Buying my first DSLR

[froot]

What exactly would be the difference between RAW and Jpeg in terms of photo quality and what you can notice visually?

What bwana said

There is a lot more detail in the RAW file that gets lost during the in camera conversion - depending on the camera you're looking at a stop or two extra dynamic range. You also have the ability to correct your white balance without any detrimental effect to the image quality.

That said for me RAW is too time consuming for what I need so unless I absolutely have to, or I know I've got plenty of time at my disposal, I stick to jpg.

I don't have anything to add to your post. It pretty much says it all.

 

[fvdbergh]

There is a lot more detail in the RAW file that gets lost during the in camera conversion - depending on the camera you're looking at a stop or two extra dynamic range. You also have the ability to correct your white balance without any detrimental effect to the image quality.

And you can adjust noise reduction and sharpening much better starting from raw. Remember, when you add additional sharpening to a JPEG file, you are sharpening the JPEG artifacts along with the rest of the image, which may or may not become a problem. Colour Moire caused by Bayer demosaicing is also baked into your JPEGs, but can be fine tuned with a program such as RawTherapee (an excellent open source raw processor) if you still have the raw.

With JPEG, the camera chooses which degree (and type) of noise reduction to apply for you. For most images, the camera's choices are fine, but I happen to prefer manually tweaking NR and sharpening in LightRoom.

Does raw processing really improve my photos? Who knows, but I like tweaking low-level settings, so it is part of the enjoyment of hobby photography for me personally.

 

[Mean_Monster]

Also bought the Canon 600D in November/December last year on special when the Marko in Montaque Gardens opened. Me also being a beginner or a happy snapper if you want to call it that I am more than happy with this camera. I like the fast frame rate and the quality compared to my ancient 2 megapixel Olympus, is unbelievable yet expected.

Now I just need to use it properly, but in all honesty even in the hands of a beginner I believe better tools help. I was also caught between the 1100D and the 600D and the video capability swinged it at the end of the day. It was also a very good deal if I recall R7999.

I am very happy with the Canon 600D as my first proper camera, DSLR

 

[charlieharper]

Thanks for the advice all! I pretty much made up my mind.. Hopefully get the Canon 600D this week.

 

[Freshy-ZN]

I got the twin lens bundle for R8999 from Makro today. Friend has the 550D and then I saw this thread and my mind was made up. I went to some photographic shops and they all had the same bundle for R10 500 or so. Whysalls had the bare 600d for R 9300!. So it seems like the Makro deals really are spectacular.

Now I have a lot of homework to do as its been years and years since I used anything other than a point and shoot....
They bundle includes an introductory course and I'm going to take advantage of it.

 

[spike_za]

Also got my 600D twin lense kit and loving it got mine at cameraland in sandton also selling it for R8999

 

[charlieharper]

Ok, so I'm keen to buy a basic zoom lens (300mm). So, Sigma or Tamron ?

 

[hilton]

The Tamron is better from what I've read and of course more expensive.

 

[bwana]

Ok, so I'm keen to buy a basic zoom lens (300mm). So, Sigma or Tamron ?

28-300, 70-300?

Have a look at the canon 70-200 f/4 L. The non-IS version is pretty reasonably priced and it's a beaut of a lens.

 

[hilton]

I'm actually selling my Tamron to get the 70-200 f/4 L IS as I've found I don't need the long end. Then later this year depending on the price, I will look at the new 5D.

 

[charlieharper]

http://www.dionwired.co.za/photogra...lenses/canon-sigms-70-300-lens-for-canon.html

http://www.dionwired.co.za/photogra...lenses/tamron-70-300mm-af-lens-for-canon.html