New Camera

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by sometimes

It looks a useful book. I might check it out in Borders if they stock it.

It's in the 'Real World' series. All Bruce Fraser's books are excellent.

On nikkilouise's earlier point about 'quite blurry' shots, I was wondering if it's an issue with sharpening. Maybe it's turned off in camera and a lack of realisation just how much sharpening some pictures need and can take - which still surprises me.

That's another hobby-horse of mine! Many DSLR users come from a P&S background, where heavy sharpening is carried out in the camera by default, so no further sharpening is needed. They then buy a DSLR and having spent a lot more money than on their P&S, think that the images out of the camera must be better than their P&S, and are disappointed when they're not because they need sharpening.

Here's a good link to the reason why _all_ images need sharpening, either in the camera or by subsequent PPing:

Sharpening -- Part I

Jim

[glsammy]

That's a good link Jim. Very informative.

[PMG]

Thanks Jim - I've just read that with interest - I don't claim to understand it all but its worth thinking about - and reading again and again and again in my case!

Pauline

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by sometimes

Shooting everything with 2 stops compensation is a nonsense.

just to clarify, the original poster was talking about shooting with -2 stops of flash exposure compensation not overall exposure compensation.

Matt

[lost in the woods]

[quote=nikkilouise;356594]One more post im afraid!

Hi Nikkilouise
I can throughly recommend the canon 40d had mine as soon as they were released it gets used on a regular basis i make my living from photography. I use both canon 5d and 1d mk 2n as well they are also really good cameras they get abused on a regular basis and they have not let me down either. My first digital camera was a 350d and i still sell a great deal of photos taken with that body my wife owns it now. Steve and Ann were both using the mk2 at one point 8 million pixels or as near as. If i was in your shoes i would save my money and buy a l series prime lens with i.s. possibly a 300mm f4 then add 1.4 and 2x tele convertors at a later date a good monopod always helps as well
Regards
Lost in the woods

[dan-fisher]

Going back to 8 vs 10mp i agree with the above posters that it isn't a massive difference in the end result. 10 is 25% more than 8 but in real world terms it's only an additional 432 horizontal pixels and 288 vertical pixels. Which according to experts make no more detail that can be seen by us.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

... and more noise. The consensus nowadays is that you should 'shoot to the right' of the histogram.

Jim

be aware tho that shooting to the right is only a good idea for those shooting raw - in jpeg its awfully easy to blow the highlights and lost highlight detail is gone for good - whereas dark images can be lightened up in photoshop.

That said it is best to get the exposure right - all this shoot to the left , shoot to the right stuff is fine as a rule of thumb but you cant beat getting an exposure bang on - and that requires practice.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by dan-fisher

Going back to 8 vs 10mp i agree with the above posters that it isn't a massive difference in the end result. 10 is 25% more than 8 but in real world terms it's only an additional 432 horizontal pixels and 288 vertical pixels. Which according to experts make no more detail that can be seen by us.

True but the toons said at least 10MP - most pro cameras have a lot more the 1DSmk3 has 22MP , the 5Dmk2 has 16MP etc admittedly the D3 only has 12mP but it makes point in other areas like low light performance.

and when you get into digital medium format as used by fashion, portrait, lifestyle, landscape and a few adventurous (and rich) wildlife photographers you are talking a whole different ball game. The Mamiya Z22 has 22MP, the Hasselblad H3 has 36MP, and the current daddy of the bunch - the leaf aptus digital back has 45MP. There is also rumoured to be a digital large format camera in development which will have a staggering 120MP

Going back to nikilouises original question you dont need a new camera now , but if you want to be a serious pro you will eventually need pro level gear to compete in that market - and at that time you will need at least 10MP and most likely more.

For now tho make the most of your 350D and learn the camera and the photographers art inside out and backwards - this will be an excellent grounding when you do need to buy something better

[Jim Ford]

Originally Posted by eeyore

be aware tho that shooting to the right is only a good idea for those shooting raw - in jpeg its awfully easy to blow the highlights and lost highlight detail is gone for good - whereas dark images can be lightened up in photoshop.

With this caveat that I quoted earlier in the thread:

"If you fall prey to the temptation to underexpose images to avoid blowing highlights, you'll waste a lot of the bits the camera can capture, and you'll run a significant risk of introducing noise in the midtones and shadows."

Jim

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Jim Ford

"If you fall prey to the temptation to underexpose images to avoid blowing highlights, you'll waste a lot of the bits the camera can capture, and you'll run a significant risk of introducing noise in the midtones and shadows."

Jim

true but if you dont and you are photographing a wedding you risk getting your head kicked in by a very unhappy bride when you lose all the detail in her dress.

the bottom line is that none of these rules hold true for all situations so the photographer needs to understand exposure and get it right in camera - and if in doubt shoot raw.

I also wouldnt worry too much about noise in the shadows if you have a decent camera ( with a D3 for example noise is virtually non existent even at very high iso) plus there are plugins for handling it in post process.