Digital Photography

[scotth]

My wife and I recently purchased a decent (very high consumer to mid pro level) digital camera. Specifically, it is a Canon 20d. I've been a PhotoShop user nearly forever. We've been making a concientious effort to really learn how to use the camera properly.

We've been doing lots of reading, watching some instructional videos, and more reading, followed by plenty of practice. We decided to head to the Dallas Zoo over the weekend for 'photography practice'. After looking at the results, all I can say is "WOW, what a piece of hardware".

I've discovered a number of things that I have found amazing during this process.

1) The new dSLRs finally outperform film in every way. Not just the 10-20k studio jobs, but even the $1200-1500 pro-sumer bodies. The sensors have better resolution and much better low light performance with amazingly low noise. And they do things that simply aren't possible with film.
2) The little memory cards..... Anyone else notice that the Compact Flash cards come in capacities as high as 8GBs, yet? No, I am not talking about micro HDs.... but solid state Compact Flash cards. 8GB on that tiny little thing, amazing.
3) I would have never thought that we would ever get 'magazine quality' images if I shot for the rest of my life, but we probably got 40 or 50 of them during one weekend in the zoo.

I couldn't go so far to say that any camera will turn any doofus into a great photographer, but....... Learning how to use the capabilies of these new dSLRs is pretty straightforward if you just put a little study time into it, and then amazing photos just start falling out of the thing.

I cannot wait to take this thing on the Amazing Cruise! I will finally get pictures that aren't 'landscapes' that happen to have some tiny little unrecognizable people caught in them.

There, I'm done. I was just so excited about how easy this is, and how good the results are, that I just had to run my mouth about it for a minute.

[jimlintott]

Digital cameras are great. You can shoot a ton of shots without the expense of processing bundles of film. Yes, the quality is fantastic. Digital shots are grainless when compred to similar film formats.

I recommend that you read about and familiarize yourself with using the histogram (http://www.shortcourses.com/how/histograms/histograms.htm) feature of your camera (I'm sure it has one). It might seem a little technical at first but once you learn it you won't work without it.

Another good tip is to have a good archiving routine. In other words back up your shots. Don't rely on the single copy on your hard disk as a suitable storage place. Film negatives were often left in their envelopes and tossed in a box. Make copies of your photos on CD or DVD roms and make more than one copy. Media is cheap. A hard disk crash could take all your photos. I had a friend lose all of his photos when his laptop was stolen.

Have lots of fun. There has never been a better time to get into photography.

[rustypouch]

Excellent choice.

A few points. A 20D will not outperform film in every way. There is still no substitute for a good large format image.

Most importantly, what lenses are you using? These make a huge difference in final image quality.

Lastly, how about showing some shots?

[scotth]

Excellent choice.

A few points. A 20D will not outperform film in every way. There is still no substitute for a good large format image.

Most importantly, what lenses are you using? These make a huge difference in final image quality.

Lastly, how about showing some shots?

You are correct and I should have qualified that by saying '35mm film'. The camera does make significant strides into the medium format arena, though.

You just had to bring up lenses, didn't ya.... I would rather have a 'crack' habit, it could be cheaper.

What I have collected in a few short weeks (say 8 weeks):
1) Canon constant F2.8 70-200mm L series
2) Canon EF doubler L series
3) Canon F1.4 50mm fixed, L series
4) Tamron F3.5-6.3 28-300mm macro
5) Sigma constant F2.8 24-70mm macro

I still need something like a 15-35, but otherwise feel like I am about done.

And for showing some shots.....

I tossed a few on my local webserver mainly for my uncle to grab, but I'll post the link here... A few warnings:
1) These are the full size images (maintaining the beautiful detail) and they run from 2.8-5.2MB each.
2) You will be limited to my outbound speed of 512kbps....

http://68.94.1.52/

Edited to add: If you only have time to pull one, try 1339.

Re-Edited to add: let me know if you have trouble reaching the site, It is behind a NAT router. It appears everything is set up properly, but I never know until it is actually tested.

[scotth]

Digital cameras are great. You can shoot a ton of shots without the expense of processing bundles of film. Yes, the quality is fantastic. Digital shots are grainless when compred to similar film formats.

I recommend that you read about and familiarize yourself with using the histogram (http://www.shortcourses.com/how/histograms/histograms.htm) feature of your camera (I'm sure it has one). It might seem a little technical at first but once you learn it you won't work without it.

Another good tip is to have a good archiving routine. In other words back up your shots. Don't rely on the single copy on your hard disk as a suitable storage place. Film negatives were often left in their envelopes and tossed in a box. Make copies of your photos on CD or DVD roms and make more than one copy. Media is cheap. A hard disk crash could take all your photos. I had a friend lose all of his photos when his laptop was stolen.

Have lots of fun. There has never been a better time to get into photography.

As an old hand at PhotoShop, histograms are good friends of mine. My camera has them, and I use them. But, I can pretty well tell just by eye-balling the image what the histogram will look like.

My archiving routine is developing into something along these lines.
1) Burn all the images directly to CD as soon as I pull them from the camera.
2) Burn another copy after I have deleted the crap, color corrected as needed, and occasionally a crop.

[blutoski]

Digital cameras are great. You can shoot a ton of shots without the expense of processing bundles of film. Yes, the quality is fantastic. Digital shots are grainless when compred to similar film formats.

I recommend that you read about and familiarize yourself with using the histogram (http://www.shortcourses.com/how/histograms/histograms.htm) feature of your camera (I'm sure it has one). It might seem a little technical at first but once you learn it you won't work without it.

Another good tip is to have a good archiving routine. In other words back up your shots. Don't rely on the single copy on your hard disk as a suitable storage place. Film negatives were often left in their envelopes and tossed in a box. Make copies of your photos on CD or DVD roms and make more than one copy. Media is cheap. A hard disk crash could take all your photos. I had a friend lose all of his photos when his laptop was stolen.

Have lots of fun. There has never been a better time to get into photography.


I had the same satisfaction from going digital.

I have a Pentax IStD, since my old camera was a K100 and I can continue to use the M50 lenses with an adapter. I also have M50 fixtures for my microscope and telescope that will work with this body.

The drawback to image quality is only noticeable in enlargements. A 6Mpx camera can't really enlarge much past 8x10 without getting "pixely".

I read that in order to achieve 35mm resolution, a 20Mpx CCD would be required. This was a colour comparison. B&W would need about a 24Mpx CCD to capture the same level of detail.

Nevertheless, I'm satisfied for casual use.

[scotth]

Ok...

http://68.94.1.52/

It did have a problem, but it should be working fine now.

I recommend saving them locally and then viewing, rather than viewing in the browser.

[jimlintott]

I had the same satisfaction from going digital.

I have a Pentax IStD, since my old camera was a K100 and I can continue to use the M50 lenses with an adapter. I also have M50 fixtures for my microscope and telescope that will work with this body.

The drawback to image quality is only noticeable in enlargements. A 6Mpx camera can't really enlarge much past 8x10 without getting "pixely".

I read that in order to achieve 35mm resolution, a 20Mpx CCD would be required. This was a colour comparison. B&W would need about a 24Mpx CCD to capture the same level of detail.

Nevertheless, I'm satisfied for casual use.
Yes, I agree. I have found that 8x10 enlargments from my four megapixel camera look better than 8x10 from my 35mm camera with iso 100 film. If I remember correctly the optimum size for 35mm was always 5X7 and that to go larger, medium format should be considered. That is to get so-called professional results. If professional results at 16x20 were desired you are now into large format.

Apparently, problems can arise with trying to break the CCD up into too many pixels. Digital SLRS have a larger CCD than point and shooters. Larger CCDs will push the quality up but if you consider 5x7 enlargements and compare digital to 35mm, digital wins (neither do really well beyond 8x10 enlargements). The only advantage film might have is that colour neg film has about a seven stop latitude and digital is about five, roughly the same as slide film.

Scott - Sounds like you are ready to go straight to have a lot of fun. You'll find the histogram on your camera is really handy to give a quick glance to tell you if you should consider another exposure. The LCD screen isn't always the best preview for exposure, especially when sunlight is hitting it.

[scotth]

Ack... I should have said 1196 rather than 1339 if you only wanna grab one image.

[scotth]

Scott - Sounds like you are ready to go straight to have a lot of fun. You'll find the histogram on your camera is really handy to give a quick glance to tell you if you should consider another exposure. The LCD screen isn't always the best preview for exposure, especially when sunlight is hitting it.

Agreed. I mainly use the histogram when I can't see the LCD very well because of ambient light.

[jimlintott]

Ack... I should have said 1196 rather than 1339 if you only wanna grab one image.

Aw, it's so cute.

I looked at a few. Looks like focus and exposure are no problem. Do you use the camera's automatic settings? That's what I do. I'll go manual if I think that I'll get scene failure or I want a certain effect.

I guess I should link to some of my shots. I put some on deviant art (http://jkl1960.deviantart.com/gallery/). The bulk on my own server (http://jiml.hopto.org/pictures/).

[scotth]

Aw, it's so cute.

I looked at a few. Looks like focus and exposure are no problem. Do you use the camera's automatic settings? That's what I do. I'll go manual if I think that I'll get scene failure or I want a certain effect.

I guess I should link to some of my shots. I put some on deviant art (http://jkl1960.deviantart.com/gallery/). The bulk on my own server (http://jiml.hopto.org/pictures/).

Many of the zoo shots where in Program mode (nearly full auto), most were in Aperture Priority (I went wide open to compress the depth of focus when shooting through fences and the like), and some of them were full manual (including manual flash control even). The parrot at 1413 was one of the full manual shots.

I'll take a peek in your galleries now.

[scotth]

jimlintott,

What a bummer on the 'busa meets bambi.

I really wanted more resolution on some of the tractors in the carshow folder.


The golf scenes, the playground equipment, and the one just marked 'trees' in the various folder are my favorites. Great color and detail.

[jimlintott]

Thanks.

My buddy only had 500 k on that bike when he hit the deer. $9000 damage. He didn't fall down.

I like to resize a lot of the stuff I put on the net, makes it a little more bandwidth friendly.

'Trees' is one of my favourites.

[scotth]

500 k = 500 km?

I meant to ask... which one was 'so cute'? 1196 or 1339?

[jimlintott]

500 k = 500 km?

I meant to ask... which one was 'so cute'? 1196 or 1339?

Yes. 500km.

1196 of course. 1339 is kinda cute too.

[Manny]

My wife and I recently purchased a decent (very high consumer to mid pro level) digital camera. Specifically, it is a Canon 20d.I'm jealous. I haven't justified the upgrade from my digital Rebel, even though it was the old one.

You just had to bring up lenses, didn't ya.... I would rather have a 'crack' habit, it could be cheaper.

What I have collected in a few short weeks (say 8 weeks):
1) Canon constant F2.8 70-200mm L series
2) Canon EF doubler L series
3) Canon F1.4 50mm fixed, L series
4) Tamron F3.5-6.3 28-300mm macro
5) Sigma constant F2.8 24-70mm macroEven more jealous. Though I'll try to salvage some tiny shred of "mine is bigger" by saying that I'm having a lot of fun learing to use this baby (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7344). IS is teh r0xx0r for long lenses.

I still need something like a 15-35, but otherwise feel like I am about done."No, really. Just one more fix. I'll quit after that, I swear!"
:D

[scotth]

I'm jealous. I haven't justified the upgrade from my digital Rebel, even though it was the old one.

Even more jealous. Though I'll try to salvage some tiny shred of "mine is bigger" by saying that I'm having a lot of fun learing to use this baby (http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=7344). IS is teh r0xx0r for long lenses.

"No, really. Just one more fix. I'll quit after that, I swear!"
:D

In case you didn't know.... the 30d just came out (a couple weeks after I purchased my 20d, of course, I was so annoyed). Still the same low price.

What a perfect time to move up from the Rebel, eh?

[Manny]

It's tempting, it really is. I've just got to balance the cost with the fact that my checking account hasn't fully recovered from the 100-400 mm purchase and with my desire to actually go someplace to take pictures. :)

And I feel your pain, brother. I had that Rebel for, oh, two weeks before the xt came out. Now I'm invested in the thing because I got the battery grip which doesn't fit on anything else.

[scotth]

The good part for me is that the 30d is a very small upgrade. The sensor and buffer are identical between the 20 and 30d. They take identical images at an identical rate.

[Manny]

Heh. In fact I'm still trying to figure out the differences -- I only learned about the 30 today and B&H doesn't even have it in stock yet.

That said, my next purchase will probably be the 16-35 f/2.8l. I've got the 50 f/1.4 (love), but for anything smaller all I've got is the kit lens, which just isn't doing it for me these days.

Or maybe a real Speedlight. I'm unhappy with myself for cheaping out on a non-Canon flash.

[scotth]

Heh. In fact I'm still trying to figure out the differences -- I only learned about the 30 today and B&H doesn't even have it in stock yet.

That said, my next purchase will probably be the 16-35 f/2.8l. I've got the 50 f/1.4 (love), but for anything smaller all I've got is the kit lens, which just isn't doing it for me these days.

Or maybe a real Speedlight. I'm unhappy with myself for cheaping out on a non-Canon flash.

Yup, that 50mm F1.4l is one sharp lens. I bought the Speedlight 580EX early last week.

My EF-S 18-55 that came with the camera is just setting on the shelf, too.

If you look at img 1418 (look at the detail in that one at full size), that is taken with that fixed 50. It was through glass, so a flash was out of the question. That 50 was the only thing I had that was fast enough. The lighting was beyond dismal.

Amazing what some nice/fast glass can do in really crummy circumstances.

[rustypouch]

The good part for me is that the 30d is a very small upgrade. The sensor and buffer are identical between the 20 and 30d. They take identical images at an identical rate.

No. The sensor is identical, true, but the processor has been tweaked and the buffer has been upgraded. The buffer on the 20D can handle 6 RAW files, while the 30D can handle 11. I can post the complete list of 28 changes if you would like.

Scott: some nice lenses there, I love the 70-200, but that Tamron, why?

[scotth]

No. The sensor is identical, true, but the processor has been tweaked and the buffer has been upgraded. The buffer on the 20D can handle 6 RAW files, while the 30D can handle 11. I can post the complete list of 28 changes if you would like.

Scott: some nice lenses there, I love the 70-200, but that Tamron, why?

Dang, missed the buffer upgrade.

The reason for the Tamron....

I like hockey. No, I love hockey. I have season tickets to the Dallas Stars. The arena has a policy of not letting any cameras in the door with lens longer then 4 inches.

1) This lens is 3.5 inches long (when collapsed and doesn't draw undue attention)
2) Its max length of 300mm can get me decent pictures from quite a distance (like from my seats in the 3rd level of the arena)
3) This is from Tamron's 'nice' line of lens, and it really is a decent lens. As long as the light is decent, it is very nearly as sharp as my Canon 2.8 70-200 L.

So, I bought this specifically to be a cheater lens and get me in the door with the longest focal length I could squeak by.

[jimlintott]

I'm jealous of you guys with your nice DSLRs when all I have is a little 4 megapixel Canon point and shoot.

I have a nice Minolta 35mm film setup but never use it. I even have a B&W enlarger and all the darkroom hardware. It's pretty much worthless. Maybe I can convert the enlarger to a copy stand.

I did manage to use my old flash with a flash activated slave trigger. My little Canon has great manual settings (but no hot shoe) and when used on manual it doesn't pre-flash for exposure and can set off the slave trigger. I can use the big flash's auto-thyristor for exposure. It works pretty good, the old big flash has a guide number of 36 (IIRC), quite a bit more than the camera's on board flash. It can also tripod mount for more versatile lighting effects.

[Seismosaurus]

I'm just a touch jealous, scotth. I was in an agony of indecision over the 20D, but finally the price was just a little too high so I pumped for a 350D. Same number of pixels and much the same functionality but a good £400 cheaper.

The 18-55 lens that comes with the 350D isn't all that great according to the reviews, but I'm quite happy with it for everyday use - and you have to spend a fair bit of money to get anything wider than 18.

But I mostly use my camera at air shows, and while 18-55 is great for planes on the ground it's too small for anything in the air unless it's very close. So I sprung for a 70-300 image stabilised zoom. Best of all it works with my old 2x teleconverter that I've had since my Canon EF-M days. A 300 lens with a doubler can literally see the spots on your face from over a hundred feet away. Nice!

[scotth]

But I mostly use my camera at air shows, and while 18-55 is great for planes on the ground it's too small for anything in the air unless it's very close. So I sprung for a 70-300 image stabilised zoom. Best of all it works with my old 2x teleconverter that I've had since my Canon EF-M days. A 300 lens with a doubler can literally see the spots on your face from over a hundred feet away. Nice!

I would think you could read a wrist watch at an 1/8 mile with 600mm of lens.

[Seismosaurus]

I would think you could read a wrist watch at an 1/8 mile with 600mm of lens.

Just about. I haven't had a chance to go to a show with it yet, but the shots I've taken so far are pretty impressive.

[rustypouch]

But I mostly use my camera at air shows, and while 18-55 is great for planes on the ground it's too small for anything in the air unless it's very close. So I sprung for a 70-300 image stabilised zoom. Best of all it works with my old 2x teleconverter that I've had since my Canon EF-M days. A 300 lens with a doubler can literally see the spots on your face from over a hundred feet away. Nice!

Yeah, but with that combo it drops the lens down to f/11. So long, autofocus! I do not understand people's obession with long lenses.

[Seismosaurus]

Yeah, but with that combo it drops the lens down to f/11. So long, autofocus! I do not understand people's obession with long lenses.

Perhaps for most uses long lenses are not needed, but I take pics of 30 foot long objects that are on average five hundred to one thousand feet away. Any lens of a "reasonable" length gives me a nice small dot.

As for AF, yeah it can struggle at times, but at those distances you can focus manually pretty easily anyway. I used to use a 200 mm zoom with the doubler and got a lot of good shots off it.

[rustypouch]

And we just got the 30Ds in at work. I think I need to buy one.

[Zep]

Zeplette uses the 300D, aka Rebel. Her work is here! (www.asparay.cjb.net)

[Vitnir]

With these semi-pro DSLR's, what is the longest exposure time you can use without getting noise in the picture? 10 seconds? 1 minute?
I'm aware that you can use PhotoShop to stack images but I don't know how much RAM you need to stack 25? images at full resolution.

[rjh01]

The only problem with digital cameras is that after a few years the camera you bought is as good as an old computer. There are much better models on the market.

[richardm]

In case you didn't know.... the 30d just came out (a couple weeks after I purchased my 20d, of course, I was so annoyed).
Ah yes - this happened to me with the 20d just after I bought a 10d. It was quite annoying at the time. I must say though that I'm still very pleased with it, so I don't feel too much of an urge to upgrade. Just in case, I'm not going to be looking at the 30d at all ;)

[scotth]

With these semi-pro DSLR's, what is the longest exposure time you can use without getting noise in the picture? 10 seconds? 1 minute?
I'm aware that you can use PhotoShop to stack images but I don't know how much RAM you need to stack 25? images at full resolution.

You don't really get a lot of noise from a long exposure. You get noise from running a high ISO setting.

I haven't tried it yet, but I should be able to do exposures of several minutes if needed. In fact, the 20d is supposed to be a good astrophotography camera. And they make a version specifically set for astrophotography.