Canon software. Do I have to use it?
Discussion
Hi folks,
Just bought a Canon SX30is and according to the blurb, as I am using XP Service Pack 3, I may have to download MS Framework which is 500 MB in order to use the supplied software. Doh!
Canon say I should install the SX30 software, overwriting the installed software.
I have two other Canons and the software for the youngest, the A1100is, works for that and for the A710is.
Is there any reason why my existing Canon software will not download the camera images from the SX30is?
Would my Fuji software download the images? Would a card reader be simpler, though I don't like putting flash cards in and out of the camera all the while and I don't yet have a card reader.
Any thoughts folks?
Cheers
T.
Just bought a Canon SX30is and according to the blurb, as I am using XP Service Pack 3, I may have to download MS Framework which is 500 MB in order to use the supplied software. Doh!
Canon say I should install the SX30 software, overwriting the installed software.
I have two other Canons and the software for the youngest, the A1100is, works for that and for the A710is.
Is there any reason why my existing Canon software will not download the camera images from the SX30is?
Would my Fuji software download the images? Would a card reader be simpler, though I don't like putting flash cards in and out of the camera all the while and I don't yet have a card reader.
Any thoughts folks?
Cheers
T.
GetCarter said:
Can you not just connect via a USB2 wire? Windoze will recognise and ask what you want to do... just oipen the folder, copy & paste. I sometimes do it like that.
Thanks for your reply GC. I get several options there including Open with Fuji FinePix viewer and also the Canon software. Is there any reason why the previous Canon software won't open it?I'll try your method when I connect it to the PC for the first time.
Cheers
T.
Tafia said:
Thanks for your reply GC. I get several options there including Open with Fuji FinePix viewer and also the Canon software. Is there any reason why the previous Canon software won't open it?
I'll try your method when I connect it to the PC for the first time.
Cheers
T.
I don't know for certain but each iteration of Zoombrowser et al seems to have improved on the last so the upgrades are usually worthwhile given that they will replace the older version and should be backwards compatible.I'll try your method when I connect it to the PC for the first time.
Cheers
T.
New cameras have new 'stuff' - like extended EXIF information or maybe 'Style handling or perhaps inbuilt lens correction features that older versions will not know about. It's not so obvious with cameras producing only jpg files but for those generating RAW files the chances are that things change, sometimes only slightly but oftn more significantly, from camera model to camera model even from the same manufacturer.
There may also be things like file or image size limitations in the old software which would have been more than acceptable at the time but are now restrictive.
Disk space is very cheap these days so developers tend to see the upgrades as a logical way forward with their size not being an issue. Likewise they make use of new core operating system realted features that may require special updates to function with older operating systems. It is, as they say, how it is.
You may be able to make the disk usage less but judicious removal of multi-language version of help files and stuff like that. Or consider a new machine and Windows 7 and see a whole load of additional benefits. It's not an easy choice in many ways but worth doing IMO.
ETA: No you don't have to use it, to answer that question, but using something else may or may not provide full compatibility with all of the features available in the camera I don't know for sure. Also in many instances alterntive commercial software will still require some substantial disk space allocation. There may be some free apps that require less. Are we talking about editing here or album groupings and file management? Or both?
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 27th August 13:49
LongQ said:
I don't know for certain but each iteration of Zoombrowser et al seems to have improved on the last so the upgrades are usually worthwhile given that they will replace the older version and should be backwards compatible.
New cameras have new 'stuff' - like extended EXIF information or maybe 'Style handling or perhaps inbuilt lens correction features that older versions will not know about. It's not so obvious with cameras producing only jpg files but for those generating RAW files the chances are that things change, sometimes only slightly but oftn more significantly, from camera model to camera model even from the same manufacturer.
There may also be things like file or image size limitations in the old software which would have been more than acceptable at the time but are now restrictive.
Disk space is very cheap these days so developers tend to see the upgrades as a logical way forward with their size not being an issue. Likewise they make use of new core operating system realted features that may require special updates to function with older operating systems. It is, as they say, how it is.
You may be able to make the disk usage less but judicious removal of multi-language version of help files and stuff like that. Or consider a new machine and Windows 7 and see a whole load of additional benefits. It's not an easy choice in many ways but worth doing IMO.
ETA: No you don't have to use it, to answer that question, but using something else may or may not provide full compatibility with all of the features available in the camera I don't know for sure. Also in many instances alterntive commercial software will still require some substantial disk space allocation. There may be some free apps that require less. Are we talking about editing here or album groupings and file management? Or both?
Thanks for this LongQ. No editing, just downloading and filing pics. I wondered why I have to load the MS 500 Mb Framework 3. Seems rather a big programme. Sheesh.New cameras have new 'stuff' - like extended EXIF information or maybe 'Style handling or perhaps inbuilt lens correction features that older versions will not know about. It's not so obvious with cameras producing only jpg files but for those generating RAW files the chances are that things change, sometimes only slightly but oftn more significantly, from camera model to camera model even from the same manufacturer.
There may also be things like file or image size limitations in the old software which would have been more than acceptable at the time but are now restrictive.
Disk space is very cheap these days so developers tend to see the upgrades as a logical way forward with their size not being an issue. Likewise they make use of new core operating system realted features that may require special updates to function with older operating systems. It is, as they say, how it is.
You may be able to make the disk usage less but judicious removal of multi-language version of help files and stuff like that. Or consider a new machine and Windows 7 and see a whole load of additional benefits. It's not an easy choice in many ways but worth doing IMO.
ETA: No you don't have to use it, to answer that question, but using something else may or may not provide full compatibility with all of the features available in the camera I don't know for sure. Also in many instances alterntive commercial software will still require some substantial disk space allocation. There may be some free apps that require less. Are we talking about editing here or album groupings and file management? Or both?
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 27th August 13:49
BTW, I just tried to take a pic of a cruise ship In Liverpool Bay, about 15 miles away. Camera struggled to focus and the manual focus wasn't quite as I would like either. Well, I have only had it one day so I guess I have a lot to learn . Only 194 pages or so!!
Thanks again.
T.
Tafia said:
LongQ said:
I don't know for certain but each iteration of Zoombrowser et al seems to have improved on the last so the upgrades are usually worthwhile given that they will replace the older version and should be backwards compatible.
New cameras have new 'stuff' - like extended EXIF information or maybe 'Style handling or perhaps inbuilt lens correction features that older versions will not know about. It's not so obvious with cameras producing only jpg files but for those generating RAW files the chances are that things change, sometimes only slightly but oftn more significantly, from camera model to camera model even from the same manufacturer.
There may also be things like file or image size limitations in the old software which would have been more than acceptable at the time but are now restrictive.
Disk space is very cheap these days so developers tend to see the upgrades as a logical way forward with their size not being an issue. Likewise they make use of new core operating system realted features that may require special updates to function with older operating systems. It is, as they say, how it is.
You may be able to make the disk usage less but judicious removal of multi-language version of help files and stuff like that. Or consider a new machine and Windows 7 and see a whole load of additional benefits. It's not an easy choice in many ways but worth doing IMO.
ETA: No you don't have to use it, to answer that question, but using something else may or may not provide full compatibility with all of the features available in the camera I don't know for sure. Also in many instances alterntive commercial software will still require some substantial disk space allocation. There may be some free apps that require less. Are we talking about editing here or album groupings and file management? Or both?
Thanks for this LongQ. No editing, just downloading and filing pics. I wondered why I have to load the MS 500 Mb Framework 3. Seems rather a big programme. Sheesh.New cameras have new 'stuff' - like extended EXIF information or maybe 'Style handling or perhaps inbuilt lens correction features that older versions will not know about. It's not so obvious with cameras producing only jpg files but for those generating RAW files the chances are that things change, sometimes only slightly but oftn more significantly, from camera model to camera model even from the same manufacturer.
There may also be things like file or image size limitations in the old software which would have been more than acceptable at the time but are now restrictive.
Disk space is very cheap these days so developers tend to see the upgrades as a logical way forward with their size not being an issue. Likewise they make use of new core operating system realted features that may require special updates to function with older operating systems. It is, as they say, how it is.
You may be able to make the disk usage less but judicious removal of multi-language version of help files and stuff like that. Or consider a new machine and Windows 7 and see a whole load of additional benefits. It's not an easy choice in many ways but worth doing IMO.
ETA: No you don't have to use it, to answer that question, but using something else may or may not provide full compatibility with all of the features available in the camera I don't know for sure. Also in many instances alterntive commercial software will still require some substantial disk space allocation. There may be some free apps that require less. Are we talking about editing here or album groupings and file management? Or both?
Edited by LongQ on Saturday 27th August 13:49
BTW, I just tried to take a pic of a cruise ship In Liverpool Bay, about 15 miles away. Camera struggled to focus and the manual focus wasn't quite as I would like either. Well, I have only had it one day so I guess I have a lot to learn . Only 194 pages or so!!
Thanks again.
T.
The application developers in most cases have no choice but to go with the updates at some point in order to stabilise and subsequently advance their products and deal with larger files and so on. Right now there seems to be a lot of 'upgrading' going on in the development world of long standing applications, much of it meaning huge efforts to stand still (in terms of core functionality) just to become compatible in look and feel with 'more modern' applications. And the world of mobile apps ... and other such considerations.
You don't have to to use Zoombrowser of course - you could just download the files you want and use windows viewers but Zoombrowser gives better control as do some other smaller and free options that perform a similar function.
FWIW I always remove memory cards and use a reader for downloading. It's usually a lot faster. Even the cheap readers can be faster by some way.
As for your ship 15 miles away ... wss that full optical zoom and then all the digital? I think you might be pushing things!
I have an old 600mm lens that, on a consumer grade crop sensor dslr with th adaptor and a 2x extender, gives me an equivalent of somewhere around 2000mm I suppose and I would doubt I would expect to get anything worthwhile at more than about 6 miles away. Even using a tripod (it's a big heavy lens) it's extremely difficult to keep the image still and there are limits to how high a shutter speed one can use without getting a totally dark exposure.
The IS system on your SX30 may help there but even so if you are using the full digital 'zoom' what you are really doing if cropping right in on the subject in camera and the result will always be compromised. At that distance it is probably not a focus issue - you are in effect working at infinity for all practical purposes. Good fun and interesting to try though!
I have an S3 IS from the old days. Useful tool. It's just a pity that Canon refused to enable the RAW capture potential and that they dropped support for Remote Capture (so far as I know.) after the S5 IS. I bought the S3 for its Remote Capture capability and 432mm (equivalent) lens. Things have obviously moved on even further in some ways yet reversed in others.
Hi again folks,
LongQ, thanks for taking such time to reply. I may be a tad embarrassed here because, when my PC broadband connection acted up this morning, I had a dial-up connection box appear from my old provider.
I looked in control panel to remove all reference to that and as I looked down the list, I saw Microsoft.net Framework 3.5 is already installed with Service Pack 3. Major boo boo on my part but in my defence, I had no way of knowing it was there.
Canon manual is ambiguous in that it mentions XP with Service Pack 3 but at the bottom of the page it says that XP users must install Framework 3 or higher.
Now the ship. I looked on Ship AIS http://www.shipais.com/currentmap.php?map=livbay which gives the name and destination of shipping around UK and saw it was the German cruise ship, Aidablu heading out of Liverpool. With Pentax 10 X 50 binoculars I could read the words Aida.com.de written large on the hull and the ship was very visible as the sun hit it.
So, I thought I would try my day-old SX30is. I had turned off the digital zoom so it was on full optical zoom but struggled to focus, probably because the ship didn’t fill the frame. I tried a couple of shots on auto but they were fuzzy. I then set it to aperture priority and used the smallest available, F8 or so to get max depth of field. The camera then produced better shots and when I zoomed them on playback in the camera, the ship filled the screen but the colours were not accurate, they seemed to have a brownish tinge. The various decks were visible but I couldn’t read the large logo on the hull, visible with the binos.
As you point out, perhaps I was expecting too much though I had thought that with over 800mm equivalent in 35mm terms, I might have matched the 10 X 50 binoculars. Wrong again. Less light entering the lens I guess.
Re the card reader you and Simpo 2 mention, is any harm likely to be caused to the camera by constantly inserting and removing the card? I guess they must be designed with that in mind.
Thanks to all who have responded, I have learned something.
LongQ, thanks for taking such time to reply. I may be a tad embarrassed here because, when my PC broadband connection acted up this morning, I had a dial-up connection box appear from my old provider.
I looked in control panel to remove all reference to that and as I looked down the list, I saw Microsoft.net Framework 3.5 is already installed with Service Pack 3. Major boo boo on my part but in my defence, I had no way of knowing it was there.
Canon manual is ambiguous in that it mentions XP with Service Pack 3 but at the bottom of the page it says that XP users must install Framework 3 or higher.
Now the ship. I looked on Ship AIS http://www.shipais.com/currentmap.php?map=livbay which gives the name and destination of shipping around UK and saw it was the German cruise ship, Aidablu heading out of Liverpool. With Pentax 10 X 50 binoculars I could read the words Aida.com.de written large on the hull and the ship was very visible as the sun hit it.
So, I thought I would try my day-old SX30is. I had turned off the digital zoom so it was on full optical zoom but struggled to focus, probably because the ship didn’t fill the frame. I tried a couple of shots on auto but they were fuzzy. I then set it to aperture priority and used the smallest available, F8 or so to get max depth of field. The camera then produced better shots and when I zoomed them on playback in the camera, the ship filled the screen but the colours were not accurate, they seemed to have a brownish tinge. The various decks were visible but I couldn’t read the large logo on the hull, visible with the binos.
As you point out, perhaps I was expecting too much though I had thought that with over 800mm equivalent in 35mm terms, I might have matched the 10 X 50 binoculars. Wrong again. Less light entering the lens I guess.
Re the card reader you and Simpo 2 mention, is any harm likely to be caused to the camera by constantly inserting and removing the card? I guess they must be designed with that in mind.
Thanks to all who have responded, I have learned something.
Tafia said:
Hi again folks,
LongQ, thanks for taking such time to reply. I may be a tad embarrassed here because, when my PC broadband connection acted up this morning, I had a dial-up connection box appear from my old provider.
I looked in control panel to remove all reference to that and as I looked down the list, I saw Microsoft.net Framework 3.5 is already installed with Service Pack 3. Major boo boo on my part but in my defence, I had no way of knowing it was there.
Canon manual is ambiguous in that it mentions XP with Service Pack 3 but at the bottom of the page it says that XP users must install Framework 3 or higher.
Now the ship. I looked on Ship AIS http://www.shipais.com/currentmap.php?map=livbay which gives the name and destination of shipping around UK and saw it was the German cruise ship, Aidablu heading out of Liverpool. With Pentax 10 X 50 binoculars I could read the words Aida.com.de written large on the hull and the ship was very visible as the sun hit it.
So, I thought I would try my day-old SX30is. I had turned off the digital zoom so it was on full optical zoom but struggled to focus, probably because the ship didn’t fill the frame. I tried a couple of shots on auto but they were fuzzy. I then set it to aperture priority and used the smallest available, F8 or so to get max depth of field. The camera then produced better shots and when I zoomed them on playback in the camera, the ship filled the screen but the colours were not accurate, they seemed to have a brownish tinge. The various decks were visible but I couldn’t read the large logo on the hull, visible with the binos.
As you point out, perhaps I was expecting too much though I had thought that with over 800mm equivalent in 35mm terms, I might have matched the 10 X 50 binoculars. Wrong again. Less light entering the lens I guess.
Re the card reader you and Simpo 2 mention, is any harm likely to be caused to the camera by constantly inserting and removing the card? I guess they must be designed with that in mind.
Thanks to all who have responded, I have learned something.
The chances are that most people will have XP systems with the updates required already installed over the years but I would guess the documents have to cover any eventuality.LongQ, thanks for taking such time to reply. I may be a tad embarrassed here because, when my PC broadband connection acted up this morning, I had a dial-up connection box appear from my old provider.
I looked in control panel to remove all reference to that and as I looked down the list, I saw Microsoft.net Framework 3.5 is already installed with Service Pack 3. Major boo boo on my part but in my defence, I had no way of knowing it was there.
Canon manual is ambiguous in that it mentions XP with Service Pack 3 but at the bottom of the page it says that XP users must install Framework 3 or higher.
Now the ship. I looked on Ship AIS http://www.shipais.com/currentmap.php?map=livbay which gives the name and destination of shipping around UK and saw it was the German cruise ship, Aidablu heading out of Liverpool. With Pentax 10 X 50 binoculars I could read the words Aida.com.de written large on the hull and the ship was very visible as the sun hit it.
So, I thought I would try my day-old SX30is. I had turned off the digital zoom so it was on full optical zoom but struggled to focus, probably because the ship didn’t fill the frame. I tried a couple of shots on auto but they were fuzzy. I then set it to aperture priority and used the smallest available, F8 or so to get max depth of field. The camera then produced better shots and when I zoomed them on playback in the camera, the ship filled the screen but the colours were not accurate, they seemed to have a brownish tinge. The various decks were visible but I couldn’t read the large logo on the hull, visible with the binos.
As you point out, perhaps I was expecting too much though I had thought that with over 800mm equivalent in 35mm terms, I might have matched the 10 X 50 binoculars. Wrong again. Less light entering the lens I guess.
Re the card reader you and Simpo 2 mention, is any harm likely to be caused to the camera by constantly inserting and removing the card? I guess they must be designed with that in mind.
Thanks to all who have responded, I have learned something.
Assuming the SX30 use SD cards (as does my S3) then I would doubt the camera part of the slot would have any problems so long as no foreign bodies are allowed in. Not had a problem with any of mine (he said, tempting fate) over the years. CF cards are equally rugged but the slots have some pins in them and therefore offer some potential for inadvertent damage but again, so far, not had any problems with mine. Personally I would be more bothered by regular use of the mini-usb plugs on the cameras.
As for the ship. Difficult to know what to say but presumably (I really should check the specs I suppose) at 800mm the max aperture would not be great and that could adversely affect the camera's ability to get a good steady focus and, with a mix of colours around as the lens waves about a bit (probably) a consistent white balance as well. Guessing really but I don't recall a notable problem with the S3 at 400+mm.
You may find it worth experimenting with different modes and something like centre weighted average metering perhaps if you were using a diferent mode. Or vice versa of course. It's probably safe to assume that a lot of the result, even ignoring the jpg creation 'rules' Canon use for that camera, will be proggrammed inot the software that manipulates the raw data. That may or may not deliver the results you hope for 'out of the box' when working at the and of its operational ranges. 800mm is pushing things a bot on a camera that size but, not havinf used anything in that class with the zoom range you have I'm not able to offer advice based on experience.
Maybe I should buy one and find out ...
Depth of field would not normally be an issue of importance if you are focusing on a far object and wanting that sharp with no particular interest in the focus on anything anything between it and the camera.
Thanks again LongQ, yoiu are very patient.
'tis true that the mini USB has also been a concern for with the smaller Canons we have. I have a thing about small electrical sockets as you will have guessed.
I have ordered a card reader!
Not having read all 194 pges of pdf manual and having seen videos on Youtube of the SX30 in use, when I looked at the ship and saw it was not fully focused, I moved the focus ring on the camera but nothing seemed to change.
It now seems that in auto mode the focus option is disabled (?); when I changed the dial to landscape, the focus option appeared.
This camera is a lot smarter than I am. As well as smile detection, it can even detect a wink and the suggestion is that if we use the self timer, we can operate the camera by winking at it!!
Thank you so much for your patience
Very best regards
T
'tis true that the mini USB has also been a concern for with the smaller Canons we have. I have a thing about small electrical sockets as you will have guessed.
I have ordered a card reader!
Not having read all 194 pges of pdf manual and having seen videos on Youtube of the SX30 in use, when I looked at the ship and saw it was not fully focused, I moved the focus ring on the camera but nothing seemed to change.
It now seems that in auto mode the focus option is disabled (?); when I changed the dial to landscape, the focus option appeared.
This camera is a lot smarter than I am. As well as smile detection, it can even detect a wink and the suggestion is that if we use the self timer, we can operate the camera by winking at it!!
Thank you so much for your patience
Very best regards
T
Tafia said:
Thanks again LongQ, yoiu are very patient.
'tis true that the mini USB has also been a concern for with the smaller Canons we have. I have a thing about small electrical sockets as you will have guessed.
I have ordered a card reader!
Not having read all 194 pges of pdf manual and having seen videos on Youtube of the SX30 in use, when I looked at the ship and saw it was not fully focused, I moved the focus ring on the camera but nothing seemed to change.
It now seems that in auto mode the focus option is disabled (?); when I changed the dial to landscape, the focus option appeared.
This camera is a lot smarter than I am. As well as smile detection, it can even detect a wink and the suggestion is that if we use the self timer, we can operate the camera by winking at it!!
Thank you so much for your patience
Very best regards
T
I'm never sure what is on and what is off and are there any other tweaks when using the preset settings offered on the cameras but auto is one that seems to be the 'you can turn your brain off and let our programmers run the camera for you' modes in most cameras.'tis true that the mini USB has also been a concern for with the smaller Canons we have. I have a thing about small electrical sockets as you will have guessed.
I have ordered a card reader!
Not having read all 194 pges of pdf manual and having seen videos on Youtube of the SX30 in use, when I looked at the ship and saw it was not fully focused, I moved the focus ring on the camera but nothing seemed to change.
It now seems that in auto mode the focus option is disabled (?); when I changed the dial to landscape, the focus option appeared.
This camera is a lot smarter than I am. As well as smile detection, it can even detect a wink and the suggestion is that if we use the self timer, we can operate the camera by winking at it!!
Thank you so much for your patience
Very best regards
T
I fear the day may come when you are expected to wear a small pre-view camera that 'sees' what you are seeing, sends a message to its big brother or a central server somewhere and then csalls your phone to say there is an interesting shot to take and would you mind getting your camera out.
Even worse - that you have just missed an interesting shot but if you wish you can create it from the central library of 'view parts' by placing an order that responds to this mail ...
Tafia said:
Re the card reader you and Simpo 2 mention, is any harm likely to be caused to the camera by constantly inserting and removing the card? I guess they must be designed with that in mind.
I used to be concerned about that but it's not a big deal. CF has dozens of tiny of tiny pins which I suppose you could bend if you were very careless, but SD just has tabs so no problem.Other than that, sorry to see you're getting confused by all the marketing trash they put in these cameras.
Thanks again to all who responded.
Speaking of marketing, I see Canon want £49 (£38 on Amazon) for an adaptor to fit filters to the SX30. Writer on Amazon reviews says a Canon rep showed him that a 52mm filter will screw in directly.
I have always fitted UV filters in the past to protect the lens.
Cheers
T.
Speaking of marketing, I see Canon want £49 (£38 on Amazon) for an adaptor to fit filters to the SX30. Writer on Amazon reviews says a Canon rep showed him that a 52mm filter will screw in directly.
I have always fitted UV filters in the past to protect the lens.
Cheers
T.
Tafia said:
Thanks again to all who responded.
Speaking of marketing, I see Canon want £49 (£38 on Amazon) for an adaptor to fit filters to the SX30. Writer on Amazon reviews says a Canon rep showed him that a 52mm filter will screw in directly.
I have always fitted UV filters in the past to protect the lens.
Cheers
T.
I'm not sure the canon accessory prices are supposrtable and I think you can get alternatives but the adpter is not such a bad idea if it is like the one for the S3 - which I have together with the wide angle adapter lens for that camera. Speaking of marketing, I see Canon want £49 (£38 on Amazon) for an adaptor to fit filters to the SX30. Writer on Amazon reviews says a Canon rep showed him that a 52mm filter will screw in directly.
I have always fitted UV filters in the past to protect the lens.
Cheers
T.
Firstly there is probably no valid reason for fitting a filter on the lens. Modern lens coating are pretty scratch reistant and even if the lens is scratched or marked it's usually no big deal. I doubt a UV lens is having much beneficial effect given the way digital cameras inputs are filtered and processed before you see any result. However adding a filter does seem to make things somewhat prone to filter flare - sometimes obvious but often rather subtle.
Secondly the nature of the lens fitted to the superzooms is a compromise between engineering and manufacturing costs and what it is intended to do. Many of them are likely to be near their mechanical limits at, say, full extension. Adding teh weight of a filter, no matter how light, might affect performance of overload, just a little, mechanical aspects of the lens. It depends on the lens design and I'm not familiar with the SX30. My S3 lens extends to approximately full length (it changes slightly with zooming) and all further zooming and focus activity is internal. I assume the SX30 uses a similar conccept. Whilst there is no obvious way to fit a filter directly to the lens on the S3 I'm not sure that I would want too if I could since the handling for fitting and removing filters could deliver stress to the moving parts and in any case the lens may not full retract with a filter fitted. PLus the push on lens cap might well not fit requireing also an alternative cap ... and so on.
The adapter on the S3 fits to the body as an external tube and doubles for use the lens hood mount and the adapter for the wide angle lens (and a telephoto extension lens too iirc.) That also means that the entire lens if totally enclosed and further protected should that be important. In purely filter terms this is quite significant when using something like a polariser where handling the filter is a regular requirement. Better that it should be a filter fitted to a tube directly mounted to the body than something that is putting stresses back through the lens mechanism. The same would go for any filters that are being added and removed regularly as required. ND filters for example. I suspect that that is why the adapter was developed and once it exists it is logical to propose it is used for all filter solutions. I think the design philosophy had already discounted the need for a 'lens protection' filter since the manufacturers would not see the need for one. Indeed to suggest the lens need protection (or assistance in dealing with "UV") may have adverse marketing consequences in the modern age!
If the SX30 lens has a thread that will take a filter you have the option to use it of course. Try it and see what you think! But you may find you simply don't need to have a UV filter fitted and it may have a few undesired side effects in some situations. I'm fairly sure one could find the adapters for a lot less cash somewhere though not necessarily Canon branded.
As LongQ has already aluded to, this 500Mb download of a "framework" isn't specifically for the Canon software. It is very likely the .NET Framework and it just so happens that you don't yet have it on your machine yet. You can choose not to download and install it, and what will simply happen is the next application you try to install that depends on it will want you to download and install it instead. So you can install it now or install it later; it's your choice.
I guess I don't need a filter after all. I try to take good care of my stuff so hopefully won't scratch anything.
The reviews of this camera said it wss not good in low light and last evening I took a shot of a biker about 100 yards away. Came out quite grainy, even at 200 ISO which is what the auto setting chose. My CCTV cameras were still quite clear at that time.
Was I expecting too much of the SX30? Perhaps so.
Thanks again for your replies
The reviews of this camera said it wss not good in low light and last evening I took a shot of a biker about 100 yards away. Came out quite grainy, even at 200 ISO which is what the auto setting chose. My CCTV cameras were still quite clear at that time.
Was I expecting too much of the SX30? Perhaps so.
Thanks again for your replies
I guess I don't need a filter after all. I try to take good care of my stuff so hopefully won't scratch anything.
The reviews of this camera said it wss not good in low light and last evening I took a shot of a biker about 100 yards away. Came out quite grainy, even at 200 ISO which is what the auto setting chose. My CCTV cameras were still quite clear at that time.
Was I expecting too much of the SX30? Perhaps so.
Thanks again for your replies
The reviews of this camera said it wss not good in low light and last evening I took a shot of a biker about 100 yards away. Came out quite grainy, even at 200 ISO which is what the auto setting chose. My CCTV cameras were still quite clear at that time.
Was I expecting too much of the SX30? Perhaps so.
Thanks again for your replies
Tafia said:
The reviews of this camera said it wss not good in low light and last evening I took a shot of a biker about 100 yards away. Came out quite grainy, even at 200 ISO which is what the auto setting chose. My CCTV cameras were still quite clear at that time.
Take a print from your CCTV camera and I bet it won't look so good!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff