Just wasn’t getting the support from the retailer , who after a week (Friday to Friday) of ignoring my letters was rather concerned about my on-line review of their service. They responded to that far more quickly than they did my problem
I do not make a habit of bad reviews, far from it. I always try and give benefit of doubt and cut slack .
After I packed it up, Canon got in touch and their approach was super-professional , I have a feeling that it was “sortable” but after spending a grand and no response in a week , the matter had been closed as far as I was concerned.
My ethos is that , it is not that things go wrong , it is how you sort it out that matters , and there was no sort out from the retailer .
@Innocent_Bystander - I fully agree with you. But - the OP has been told this - nicely - by quite a few on here (including myself & yourself…). And… he has chosen to return the Canon R10 that he bought.
Logic and reasoning seem to have failed, re Software. Other factors have taken over. Poor support by his retailer, when asked, being a key one of these (shame on them). And - the opportunity to return something easily if done quickly is another.
I also struggle to understand the OP’s way of working, insisting on using Raw and heavily cropping. Seems to me - to be odd (and not usual/best practice). But… that’s his choice.
So glad that I don’t use Raw or ‘new’ cameras…!!
Just a final thought. Someone will now get a great deal on a Seller Refurbished R10 now…
Thank you, my photos are generally for my own use, I always shoot in Raw and print in Giclee . That’s usually about one in two thousand . When I do that my excellent print shop automatically assesses the image to tell me whether it is adequate. The largest photo on my wall comes out at .5TB (not mine- I bought it)
My subjects are aircraft, bees/ butterflies and animals such as elephants . Nearly all my lenses are prime or L. I have one non-L zoom and a Sigma Prime .
If I crop the picture such as this a significant portion of the photo can be lost , so I shoot in raw, perhaps apply a little sharpening to it and that’s it.
I still think , camera work should be about knowing your aperture, shutter speed - their relation, which weighting to use . I have little interest in editing .
In the main before going to digital I used slide and I still like Raw.
I’d never heard of this before , but thank you for telling me , the lady from Canon was going down a differing route .
Sadly I will never find out of she was right , I’ve had both a car and camera that should have gone back right from outset and after five days of non-responding , enough was enough .
I recognise that DxO profile, it’s one of the high contrast modes - in my opinion, the natural modes work better. In this case it’s probably the default setting intended to approximate the default settings of the cannon software (also too high contrast).
From a couple of other characteristics, I suspect that as yet DxO haven’t completed the optimisation of the camera body / sensor profile for that particular model of camera and that in the coming weeks or month’s a revised profile will become available.
Picasa has preserved the highlight detail by blocking in the shadows and blurred details somewhat.
I’m really confused by this Canon R10 raw files problem. Adobe have been supporting it since June. We have an R6 and those are CR3 files as well. The only problem for us was GB size of SD card, as older Macs can’t read them, so you need a card reader plugged in.
Whist the Canon R10 raw files are supported by Adobe software, Ian has found that they are not yet supported by Apple OSX Photo software. Of course that may change in its next release. One option that may have worked is using Adobe’s Free DNG converter. For those that don’t know, it takes manufacturers various RAW formats and converts them to a supposed DNG standard. So it’s possible that you could use this software to convert your Canon R10 RAW files to a standard that hopefully OSX will recognise.
It does of course beg the question on why are there so many different formats of RAW files from each manufacturer.
Thanks I have a newer Mac , interestingly the lady from Canon was concerned about the settings on my camera on Friday afternoon , but with a week of frustrations my camera went back a little earlier that Friday .
It’s not that something goes wrong, it’s how you deal with it that makes the difference
Funnily enough I think the best thing may either be to wait a few months or maybe a Nikon Zfc, I can wait.
But, is it not sort of… obvious…? That dedicated Photo Editing software is the most up to date - ?
What I still do not understand is why - given you are so committed to shooting Raw files and Post Processing - that you do not use a dedicated Photo Editor… Even I have PS Elements… And I just shoot crappy jpgs…
I will wager your R10 would have worked 100% if you had say Light Room - and it was up-to-date.
As this is the real $64k question, maybe a LR user could comment on this - as to what Raw formats LR currently supports (or is is Adobe Bridge…?).
I think Apple iPhoto is primarily aimed at users of iPhones. Supporting RAW is probably not very high on their list, they leave that to camera manufacturers and photo editing software companies. Agree that Adobe DNG converter is a nifty tool, there’s usually a work around somewhere.
However, each sensor will have different characteristics and so individual software will need to interpret the raw data from each camera differently. Your macos is seeing the R10 CR3 data and doesn’t know what those characteristics are so it doesn’t display anything.
I’ve been using Picasa for over 10 years, it’s very basic, I doubt it is doing anything in terms of modifying the image.
To be fair, the photo is a little under exposed, so the software that is blowing out the detail is doing so by lightening the whole image.
I’m surprised DXO ‘no correction’ is doing this, although I still use it as converter of choice, simply because the lens correction technology is top notch.
The usual default mode for DxO is a profile that’s designed to approximate the camera manufacturer’s default profile from their converter software.
In this case, it seems that the default conversion from Canon’s own software causes a degree of blown highlight… which the default DxO profile seems to replicate!
The in camera jpeg of the building (above) is surprisingly disappointing for a Canon. It would have been interesting to see what the Canon software would have done with a RAW file.
I agree on the lens profile aspect - that is particularly good. The default noise reduction isn’t so good though, however the ‘prime’ noise reduction does work well, fairly good noise reduction without so much loss of the low contrast detail (and it can be adjusted by setting other priorities for microcontrast and sharpening), but it’s quite processor intensive (i.e. slow!).
Mea Culpa, downloaded Canon software and yes I could open the photos - on a one by one basis .
Also Canon’s software needed to convert the photos from A to B -i wasn’t a straight open , as I said not what I wanted , but it’s a lesson learned , don’t buy a first run camera .
The Nikon Zfc still beckons , they say it’s for youngsters wanting something fashionable, yarbles - it’s for people who long for traditional dials and know how to avoid camera shake by setting the speed of the photograph
Could this be an issue with the gamut of the capture colour space incorrectly matched to the output device - if you are capturing in Adobe RGB but your monitor is closer to sRGB the image can looked washed out.
DXO may compensate for source/output colour spaces.
How are these images captured? Screengrabs or opening saved files in the same specific app/viewer?
