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]

Thanks about the teleconverter..  I thought there was a 1.2 and 1.4 teleconverter but guess I'm wrong.  Since you say this I'll let that Idea of teleconverters I'll let it go.  I thought you mentioned somewhere you had one.

I'm not hungup on sharpness, I just thought it was something to expect from the better lens.  If not, oh well.  But I've even heard you speak of sharpness on one of your pics you posted here.  Not a problem though, I'm still learning what's good and what's not.  If sharpness is not a quality we should look for, I won't.  And yes, I do know that a good lens is about more than just sharpness. 

It's Ok about repyling, take your time.  I had a bunch of thoughts today, I just wanted to throw at you. 

[jazzman1]

It's Ok burst ahead.  You won't hurt my feelings, it's not like the lens is attached to my knee.  I won't miss it when it's gone.   I thought it was as you said, and thought for the purposes it was designed for it was decent.  Soon as I find something to replace it I will.  Sometimes I think you don't understand where I'm coming from.

[ebiggs1]

I still don't think you understand.  Sharpness is important.  To some people it may be the most important spec. However it is just one spec in a whole slew of them for a lens.  Sharpness is all I ever hear you talk about.  Pretty easy to draw the conclusion that is the criteria you use to judge a lens' ability.

I do have a tele converter(s).  I have 5 or 6 of them to be more accurate.  I have 1.4x, 2x and evan a 3x!  The 1.4 does indeed work very well on the EF 70-200mm f2.8 L on a 1DMk IV.  It will "work" on a f4 version but it will not work well.  The term "work" is subjective.

Just to add more confusion to this, when considering how wella lens performs, you must take into account the camera.  A tele converter will work better on a 1 series than it will on a Rebel for instance.

"If sharpness is not a quality we should look for, I won't."

You know this is ridiculous.  The reason I suggest to you that there are other specs than just one.  I am hoping you are advancing.  Maybe, not at the pace I am thinking?  "I am guessing, at this point, the only solution for you is experience.  You just need more experience."

[jazzman1]

Yeah, right now sharpness is one of the things I'm looking for in a lens.  I really don't know how to explain this to you but yes, sharpness in a lens is very important to me.  It does'nt mean I don't know about the other things that go into a quality lens.   But softness is the one thing that jumps out at me in my pics that bug me to no end.   I get barrel distortion alot with my SX60 HS 65X Zoom Camera when zooming out into it's farthest range.  I've learned to back off to less than 800mm with that camera to avoid barrell distortion.  I've learned things to do with that camera to get decent pics.  I have to since the lens in it is fixed and I can't change it for a better one.   It's a defect that that model camera has in it's lens I can do nothing about.  I rarely get barrell distortion with my 75-300mm lens I'm using with my 60D.  I see different distortions in my pics with my 75-300 but none show up in every pic, other than softness.  I shoot alot of pics with this lens furthest range.   I like to shoot the buildings Downtown that I can see from the park accross the river.  It's appox. 5 miles or more away but it's a lovely scene I've been trying to capture ever since I started going to the Park to practice my shots.  I also like to shoot the many boats and ships that are all over this river, all around town on the water.   The fishing boats that come into port everyday with their catch.  Alot of times the boats and ships are far away, a 1/2 mile or more.  And it irks me to no end when my 75-300 starts to falter at sunset, when the light starts to drop.  It does'nt do well in less than bright light.    I really like to capture those beautiful scenes on the water around sunset, but I'm limited to the short comings of this lens.  My 24-105 L is the best lens I have and I'm satsified with most of the pics I take with it.  My 75-300 kit lens has it's issues but the main one that bugs me the most is it's softness at it's furthest range.  I hope you hear me well....the thing that bugs me most about this lens is it's sharpness.  Not that it's cheap, not that it's plastic, not that it has no IS nor USM or STM, it's the softness at it's farthest range that bugs me most.  I know it's a cheap lens and I want to get rid of it soon as I can, but till then it's all I got.    I'm only using these two lens.  Because sharpness is the thing that bugs me most about this lens does'nt mean I don't know it's not a quality lens.  Does'nt mean I'm not aware of it's other issues.  And yes,sharpness is the most important thing i'm looking for in a lens to replace this one.  I will also look for the other things that go into a good lens.  But sharpness is high on my list looking for a replacement, no matter how well built, how much it cost, and other specs that peeps, as well as you,  judge quality in a lens.  That's me Biggs, that's how I see it.  I rally don't see the issue you're creating here  .  Of coarse I want it to be a quality lens in all the other characteritics that go into a quality lens.  Otherwise why do you think I want to make f/4 L's lens the foundation of my lens collection.  And I also think my 75-300mm lens is a decent lens for what it was made for and it's price, I'm not going to apologise for that statement.

[ebiggs1]

"That's me Biggs, that's how I see it.  I rally don't see the issue you're creating here"

And that is great.  I am, at your request, trying to educate you about cameras and lenses.  If you have found one you like and it works for, I have no issue.  More power to you and good shooting to you.

I am by no means an authority on lenses.  It isn't for me to decide if it is right for anybody.  Everybody is different and we all have different requirments.  Whether it is a tight budget or unlimited one.  Eventually water will seek its own level.  Always does!

[jazzman1]

Yes I asked you for help.  I thank you for all you've helped me with.  I think I've lerned alot from much you've told me.  One thing you've said that sticks out here is sometimes we have different goals and things we're trying to do.  I really don't think I'm asking for too much in seeking a lens that works for me, that's my only goal here.  I like to take long range shots (maybe more than most) and a lens that can caputure those shots with good clarity and sharpness is my goal for any future lens now in question.   I can get crappy shots with this lens I got.  I don't have a good one at the moment, but I wanted my next lens purchase to be one  that can satisfy the requirements of the lens for what I'm trying to do.  I would like a good long range lens that won't break the bank if I can find one.  If not, guess I'll have to bite the bullet for whatever it costs.  None of this has anything to do with me learning the things you're trying to teach me.  I'm still willing to continue to learn if you are willing to continue.  But yes, for better or worst, right or wrong, that's where my head is on my next lens.  Heck, no matter how many lenses I eventually get, I'll most likely use the combination of my 24-105mm and  whichever long range lens I get, most days out shooting.  I just want a lens soon as I can get one to satisfy my immediate needs in my shooting enjoyment.  I don't think that's a big thing to want.   Nor, do I think it will in anyway create problems in me learning and getting better.  Maybe there's somethings best not to discuss with you, and just follow your lead in what you want to teach.  I respect your knowledge and help Obiwan, but I will have at times goals and things I may want to do, that you may not be able to see  or understand.   I hope that won't be a problem.

[jazzman1]

BTW....I have not found or decided on a new lens yet....But I am looking.  I would hope you had some suggestions in a lens for my purpose.

[ebiggs1]

"I would hope you had some suggestions in a lens for my purpose."

I think silence is golden on this subject and my best choice.

[jazzman1]

Ok Obiwan it's your call.  I sure am not angry with you.  We have to make the choices that make us happy, cause most times, we are the only one our choice's will effect.  .

[jazzman1]

On focus, is auto focus as good as manual focus???   Are there times where one would want to choose M focus over A???   Which mode do you choose most times with your shots???