Game 350D Bundle Special

koffiejunkie said:
Congrats dude! See my comment about flickr :)

You really need a wide lens for landscapes. I love this one for that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

Don't know why I am still posting as I bought the camera for the SO. :D

Thanks for the link. Want to get her a decent wide angle, macro and zoom lense in the next couple of months.
 
RVFmal said:
Don't know why I am still posting as I bought the camera for the SO. :D

Thanks for the link. Want to get her a decent wide angle, macro and zoom lense in the next couple of months.
Click to expand...
Sigma does a nice 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 DG Macro that is pretty affordable. It's not all that big so it makes a great walkabout lens.
 
RVFmal said:
Almost as much as the camera LOL!

What is the distinct difference between the above and the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens?
Click to expand...
The difference?

Roughly this:

picture.php
 
RVFmal said:
Almost as much as the camera LOL!
Click to expand...

The body is the cheap part of photography...

RVFmal said:
What is the distinct difference between the above and the Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 DG Macro Telephoto Zoom Lens?
Click to expand...

If you're considering the Sigma 70-300 you'll want to make sure you get the one with 'APO' in it's name. The non APO model is not great at all, the APO model is pretty good (for the money - it's still outclassed by Canon's offerings).
 
Well done to you for joining the DSLR club guys. Now go and shoot!!

I use Photoshop CS2 for all my work. I find it great. Yes its old but it works for me
 
Wynsam said:
Well done to you for joining the DSLR club guys. Now go and shoot!!

I use Photoshop CS2 for all my work. I find it great. Yes its old but it works for me
Click to expand...
My problem for using Photoshop for everything is the sheer size of the files once they're converted from RAW - 10mb quickly becomes 50mb.

Do you have a method of circumventing the bloat or do you just live with it?
 
Lots of ram? I run 4gig, actually the pc only sees 3gig.

Yes the files become huge, I live with it while working with the file. I save as Jpeg, max quality using the save for web feature.Its a bit slow but woks. I dont do this for every file though.Most raw files I open in camera raw, crop a bit, fiddle a bit with the exposure etc and then then save directly from camera raw. These then que up converting and saving while I move to the next one. I spend about 30 -60 secs per shot. Otherwise I just batch convert, and afterwards look at the ones I want and delete the rest. The special ones I want to keep then get the full PS treatment.
 
Wynsam said:
Lots of ram? I run 4gig, actually the pc only sees 3gig.

Yes the files become huge, I live with it while working with the file. I save as Jpeg, max quality using the save for web feature.Its a bit slow but woks. I dont do this for every file though.Most raw files I open in camera raw, crop a bit, fiddle a bit with the exposure etc and then then save directly from camera raw. These then que up converting and saving while I move to the next one. I spend about 30 -60 secs per shot. Otherwise I just batch convert, and afterwards look at the ones I want and delete the rest. The special ones I want to keep then get the full PS treatment.
Click to expand...
I try to avoid the save to web option as much as possible - I like to keep the exif data embedded in the photo.
 
Yes losing it is a pain. I don't understand why it strips it out.

But for me I tend not to look at the data after the raw file. If want to know how/why that shot worked or did not then I see it then. Still its it would be better if it did not lose it.

Does CS3 fix that?
 
Wynsam said:
Yes losing it is a pain. I don't understand why it strips it out.

But for me I tend not to look at the data after the raw file. If want to know how/why that shot worked or did not then I see it then. Still its it would be better if it did not lose it.

Does CS3 fix that?
Click to expand...
Regrettably not. You can still "save as" and it will retain it though.

I embed GPS in a lot of my stuff these days and I really dont want to lose that if I can help it.
 
jacqvt said:
What I dislike of a slr is that you cannot view the image on the screen before taking it, like the normal p&s.
Click to expand...

Then you need to get a dSLR with Live-View mode :) The Canon 450D, 40D as well as the 1000D has this. I think the Sony A350 also has it.
 
Wynsam said:
Yes losing it is a pain. I don't understand why it strips it out.

But for me I tend not to look at the data after the raw file. If want to know how/why that shot worked or did not then I see it then. Still its it would be better if it did not lose it.

Does CS3 fix that?
Click to expand...

I'm falling more and more in love with the concept that Aperture and Lightroom builds on. Everything is structured in such a way that the whole process, from importing to printing/publishing, and everything in-between, just flows (forgive the buzzword, but it's really appropriate here) so nicely.

Another thing that I've come to appreciate, is the way in which building out my image library, and spending some time keywording images, is building a nice profile of my usage. I can see, for example, that about two thirds of my images are shot below 35mm (50mm equiv on FF), so if I'm going to invest serious money in another lens, equipped with this knowledge it's easy to decide that it will more likely be the 16-35L or 17-40L than say, the 70-200L. (all other considerations ignored, for the sake of the argument).

I've started pulling my jpegs from the P&S into Aperture as well.
 
koffiejunkie said:
I'm falling more and more in love with the concept that Aperture and Lightroom builds on. Everything is structured in such a way that the whole process, from importing to printing/publishing, and everything in-between, just flows (forgive the buzzword, but it's really appropriate here) so nicely.

Another thing that I've come to appreciate, is the way in which building out my image library, and spending some time keywording images, is building a nice profile of my usage. I can see, for example, that about two thirds of my images are shot below 35mm (50mm equiv on FF), so if I'm going to invest serious money in another lens, equipped with this knowledge it's easy to decide that it will more likely be the 16-35L or 17-40L than say, the 70-200L. (all other considerations ignored, for the sake of the argument).

I've started pulling my jpegs from the P&S into Aperture as well.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm doing the opposite - In order not to stagnate and to improve my proficiency I'm making a conscious effort to spend entire sessions shooting at set focal lengths.
 
Well, I do that too. I often go out with just one prime on, nothing else with me. But the artistic side of me really loves the wide angle much much more. Long range shooting really doesn't do much for me. Unless I discover a big passion for wild life or birds (unlikely), I don't see much point in investing in that. Maybe sports, if I get paid, but again, not an interest for me, so not something I want to invest in.
 
Hi,
I bought one of these. I think its an excellent buy.

Bhavesh
http://www.digicube.co.za
 
koffiejunkie said:
I can see, for example, that about two thirds of my images are shot below 35mm (50mm equiv on FF), so if I'm going to invest serious money in another lens, equipped with this knowledge it's easy to decide that it will more likely be the 16-35L or 17-40L than say, the 70-200L. (all other considerations ignored, for the sake of the argument).
Click to expand...
I noticed a fairly conspicuous absence wrt your considerations. :D
 
bwana said:
I noticed a fairly conspicuous absence wrt your considerations. :D
Click to expand...

Naah, I just used those as an example. The 17-55 will most likely be my next lens, assuming I don't pick up a 5D in the not too distant future. Not that I'm planning to, but the 17-55, annoyingly, makes that a harder decision - it costs as much as a second hand 5D, and only a few hundred £ less than a new 5D body, which would make needing a 17-55 useless, as the 24-105L would be even wider at the wide end (17x1.6=27.2). Hmmm... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X