Look at Yonkers post after yours, Casey. I think he explains the difference (and the point I was trying to make) very well.
You can take lots & lots of pictures while thinking about each one. Types of manipulation: 1) Correct exposure, of course 2) Correct White balance. This is essential in mixed lighting conditions. 3) Use fill light 4) Correct vignetting 5) Sharpening 6) Use of graduated filter if not used on site 7) Noise reduction 8) Lens correction
I just bought the Canon 24-105 f/4.0 and absolutely love it. Here are a few of the pictures I've taken over the past week in Pakistan: http://swagistani.tumblr.com
I'm not saying it isn't possible. My question stems from this exchange: I agree with your statement that with good gear, you need minimal PP. Deckard counters that is not true if you want to become "really good". I am just wondering what he is talking about.
Ah, ok. I assume he meant that he could frame and take good pictures, but if he didn't develop them properly in the darkroom it would be for naught. And that he found the processing of drawing the picture out via the entire chemical experience was more fun to him. I don't think he means with digital photography.
i bought my first dlsr last month, after two years of learning all i could about photography using a point and shoot. i read, and reread, and re-reread this site. http://www.digital-photography-school.com/ i've learned a **** load from it. i love the feeling you get knowing what your cameras capabilities are outside of the auto setting.
That's what I meant. Sometimes I forget just how far, and for how long, digital photography has taken over the hobby. You guys will have to forgive me for thinking in film. ;-)- The first really good camera I purchased was a Canon Canonet that I got in Japan in 1965, which I wish I still had. It wasn't an SLR, but took superb photographs. Just outstanding optics. The best SLR I ever owned was a Nikon FTn that I bought in 1970. Loved it, although it was a heavy beast. Sadly, it was stolen during a visit to Stockholm. That led me to the less expensive, and lighter, Canon F-1, which I still have, but rarely use, along with a Canon AE-1 body that I inherited from my father. Actually, I'm looking for a good digital camera to buy in the near future. Something light that is easy to carry around when traveling.
You'll be overwhelmed with the options. In the end though, since you know how to take pictures, that's going to matter 100x more than whatever 'system' of bodies and lenses you choose.
Congrats, that's a sweet one. Was pondering it this morning, but I need more range. So I'll probably end up with the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM. My other option being to buy the 70-200 and just rent a Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II USM when I need it.
TC 2x should do for you. You lose some stops and IQ with it on but it'll probably better better than the 100-400.
* Start shooting in RAW * Get a copy of Adobe Lightroom (not too expensive if you are a STUDENT) * People have already mentioned learning proper exposure * I'll add pay attention to color (and color accuracy) and learn good composition (a good place to start is with the rule of thirds) With regard to post processing... ALL digital photos are post processed. You just have to decide if you want some engineer from Nikon determining how sharp or saturated your photo is (and how the white balance is set - which is what happens when you use auto settings) or do you want to control that stuff (which is where shooting RAW and processing in Lightroom will take you). Scott Kelby is a goofball but I still like his books
It's those stops and IQ that I'm trying to improve on. I shoot a lot in low light at long ranges. Right now I mainly use a Sigma 50-500mm f/4.5-6.3 ...which I'm not real happy with and a Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS. Do you think that 200 2.8 L with a 2x teleextender is going to match the quality of the 100-400 in low light conditions?
Well, it does add 2 stops loss which makes it actually slower than the 100-400, so for low light in would be worse. But how often do you think you'll shoot in the 300-400 range? If it's only once in a while I would think the f2.8 and much faster AF on the 70-200 would be attractive for normal use. And then you would only have to put up with the stop loss on certain occasions. Here are some threads that talk a bit about those two. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1066608/0?keyword=70-200,tc,2x#10143375 http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1014622/0
I'm definitely selling mine. I think I have the range I need now between the other three, with only gaps of 40-50 and 50-70. I'd like to get a little longer eventually and so my next purchase my just be a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter.
