Reading mode: Light Dark

ok, it comes down to this. Purchase help!

Go to last post
Jees!!!,
Just the info I needed after all this time.........
Been digital since 1998 over offset litho.
Raw is good. Raw is not perfect. There are
other options.

Please. Don't lecture me.

Mbarque.
++++++++++++++++++++
Forrest said:
Forrest41926 said:
I just had to add that shooting EVERYTHING in raw is ridiculous
and a totally unnecessary thing to do.
Click to expand...
Unnecessary, maybe, but ridiculous??
Forrest41926 said:
You need 'raw' ONLY for hi-end photo printing usages .
Click to expand...
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.
Forrest41926 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Forrest41926 said:
If you are literate in Pshop (not just the easy stuff!), you can
easily
make hi-end jpegs do what any raw will.
Click to expand...
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:
Click to expand...
 
the back focusing issue - remember I have the 828 and delt with the PF and CA issues for awhile.... seems the drebel doesnt have so many issues. But I could reconsider the d70.... windoze and BTW
I guess your right - its my soccer pictures that annoy me
Dale300 said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
 
snow4ever said:
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

--

Click to expand...
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
 
Rodolfo said:
windoze said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
 
Olga Johnson said:
windoze said:
i wante dto get more quality soccer images and nto haveto rely on
post processin as much as i have had to with the 828. i was really
thinking that
the drebel would take sinificantly better images - maybe not????
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
--
Wanna see more? Check out my other images at
http://www.windoze.smugmug.com an dlet me know if you like them
 
Whether you want to be lectured or not, the fact is you are spreading disinformation which Forrest corrected. Compression artifacts as Forrest points out are only one very small part of why RAW is better. RAW is better chiefly because of the 12 bits instead of 8. And it IS very useful even if you are just going to be showing your pictures on the web.

As for your years of experience, they mean nothing if you are wrong (and you are).

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto

See my profile for my equipment
 
Both have their strengths and weaknesses. RAW takes up more space -- RAW lowers the number of shots one can take at a time (a factor in sports shooting). I've missed shots while waiting for RAW files to clear the buffer. RAW takes more time in post processing.

BUT RAW has it's advantages as well. there are good reasons to choose either RAW or jpg, and I think it's more beneficial to discuss the merrits than to blithely say one is better than the other.

Lee
RATPhoto said:
Whether you want to be lectured or not, the fact is you are
spreading disinformation which Forrest corrected. Compression
artifacts as Forrest points out are only one very small part of why
RAW is better. RAW is better chiefly because of the 12 bits instead
of 8. And it IS very useful even if you are just going to be
showing your pictures on the web.

As for your years of experience, they mean nothing if you are wrong
(and you are).

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in
the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a gallery of my photographs, see:
http://www.pbase.com/ratphoto

See my profile for my equipment
Click to expand...
 
I second the "consider the D70" idea. I say that as a happy D-Reb owner.

You can see my soccer picts at http://www.pbase.com/leebase/soccer

Last week I shot a gig and a half of photos. I've now had three weeks of shooting. I've gotten some great picts, but a lot of "boy that would have been great if the focus had been on the money". I have a fantastic lens, the Sigma f2.8 -- which cost almost as much as the camera.

I'm still working on my technique, but at this point I'm beginning to think that soccer shows some limitations in the D-REB.

This is not to say you CAN'T or WON'T get good pictures. With the ability to shoot hundreds per game, you are going to come out with more pictures than you know what to do with.

It's just frustrating to me to have so many of them not quite focused right. And I'm talking about over cast sky situations, perfect for photography.

For every:



I've gotten a LOT more:



But hey, it might be me.

I still agree with Andy that you might want to hold off and continue your skills improvement with your 828. I got good photos with my Coolpix 990, so I know you can with your 828.

I'm getting MUCH better photos with my D-Reb -- but it's a different class of camera. And MUCH more expensive by the time you start buying the nice lenses to go with it.

If you are going to do all that, you might go with the 10D -- or the D70.

At this point, I'm not sure I can reccomend the D-Reb for someone who's PRIMARILY interested in sports shooting.

Lee
Dale300 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top