Canon Digital Rebel

[Court Hubbard]

I realize that this should probably be posted in marketplace, but I went ahead and posted here anyways, so if need be and is hurting things, mods go ahead and move this. Ok, I am in the market for another camera. I currently have a Canon Powershot A75, and while it takes pretty decent pictures, I am looking to step things up to another level. I am thinking pretty hard at getting the Digital Rebel, but I'm not made of money. I do realize that Ebay would probably be my best bet, but I thought I would post here in case anyone knew of any other good deals out there or if someone is wanting to upgrade their current camera and could cut me a deal. Wishful thinking, but it's worth a try. So if anyone knows where I can find a good deal on the Digital Rebel Kit, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks.

 

[Darren Addy]

I normally check pricegrabber.com for this kind of stuff, but I'd make sure that what you were buying comes with a U.S. warranty (assuming you are a U.S. buyer).

The original Canon EOS 6.2MP Digital Rebel is a pretty great deal right now at under $700. (Example: Abe's of Maine has the kit for $675) There is now also a XT (or XP?) version out now that is 8+ MP for what the first version was originally selling for (kit for under a grand). Frankly, I think the 6MP is all you need to do enlargements as big as you would normally want.

I'm coveting a good digital as well. I really don't care for how light/cheap the Digital Rebel FEELS, but I can't argue with the results that I have seen. I've heard that users aren't overwhelmed by the lens that comes with the kit, but I'll let those who have one talk about that.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

About the kit lens. I am still seeing the banding after buying the 17-40L. It is only noticeable in low contrast clouds if processed much at all(which all RAWs need a fair amount of adjusting). So that part of the kit lens I hated so much is still just as evident with this new nicer lens. There is still a huge difference in sharpness however and colors seem to be better for some reason. There is also less ghosting(purple fringing on high contrast edges such as a horizon or tree branches against a sky) with the nicer lens.

 

[Court Hubbard]

Well I've been looking around and $656 before shipping is the lowest I've found with the Lens Kit.

Source: http://www2.butterflyphoto.com/shop/produc...aspx?sku=REBELD

Anyone else notice anything cheaper? If not, I think I'll go ahead and order from here on Monday, and might get a few extras, but will wait on a lens. I think the 18-55 will be a good starter lens for me and should suit me just fine for awhile.

 

[Scott Taylor]

(which all RAWs need a fair amount of adjusting).

Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6raw.jpg

In shooting this shot, what setting are you going to change that will get it to looke like the following? This first image was exposed properly. I can point my cam at that dog all day and get nothing better than that. Any longer exposure and those white cirrus clouds will be blownout. Any shorter and I won't be able to save/open the shadows in his mouth. When shooting raw I use Adobe RGB(no parameter adjustments....no reason to apply in cam settings if shooting RAW)

Here is the above processed to look like reality.

[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6.jpg

I would always expect to at the minimum adjust saturation. There are a TON of digital photos online that are just left as is and they often are flat and less life-like. People think processing is so taboo sometimes. Digital files NEED to be processed. Sorry, I just often get the vibe from people that adjusting digital files is wrong and that they can do better without the need to process. Might be the case with a rare jpg, but not an adobe RGB RAW.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

Mike H is right on. In the digital era, the post processing step is now very important if you wish to shoot in RAW. RAW is the pixel by pixel data captured by the camera. There is much more involved in post work of photographs using RAW than just simply utilizing unsharp mask. However, there are settings that SLR cameras have to do much of the post-work for you like saturation adjustment, sharpening, etc... but this is digital manipulation of the RAW data *out of your control!*.. very important... for snapshot JPEGs, this is fine, which is more than likely most of the storm chasers in the group.

Please see http://www.underthemeso.com/misc/digitalpo...ostprocess.html
for a little write up on my experience with RAW and post processing with the Nikon D70 and Paint Shop Pro version 9.

Mike U

 

[Robert Dewey]

I realize that this should probably be posted in marketplace, but I went ahead and posted here anyways, so if need be and is hurting things, mods go ahead and move this. Ok, I am in the market for another camera. I currently have a Canon Powershot A75, and while it takes pretty decent pictures, I am looking to step things up to another level. I am thinking pretty hard at getting the Digital Rebel, but I'm not made of money. I do realize that Ebay would probably be my best bet, but I thought I would post here in case anyone knew of any other good deals out there or if someone is wanting to upgrade their current camera and could cut me a deal. Wishful thinking, but it's worth a try. So if anyone knows where I can find a good deal on the Digital Rebel Kit, please don't hesitate to let me know. Thanks.

You could always get the EOS 1Ds Mark II, shown here: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...7505330189&rd=1

16.7 MP's <drool>.... But, at nearly $8,000, I don't think it will fit many people's budget. If I was made of money, or if I harvested money in my backyard (aka don't look at the price), you bet that I would be getting that.

 

[Court Hubbard]

No doubt about it, if I had the money I'd get that one too, but I probably won't be able to afford anything like that until its about 7-10 years old and way outdated, so I'll stick with the Digital Rebel.

 

[Scott Taylor]

Depends on how much you do before the shot. For me, I might use unsharp mask on maybe .60% of my shots, but if I take the picture with most of the right settings, post-processing doesn't consist of much more than that.

Have any of these online? RAW was created with the intention of post-processing them. They are supposed to be processed. Anyone can take a picture and have it be "fine". If you want it life-like most cases with raw you'll want to do some processing to bring all the stuff out of the image that your brain does "instantly".

Mike H is right on. In the digital era, the post processing step is now very important if you wish to shoot in RAW. RAW is the pixel by pixel data captured by the camera. There is much more involved in post work of photographs using RAW than just simply utilizing unsharp mask. However, there are settings that SLR cameras have to do much of the post-work for you like saturation adjustment, sharpening, etc... but this is digital manipulation of the RAW data *out of your control!*.. very important... for snapshot JPEGs, this is fine, which is more than likely most of the storm chasers in the group.

Please see http://www.underthemeso.com/misc/digitalpo...ostprocess.html
for a little write up on my experience with RAW and post processing with the Nikon D70 and Paint Shop Pro version 9.

Mike U

Sheesh guys, is it always "my way or the highway around here?", lol. Yes Mike, I do have pics up. In fact, I posted some in a picture thread on here somewhere.

I understand how raw works and the flexability it gives you to post-process. But again, I'll stand by what I say... if I compose/expose my shots correctly, then at a minimum I may need to address the "soft" look raw gives an image, but rarely do I feel I need to saturate the colors.

Just my .02 worth, but it doesn't mine my processing is wrong guys.

 

[Scott Taylor]

[Broken External Image]:http://www.extremeinstability.com/stormpics/041211-6.jpg

I would always expect to at the minimum adjust saturation. There are a TON of digital photos online that are just left as is and they often are flat and less life-like. People think processing is so taboo sometimes. Digital files NEED to be processed. Sorry, I just often get the vibe from people that adjusting digital files is wrong and that they can do better without the need to process. Might be the case with a rare jpg, but not an adobe RGB RAW.

Mike, you do have some wonderful photos online, no doubt. But some, such as the one above, almost borderline over-saturation. You mentioned something about looking real, but when you add too much, you can also remove the 'realness' you are looking to achieve. Again, I'm not bashing, but simply reminding that not everyone's eye is the same for what a pic should look like. Therefore not everyone's post-processing will address all the areas YOU feel they should.

Scott

 

[Cstok]

So for those who photograph storms... Do you always shoot in RAW with the realization that you will spend time on post production? If so, what post production tools do you suggest.... Photoshop... other???

 

[Mike Hollingshead]

Mike, you do have some wonderful photos online, no doubt. But some, such as the one above, almost borderline over-saturation. You mentioned something about looking real, but when you add too much, you can also remove the 'realness' you are looking to achieve. Again, I'm not bashing, but simply reminding that not everyone's eye is the same for what a pic should look like. Therefore not everyone's post-processing will address all the areas YOU feel they should.

Well Scott I just absolutely did not agree with your assesment of shooting in RAW and not needing to do anything to them. From what I've seen so far THAT made no sense to me. I don't really care what anyone else does to their images. Who said anything about my way or the highway, I just disagreed. Yep, one can certainly cross the line adjusting too much. Problem is if I didn't touch my raw files I would be much farther from the truth than if I even overdid things. And with that dog photo, no, that is not overdone. What is overdone on it(or pushing overdone, whatever that is)? It is leaps and bounds closer to the truth than the properly exposed untouched RAW file. Often some will think things are overdone because they aren't used to seeing what is possible in digital files. I spent enough time with my jaw on the floor on photosig.com at the great photogs on there to learn what I'd been happy with in the past would no longer do. I don't know why I ever bother commenting on any of this to anyone anyway. I don't need to say anything. I'm happy with what I know and understand now. All it seems to stir are all the 'purists' out there that think digital should not be processed and all us trying to make them better(whatever that may be to someone) are evil or cheaters. Many think this and later come to realize how wrong they are...or they are happy with the files as is...fine with me. Not implying you thought this, but it is rather common.

For those still reading that don't mind a little post-processing work to get a flat non-life-like image closer to reality here is a good read.

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/masking.shtml

You can certainly go wrong by overdoing something, but when it is wrong to begin with I'd rather try what is available out there than leave it.

It is only my opinion, but anyone serious enough to buy a DSLR should be willing to learn and use post-processing tools. Some situations you can just shoot with parameters set or in jpg and get good enough results. In the processing areana, if you want, you can make photos much more alive. I now can't imagine being happy with any untouched raw...even with in-cam parameters set for colors, sharpness, and saturation. But again, if in RAW there is zero need to have those being applied.

 

[Scott Taylor]

lol, I never said that NO post processing needs to be done. Please re-read my initial post carefully and show me where I stated that. I don't know why I say anything either....

As long as each is happy with their own, I suppose that's all that matters. I hit the dpreview forums a lot and there are a lot to both sides. I'm not here to say one side is more right than the other. Some like to spend a lot of effort in post processing, some spend very little. I happen to be of the latter... I spend more time to carefully expose my shots to reduce my post processing efforts. Neither way is better than the other... as long as you like what you end up with.

I'll offer no more, since I'm not with the 'bigger' crowd on this one, I guess.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

Interesting discussion. I will preface my comments with the statement that I have only had a digital SLR for only 3 months. After I got my SLR, I began shooting right away to learn everything about the camera. I had extensive conversations with Mike H during the winter about post processing techniques and whatnot, because in my opinion, his photography work is down right inspiring, and I love it.

There is a fine line, I believe, between processing an image to bring the photograph "alive" to what your eyes naturually saw in the scene...versus over processing to the point that the photograph looks unreal or obviously processed heavily. The post processing phase allows the photographer to become the artist, in a sense. Mike H has one hell of an eye, and also is an incredible "artist" in my book. Just look at his online gallery. Are his photographs "over-processed"? Some may very well be, but if his artistic skills were not as such, then the photograph could not grab interest and/or inspiration of those who view his work.

Scott is not wrong, Mike H is not wrong, and I am not wrong in how we process photographs. It takes a level of understanding, however, of dodging/burning, using levels/curves, etc. techniques, though, in whatever moderation the photographer/artist sees fit, to bring the photograph to something that most resembled what the eye saw. I do believe Mike H is more correct in saying that what his eye saw most resemble what the post-processed image looks like versus the flat RAW data from the camera untouched.

Mike U