Newbies not getting DSLR advantages

[Tomrok]

Oops. Some of these threads can be hard to follow. I'm really confused now. I don't know which of your messages (you have quite a few) you thought I was responding to. My message was a response to Ron Parr's response to my previous message but it's nice to know I'm making sense to someone else.

Tom

Yep, you understand what I am trying to say. You just said it in
fewer words which is better. I used to write short sentences until
I took English Composition in college and got into the habit of
maybe over explaining.

Thanks,

Lisa

 

[Lisa Young74699]

You still didn't read what I need Ron.

Yes I did.

I have nothing that I can
use that I have of the 707. So a 400mm or 600mm that I need is
that cheap and all the accessories are that cheap to keep me around
$3000.

You don't need a 400mm or 600mm lens.

Well I still can't shoot what I want of small birds in trees or raptors flying and have a good friend with a 1D, Dave Harvey, that uses the 600mm lens and his shots are wonderful of the birds in flight.

Wow, didn't know that computers are free now. I figured I
needed at least a $2000-$3000 computer to download my raw images
too.

You didn't say what computer you have now, but if you don't feel
like upgrading, you can shoot in jpg. Actually, you can still
still shoot in RAW and use the embedded jpeg image (which extracts
instantaneously) and save full RAW conversions for special shots.

Yes, I have over 100 archived CDs, I do duplicates for back up, and still have about 30gb of images on this PC and 10 gb still on my laptop. The 707 only takes about 2.2 mb per image and since I tend to shoot at least 500 shots on my hikes, which are two to three times a week, things add up. I assume full RAW shots are more than 10mb each. I couldn't find it in the specs when I quickly looked here. My current PC is a refurbished HP Pavillion 7955 and we bought it about a year ago and figure it was probably already a year old when we got it. Since I am still rather new at photography I prefer at this point to shoot all in RAW until I get the confidence in the camera. Plus money will not be a problem when my long over due inheritance comes out of probate, I have a slow lawyer in CA and it's been over three years and I'm the only inheritor so wanted to get pretty much the best I can get unless the price is totally unreasonable like $10,000 for just a 600mm then I will pass.

If you're saving a lot of RAW files, you might want to get a $50 CD
burner, but I hope you already have one of these now and aren't
relying upon your hard drive as the only backup for your images.

Just being funny about that and hope you know that I am not
upset with you Ron. I was just trying to tell people what I need
to shoot what I shoot and haven't gotten an answer yet. I just
keep on being told to downgrade my lenses which is not what I want.

I don't think you've been told to downgrade your lenses. A 70-200
optically provides more magnification than your 7x7 does now and I
suspect that the results you can get from cropping and/or sizing up
will be much better than what you're getting from your 7x7's
digital zoom.

Perhaps you could ask somebody to post some full size 70-200 F4
wildlife shots if you're interested.

I doubt anyone will do that for me here from the vibes I have been getting about being a newbie asking for help.

P.S. You haven't started a newbie Q&A for Canon digital slr buyers
like you did with Sony?

I've been reorganizing my FAQ and will eventually split off a
digital SLR section from the rest of the FAQ. Right now, I'm
working on adding a section about color.

And I'm keep you away from it by asking questions. Sorry.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[Lisa Young74699]

Well, I wasn't sure either, but it did fit the reason as to why I had wanted to upgrade and was told that I shouldn't bother by John because I can't take photos.

Lisa

Tom

Yep, you understand what I am trying to say. You just said it in
fewer words which is better. I used to write short sentences until
I took English Composition in college and got into the habit of
maybe over explaining.

Thanks,

Lisa

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[Tomrok]

Sorry for butchering that word. I think we need a traffic cop for this thread.

Taking photos takes time and practice. I've been doing it for 20+ years and a great majority of my newbie shots were trashed a long time ago. Keep at it. In the meantime you might want to try a book that has been a help and inspiration for me. It got me going again when I had been stuck in a pretty deep rut.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879857471/qid=1046537485/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-7820848-5212857?v=glance&s=books

Tom

Lisa

Tom

Yep, you understand what I am trying to say. You just said it in
fewer words which is better. I used to write short sentences until
I took English Composition in college and got into the habit of
maybe over explaining.

Thanks,

Lisa

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC:
http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

--
Tom

 

[Matthew Cromer]

It took good gear to get the shot. The forest was getting dark, so
I used ISO 800 on my D60 with my 105mm f/2.8 Sigma macro (but shot
at f/4.5 to get good sharpness). It took skill to make the results
come alive in Photoshop.

You can shoot wide open (f/2.4) with the 717 at equivalent focal length on the 717 and get the sharpness and DOF you want and you would be able to use ISO 200 instead of ISO 800.

--
my favorite work: http://www.pbase.com/sdaconsulting/favorite_work

 

[nanook s]

Lisa,

If you are into long exposures, large format sensor may give you less noisy images. Lens weight can add up quite quickly espeically since you are into quality long range tele, if you decide to go the detachable lens route, definitely go slow and be deliberate in your lens choices, since you will be carrying them on hikes; the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back even if it doesn't weigh much by itself. Some weight may be unavoidable, like 70-200F2.8L over 70-200F4L with the extra poundage, because with F2.8L you will be able to use the 2x converter and still be able to autofocus at effective F5.6 limit on the 10D/D60. It may be a good idea to rely on cropping to bring you beyond 400mm because you don't want be discourage by the weight so that you don't go out as much. I'm keeping my Dimage 7i even after I get my 10D, simply because of the versatility of its lens and light weight, so that I can skip some lenses on some outings; besidesl, my wife could always use it to replace her G1 clone. BTW, there is nothing wrong with cheap plastic tripods; I use my cheap plastic tripod much more than my fancy aluminum tripod with fluid level guage and ball head becaue the former is so light that it can be used as a monopod and walk with me. It's the result that counts, don't let tools be a distraction. As Ansel Adams said, there's nothing worse than a tightly focused image of an unfocused mind.

Jim

The hikes I go on I want to be able to use a DSLR to get the best
shots I can. I have been asked to sell some of those shots from my
707 and some have been published, but I felt I could do even better
with the DSLR. John Fielder is my favorite Colorado wildlife
photographer and he takes all his gear to some of these same
places, same with Art Wolf, so am willing to carry more than I have
been. Yes, its nice to have a little waterproof fanny pack for my
hikes, but I have also hand carried my cheap plastic tripod at
times for the long exposure stream shots and see pros hike with
some of their lenses to where I hike. I think I even saw John
Fielder up there once, but it was before I saw a photo of him so am
not positive.

I do want the speed for action and the isos for the indoor Denver
National Western Stock Show every January. I have to do a lot of
PS work, taking a class for that right now, and it's still not
quite what I want for quality.

Lisa

Lisa,

Don't let the snobs discourage you. I have a Minolta D7i, and use
an EOS 3 for portraits where I need shallow depth of field. I have
a 10D on order, hoping to retire the EOS 3 to backup status. The
primary advantage of lens detachable DSLR is shallow DOF, and to a
lesser degree, speed during live action shooting. If you do not
have strigent requirement for these two, there is no reason to
upgrade from you 7x7 now. Aside from lack of very shallow DOF at
long range, a 35mm lens delivering optical quality comparable to
what you have on the 7x7 would be much more than the price of the
camera. For certain types of photography, deep DOF is an
advantage, and so is small and light packaging; after all, these
were the reasons 35mm won over medium format 50 years for
photojournalism despite the resolution limit imposed by the film
emulsion.

Jim

 

[Lisa Young74699]

Thanks Noel. It helps I think that you know me and none of the others didn't know me when I first started photography at PC with that 1.3 mp Sony DCR PC100 and didn't know at all how to take a photo.

So far I have only had 11x14 photos printed from the 707 and that was "Snow Fall Rays." It came out great. Not sure how big I will print my photos because we don't have the wall space with all of our big prints and originals. We can't even put all those up either. Guess we need a 10,000 square foot house if I wanted to do that. Right now I just have a wall of 8x10s in the computer area which is a loft.

Lisa

Lisa,

Don't take offense from these jokers.

Your images are excellent. You definitely have the "eye". A dSLR
is the next logical move for you. You will find that what would
have been a great web image but only so so print will now still be
a great web image and a great enlargement print as well

-Noel

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[nanook s]

I meant 400mm optically, so that is 640mm effective; with cropping in photoshop, you can get close to 1000mm for bird shots that are competition size. BTW, the key to proper equipment image postprocessing is not processor speed but memory. Most off-the-shelf computers tend to have the latest and hottest processors but not nearly enought memory. For Raw processing, 512meg would be a good start; you can get that for less than $100 if your computer can take the modules.

If you are into long exposures, large format sensor may give you
less noisy images. Lens weight can add up quite quickly espeically
since you are into quality long range tele, if you decide to go the
detachable lens route, definitely go slow and be deliberate in your
lens choices, since you will be carrying them on hikes; the
proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back even if it doesn't
weigh much by itself. Some weight may be unavoidable, like
70-200F2.8L over 70-200F4L with the extra poundage, because with
F2.8L you will be able to use the 2x converter and still be able to
autofocus at effective F5.6 limit on the 10D/D60. It may be a good
idea to rely on cropping to bring you beyond 400mm because you
don't want be discourage by the weight so that you don't go out as
much. I'm keeping my Dimage 7i even after I get my 10D, simply
because of the versatility of its lens and light weight, so that I
can skip some lenses on some outings; besidesl, my wife could
always use it to replace her G1 clone. BTW, there is nothing
wrong with cheap plastic tripods; I use my cheap plastic tripod
much more than my fancy aluminum tripod with fluid level guage and
ball head becaue the former is so light that it can be used as a
monopod and walk with me. It's the result that counts, don't let
tools be a distraction. As Ansel Adams said, there's nothing worse
than a tightly focused image of an unfocused mind.

Jim

The hikes I go on I want to be able to use a DSLR to get the best
shots I can. I have been asked to sell some of those shots from my
707 and some have been published, but I felt I could do even better
with the DSLR. John Fielder is my favorite Colorado wildlife
photographer and he takes all his gear to some of these same
places, same with Art Wolf, so am willing to carry more than I have
been. Yes, its nice to have a little waterproof fanny pack for my
hikes, but I have also hand carried my cheap plastic tripod at
times for the long exposure stream shots and see pros hike with
some of their lenses to where I hike. I think I even saw John
Fielder up there once, but it was before I saw a photo of him so am
not positive.

I do want the speed for action and the isos for the indoor Denver
National Western Stock Show every January. I have to do a lot of
PS work, taking a class for that right now, and it's still not
quite what I want for quality.

Lisa

Lisa,

Don't let the snobs discourage you. I have a Minolta D7i, and use
an EOS 3 for portraits where I need shallow depth of field. I have
a 10D on order, hoping to retire the EOS 3 to backup status. The
primary advantage of lens detachable DSLR is shallow DOF, and to a
lesser degree, speed during live action shooting. If you do not
have strigent requirement for these two, there is no reason to
upgrade from you 7x7 now. Aside from lack of very shallow DOF at
long range, a 35mm lens delivering optical quality comparable to
what you have on the 7x7 would be much more than the price of the
camera. For certain types of photography, deep DOF is an
advantage, and so is small and light packaging; after all, these
were the reasons 35mm won over medium format 50 years for
photojournalism despite the resolution limit imposed by the film
emulsion.

Jim

 

[Tobias Hoellrich]

I propose a new forum with the title "Pure Arrogance" and suggest to move this thread to new forum as perfect example.

Tobias

 

[Tomrok]

LOL...........Please don't include me. The more I read the more I realize that this maze is way over my head. :-0

For the academic types, I guess. Whatever happened to simply enjoying taking pictures?

Tom

I propose a new forum with the title "Pure Arrogance" and suggest
to move this thread to new forum as perfect example.

Tobias

 

[Lisa Young74699]

Thanks. For the extra info on the zoom lens.

I didn't know that memory had dropped that much. My old PC had 512, but the this one only has 256 and it is two years newer, but still much faster. Still would like a new PC since this one is so out of date and would need upgrades like 2.0 usb, and would like more mhz since this one is only 1.49 GHz.

As to my cheap plastic tripod, it really is a cheap one. Not even Target would sell these. It's light weight, but doesn't screw well or stay screwed, isn't very tall and it doesn't even have those heads you guys talk about where you can move the camera around easily. I don't use the tripod much because of the fast lens on the 707 I can do handheld up to 1/10th of a second, but a DSLR is much heavier when you add on the lenses so it would be harder to have as steady of a hand. One of the many reasons I never liked the Nikon Coolpix 990 that I won a couple of years ago.

Thanks.

Lisa

If you are into long exposures, large format sensor may give you
less noisy images. Lens weight can add up quite quickly espeically
since you are into quality long range tele, if you decide to go the
detachable lens route, definitely go slow and be deliberate in your
lens choices, since you will be carrying them on hikes; the
proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back even if it doesn't
weigh much by itself. Some weight may be unavoidable, like
70-200F2.8L over 70-200F4L with the extra poundage, because with
F2.8L you will be able to use the 2x converter and still be able to
autofocus at effective F5.6 limit on the 10D/D60. It may be a good
idea to rely on cropping to bring you beyond 400mm because you
don't want be discourage by the weight so that you don't go out as
much. I'm keeping my Dimage 7i even after I get my 10D, simply
because of the versatility of its lens and light weight, so that I
can skip some lenses on some outings; besidesl, my wife could
always use it to replace her G1 clone. BTW, there is nothing
wrong with cheap plastic tripods; I use my cheap plastic tripod
much more than my fancy aluminum tripod with fluid level guage and
ball head becaue the former is so light that it can be used as a
monopod and walk with me. It's the result that counts, don't let
tools be a distraction. As Ansel Adams said, there's nothing worse
than a tightly focused image of an unfocused mind.

Jim

The hikes I go on I want to be able to use a DSLR to get the best
shots I can. I have been asked to sell some of those shots from my
707 and some have been published, but I felt I could do even better
with the DSLR. John Fielder is my favorite Colorado wildlife
photographer and he takes all his gear to some of these same
places, same with Art Wolf, so am willing to carry more than I have
been. Yes, its nice to have a little waterproof fanny pack for my
hikes, but I have also hand carried my cheap plastic tripod at
times for the long exposure stream shots and see pros hike with
some of their lenses to where I hike. I think I even saw John
Fielder up there once, but it was before I saw a photo of him so am
not positive.

I do want the speed for action and the isos for the indoor Denver
National Western Stock Show every January. I have to do a lot of
PS work, taking a class for that right now, and it's still not
quite what I want for quality.

Lisa

Lisa,

Don't let the snobs discourage you. I have a Minolta D7i, and use
an EOS 3 for portraits where I need shallow depth of field. I have
a 10D on order, hoping to retire the EOS 3 to backup status. The
primary advantage of lens detachable DSLR is shallow DOF, and to a
lesser degree, speed during live action shooting. If you do not
have strigent requirement for these two, there is no reason to
upgrade from you 7x7 now. Aside from lack of very shallow DOF at
long range, a 35mm lens delivering optical quality comparable to
what you have on the 7x7 would be much more than the price of the
camera. For certain types of photography, deep DOF is an
advantage, and so is small and light packaging; after all, these
were the reasons 35mm won over medium format 50 years for
photojournalism despite the resolution limit imposed by the film
emulsion.

Jim

--
My gallery: http://silvercharm.digitalphotochat.com/gallery
POTDs at DPC: http://www.digitalphotocontest.com/profile.asp?pid=11986

 

[Ron Parr]

It took good gear to get the shot. The forest was getting dark, so
I used ISO 800 on my D60 with my 105mm f/2.8 Sigma macro (but shot
at f/4.5 to get good sharpness). It took skill to make the results
come alive in Photoshop.

You can shoot wide open (f/2.4) with the 717 at equivalent focal
length on the 717 and get the sharpness and DOF you want and you
would be able to use ISO 200 instead of ISO 800.

I could have shot at 2.8 with sigma 105mm macro and still gotten very good results. I was being conservative because the lens was new and I didn't have a lot of experience with it.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Ron Parr]

I propose a new forum with the title "Pure Arrogance" and suggest
to move this thread to new forum as perfect example.

I wonder how it will compete with the "Pure Ignorance" forum???

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Rob Harris]

It happened to a post of mine once. It totally was taken out of context and I just hoped the post would die quietly.

 

[Eugeni Vaisberg]

There he goes again

I propose a new forum with the title "Pure Arrogance" and suggest
to move this thread to new forum as perfect example.

I wonder how it will compete with the "Pure Ignorance" forum???

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[nanook s]

It took good gear to get the shot. The forest was getting dark, so
I used ISO 800 on my D60 with my 105mm f/2.8 Sigma macro (but shot
at f/4.5 to get good sharpness). It took skill to make the results
come alive in Photoshop.

You can shoot wide open (f/2.4) with the 717 at equivalent focal
length on the 717 and get the sharpness and DOF you want and you
would be able to use ISO 200 instead of ISO 800.

I could have shot at 2.8 with sigma 105mm macro and still gotten
very good results. I was being conservative because the lens was
new and I didn't have a lot of experience with it.

As I Canon snob, I'm gonna tell you, that you are wasting your time with the Sigma. It's soft wide open at F2.8, its focus is slow compared to Canon ring USM motor so there is no focusing advantage, and if you just want to use at F4 or narrower aperture, you could burden yourself with much less weight with a Canon F4 . . . blahblahblah. . . tongue in cheek of course. Have a blast with your new lens, now I have immunized you with the attitude flu ;-)

 

[Ron Parr]

As I Canon snob, I'm gonna tell you, that you are wasting your time
with the Sigma. It's soft wide open at F2.8, its focus is slow
compared to Canon ring USM motor so there is no focusing advantage,
and if you just want to use at F4 or narrower aperture, you could
burden yourself with much less weight with a Canon F4 . . .
blahblahblah. . . tongue in cheek of course. Have a blast with
your new lens, now I have immunized you with the attitude flu ;-)

I don't doubt that the Canon would be better and more usable. I got an exceptionally good deal on the Sigma 105 and decided to give it a try with a plan of upgrading if the limitations of the lens bothered me.

Eventually, I may replace it, but there are other upgrades that are higher priority given my photography habits.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Richard Lunsford]

Ron:

I see your point but you will see more and more such folks. I am considering a 10D, and in my posting ran into some 'aesthetic differences' with folks. They were a lot of help, but there were serious differences in our viewpoints. They were not simply a product of my ignorance. Examples:

1.) I don't want to post-process. I like 'out of the camera' sharp with good contrast. I know the forum regulars' views on RAW & Photo Shop editing. I know a P&S'er can't get the same results as a Pro. I know; I have simply made a different practice choice than others, despite having been exposed to the same ideas. I respect their ideas.

2.) I don't like narrowing DOF to blur backgrounds & emphasize subjects. I have seen numerous examples of shots that do this. I know what people do it. I know most people LIKE this effect. I don't. I'm not ignorant; I just disagree.

3.) Those valuable elements of a DSLR to YOU may be way different than those elements of value to me. To you, getting images for post processing may be critical. For me something with good AF I can stick a nice, quite 100-400 IS USM lens on to sneak up on wildlife at long distance may be key, with more resolution than my old Pro 90 IS with B-300 add-on (17x, yes, but only 2.6 megapixel, and I shoot pics of small turtles at considerable distance) may be the cat's meow & I may never post process.

But an idea was brought up on this forum that is good, if any of you are dedicated enough to do it. And I can give you examples. I'm a turtle enthusiast; I'm on staff with Austin's Turtle Page, and I'm active in forums to discuss varied aspects of turtles & their care. We get a lot of newbie questions that grate on our nevers. Some of us have written articles that are posted online on the main site.

If some of you have the knowledge, skill, want to and are willing, maybe you could write some first class articles on subjects of interest that come up a lot (DSLR's DOF vs P&S, advantages of a DSLR over a P&S, common lens choices for the Canon cameras, basic elements of composition, etc...). Ask Phil.; maybe if your 'product' is good enough, it can be posted & maybe he'd consider having a section on articles.

People often go looking for forums because they are ignorant, not because they are knowledgable, and newbies are often both annoying on forums & also necessary to breath new life into them. There is a middle ground.

Richard.

I've been feeling a bit frustrated by the large number of newbies
coming around lately having no clue about the advantages of DSLRs.
It's frustrating because it's hard to establish a dialog with
people whose eyes aren't trained to recognize the subtler points
digital images. When people try to explain it, it leads to flaming
90% of the time.

There's also this misconception that you need L glass to get really
good images from a D60 since people look at their heavily sharpened
images from their lower end cameras and incorrectly conclude that
they have wonderful glass that can't be matched without paying a
king's ransom.

So, here's what I decided to do. I took an image from my D60 taken
with my 24-85, reduced it to 5MP, and then set out to really overdo
the sharpening and contrast to get it to about the level of what
comes out of a 7x7 in its default settings.

Of course, I don't recommend this, I think I did a pretty good job
of approximating the overall effect:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13911465/

Of course, to get the full effect, I'd need to add some chroma
noise and kill the shadow detail some more.

Here's the shot with the default settings:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13912800/

Here's another pair:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13913467

http://www.pbase.com/image/13913468

What's the point? If your tastes are really Asti Spumante, but you
want to try Dom Perignon, you can always add a sugar cube.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[rrohling]

I've been feeling a bit frustrated by the large number of newbies
coming around lately having no clue about the advantages of DSLRs.
It's frustrating because it's hard to establish a dialog with
people whose eyes aren't trained to recognize the subtler points
digital images. When people try to explain it, it leads to flaming
90% of the time.

There's also this misconception that you need L glass to get really
good images from a D60 since people look at their heavily sharpened
images from their lower end cameras and incorrectly conclude that
they have wonderful glass that can't be matched without paying a
king's ransom.

So, here's what I decided to do. I took an image from my D60 taken
with my 24-85, reduced it to 5MP, and then set out to really overdo
the sharpening and contrast to get it to about the level of what
comes out of a 7x7 in its default settings.

Of course, I don't recommend this, I think I did a pretty good job
of approximating the overall effect:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13911465/

Of course, to get the full effect, I'd need to add some chroma
noise and kill the shadow detail some more.

Here's the shot with the default settings:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13912800/

Here's another pair:

http://www.pbase.com/image/13913467

http://www.pbase.com/image/13913468

What's the point? If your tastes are really Asti Spumante, but you
want to try Dom Perignon, you can always add a sugar cube.

--
Ron Parr
FAQ: http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/parr/

 

[Stuart Rider]

Oh really? My 28-135 is consistently better than my E10, which is the best of the ZLRs. From the pics I've seen, the Sony has a bad case of CA.

If you think otherwise, post some shots to prove it.

So wat equipment do you own Nanook?

Hold on, lets compare like for like. Your Sony has a 38-190mm
equiv lens, not 400mm or 600mm. You'll soon be able to get a 10D
with a 28-135 IS for $2000. A far cry from $10k.

Your attitude, not ability, has vindicated Ron's post imho.

--
Cheers,

Stuart Rider.