 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 2006Stepping Up to DSLR - Canon 350D
Hello I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the Canon 350D. My question is really two-fold: 1) Is it a good entry level DSLR for a noob 2) Should I master all aspects of Manual settings before I take the step up from Compact? I have a Sony DSC - p100 5MP compact and I get some fair results from it but I havent really mastered the manual settings yet. I want to make the step up because the idea of building a system really appeals to me so that i can take better landscape and macro shots but I don't know whether I would be out of my depth. Thanks in advance John > Hello > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the > Canon 350D. My question is really two-fold: The latest model is the 400D. 10 Megapixels instead of 8 MP, 9-pt autofocus instead of 7, 2.5" LCD instead of 1.8", anti dust features, and double buffer size. Unless you are buying a 2nd hand camera, the price of the 400d is only marginally higher than the 350d. I would strongly advise against the older model at this point. : > Hello : > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : price of the 400d is only marginally higher than the 350d. I would : strongly advise against the older model at this point. the 350 is a better deal especially if there is a rebate available. Also the extra megapixels aren't the advantage they should be. unless you plan to print alot of A3 pictures 8mp is more than sufficient. see the above thread"canon stumbles right out of the box" > the 350 is a better deal especially if there is a rebate available. Also > the extra megapixels aren't the advantage they should be. unless you plan > to print alot of A3 pictures 8mp is more than sufficient. see the above > thread"canon stumbles right out of the box" There's no rebate for the 350D. Despite what people say, extra megapixels are *always* a nice thing --- assuming if the noise level doesn't increase to any practically discernible level. Even if you don't print larger than A4, the extra megapixels allows for more freedom in cropping & reframing. In addition to the 10MP sensor, the 400d has the 30d's 9-pt autofocus, which is a pretty good deal. And it was designed to take advantage of f2.8 during focusing, something the 350d didn't have. And it has picture styles, which is surprisingly more useful in its convenience... especially since most Digital Rebel owners typically use jpeg rather than RAW. Buffer size is double. Dust cleaning is nice. And the 2.5" LCD is a good upgrade over the 1.8" LCD. And the 400d's resale value would be higher than the 350d, should you decide to sell it a few years down the road. All in all, I think the small $100-$120 difference between 350d and 400d is easily worth all these things. I wouldn't necessarily upgrade from 350d to 400d. However, if I didn't already have a Digital Rebel, buying a brand new 350D at this point just to save about $100 would seem fairly shortsighted. >> the 350 is a better deal especially if there is a rebate available. Also >> the extra megapixels aren't the advantage they should be. unless you [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > buying a brand new 350D at this point just to save about $100 would > seem fairly shortsighted. The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. >>> the 350 is a better deal especially if there is a rebate available. Also >>> the extra megapixels aren't the advantage they should be. unless you [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. The handling is far superior? Does it make your teeth whiter, too? Greg In article <452364a2$0$8383$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> wrote: <snippage> > > All in all, I think the small $100-$120 difference between 350d and > > 400d is easily worth all these things. I wouldn't necessarily upgrade [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. Excuse me? The camera's in the same body as the 350D, with the exception of a differernt back piece to accomodate the larger display. Weight is within grams of each other, nothing has changed, battery grip (BG-3) from the 350D fits perfectly on it... So how can you say that "The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D"? > In article > <452364a2$0$8383$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (BG-3) from the 350D fits perfectly on it... So how can you say that > "The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D"? Pick them both up and then come back and tell me they are the same! In article <4526b294$0$8376$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D <no@email.com> wrote: > > In article > > <452364a2$0$8383$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Pete D [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Pick them both up and then come back and tell me they are the same! Uhm, I have. >> >> The handling of the 400D is far superior to the 350D as well. >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Uhm, I have. I have to agree...the 400 is basically the same as the 350. The difference is less slippage due to the rubber thumb-pad on the back, but for holding the camera the grip is still too thin and small. > Hello > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John Hi John I took a similar step a few month ago from a Sony DSC (3.2 Mp) to a Nikon D50. I wouldn't worry about the manual settings on the Sony as 'driving' a DSLR is a different kettle of fish entirely. WHen I got my D50 I started out using the 'Auto' feature, which I guess is just a glorifies P&S mode. as I've moved on with my picture taking and having wanted to experiment more I moved to Aperture priority which give much of the control i'd like when taking shots. Occasionaly when time permits I'll switch to full manual (apart from the focus) to experiment further. A lot of trial and error ensues but I find this the best way to learn the different aspects of shooting scenery, sports, wildlife etc. Go for it and you won't be disappointed. As has been mentioned the 400D now effectively replaces the 350D and looks to be a bit of a bargain. Doc > Hello > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at > the > Canon 350D. My question is really two-fold: > > 1) Is it a good entry level DSLR for a noob Yes, as is the newer Canon 400D, Nikon D50, D80, etc. They all have full auto modes as well as various other modes that assist you until you're confident to use the shutter and aperture modes effectively. > 2) Should I master all aspects of Manual settings before I take the > step up from Compact? If you want to move to DSLR, then you might as well learn with the camera you'll be using. The abilities of the Sony P&S is likely limited and there will be more to learn with the DSLR. But before you decide on a camera, go to a store and have a look at several other makes and models. How the camera feels in your hands can be very important. Ergonomic layout of the controls and ease of use matters. Thank you all very much for your advice. I think a trip to Jessops will be happening withing the next few weeks. Especially since they price match with Amazon :) Best Wishes John Get yourself down to the neasest John Lewis....have a play with all the models you like.... Then buy them on the net.....like I did --lol Dave :) > Thank you all very much for your advice. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John This is the best advice you will get: Get whatever dSLR you prefer. Get Adobe Elements or Photoshop. Get a reasonable printer. Get a monitor calibrating device. Mastering the basics of Elements/Photoshop and color management will improve your final images more than the differences you will see in a 6/8/10mp sensor or in any imaginary differences between camera brands. You mentioned mastering the basics of photo editing software, but didn't mention mastering the camera's controls. I would get a good book of photography first myself, in order to understand all the basic fundamentals of photography. > This is the best advice you will get: > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > improve your final images more than the differences you will see in a > 6/8/10mp sensor or in any imaginary differences between camera brands. Jon schreef: > You mentioned mastering the basics of photo editing software, but didn't > mention mastering the camera's controls. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> improve your final images more than the differences you will see in a >> 6/8/10mp sensor or in any imaginary differences between camera brands. AND.........work in RAW !! -=Rob > This is the best advice you will get: > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. > Get Adobe Elements or Photoshop. > Get a reasonable printer. > Get a monitor calibrating device. speaking of which...would you consider calibrator to be an important for home/amateur user? (have 30D) say, Pantone Spyder2 or similar? : > This is the best advice you will get: : > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : home/amateur user? (have 30D) : say, Pantone Spyder2 or similar? I have the pro spyder 2 but i think the £69 budget version is just as good. The hardware is the same only the bundled software changes. > : > This is the best advice you will get: > : > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > good. > The hardware is the same only the bundled software changes. and so you use it regularly? And do you saw any change first time you ran it? >> : > This is the best advice you will get: >> : > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > and so you use it regularly? And do you saw any change first time you ran > it? Yes and yes. Greg >>> : > This is the best advice you will get: >>> : > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Greg sh.t... i knew i'll have to buy the darn thing... : >>> : > This is the best advice you will get: : >>> : > Get whatever dSLR you prefer. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] : sh.t... : i knew i'll have to buy the darn thing... Same hear. The brightness came down a bit and colour saturation dropped. Once i learned how to set up colour management in photoshop, especially the key combination to show what the print out would be like my prints finally matched what was on the screen. This was with selecting the default settings. So the reduced setup package of the cheaper one would have done. The other part being the custom print matcher software was of limited value. My advice would be save the £70 and buy the £69 lite version and not the £140 pro version that i got. > : >>> "Protoncek (ex.SleeperMan)" <protoHAHAHncek@bonbon.net> wrote in > message [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > My advice would be save the £70 and buy the £69 lite version and not the > £140 pro version that i got. great. Now all i have to do is find one of such devices in my country (slovenia). I have some links, though, so i hope it won't be a problem. Thanks : great. Now all i have to do is find one of such devices in my country : (slovenia). I have some links, though, so i hope it won't be a problem. : Thanks Many companies on the net do international shipping. The £ is quite strong. It might be worth buying from america or the EU. > : great. Now all i have to do is find one of such devices in my country > : (slovenia). I have some links, though, so i hope it won't be a problem. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > strong. > It might be worth buying from america or the EU. hm...yep, i guess that's one of options if local dealers will prove to be too expensive... > Hello > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the > Canon 350D. My question is really two-fold: > > 1) Is it a good entry level DSLR for a noob Yes, but go ahead and get the XTi (400D) - it's the latest model, several new advantagous features. > 2) Should I master all aspects of Manual settings before I take the > step up from Compact? No - buy the camera, leave it in the pre-programmed modes and work your way into the manual stuff. That way, you have the best of both worlds. > I have a Sony DSC - p100 5MP compact and I get some fair results from > it but I havent really mastered the manual settings yet. The "manual" settings on a compact "P&S" camera are really nothing like the ones on a SLR with full function. > I want to make the step up because the idea of building a system really > appeals to me so that i can take better landscape and macro shots but I > don't know whether I would be out of my depth. Again, you'll have a very high quality Point & Shoot if you leave it in the pre-programmed modes, and you can learn the other stuff as you go along. First thing to do after you buy it... buy yourself another lens to go on it, depending on what type of photography you are going to be doing. The 18-55's an OK lens, but it's not the quality of many of the other Canon (and available-for-Canon) lenses. > Thanks in advance > > John Oh, and to follow up on myself, if you can keep the money from burning a hole in your pocket, Costco's gonna have the 400D (XTi) at about $800-900 within the next 2-3 weeks, or so they tell me. > Hello > I am considering purchasing a DSLR camera and have been looking at the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > John I'd go ahead and get the camera. The 350D is a great camera (I have one). As to someone else mentioning the 400D I'd really go on price, the difference in resolution is minor. I have a 400D on the way, but more just to replace the 350D which I am having converted for infrared photography. All the indications are that the 350D is slightly better than the 400D on image noise. You'll learn as you shoot with the new camera. Cheers, Wayne  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Thanks everyone for your positive feedback, It's made me more confident about stepping up to DSLR. I will definately be taking the plunge some time soon. I just have to butter the missus up a bit first :) My gut feeling tells me to go for the 350D. I want the 400D because of the extra MegaPixels and all but I'm not sure I need it. I'm thinking it might be better to put the £90 I will save towards another lens, memory card or a tripod or somthing. Sorry if this should be saved for another thread but if I did opt for the 350D, should I get the 18-55mm lense with it or is there a better one for around the same cost? I have seen a Tamron 17-50mm XR DI LD advertised in various magazines. Is this compatible/good? Also, what should be the next thing I buy? I'm thinking Zoom lens but haven't got too much to spend Thanks in advance John > Thanks everyone for your positive feedback, It's made me more confident > about stepping up to DSLR. I will definately be taking the plunge some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John Hi John, I won't comment on the lens because I use mostly L-series (read expensive) lenses but Tamron do produce some very nice lenses. What you need depends so much on your interests in photography. Here are some options: - polarising filter (circular) - great for many situations to improve contrast and remove reflections. - tripod - slows you down and allows you to shoot in a wider range of lighting conditions. You want a solid one light enough that you will actually take it with you. I like Slik and Manfrotto. If you get a tripod you might as well get a cable release (electronic) - closeup lenses - as a cheaper alternative to a macro lens, good ones will let you get much closer and still give a decent quality result. - with more money get a good longer focal length zoom - external flash - depending on your shooting this could be useful. Gives more range plus bounce flash options. Cheers, Wayne SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ In article <452313c8$0$8388$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, Wayne J. Cosshall <wayne@dimagemaker.com> wrote: <snippage> > > Also, what should be the next thing I buy? I'm thinking Zoom lens but > > haven't got too much to spend [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > - polarising filter (circular) - great for many situations to improve > contrast and remove reflections. And make sure they are at least as high in quality as whatever lens you buy. Buying a cheap polarizer and putting it on a good lens just wasted the lens. I have to say, I can't overemphasize the previous poster's recommendation enough. Screw the "UV filter to protect your lens" crap. Buy a polarizer - it works better, in more circumstances, than a UV filter, and it protects the lens just as well (and the fragments from which will scratch it just like a UV will if you actually hit hard enough to bust through the filter - but if you've done that, you're probably gonna be sending the whole lens in for repair anyway due to the shock it would take). > - tripod - slows you down and allows you to shoot in a wider range of > lighting conditions. You want a solid one light enough that you will > actually take it with you. I like Slik and Manfrotto. If you get a > tripod you might as well get a cable release (electronic) Absotively - see most of the pro's out there? Ever see them (with rare exceptions) handholding for an important shot? Yes, I know it's done, and yes, I've seen some startlingly good handheld shots. It's just not the norm. With a tripod, your camera is steadier (turn off IS on a tripod to save the batteries, and to eliminate the occasional confusion of the IS, which wants to be doing something, but there's no movement for it to compensate for, so it sometimes creates some on its own). Also, learn immediately to use the mirror lockup custom function on either the 350D or the 450D to eliminate even that little movement whe you are really concerned about the shot. If you don't get the remote release, at least use the self-portrait mode which willenable you to let go of the camera and allow it to stop moving beofer it fires its own shutter. > - closeup lenses - as a cheaper alternative to a macro lens, good ones > will let you get much closer and still give a decent quality result. OK, I'd say I agree with that one about 60% :^) > - with more money get a good longer focal length zoom > - external flash - depending on your shooting this could be useful. > Gives more range plus bounce flash options. Make sure you get one that's E-TTL compatible for the Canon, or stick with Canon brand. The 580ex is top of the line right now and has many functions which you might not currently need, but always consider going top of the line in the expectation that your needs will increase as your proficiency gets better - no sense in buying something cheaper now to only have to replace it with a better model a year or two down the road. My philosophy is to buy better than I need right now, then allow myself to "grow" into the functions as I need them. > Cheers, > > Wayne >And make sure they are at least as high in quality as whatever lens you >buy. Buying a cheap polarizer and putting it on a good lens just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >done that, you're probably gonna be sending the whole lens in for >repair anyway due to the shock it would take). As with most things in photography, it depends. I'd not spend the money on an f/2.8 lens to keep a polarizer on it, cutting the light to it by half or more. As for the UV filter, it again depends. If you are going out into a sloppy environment (such as in a small boat) or a rainy day, the UV filter will keep the gunk off your lens proper. It is fairly easy to clean a filter. You are quite right about what happens if you smash something into the front element of the lens. But "smashing" isn't the only kind of damage. I keep both UV filters and polarizers in my kit for use as needed. In transit I keep a UV filter on the lens because the %^&* Canon lenscaps do not always stay on. ---- Paul J. Gans > the %^&* Canon > lenscaps do not always stay on. Now THAT's a fair statement! :^) I just had to dig one out of a crusher full of pinot noir grapes (with an attendant hovering clooud of bees) the other day at a winery I was doing a shoot at, when it fell off as I was climbing a ladder to get to a better vantage point for a shot. Fortunately, the machine operator had seen it fall off and stopped the machine instantly. Boy, was it STICKY when I got it out. :^) I always carry at least two spares in my gadget bag, too. However, my point on the other issues was that the polarizer's just as good for that sort of thing as the UV, and I've never been able to tell myself that I can see any real difference that a UV made that a polarizer couldn't have duplicated. Polarizer's also just as easy to clean as a UV. :^) The 2/3 stop loss is something that's not really a big deal for me - I shoot mostly landscapes instead of action stuff that I'd need the faster lens for, so I can always compensate with the shutter. Plus, if you ARE using the f2.8, you already have that extra range to lose in a lot of circumstances, unless you're going for certain effects. If you are shooting in light conditions that require the full f2.8, you're probably not in conditions that are goiing to be right for a polarizer anyway (low light) so to me, removing it would be no great hardship in those few times I'd need it, and a UV wouldn't be of much help there, either - so to me it makes no difference if I have to remove a polarizer and replace it afterwards, or do the same with a UV, except I find a polarizer more useful. As I keep saying, it's all personal preference. :^) The only thing that makes the ultimate difference in the end is the picture on the paper. >> the %^&* Canon >> lenscaps do not always stay on. >Now THAT's a fair statement! :^) I just had to dig one out of a >crusher full of pinot noir grapes (with an attendant hovering clooud of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >stopped the machine instantly. Boy, was it STICKY when I got it out. >:^) I always carry at least two spares in my gadget bag, too. >However, my point on the other issues was that the polarizer's just as >good for that sort of thing as the UV, and I've never been able to tell >myself that I can see any real difference that a UV made that a >polarizer couldn't have duplicated. >Polarizer's also just as easy to clean as a UV. :^) True. >The 2/3 stop loss is something that's not really a big deal for me - I >shoot mostly landscapes instead of action stuff that I'd need the >faster lens for, so I can always compensate with the shutter. Plus, if >you ARE using the f2.8, you already have that extra range to lose in a >lot of circumstances, unless you're going for certain effects. Exactly my point. Photography is very personal and needs vary. >If you are shooting in light conditions that require the full f2.8, >you're probably not in conditions that are goiing to be right for a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >remove a polarizer and replace it afterwards, or do the same with a UV, >except I find a polarizer more useful. >As I keep saying, it's all personal preference. :^) The only thing >that makes the ultimate difference in the end is the picture on the >paper. Hmm. We both keep saying it... I think that your original post was very useful. Folks just starting out don't know what they really need -- and what you need in digital is NOT always what you needed in film work. The two media are different, in spite of seeming similarities. So what one needs depends on one's personal preference in photography (as you say), upon their budget, and on how much stuff they can carry around. Speaking for myself I screwed up in that I have a good kit (I think) but I don't yet have a decent "walking around lens" that suits *ME* in the environment in which I am usually located. (Translated that means different "walking around" lenses are needed by different folks.) Newcomers should think hard about all this and then ask questions, many questions. Don't take any single answer as gospel until you learn which folks have needs like yours and decent experience to go with it. My rules: Lenses are more important than bodies for most beginners *unless* you have special needs. And one does not have to buy the best lenses in the world right off (though that would be nice.) You can get decent results from lenses one grade down (or even two). Read reviews and look at sample pix on the web. But the most important rule is: enjoy yourself! ---- Paul J. Gans > Newcomers should think hard about all this and then ask > questions, many questions. Don't take any single answer > as gospel until you learn which folks have needs like > yours and decent experience to go with it. Be prepared for many questions Paul ;) > My rules: Lenses are more important than bodies for most > beginners *unless* you have special needs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > results from lenses one grade down (or even two). Read > reviews and look at sample pix on the web. I am starting to appreciate how subjective photography is just by reading these posts and that there isn't a one-size fits all solution. Looks like I'm at the start of a lifelong journey. > But the most important rule is: enjoy yourself! > > ---- Paul J. Gans Can't be fairer than that Paul Thank you. > I am starting to appreciate how subjective photography is just by > reading these posts and that there isn't a one-size fits all solution. > Looks like I'm at the start of a lifelong journey. Oh, but what a journey. Boat == hole in the water to throw money into. House == hole in the ground to throw money into. Camera == hole in your wallet that lets money slip out of. >> Newcomers should think hard about all this and then ask >> questions, many questions. Don't take any single answer >> as gospel until you learn which folks have needs like >> yours and decent experience to go with it. >Be prepared for many questions Paul ;) Fine with me. But if you post them here you will get many answers. >> My rules: Lenses are more important than bodies for most >> beginners *unless* you have special needs. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> results from lenses one grade down (or even two). Read >> reviews and look at sample pix on the web. >I am starting to appreciate how subjective photography is just by >reading these posts and that there isn't a one-size fits all solution. >Looks like I'm at the start of a lifelong journey. A fun journey. As long as what you produce makes *you* happy, you are in good shape. Don't take pictures to satisfy someone else, take them to satisfy you. One of the neat things about digital is that pictures basically cost nothing. Pick a subject and take a zillion pictures of it from different angles, distances, and so on. Then decide what worked, remember that, and get rid of the others. >> But the most important rule is: enjoy yourself! >> >> ---- Paul J. Gans >Can't be fairer than that Paul Thank you. It's the truth. ---- Paul J. Gans >> the %^&* Canon >> lenscaps do not always stay on. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > you're probably not in conditions that are goiing to be right for a > polarizer anyway (low light) You don't just use fast lenses because the light is low! so to me, removing it would be no great > hardship in those few times I'd need it, and a UV wouldn't be of much > help there, either - so to me it makes no difference if I have to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that makes the ultimate difference in the end is the picture on the > paper. > Thanks everyone for your positive feedback, It's made me more confident > about stepping up to DSLR. I will definately be taking the plunge some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it might be better to put the £90 I will save towards another lens, > memory card or a tripod or somthing. Trust me, it ain't all about the megapixels. The 350 had a dinky little 1.8" LCD screen on the back, and a tiny little monochrome ('bout the sizez of a small calculator's screen, and very hard to read in low-light conditions, even with the backlight) LCD strip with all the camera functions on it. I can't tell you how much that little screen irritated me. The 400D's got a 2.5" screen, with all the functions right there on the screen, very visible in all but the very brightest of direct light (and several brightness settings). It's also got an ultrasonic sensor cleaner (word's still out on the effectiveness, but I figure 'hey, it can't hurt'), and a built-in dust-elimination function that allows you to eliminate any dust from your images that might be on the sensor, before you even download the pix. It's also got slightly (very) improved fps/sustained rate, improved white balance (at least in my trials) and more pre-sets that you can manually configure and call back at the touch of a button. It's also got the better 9-point autofocus (the 350D's only got 7 point). It might not seem like much, but it's just one more little thing that adds up. > Sorry if this should be saved for another thread but if I did opt for > the 350D, should I get the 18-55mm lense with it or is there a better [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Also, what should be the next thing I buy? I'm thinking Zoom lens but > haven't got too much to spend Depends on what you're gonna do with it - a lot. Can you be more specific? I like the 24-105MM L IS for a general purpose walkaround, but if you're shooting lots of stuff like studio or fixed distances, go for primes, they will almost invariably be sharper. A good L series prime is worth its weight in gold if it fits into what your needs are. Go for the BEST glass you can afford - and wait pariently to get more $$ even then to put into it (buy something to last a lifetime), it'll be worth the wait. I remember how long it took me before I started buying L series glass - and knew when I had the first pictures developed that it had been worth the money. There's nothing in the world (IMO) that makes as big a difference as the glass, as long as your camera (film, digital or otherwise) is functioning properly. Well, except for the software BEHIND the camera and between the ears. =:^). Wow, theres a lot to take in :) Ken and Plastic have now totally convinced me to spend the extra £90 on the 400D. But I will take Bills advice and try it out in a store to make sure I like the feel of it etc. I think i'm right in saying that the main consensus is "If you buy cheap, you buy twice" when it comes to your lenses and other kit. I am way out of my depth at the moment but I think the way I will go is to buy the camera with the standard 18-55mm lens and learn as much as I can while saving up enough Yarrips to start building up my kit. The area I most want to move into is Landscapes so I'm thinking the next thing to buy should be a telephoto zoom and/or a tripod with an electronic photo release suggested by Wayne. Or should I get that polarising filter first? Also how much will a good Polariser set me back? The idea of applying filters and other effects with PhotoShop also really appeals to me and some closeup stuff like plants and insects. Ken, is the 24-105MM L IS A good enough zoom lens for most landscape situations? Thank you all so much for your excellent advice and for taking the time and effort to explain everything for me. John Ken, is the 24-105MM L IS A good enough zoom lens for most landscape situations? for a full frame system this would be an excellent choice for landscape. Typical landscape focal lengths are 28mm with people with money buying 24mm. The 1.6 crop factor means you need 18mm or shorter. The 17-40 F4L is a good quality but still sensibly priced lens. > Ken, is the 24-105MM L IS A good enough zoom lens for most landscape > situations? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The 1.6 crop factor means you need 18mm or shorter. The 17-40 F4L is a good > quality but still sensibly priced lens. For that matter, a 50mm f 1.8 or 1.4 are sensible landscape lenses if you are going to stitch. Far more detail in a few frames put together with those lenses than a frame or two from a wide angle, and less distortion. SignatureJohn McWilliams > Wow, theres a lot to take in :) > > Ken and Plastic have now totally convinced me to spend the extra £90 > on the 400D. But I will take Bills advice and try it out in a store to > make sure I like the feel of it etc. I doubt that you will ever have cause to regret it. > I think i'm right in saying that the main consensus is "If you buy > cheap, you buy twice" when it comes to your lenses and other kit. Bingo. > I am way out of my depth at the moment but I think the way I will go is > to buy the camera with the standard 18-55mm lens and learn as much as I > can while saving up enough Yarrips to start building up my kit. Pretty good plan. > The area I most want to move into is Landscapes so I'm thinking the > next thing to buy should be a telephoto zoom and/or a tripod with an > electronic photo release suggested by Wayne. Or should I get that > polarising filter first? Also how much will a good Polariser set me > back? My opinion: get the polarizer FIRST, because it will work on tripod or off. Remember that most polarizers will lose you about 2/3 of a stop of light, so you may want to remove it from the lens for low-light stuff. The rest of the time, just leave it on there - you'll be amazed at what it does for saturation and reflected light that you don't even realize is there, even on cloudy days or when the light is not the "perfect 90 degrees" from your shooting direction. Get a semi-decent one ($45-60) for the 18-55mm (the lens isn't the best glass around, but it's reasonable). If you want to look around ahead of time, you'll be looking for a 58mm diameter one. A Sunpak is about right. When you get better glass, plan on spending at least $150-200 just for the polarizer, go with B+W (or Hoya's Super-Pro) or similar quality. As for a tripod, the 400D is so light that you can get by (initially) with a less expensive (read: less sturdy) tripod until you do the research and decide what you want. Again, it's better to research and play around with some differing models, and eventually spend a little more on the _long-term_ tripod you want to use than to jump in and buy something cheap that you THINK will be right for you right away and regret it later, have to resell and fork out more $$ (or, in your case, ££ <g>). Find something used on eBay for a good bargain. Get one of the Benro ballheads (a knockoff of Kirk, etc.) off of eBay for about $80 or so. The Benro's are pretty damn good for such an inexpensive ballhead. > The idea of applying filters and other effects with PhotoShop also > really appeals to me and some closeup stuff like plants and insects. The 18-55 will do some pretty good closeups at the 55mm end of the range (remember, when you are dealing with the smaller sensor on the 400D, you multiply the actual lens focal length by 1.6 to get the effective focal length. Thus, your 18-88 actually becomes a 28.8-88mm lens). You can also get (again, off of eBay) a 58mm "reversing ring" for it that allows you to mount the lens backwards oon the camera and use it as an extremem closeup lens (you lose autofocus, of course, but the TTL metering and autoexposure still work). > Ken, is the 24-105MM L IS A good enough zoom lens for most landscape > situations? Absolutely, unless you want to go really wide angle, then you have the 10-22mm available (non-L, but probably should be an L by its quality - they probably don't want to label any EF-S lenses as "L"). Be aware the the 24-105 L is a serioous chunk of cash, for those not used to seeiing the prices of quality glass (although miniscule to the longer lenses in the L series) - you'll drop in the neighborhood of $1000 or so for one (new). And my recommendation on high end glass IS to buy _new_ - there's just too much that some sellers of used equipmment COULD have done or not done to or for a lens that they may not tell you. Most are reputable (if you DO buy used, buy from an established dealer, not some eBay'er with nothing more than a good feedback rating - that doesn't always tell the whole story), but occasionally, some are sleeze. Of course, lenses are a really personal thing for most, so I'm sure others will jump in here and "correct" me - and you should listen to them all (except RichA, whom you should killfile just to save yourself the aggravation of reading his little diatribes and knowledgeless pokes at people way smarter than he is) and weigh ALL the information and choose what is right for you. I never thought that I really needed super wide angle before, but when I finally broke down purchased the 10-22mm, I really liked the effects - with the exception of the irritation that a polarizer doesn't work well on it (only poraizes a portion of the frame, due to the effects of the high curvature of the glass and the flat plane of the polarizer) which I had not anticipated. > Thank you all so much for your excellent advice and for taking the time > and effort to explain everything for me. > > John No sweat. Wish I'd had a similar tool (usenet forums) when I was first starting out all those years ago. > As for a tripod, the 400D is so light that you can get by (initially) > with a less expensive (read: less sturdy) tripod until you do the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > $80 or so. The Benro's are pretty damn good for such an inexpensive > ballhead. I have a Benro ballhead and carbon fiber tripod that I'm happy with. I mentioned that I'd post a long term usage review so I'll try to get something together soon. Now that I've used my friend's Gitzo/Kirk setup I have a better reference. Greg Thanks again Ken What kind of things will I be able to shoot on the 18-55mm that comes with the Canon? I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom of sorts? I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and will it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB of storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on an average day out etc. Do I have to up the anti with a DSLR. On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to compose images with a DSLR. Does this make it harder to take snaps? Do you have to be steadier? Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? Many Thanks John > Thanks again Ken > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > John here are tons of books about photography... http://www.b213.net/index.php?id=photog see if you'll find any usefull > here are tons of books about photography... > http://www.b213.net/index.php?id=photog > see if you'll find any usefull Cheers man that is a cool resource and all free John > Thanks again Ken > > What kind of things will I be able to shoot on the 18-55mm that > comes > with the Canon? Anything you want, within the limits of the zoom range and the effect you wish to obtain, of course. :-) > I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom > of sorts? I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and > will > it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? Depends on the zoom range of the compact compared to the DSLR. Compact camera lenses can be quite good since the design and contruction is easier than a larger SLR lense. If you have a really good P&S camera, the initial impressions with the 18-55 kit lense may not impress you. SLR cameras are designed with the intention of being used with good quality lenses, and sometimes they're not cheap. I know a few people who bought SLRs thinking they would take better photos, and then went back to P&S cameras because they didn't need the speed, power, low noise, and versatility of an SLR. > Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB > of > storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on > an > average day out etc. Do I have to up the anti with a DSLR. Depends how much you shoot and which file type you choose to use. The camera manual gives you an idea of how many photos of each type will fit on a specific card size. What you have now (presuming they are compact flash cards) should be enough to get you started. Then after you use the camera for a bit you can figure out if you need a bigger card or not. > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to > compose images with a DSLR. Does this make it harder to take snaps? That's correct, you can't use the display to compose images as the mirror and shutter inside the mirrorbox directs incoming light up into the viewfinder. It makes it easier to compose the scene, and focus upon the subject, and track moving subjects. But is it easier to use the viewfinder? Maybe/maybe not, but that depends on what you're used to using. It's easier to just point and shoot with a digicam, but you may not know what you're getting in the shot, or if it's composed or focused correctly. SLR photography is generally more refined and more capable, but in some cases P&S cameras are just easier, which is partly why they're so popular. In fact, I still have and use a small 3 megapixel camera for parties and minor social events where I simply don't need my DSLR. > Do you have to be steadier? Nope...having your arms and the camera closer to your body is inherently more steady than holding the camera at arms length. > Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? Nothing specific. But you can go to the public library and browse through their photographic section, and also browse the magazines (or search online). You'll find plenty of reading material about photographic techniques and principles, and it generally doesn't matter if it's film or digital as it applies to both. The only difference between film and digital SLR is the recording media - everything else is essentially the same. : > Thanks again Ken : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : Anything you want, within the limits of the zoom range and the effect : you wish to obtain, of course. landscape to head and torso portraits or closer. Nowhere near long enough for sport. : > I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom : > of sorts? I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and : > will : > it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? digital compacts are excellent at macro (close up work) usually within an inch or so. Cheap SLR lenses won't get closer than 3ft. To do decent macro a specialist macro lens is required. Even 3rd party ones cost several hundred pounds. Some zooms have an extra button, or feature of some kind to allow limited macro. I had a 70-210 lens that allowed close ups of 20cm from the 70mm end. : Depends on the zoom range of the compact compared to the DSLR. Compact : camera lenses can be quite good since the design and contruction is : easier than a larger SLR lense. : > Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB : > of : > storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on : > an : > average day out etc. Do I have to up the anti with a DSLR. CF are much cheaper than memory stick. 2gb can be got from 7dayshop for under £25. 1gb cards are currently £10 plus shipping. For jpeg that is several hundred photos, shooting raw thatst still at least 100. : > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to : > compose images with a DSLR. Does this make it harder to take snaps? Actually i went back to slr after buying a hybrid camera. Digital viewfinders typically suffer badly when used outdoors in strong sunlight. 2ndly you are limited by the refresh rate and resolution of the display for checking focusing and capturing fast moving objects. : That's correct, you can't use the display to compose images as the : mirror and shutter inside the mirrorbox directs incoming light up into : the viewfinder. proper focus confirmation of what the camera has chosen to focus on will be far more accurate. also compared to p+s switch on focus and shoot will be instant. : > Do you have to be steadier? holding an slr is inherantly steadier than holding a p+s away from your body and looking at the rear viewfinder. You can also see what shutter speed has been selected and will soon know if you are in danger of camera shake. Basically 1/60th of a second or faster is usually sufficient as an extremely basic rule of thumb. Especially if you only have the 18-55 lens on. telephoto lenses are a bit trickier. : > Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? Read the maunal and quick start guide. Subscribing to a magazine such as amateur photographer would be good. Also there are EOS user guides going for £12.99 or so. There probably isn't a 400D out yet but the 350D would be very close. > : Anything you want, within the limits of the zoom range and the > effect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > enough > for sport. Depends which sport, the angle of view required, proximity to the action, etc. I shot some indoor volleyball with a 50mm f/1.8 to help with the low light action. Since I was right at the line, it was close enough for most shots. A few needed cropping, not due to distance, but due to player positions. > : > it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro > mode? > > digital compacts are excellent at macro (close up work) usually > within an > inch or so. Cheap SLR lenses won't get closer than 3ft. Incorrect...the cheap 18-55 that came with my Canon camera gets down to about 8" from the front element at 55mm, and the 18-70 on my friends Nikon which I borrow a lot also gets down to 8" at 70mm. While that's not an inch or so, it's a lot less than 3 feet. And which P&S gets down to one inch in macro mode? > To do decent macro > a specialist macro lens is required. Even 3rd party ones cost [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 20cm > from the 70mm end. That's pretty common, even with lenses that are not labeled as macro capable. For instance, my friends Nikon 18-200 VR focuses to about 10" at 200mm. The term macro is generally used to refer to a lense that is capable of a 1:1 reproduction ratio though, and none of the lenses I mentioned can do that. A true macro lense is needed for that. But they can still get fairly close to some of the tiny-action stars. Cheers Ian > digital compacts are excellent at macro (close up work) usually within an > inch or so. Cheap SLR lenses won't get closer than 3ft. To do decent macro > a specialist macro lens is required. Even 3rd party ones cost several > hundred pounds. Some zooms have an extra button, or feature of some kind to > allow limited macro. I had a 70-210 lens that allowed close ups of 20cm > from the 70mm end. that's too bad. i got some great shots of bees this summer on my Sony compact and I imagined the DSLR would do an even better job without having to fork out too much on additional lenses. Mind you, I can build up my kit slowly. > CF are much cheaper than memory stick. 2gb can be got from 7dayshop for > under £25. 1gb cards are currently £10 plus shipping. For jpeg that is > several hundred photos, shooting raw thatst still at least 100. i'm glad of that at least I don't need to spend a lot on storage. > holding an slr is inherantly steadier than holding a p+s away from your body > and looking at the rear viewfinder. You can also see what shutter speed has > been selected and will soon know if you are in danger of camera shake. > Basically 1/60th of a second or faster is usually sufficient as an extremely > basic rule of thumb. Especially if you only have the 18-55 lens on. > telephoto lenses are a bit trickier. I kind of like the way you can look at the image finder on compacts but I can see how it would be awkward to shoot like this with a DSLR because of the size difference. > > I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom > > of sorts? I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > photos, and then went back to P&S cameras because they didn't need the > speed, power, low noise, and versatility of an SLR. The Zoom is the one thing that really disapoints me about my compact. It just doesn't get close enough when taking pictures of landscapes and events. I think the best thing for me to do is get down to my local jessops store and have a play with the standard 18-55 and if i'm not impressed a decent zoom lens will be going on my wish list > > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to > > compose images with a DSLR. Does this make it harder to take snaps? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > shoot with a digicam, but you may not know what you're getting in the > shot, or if it's composed or focused correctly. I see. The viewfinder gives a better account of how the picture will turn out. > > Do you have to be steadier? > > Nope...having your arms and the camera closer to your body is > inherently more steady than holding the camera at arms length. Glad to hear it. i read a review on Amazon that some guy wasd taking awful pics with his D350 comapred to his compact and he said it was all about holding the camera much steadier. > > Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > digital SLR is the recording media - everything else is essentially > the same. Thank you Bill > The Zoom is the one thing that really disapoints me about my > compact. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > jessops store and have a play with the standard 18-55 and if i'm not > impressed a decent zoom lens will be going on my wish list More than likely you'll want a 70-200 or 70-300 lense for more reach to get you closer to the action. The two most often used lenses on my Canon are the 17-40 f/4 L and 70-200 f/4 L. I have a few others for specific needs, but these two cover most of what I need and they have excellent optical quality. They're not cheap compared to their other consumer lenses, but they are certainly among the best Canon has to offer, which makes them reasonably priced. On my friends Nikon D70s which I borrow a lot, the two most often used lenses are the 18-70 kit lense which is surprisingly good, and the 70-200 VR. I played with the smaller 18-200 VR last weekend again and it's a very versatile lense to cover a lot of stuff - I can see why it's so popular. > More than likely you'll want a 70-200 or 70-300 lense for more reach > to get you closer to the action. How much money am i looking to spend for this kind of lens? > The two most often used lenses on my Canon are the 17-40 f/4 L and > 70-200 f/4 L. I have a few others for specific needs, but these two [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > it's a very versatile lense to cover a lot of stuff - I can see why > it's so popular. Cheers Bill One thing I have gleaned from you all in this group is that the lenses are just as, if not more important than the body. Why is this the case? is the differnece in quality really apparant when you compare photos taken with cheaper lenses and more expensive lenses? Thanks in advance john > Why is this the case? Because no matter how good the sensor (or film) is, it only records that which reaches it through the lens. > is the differnece in quality really apparant when you compare photos > taken with cheaper lenses and more expensive lenses? Yes. Yes yes yes. Yes yes yes yes & yes. Not just yes, but HELL YES!!! Get the point? :^) > One thing I have gleaned from you all in this group is that the lenses > are just as, if not more important than the body. Bingo. My work here is done :^) >> Why is this the case? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Bingo. My work here is done :^) Not quite. Finally quality needed still depends on what media you use, if you are printing to 6x4 you may well not see any improvement by spending big on lenses, if you are printing 12x18 then it may well be that spending more is a good idea. >> More than likely you'll want a 70-200 or 70-300 lense for more >> reach >> to get you closer to the action. > > How much money am i looking to spend for this kind of lens? Depends on the quality. You can get them as cheap as $150, but the quality obviously isn't that great. And you can spend all the way up to $2000 for the top quality glass. You have to decide how much quality you want and how much you're willing to pay to get it. But first you need to get the camera to find out what you want. > One thing I have gleaned from you all in this group is that the > lenses > are just as, if not more important than the body. Why is this the > case? The lense forms the image for the camera, so it's responsible for the quality of the image that can be captured. This applies equally to all film and digital cameras, regardless of technology. You can put a lousy lense on the most advanced body and you'll only get lousy images. But if you put a great lense on any body, you can get great images. > is the differnece in quality really apparant when you compare photos > taken with cheaper lenses and more expensive lenses? Again, it depends on the quality required. If you only make 4x6 prints of the family vacation or picnics, then you can stick to the lower quality lenses since you probably won't notice the difference. But if you print 8x10 or larger, or view them on computer/TV screens, then you'll want better lenses to improve resolution, colour, and contrast. In large prints and on monitors, the difference between low and high end lenses becomes very noticeable. Also, sharpness & contrast are just two factors in buying lenses. There are many other things to consider when buying lenses: USM or AF-S (Canon/Nikon) autofocus motors that focus very quickly compared to slower direct coupled motors, which is often essential for any action or to grab that quick candid shot. Internal focus so the front element does not rotate, which helps when using polarizers or gradient filters that need to remain in the same orientation while focusing and/or zooming. Full-time manual override of the autofocus that allows you to fine-tune the focus if needed. This can be essential for macro and some other types of photography where the camera may not focus on exactly the right spot for a composed scene. Weather sealing to help keep out dust and moisture. This is usually oriented toward pros, but it's a benefit to all users. Common size of front filter threads to allow using the same filters on all lenses (although step-up rings can help here too). Size and weight if carrying the lenses for any distance. Backpacking or hiking with 10 pounds of lenses or 2 pounds, can make a big difference. This is all part of using SLR cameras. It offers a lot of diversity and customization to each persons shooting style. And unfortunately no one has all the answers for you right away - it's something you need to learn as you develop your shooting style. For instance, some people shoot landscapes with a wide angle 28mm lense, while others shoot with a telephoto 200mm lense. It all depends on what you want to do, and how you want to do it. > > More than likely you'll want a 70-200 or 70-300 lense for more reach > > to get you closer to the action. > > How much money am i looking to spend for this kind of lens? Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS $500 Canon 70-200/2.8 IS $1600 Canon 200/2.8 $600 Canon 135/2 $800 Canon 300/2.8 IS $3700 http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr : Thanks again Ken : [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] : : Many Thanks The typical cheap lens that you got with film cameras was a 28-80. This enabled landscape to portrait. 18-55 on a 1.6 crop camera is the same thing. Cheap and cheerful. Considering you will only save £50 on average for buying a body only this lens that costs £100 seperately is a bargain. Once you have used it for a while you will have a better understanding of what your needs are regarding focal lengths and quality. > Thanks again Ken > > What kind of things will I be able to shoot on the 18-55mm that comes > with the Canon? I really haven't got a clue about lenses. Is it a zoom > of sorts? Anytime you see a lens with a focal length listed in the format xx-yy you know it is a zoom lens, because it is giving you the low-high focal lengths that the lens is capable of achieving. So, in this case, it's a zoom from 18mm to 55mm, which is not a bad range for a lot of the subject matter that you said that you were interested in. The 18mm (in reality, a 28.8 due to the 1.6 lens adjustment factor for the APS-C sized sensor in the camera) gives you a fairly decent wide angle for landscapes, and the 55mm end (in reality an 88 due to the same reason) give you good frame coverage for smaller objects at a few feet away (as in portraits, closeups, and such). In-between, you've got the same range as the venerable 50mm prime lens that many old-time pros swore by (and some even refused to teach students anything else until they had mastered that single lens). > I mean, is it a more powerful zoom than my compact and will Very probably more powerful than the zoom in your P&S, but without knowing what it's got, I don't know. Definitely better than any "digital zoom" that a lot of P&S's seem so bent on deceiving the public about - "digital zoom" is nothing more than cropping and enlarging within the camera, so you've got the original resolution, now blown up in size, which loses you lots. > it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? DEFINITELY better than the P&S's macro mode. > Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB of > storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on an > average day out etc. Do I have to up the anti with a DSLR. How long is a piece of string? <g> Remember, if you are shooting RAW (and you will be shortly once you start even in the very basic of the non-automatic modes) your files will be approzimately 7.5-7.5 megabytes in size (Canon specs claim 9.8mb, but I find my average is less than that, as stated). (the Program mode ("P" on the dial) is great for new users, because it's still all figured out by the camera, but you can override it when you want), but it will still shoot in RAW mode (or RAW+Jpeg, or even just JPEG if you want it to. I see no reason to wast my time with JPEGs when I know I want every bit of information I can get, just in case). I shoot most things with a 6gb microdrive, because I'm not normally shooting rapid-fire, so the slower card is fine. When I need a little more speed, I move to a set of 1gb CF cards (I have several of various speeds). The 6gb microdrive was about $140, and stores about 500 RAW shots. I also carry [in the truck] a 20gb portable drive system that automatically dumps the card contents to it so I can start fresh if needed. I've only needed it once so far, buy it's nice to know it's there if I encounter a photogenic Bigfoot somewhere in among my other shooting. =:^) > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to > compose images with a DSLR. Only on the new Olympus, but you can bet other manufacturers will follow the lead if it turns out to be viable. There IS no "digital view" on the rest of DSLRs. You only get the picture to review after the fact. But then, you get the picture, a histogram (to help you read whether or not you've exposed the picture right... right there and then, not back at the computer), and other helpful data. ALL you have IS the viewfinder. Believe me, it's better. Remember all the hoo-ha some of us made about a tripod? That's another reason (besides a steadier shot) for it - you can take the time to compose your picture properly, play with exposure settings and apertures, zoom in or out to compose or frame things better, see the things that you might want (or more iomportanly, not want) in the picture - like that power line, the piece of garbage in the foreground, or the contrail of the overhead jets - that you might not have noticed if you were to busy trying to handhold and/or compose with the display screen. You can also take series of shots with exactly the same composition, either over a period of time (for a "time lapse" type animation) or with different exposures and apertures, and compare them side by side, or use the High Dynamic Range function in Photoshop CS2 to pull details out of seemingly nothing (requires 2 or more shots with differing dynamic ranges to function, so it's best to have them identical in all other respects). > Does this make it harder to take snaps? Do > you have to be steadier? No - your pictures will acutally be MUCH better. How many times have you composed your shot, pressed the shutter, then accidentally moved (or the subject moved) in the horrendously long time between when you pressed the shutter and the picture was actually taken? [that happens because the image sensor has to shut down, its internal buffers flushed back to zero, and then it has to be renergized again to take the shot]. The 400D has a shutter lag time of only about 100 miliseconds [Canon's specs, I've never bothered to doubt nor test them]. > Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? Any good photography book will have the basic techniques you need to start with - digital or film, the techniques are the same, only the method of taking them will have changed. Play with your camera every single waking moment that you can for the first few days [weeks], using every conceivable feature and function (even if you don't think that you will ever need them - trust me, the time you need it in a hurry and the way to use it comes back to you in the field will pay it off in the long run) so you kow how to use them. THEN start worrying about the other stuff. When you are relaxed with your equipment, you can concentrate on the other essentials. If you are still fighting your equipment, no amount of knowing photography essentials will help you to get the shot right. > Many Thanks > > John > Remember, if you are shooting RAW (and you will be shortly once you > start even in the very basic of the non-automatic modes) your files > will be approzimately 7.5-7.5 megabytes in size (Canon specs claim ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 9.8mb, but I find my average is less than that, as stated). Warning, Warning, Warning, Will Robinson!!! Error! Error! Must sterilize! Must ster-i-lize!! [yes, I know, non-sequitors from two different shows] That should have read "approximately 7.5-8.5 megabytes". I leave most of my fat-fingering alone, but I had to correct that one, which is why I always re-read my own posts. :^( > Anytime you see a lens with a focal length listed in the format xx-yy > you know it is a zoom lens, because it is giving you the low-high focal [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (and some even refused to teach students anything else until they had > mastered that single lens). Ah I see. So Primes are just one measurement, like xx ? I think I have to go and try one out ASAP to get a feel for it. 18mm and 55mm mean nothing to me in terms of how close I can make far away objects appear. i will have to use one to fully understand. > > it be better for macro stuff than the compacts built in macro mode? > > DEFINITELY better than the P&S's macro mode. Excellent. I love taking closeups of flowers and insects. > > Also, will I have to buy some serious storage? I have around 750MB of > > storage with my Sony DSC 100 and this is usually more than enough on an [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > JPEG if you want it to. I see no reason to wast my time with JPEGs > when I know I want every bit of information I can get, just in case). Is a lot of quality lost using Jpeg compression? Is it true that you can manipulate the images better in photoshop if you shoot in RAW? > I shoot most things with a 6gb microdrive, because I'm not normally > shooting rapid-fire, so the slower card is fine. When I need a little > more speed, I move to a set of 1gb CF cards (I have several of various > speeds). T I didn't know you could use different card types my Sony only takes the memory sticks and they are quite a bit more expensive than CF, SD etc. Probably by design :) the 6gb microdrive was about $140, and stores about 500 RAW > shots. I also carry [in the truck] a 20gb portable drive system that > automatically dumps the card contents to it so I can start fresh if > needed. I've only needed it once so far, buy it's nice to know it's > there if I encounter a photogenic Bigfoot somewhere in among my other > shooting. =:^) LOL, I might also invest in one in case I come across Angelina Joley skinny dipping in the local Canal :) > > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to > > compose images with a DSLR. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > view" on the rest of DSLRs. You only get the picture to review after > the fact. What! You have no digital view at all before you shoot? This is a cool feature of digital cameras IMO :( But then, you get the picture, a histogram (to help you read > whether or not you've exposed the picture right... right there and > then, not back at the computer), and other helpful data. ALL you have > IS the viewfinder. Believe me, it's better. I think once I start taking better snaps the digital display will seem gimmicky anyway. > Remember all the hoo-ha some of us made about a tripod? That's another > reason (besides a steadier shot) for it - you can take the time to [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > differing dynamic ranges to function, so it's best to have them > identical in all other respects). So I guess it's very important to learn how to read the information that the camera is giving you instead of just relying on your eyes alone? I found the manual that came with the Sony DSC 100 disappointing in this respect.Do DSLR cameras ship with better manuals? > > Does this make it harder to take snaps? Do > > you have to be steadier? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The 400D has a shutter lag time of only about 100 miliseconds [Canon's > specs, I've never bothered to doubt nor test them]. I am glad to hear that. I had read somewhere that you had to be extra still using a DSLR than using a compact because of the image stabilisation features of most compacts > > Are there any books that you would recommend to get me up to speed? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > equipment, no amount of knowing photography essentials will help you to > get the shot right. Cheers Ken i cannot wait to take the plunge into DSLR. When i bought the SOny I had aspirations of taking breathtaking landscapes and processing them in Photoshop to create some really spacey stuff. Don't get me wrong, the Sony is a brilliant camera. I have been very impressed by the quality of the images I have taken with it and I will definately be keeping it for most of my holiday snaps etc. But, the Zoom just doesn't cut it. I need more for what I want to do Jessops here I come ( with my Amazon Price Printouts of course ) John <snippage> > Is a lot of quality lost using Jpeg compression? Is it true that you > can manipulate the images better in photoshop if you shoot in RAW? Depends on the comression level and how many times you do it. You can compress from 0% to 90%, with higher compressions losing more and more information. However, just because you're doing a "0%" compression (supposedly no compression at all) that doesn't mean that there is not some small data loss. Also, every time you open an image and resave it again, then open that saved image and resave it again (ad nauseum), you lose that same amount in an additive fashion - which it is called a "lossy" compression. So after several iterations of this, even at highest quality (or lowest compression, depending on how your software describes it), you continue to lose more and more information. Note that this does NOT occur if you open the file, then close it again without saving. On the other hand, TIFF files are lossless - you can open and save them any number of times without losing any quality at all, other than what you might have manually done in an editing program. If you DO shoot .jpegs, convert them to .tiffs to work with them, so that you don't lose that information - bnut be aware that .tiff files are often 6-10 times the size of even a RAW image. RAW definitely gives you much more room to work with in maniupulation, becuase it's recording the raw (hence the name) data from the sensor, which the software then can maniplulate in far more ways than the camera itself does when it saves it as a .jeg file. So the answer is yes. > > I shoot most things with a 6gb microdrive, because I'm not normally > > shooting rapid-fire, so the slower card is fine. When I need a little [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > memory sticks and they are quite a bit more expensive than CF, SD etc. > Probably by design :) The XT and XTI wil take either CF I or CF II type cards. The 6 gb microdrive that I use is a CF II emulator (same size, shape, and pin configuration) with a very tiny hard drive in it. One down side is that it does suck more battery power than a standard CF I or CF II flash memory type card, which is why I use a battery grip (hold two batteries in parallel, as well as giving duplicate button function (shutter, focus and exposure lock) when you have the camera in vertical orientation, without doing yoga to get to the shutter) to give me extended battery life. > > rhe 6gb microdrive was about $140, and stores about 500 RAW > > shots. I also carry [in the truck] a 20gb portable drive system that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > LOL, I might also invest in one in case I come across Angelina Joley > skinny dipping in the local Canal :) I'll help with the RAW editing on those, just let me know. > > > On another note, I have read that you cannot use the digital view to > > > compose images with a DSLR. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What! You have no digital view at all before you shoot? This is a cool > feature of digital cameras IMO :( Yeah, but it's wortheless, IMO, on a DSLR, for the reasons I gave. > > But then, you get the picture, a histogram (to help you read > > whether or not you've exposed the picture right... right there and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I think once I start taking better snaps the digital display will seem > gimmicky anyway. Ayup. > > Remember all the hoo-ha some of us made about a tripod? That's another > > reason (besides a steadier shot) for it - you can take the time to [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > that the camera is giving you instead of just relying on your eyes > alone? Yes and no - how's that for a definitive answer? There are many times that you will rely on your senses and instinct and override the camera once you have become familiar with how to do that and why. > I found the manual that came with the Sony DSC 100 disappointing > in this respect.Do DSLR cameras ship with better manuals? Slightly. Your best bet, as I said, is have the manual right beside you and play, play, play. > > > Does this make it harder to take snaps? Do > > > you have to be steadier? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > still using a DSLR than using a compact because of the image > stabilisation features of most compacts Most compacts _don't_ have IS. Also, they can't give you shutter speeds of 1/4000th of a second, either, nor control their apertures or exposure settings. :^) Depending on your ISO setting, your shutter speed and aperture, you'll be able to take pix far more steady than a compact, even without a tripod - doesn't mean you'll not need a tripod. Go get your camera, play all you can (to learn your equipment), and then book yourself into a local basic camera class put on by a pro. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message