac, I'm not an artist. I learn, try things like programming, VM and network administration. And more. Mac is useless platform for it. I quit from it long time ago since I was Mac dealer. Nothing changed since then, same limited functionality, apps. I see it at work. We have Macs to limit troubles with end users. But anything advanced is Windows or UNIX based.
Within another thread where I asked about dull and oddly exposed M-E files, I did some practice following recived advices. I was taking dng and JPEG and realized how dng gives me more room for even slight editing. JPEG is obviously worse for it.
My optimum resolution is 10-12 MP. Compressed M-E dng isn't much bigger. I prefer raw, dng storage due to periodical request of tiff files. I also store edited files as JPEG with 2800 pixels on long side. Well enough for home prints and sharing.
As for Mac, I'm not an artist. I learn, try things like programming, VM and network administration. And more. Mac is useless platform for it. I quit from it long time ago since I was Mac dealer. Nothing changed since then, same limited functionality, apps. I see it at work. We have Macs to limit troubles with end users. But anything advanced is Windows or UNIX based.