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]

Again the approch about things like changing a lens is different too.  I never even give it a thought.  If I am on a job and need to change the lens, it gets changed.  That is what CPS is for, if needed.  Again why the pro gear is made so tough and strong.   Sometimes the only difference between pro and consumer lenses is build.  Not IQ.

I was referring more about the camera than the lens.  I try to keep dust out of the camera mostly.  I will be extra careful when I change mine.   I'll use my car whenever possible.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the last couple years, when I get the oppertunity to do a shoot, I have found myself, taking one body.  Possibly two.  And two, possibly three (not often), lenses.  One reason I am selling off so much stuff.  I simply will never use some of it again

I intend to have 2 bodies in the future, a FF and my 60D, and will not have to change out lense so often.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're saying get PSE 13, instead of LR.  Not sure I'm understanding your reasoning.

  I will read, checkout Utube, seek out help, and take all the classes I can......and practice, practice, practice.  Far as my gear I would never be happy with low quality in my gear.  I've learned that over the years with all my other hobbies.  Consumer level gear usually just don't satisfy my needs and have all the features I want.  Although once and awhile they surprise me with a model or two.   Prosumer, and Professional gear is what I usually buy.  I bought the Rebel so I could determine how much I'd like DSLR's before I invested more money into this art.  Now that I know I like it very much, I want to get better gear that meets my needs.   The least lens quality I will buy is midgrade, (when they meet my IQ and other needs) but I won't buy low quality lens.  I'll get L's when I can because I think they are the best investment, Pro or not, and they will last longer and rarely disappoint.  I may get a few midgrade lens when they meet the IQ level I'm looking for.  Same with tripods, I want a tripod that is sturdy, does'nt shake like "Don Knots" LOL.  I've seen many that I like, I think decent, that don't break the bank.  I have a Manfrotto Monopod and a Dolica tripod and they work well for me and they were under $200.00.  They both are sturdy and feel solid.

As much as I hear about some 3rd party lens, and how good they are, I don't think I'll go that route.  I will stick with Canon and feel confident they will always work with any future Canon body I may buy.  I heard that 3rd party lens are reverse engineered and it's possible they may not work well with certain future Canon bodies.  My biggest concern in it all, as you say, is getting the right gear that works for me.

[ebiggs1]

"Now .saying get PSE 13, instead of LR.  Not sure I'm understanding your reasoning."

Simple!  Now that you have changed your goal.  You don't want to go pro.  Elements is a better way to go for that purpose.

It does everything LR does and almost as much as PS.  And it does it for a fraction of the price.

"As much as I hear about some 3rd party lens, and how good they are, I don't think I'll go that route."

Not a bad idea but you will be short changing yourself if you don't consider Sigma and Tamron lenses.  Its your money and its your choice.

[jazzman1]

Not a bad idea but you will be short changing yourself if you don't consider Sigma and Tamron lenses.  Its your money and its your choice

Too be Cont!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!      LOL

I guess now I'll put PSE 13 back on my list.  Will work with DPP 1st though.  Is buying a refurbish lens or body from a Canon authorised Dealer, as good a choice as getting one directly from Canon????   I ask because I see some authorised Canon Dealers prices, for same product, are different from Canon's price.  

I'm thinking of going back to the Zoo and compare the pics I'll take to the 1st shots I took.  Be interesting to see if I've improved.  I know a little more now and have a better lens and camera now.  I'll be disappointed if I see no improvement.

BTW... Before you get rid of all your gear, let me know what you're selling.  I might be in the market to buy something.

[ebiggs1]

"Before you get rid of all your gear, let me know what you're selling."

I can do that.  I have a half dozen lenses and a couple bodies that I am going to let go.  They simply are not being, or are not going to be used by me anymore.  But keep in mind none of my stuff is cheap.  It is all professional gear and thus commands that kind of price.

I do have one though, maybe two, that you may be interested in.  I will PM you as Canon does not like buy and sell on the forum.

[jazzman1]

I just read an old thread "Does spending more mean getting less".   It was very interesting and i got alot from it.  I don't know what a troll is but I think it's something bad, and I don't agree you're one of those.  I think you, Tcampbell, and cicopo, were on the money in all you guys said.  You guys could'nt have explained it better.  I did'nt understand all the tecnical stuff, but even being the newbie I am, I did understand plainly your logic and the photo rules.  I understood the argument you guys made in making your case.  Even I, a newbie, think the lady was comparing apples to oranges. 

I also understand one should fully master ones camera before upgrading to a new one.   I upgraded from my T3i, not because I had mastered it and outgrown it's capability.  I wanted a camera that had more of the features I wanted in my camera and allowed me to do things I would never be able to do with my T3i.  But I did'nt know that till I got the T3i.   I should have bought the 60D or one simular as my 1st DSLR.   Even still, I would not have upgraded at the time had Canon not gave a instant rebate of $500.00 on the camera I upgraded to.  It was an opportunity I thought should not be missed.  I love my 60D and think my choice was correct.  Threads like this one brings home alot of the things you've said to me.  The things you and others said makes more clear, things that was not as clear before.  For what it's worth coming from a newbie...you guys did good.  Thumbs up.

I also am understanding better what you've said about lenses and getting the ones best suited for my needs.  That L's are not always the best choice for every situation.  I'm learning Obewan!!!

[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.

[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..

[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]

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..