--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
ok, it comes down to this. Purchase help!
- Thread starter windoze
- Start date
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Yes, the rebel will yield better results, once you learn how to use a DSLR. It's a little different than a fixed lens like the Sony. You will have to post process. DLSR does not apply much in the way of in camera processing, and that's intentional. Higher usable ISOs means taking shots in lighting situations the Sony would not even be usable in. CA, which is a well known problem with the 828, is much less of a problem with the 300D, even with the kit lens. The main advantage of a DSLR is to capture shots that woulds be difficult, to impossible with a fixed lens. It's to be more flexible, and versatile. The tradeoff is you have a learning curve, and it takes some time to adapt. If you want to advance your skills and have the advantages of the higher ISOs, choice of lenses, and shallower DOF, etc, then a DSLR is the way to go. If you want quick and simple, the 828 or other fixed lens system is the way to go. You decide, my friend.
is this as good as i can or would the dreble have given me better results - thats all im about...... im also about teaching.. but thats for anothe time.... windoze
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
its my decision - so i better go think, think, and think sum more....... troy
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
LeeBase
Veteran Member
Oh, it CAN take better images -- depending on the lens you get for it. But it WON'T be the "no processing" solution you are looking for.
Lee
troy
--Are there folks in the 828 world that are able to get good picts in
the situations you find yourself limited?
I would not switch to get a marginally better picture. Not unless
the money is not much of an issue.
However, let me suggest a scenario where your Sony might not be up
to snuff -- indoor available light photography.
The availability of a variety of fast lenses (f 2.8 and below)
combined with noise reduction software like Noise Ninja -- allows a
LOT of ability to shoot indoor "no flash" shots with the d-reb that
you probably CAN'T to with the 828.
As for sports, how is your ability to focus from one moment close
to another moment far away? The D-Reb might not compare with the
speed of a high end film camera at that task, but I'm fairly
certain it beats the pants off any fixed len point and shoot, even
the nice Sony.
But -- photo for photo where the two cameras are well within their
ability, I'm not so sure the D-Reb is worth upgrading too.
You have a nice camera, and you don't have to carry around a 50lb
bag of camera gear with you. The D-Reb is an entirely different
KIND of camera.
Also, the D-Reb as in all digital SLR's, is set to give best
results only with post processing. The point and shoots are
designed to give you "out of the camera" great images.
For some, the post processing is part of the joy of photography.
For others it's "why can't my thousand dollar camera take as good a
picture as my old point and shoot".
The 828 is one of the best cameras in it's class. However, the
D-Reb is in a different class. Not necessarily a "higher/better"
class -- just a different one.
How you shoot, your budget for lenses and accessories, how much
gear you want to carry around with you -- these are where you
decide what class of camera to go with.
Lee
BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
$3,000.00 is where i want to go..... I want to say yes so bad, but not because Im jealous of what I see but because its what i need to do next..... windoze
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
--Oh, it CAN take better images -- depending on the lens you get for
it. But it WON'T be the "no processing" solution you are looking
for.
Lee
troy
--Are there folks in the 828 world that are able to get good picts in
the situations you find yourself limited?
I would not switch to get a marginally better picture. Not unless
the money is not much of an issue.
However, let me suggest a scenario where your Sony might not be up
to snuff -- indoor available light photography.
The availability of a variety of fast lenses (f 2.8 and below)
combined with noise reduction software like Noise Ninja -- allows a
LOT of ability to shoot indoor "no flash" shots with the d-reb that
you probably CAN'T to with the 828.
As for sports, how is your ability to focus from one moment close
to another moment far away? The D-Reb might not compare with the
speed of a high end film camera at that task, but I'm fairly
certain it beats the pants off any fixed len point and shoot, even
the nice Sony.
But -- photo for photo where the two cameras are well within their
ability, I'm not so sure the D-Reb is worth upgrading too.
You have a nice camera, and you don't have to carry around a 50lb
bag of camera gear with you. The D-Reb is an entirely different
KIND of camera.
Also, the D-Reb as in all digital SLR's, is set to give best
results only with post processing. The point and shoots are
designed to give you "out of the camera" great images.
For some, the post processing is part of the joy of photography.
For others it's "why can't my thousand dollar camera take as good a
picture as my old point and shoot".
The 828 is one of the best cameras in it's class. However, the
D-Reb is in a different class. Not necessarily a "higher/better"
class -- just a different one.
How you shoot, your budget for lenses and accessories, how much
gear you want to carry around with you -- these are where you
decide what class of camera to go with.
Lee
BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
i like the 828 and the images Ive posted show the best that i can consistently now do with the 828! I am still rather new at it and have no prior photography experieince - im a point and shoot kinda guy who spent time with Andy Williams who helped me move to using manual mode! I take pictures for one reason basically - my kids. ballet, soccer, portaits, everyday kind of stuff and I also like birds now 
..... ANYWAY - i was curious if i could get better images with a drebel because my soccer images dont look that good to me and didnt know if ive reached the liomits of the 828 yet - maybe im capable of better with the 828 with soccer - i dont know ;( but Ive seen great soccer images with the debel time to time and so hence my posts regarding this issue.... im not trolling, im not comparing im just trying to find where i need or should go next to grow thats it! windoze
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
..... ANYWAY - i was curious if i could get better images with a drebel because my soccer images dont look that good to me and didnt know if ive reached the liomits of the 828 yet - maybe im capable of better with the 828 with soccer - i dont know ;( but Ive seen great soccer images with the debel time to time and so hence my posts regarding this issue.... im not trolling, im not comparing im just trying to find where i need or should go next to grow thats it! windoze--BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Dear God.
Go dSLR and get it over with then.
You won't go back if you have a clue what you're doing
with a camera MANUALLY.
Mbarque.
==============
Go dSLR and get it over with then.
You won't go back if you have a clue what you're doing
with a camera MANUALLY.
Mbarque.
==============
--BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
Olga Johnson
Forum Pro
Troy,
I assure you that the Rebel photos will require more post processing than the 828 photos do. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
The difference is that with the 828 a lot of the processsing is done in-camera. There is only so much post processing you can do to 828 images before you can call it overdone.
dSLR images can absorb a lot more post processing just so that you can make them look exactly the way you want them. dSLRs allow the photographer to dictate how the image appears, while the Sony does the job for you to a large extent.
If your only objective is to minimize the post processing, you won't be happy with the dSLR.
With the Rebel I take all my photos in Raw and do a lot of the processing myself. I have it down to a routine that doesn't take me any longer than post-processing a Sony jpg image. I seldom use the 828 raw because, as I've always claimed, IMHO it's worthless.
Olga
kristian2000
Veteran Member
Hi Windoze, I don't own a 70-200 F/2.8 yet, I don't have the dough for it right now but hope to some day. From my research the 70-200 F/2.8 is one the finest lenses that Canon makes, that is a line of many fine lenses.
What the DR will give you is smooth, clean images at ISOs that you can only dream about with your Sony.
Images from the DR will almost always require post-processing, especially if you shot in RAW, most here will say that once you start shooting RAW you'll never look back.
Good Luck
--
What the DR will give you is smooth, clean images at ISOs that you can only dream about with your Sony.
Images from the DR will almost always require post-processing, especially if you shot in RAW, most here will say that once you start shooting RAW you'll never look back.
Good Luck
--
Hi Olga,
I just had to add that shooting EVERYTHING in raw is ridiculous
and a totally unnecessary thing to do. JPG fine full is more than
adequate for the average shooter and offers incredible results.
You need 'raw' ONLY for hi-end photo printing usages .
I print "hi-end". Shooting ALL raw is ridiculous vs. all the other
jpg compressions available with this camera. 98% of all my
photos are jpg-fine.
If you are literate in Pshop (not just the easy stuff!), you can easily
make hi-end jpegs do what any raw will. Raw has it's advantages,
but certainly NOT for every photo especially since most are never
printed out over 13"X19" !
Mbarque.
========================
I just had to add that shooting EVERYTHING in raw is ridiculous
and a totally unnecessary thing to do. JPG fine full is more than
adequate for the average shooter and offers incredible results.
You need 'raw' ONLY for hi-end photo printing usages .
I print "hi-end". Shooting ALL raw is ridiculous vs. all the other
jpg compressions available with this camera. 98% of all my
photos are jpg-fine.
If you are literate in Pshop (not just the easy stuff!), you can easily
make hi-end jpegs do what any raw will. Raw has it's advantages,
but certainly NOT for every photo especially since most are never
printed out over 13"X19" !
Mbarque.
========================
Sorry,
Just posted here that raw is NOT always nec.
It's not. It's over-rated. I make a living using both
raw and MOSTLY jpeg with the dReble.
Mbarque.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just posted here that raw is NOT always nec.
It's not. It's over-rated. I make a living using both
raw and MOSTLY jpeg with the dReble.
Mbarque.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Olga Johnson
Forum Pro
I choose my way of shooting just as you choose yours. Neither choice is wrong nor is it right. We all do what we consider right for us. There are no rules. Calling my choice ridiculous is inappropriate, just as it would be inappropriate to call any of your choices ridiculous.
I wasn't telling Troy to use Raw. I merely explained to him what my process is.
Olga
I wasn't telling Troy to use Raw. I merely explained to him what my process is.
Olga
...just thot you were telling folks to shoot ONLY raw.
Mbarque.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mbarque.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rodolfo
Leading Member
BTW - I am not trying to start any forum wars here just trying to
improve my images.
i like three things: portraits of my children, soccer and sports
images of my kids, birds in flight. These are representative of
what I can consistently do with my sony 828:
I see a difference many time sin the quality between the 828 and
drebel, the latter seems smoother.
would the drebel with kit lens and 70-200 f2.8 yiled me better
images? considering all other factors remain the same? Or, should
one keep exploring and developing their skills at what they
have?????
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
My photography goals sound similar to yours windoze. If I've done an accurate job of decoding and translating your request, then it sounds like your #1 priority is better soccer pictures. You seem mostly satisfied with everything else correct?
I'm not really sure why everyone seems to think the Dreb needs more post processing, it doesn't! Sure you can tweak your Dreb images to art gallery status, but well, need is a totally different story, and really one of preference. CAN process more if you want.
I really love my Dreb, and have owned a 10D, Sigma SD9, several Olympus C's, Minolta, and Canon p&s. The Dreb pumps out a clean image, that many of its detractors take for granted, and obviously don't understand just how good it really is! I've never owned a digital camera with a better image for the price, period. [my opinion]
In my mind a quality image is the first priority. Now on to Soccer...
The Nikon D70 is the camera you want to look at. Sure it has more noise than the Dreb, but it shoots much faster, and has no limit to the number of jpegs you can take. (till the card is full). Get AV lenses (stabilized) and shoot till the cows come home, cuz you have a much better chance of catching the shot you want with a faster camera and lens. It is directly aimed at sports shooting, so you see this may be just the tool to put in your belt. Keep em both (828 and D70), because you never know when one might need to go to the shop for repair.
I'm not really sure why everyone seems to think the Dreb needs more post processing, it doesn't! Sure you can tweak your Dreb images to art gallery status, but well, need is a totally different story, and really one of preference. CAN process more if you want.
I really love my Dreb, and have owned a 10D, Sigma SD9, several Olympus C's, Minolta, and Canon p&s. The Dreb pumps out a clean image, that many of its detractors take for granted, and obviously don't understand just how good it really is! I've never owned a digital camera with a better image for the price, period. [my opinion]
In my mind a quality image is the first priority. Now on to Soccer...
The Nikon D70 is the camera you want to look at. Sure it has more noise than the Dreb, but it shoots much faster, and has no limit to the number of jpegs you can take. (till the card is full). Get AV lenses (stabilized) and shoot till the cows come home, cuz you have a much better chance of catching the shot you want with a faster camera and lens. It is directly aimed at sports shooting, so you see this may be just the tool to put in your belt. Keep em both (828 and D70), because you never know when one might need to go to the shop for repair.
billybob_jcv
Senior Member
For me, the huge advantage to shooting RAW is not the ability to do high-end photo printing - it is the ability to have several stops of exposure latitude and the ability to set white balance in post-processing. I think this makes RAW very appropriate for folks who miss their exposures (like me), irregardless of the output destination. You can NOT get the same forgiveness from jpeg that you can get from RAW.
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Unnecessary, maybe, but ridiculous??
The thing is, you never know when you're going to get an amazing shot you'll want to do something with. I've made that mistake before, shooting at the lowest resolution to fit more images on a card, pushing the limit at 4x6.
You're cheating yourself if you think it's about compression, or that jpeg equals raw because they both have the same megapixel count. Lossless compression has almost nothing to do with why raw is a popular format.
No. There's more useful information in a raw file, and especially a good linear conversion. The overexposure would have been far worse and unrecoverable and the shadows less defined if I'd shot this in jpeg:
Forrest41926
Forum Pro
Um, yeah, but if you want a picture of your wife giving birth, your son hitting his first home run, your daughter being married and enjoying the 'first kiss,' or something like that, an interesting picture of toilet paper is sure to disappoint.
I'll take this over toilet paper anyday:
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum