DSLR 101

[ebiggs1]

Here is a sample of RAW and how it can help make your photos better. 

Normal RAW exposure.

Normal exposure jpg.  They look pretty close because you are looking at a computer monitor.  The RAW has been converted to jpg in post.  The original jpg was done by the camera, a 1Ds Mk III in this case.

However, suspose you got something wrong. In this case I under exposed it by 3 stops.  But it could be any condition.  WB, color balance, saturation, and on and on, etc.

Corrected RAW.

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

Especially check the shadows. Can you see the difference?  Need a better look?  OK, here is a 100% crop of that enlargment.

It should be blantly obivious that RAW is the way to go.  All else was equal. Same camera. Same lens. Same time of day. Same, same!

Get Lightroom................

[jazzman1]

I've thought about this and have looked over some lens and agree you're right that I should not ignor Sigma nor Tamron where their product is worth consideration.  I'm not as firmillar with their terminology for different features as i am with Canon's and it's hard to compare them against Canon's.   Other than knowing the "Art" series is Sigma's top of the line, I don't know what level grade the other lens falls under.  Hard to compare apples to oranges.   The only sign I have to go by right now is price.

I know that using a faster shutter speed will stop blur in a pic of a moving object and make the pic sharper.    But will using a higher shutter speed also make a "motionless object" sharper in a pic????  I know that using a Tripod/monopod will help sharpen ojects and wondered if shutter speed helped in motionless subjects too???

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

I know that using a faster shutter speed will stop blur in a pic of a moving object and make the pic sharper.    But will using a higher shutter speed also make a "motionless object" sharper in a pic????  I know that using a Tripod/monopod will help sharpen ojects and wondered if shutter speed helped in motionless subjects too???

---

Yes. A faster shutter speed will tend to minimize the effect of any relative motion between the camera and the subject. Image stabilization, OTOH. will not. IS will help correct for motion of the camera, but will have no net effect on motion of the subject. The effect of a tripod or monopod is similar to that of IS. It will help stabilize the camera but cannot correct for motion of the subject.

[ebiggs1]

"The only sign I have to go by right now is price."

This is probably the worse feature or point of a lens to use to evaluate its quality.

On sharpness, a lens can not change its specs.  It always provides exactly the same "sharpness".  What you do or what your camera does is what affects the lens IQ.  So no, a faster SS does not improve sharpness.  If on the other hand a subject or the camera is moving or shaking or vibrating, a faster SS will increase the cameras ability to capture what the lens sees.

A further word on third party lenses.  I only recommend the ones I have personaly used or tested.  Otherwise I recommend avoiding them.  They can be quite terribile.  I also don't recommend buying used third party lenses unless you know the lens and/or the owner well.  Sigma has the best reputation but only on its EX or Art/Sport line.  There is supposed to be a Contempoary line coming out but I have no experience with it.  Used Tamrons you need be very careful, some, a very few, are outstanding.  Others are not so nice.  I don't recommend any others at all.  Tokina, Bower, etc.  I usually add Tokina to that list but some friends are telling me the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens is very good.  But it is too cheaply built for me.   

As to a past question,"Where do I sell my lenses and cameras?"  You have to go to the places where people that want and see this type of equipment for what it is.  A local camera store, your friends and web sites, etc.  I don't have cameras/lenses that the typical Walmart shopper is interested in.  Otherwise I get the same answer you gave.  The 120-300mm f2.8 is too big and too heavy for me and it costs too much. Unfortunately if this type of perfromance is what you desire and require, that is the cost of admission.  The Siggy 85mm is big and it is heavy for an 85.  The Canon 85mm f1.2 is 'huge' and heavy.  It just goes with the territory.  Just one more of the things you need to learn how to handle if you want in this class of photographer.

[jazzman1]

Thanks Bob, that helps to know.  Soon I'll start to use full manual and I'll try different settings to see if it improves some shots,  Like in lower than normal outside light (sunset).  I know higher ISO helps in low light situations.  I thought Shutter Speed, and Aperture may also help to get sharper pics in lower light.  I've noticed some of my shots seem to get softer when the light starts to fade.  I know the lowest number of the aperture of my lens will be the final limiting factor in low light, but I think my settings would let me get the most out of the ability of my lens.   I thought my shutter speed and aperture settings could make my results worst or better, depending on my setting..

[jazzman1]

The only sign I have to go by right now is price."

This is probably the worse feature or point of a lens to use to evaluate its quality.

You're right I agree.  But I'm not firmillar yet with the terminology of the other brands.... yet.  I know Canon's lingo....IS, STM, USM, DO, "L's", EF, EF-S, etc.  Before I can intelligently compare I have to learn the lingo.  You're absolutely right....price is no clue.   I agree with all you've said on 3rd party stuff.

Yes, I already had decided to go with f/4L's over f/2.8, as I told you when I got my 24-105 L.... because of size, weight, and price.  I thought If a occasion arose where I could use 2.8 lenses, I could rent it.  A friend I know does that for jobs when he needs lens he does'nt have.   I'm aware of the quality of those lenses, I just chose to compromise with f/4's.  I never will be a full time professional, so I thought f2.8's would be overkill for me.  I do intend to use them from time to time, I'll use them eventally. 

As I told Bob,  I know I can't improve the quality of my lens, or any lens.  I just thought I could make sure I got the maximum performance out of the abilty of my lens ajusting my shutter speed and aperture in different lighting situations.  I think I'm saying what you've said, only you said it better than I.  You used the proper wording..

[jazzman1]

I got a question.

I have 2 Tripods a Ball Head and a Pan Head.  I've always had Pan Head Tripods and recently since I got into DSLR's, I decided to try the Ball Head for my Camera.  Most of the info I'd read up on about Tripods, seem to indicate  that Ball Heads are superior to Pan Heads.  So I'm using the Ball Head with my DSLR and the Pan Head for my Video Camcorder.  Comparing the two, I find that I like the Pan Head better and am thinking of using my Pan Head Tripod now for both.  It's harder it seems to get my Ball Head balanced correctly, though I do have a level bubble guide to use.  It's just more troublesome to have to keep ajusting it, on the different heights of the ground I'm generally on.   My Pan Head (for me) is just so much more easier to use.  Maybe because I'm so used to Pan Heads from using one for so many the years.              Do you have an opinion of which is best, and which one is considered the best for DSLR's????   I'm not talking about a brand name, I'm asking which style (Head or Pan) you think best for Camera Photography???

Also what should I look for (features, specs, output, etc) in a decent external light, for my Hotshoe on my Camera????  What should be the minimum specs to look for???

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

I got a question.

I have 2 Tripods a Ball Head and a Pan Head.  I've always had Pan Head Tripods and recently since I got into DSLR's, I decided to try the Ball Head for my Camera.  Most of the info I'd read up on about Tripods, seem to indicate  that Ball Heads are superior to Pan Heads.  So I'm using the Ball Head with my DSLR and the Pan Head for my Video Camcorder.  Comparing the two, I find that I like the Pan Head better and am thinking of using my Pan Head Tripod now for both.  It's harder it seems to get my Ball Head balanced correctly, though I do have a level bubble guide to use.  It's just more troublesome to have to keep ajusting it, on the different heights of the ground I'm generally on.   My Pan Head (for me) is just so much more easier to use.  Maybe because I'm so used to Pan Heads from using one for so many the years.              Do you have an opinion of which is best, and which one is considered the best for DSLR's????   I'm not talking about a brand name, I'm asking which style (Head or Pan) you think best for Camera Photography???

Neither a pan head nor a ball head is "better". It depends on how you plan to use it. A ball head gives you the greatest degree of adjustment in the three degrees of freedom: pitch, roll, and yaw. A pan head lets you set two of those parameters and smoothly manipulate the third (usually yaw) in real time.

[ebiggs1]

My first choice is a gimbal head but it isn't for everything.  Then I use a ball head.  No head on a monopod.

Flash is the 580 EX II or the new 600EX-RT.  IMHO, these are minimum and the best choice, all in one.

[ebiggs1]

"I never will be a full time professional, so I thought f2.8's would be overkill for me."

Have you re-read this statement?   You don't actually believe it?

[jazzman1]

Thanks Bob.  You used the words I was searching for, and you expained my exact delimma with Ball Heads.  When I set an angle, if I don't tighten the nob tight, the weight of my Camera causes the Camera to drop when I let go. If I want to change the angle again I have to loosen the non and retighten.   With my Pan Head I can leave the tightness just loose enough, where I can let the Pan handle go, and my Camera will stay in the position I left it in, till I move it again, and it always stay where I  position it.  I like I can smoothly pan with it.   The weight of my Camera does'nt cause my Camera to drop as with the Ball Head.  Is that how all Ball Heads work, or do I need a better one????    I know the Ball Head is more versitile than Pan Heads far as angles you can use, that's why I tried one.  You have almost a 360 degree angle you can ajust through.