Canon Digital Rebel

[Ryan McGinnis]

I tend to lie more on Mike's side on this one. As an FYI -- in the journalistic print industry, digital color postprocessing is standard. Every magazine that you pick up and every medium to large newspaper that you pick up has a team of people who do nothing but take that photog's digital shots and preprocess them to bring out color and detail that would otherwise be lost in the translation to press. Even print photogs used to do this chemically through dodging and burning and development times; it's just that now the tools are much finer.

I can see someone making the argument that Mike's photo's are "oversaturated", as he definately does go for high color saturation. But to me, the point is that his toning style works, and I've yet to show his stuff to anyone -- including professional photojournalists -- who weren't impressed with his skyscapes.

 

[Darren Addy]

For those wishing to learn more about the topic of our threadjack.
:twisted:
RAW vs JPG vs TIFF

Excerpt: "The JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able to do later in software from RAW."

This highlights that shooting RAW will require you to have (or acquire) some additional skills. There is no dishonor in shooting JPEGs. However, what a lot of people don't realize is that you are throwing away a lot of data as soon as your camera saves a JPEG from the RAW. I would think that this might be a BIG concern to stormchasers and scientists. "Some cameras have a handy RAW + JPG mode which saves both the raw data and the JPG picture."

While I haven't shot any prosumer (or better) digital, I come from a Portrait/Wedding background and have talked to a lot of pros who have gone digital. I've been told that if you have a RAW image you can actually recover from under or over exposure. It has been explained to me that the digital information in the raw contains the equivalent of bracketed shots. That could be very handy in bringing out some storm detail - after the fact.

PS... I think Mike's shots are awesome on many levels. If that is hyper-reality then lay it on me! (NOW, Mike, can I have permission to use that one shot of yours - with copyright notice attached?) :lol:

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Darren Addy]

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.

I'm not saying that the people you link to (above) are bad (no experience with them) but it is very easy to advertise the lowest price on something that one doesn't have in stock. It is a great way to hook people until you can get some in. Also, lowest price deals often strip out stuff that should come with the kit - and then they charge extra to put them back in again. Also, as I said before, make sure it is U.S. Warranty stuff. "Grey Market" stuff is always cheaper, but you don't want to have to send it back to Japan or somewhere if you need warranty work.

At the very least, you will probably have to deal with them trying to sell you lots of extras (forcing you to say no multiple times). I recommend buying with a credit card so you at least have the recourse of doing a chargeback if there are problems.

Don't mean to sound pessimistic and hope you have a good transaction, but there is often a reason for a price that sounds just a bit too good to be true. Personally, I'd prefer going with a dealer of known quality - even if it meant paying an extra $50-$75. Don't forget to figure shipping in on the total deal.

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Jeff Lawson]

I'll admit I've found some of Mike's landscape images to be excessively dodged and/or burned, but that's just a matter of preference. They're his photos, so he can process them as he wishes.

I think it's worth noting that much of what's done in processing digital raws is nothing new. Photographers have been slapping filters on their lenses, shooting with specific film (warm film, cool film), and experimenting in the darkroom for a long time. It's part of the trade.

I've managed to make some incredible images shooting straight JPG - just tweak the curves a little bit in Photoshop, and it's good to go. But I've also lost some incredible images shooting straight JPG, either due to poor exposure, poor saturation, bad white balance, etc. Pros and amateurs - it happens to all photographers. By shooting RAW, however, I can save most of these images, and it usually requires very little tweaking. As for the shots in which I did everything right? Even those shots are going to look dull and uninspired straight out of the camera. That's just how digital SLRs work (unless you do processing inside the camera). The shots are MEANT to be processed. The question is, do you want to be stuck trying to process a lossy JPG image using limited tools, or would you rather work with a lossless RAW image in which, for all intensive purposes, the sky's the limit?

Does a processed image reflect reality? Depends on how much you process it. But it's not like an unprocessed image is a carbon copy of the scene, either. Obviously, every photographer has his/her own priorities, but for me, photography is about making images, not simply recording history. If all I cared about was recording history, I wouldn't be walking around with a $1000 camera, a bunch of expensive lenses, and a bag full of filters. I'd go to Wal-Mart and buy a $5 disposable Kodak.

Anyway, an example of what a minor amount of tweaking can do...

"Uncooked" goose - Straight out of the camera (except for the resizing, obviously...I didn't do any sharpening, so it'll look a little softer as a result). Is it properly exposed? It's in the neighborhood. I was shooting with a polarizer to kill the reflections on the water, and was working with late afternoon sun. Because of the polarizer, I lost a couple of stops, but rather than compensate at the point of the camera, I chose to underexpose the shot. Why? Because I was shooting RAW and knew I could correct it later on with ease. Even if I wasn't shooting RAW, I'd still underexpose it, as it's easier to correct underexposure in processing than it is overexposure.

"Cooked" goose - So, what did I do? I tinkered with the white balance, obviously. After that, I balanced the shadows and highlights. Upped the contrast and lowered the brightness some (this is a personal preference). Sent it on to the Photoshop, resized, and sharpened. That's it. Nothing special, really...didn't play with the saturation, didn't dodge or burn anything.

It took very little processing, but the difference in the two images is pretty stark. I think it's clear which one looks better, but everyone has their own preference. I'm pretty sure the original wouldn't catch anyone's eye, though.

 

[Ryan McGinnis]

BTW -- when it comes to the question of where to buy a digital camera (outside of a local shop), the answer is almost invariably one of two places on the internet: adorama.com or bhphotovideo.com. Both of these camera stores are highly reputable and offer the lowest honest prices around. They also offer a wider selection of camera equipment, accesories, and consumables than you're likely to find anywhere else.

The stock lense on the Digital Rebel isn't great, but unless you can afford the L series replacement (~$1,400) or a similar quality lense from another company (still around $600), the kit lense is probably the best you're going to find for storm-shooting; it has a good range from superwide to wide. You probably won't need a telephoto lense for storm shooting; or, I should say, the few times that you do probably won't justify the enormous pricetag that most good telephoto lenses carry.

 

[Chris Gullikson]

I am a bit of a shutter whore when I have a camera in my hands so I tend to burn up a lot of memory cards. I have been shooting in large/fine JPG mode parameter 2 (less processing). I do have many shots that I wish were shot in RAW, there is just not enough info on the JPG image to manipulate it exactly how I want it. I have one shot of a lifetime that would be much more marketable if it were shot in RAW. I have since learned how to quickly switch to RAW mode for those special shots. (easy to do with the Wasia hack).

What software are you guys using to manage your RAW images?

I have been thinking about upgrading to a Canon 20D for the increased pixel area and lower noise at higher ISO settings. I wish somebody would talk me out of upgrading right now (or at least make me an offer on my Rebel..)

Chris Gullikson
http://www.f5hunter.com

 

[Tim Johnson]

Arent all Canon EF lenses compatible with the 300d? I have the 50mm 1.8 lens and was told it would work? Also, just wondering what this lens would equate to on the 300D as the focal length is shorter I believe?

 

[Chris Gullikson]

The Rebel (as well as the 20D and Rebel XT) allow use of the EF and the newer EF-S lenses.

Your 50mm lens would equal an 80mm lens with the Rebels 1.6 crop factor.
(Great lens BTW)

 

[Tim Johnson]

The Rebel (as well as the 20D and Rebel XT) allow use of the EF and the newer EF-S lenses.

Your 50mm lens would equal an 80mm lens with the Rebels 1.6 crop factor.
(Great lens BTW)

Thats actual more than I thought. Oh well, for 100 bucks might as well grab the kit lens too. Probably wont be able to purchase till later in the year though.

Yeah, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty darn good. Not crazy about the plastic mount construction, but its hard to beat the optical preformance of this lens for the price.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[Chris Gullikson]

The 1.6 crop factor does make it a bit of a pain to get a wide angle image. You can't beat the value of the 18-55 kit lens, 18mm will get you a nice 28.8mm equivalent wide angle image.

My favorite lens for structure shots is the 15mm 2.8 Sigma fisheye. It does not have the obvious "fishy" look to it when used with the 1.6 crop factor cameras and it has a 90 degree FOV. Very sharp lens and the image is easily corrected using panotools for a rectilinear image. You would need to get a 12mm lens to get the same wide angle results that the 15mm fisheye gives. The fish is a much cheaper solution for really wide images.

 

[Mike Umscheid]

What software are you guys using to manage your RAW images?

I just recently purchased Paint Shop Pro version 9, which is the first version available that allows Nikon users to work with the Nikon RAW files (NEFs). I love it to death, however, when it comes to just simply reviewing my pictures to see which ones I want to process, I use Nikon View, b/c the PSP9 image browser working with NEF files is very slow for my liking.

PSP9 allows pretty much all the necessary photography post processing tools that Photoshop offers, allowing the user to work with layers & masks, most importantly. All the techniques offered on luminous-landscape.com can be applied to PSP9, among other editing tutorials that can be found elsewhere online.

Mike U

 

[Darren Addy]

The original Canon Digital Rebel is a great deal, now that the new model is out. If it is a choice between getting nothing and getting a reduced price original Digital Rebel, there isn't a lot of competition.

If you are looking for the next step up, you are probably comparing the new Digital Rebel XT and the Nikon D70:

Digital Rebel XT vs D70
Kit lens comparison

If I were in the market for a Canon 20D, I'd hold off. Canon is moving so fast in this market that the 20D has been out long enough that it should be superceded by a new model any minute now (it was announced August 2004). In the digital camera arena, a new model generally means more features at the same price as the old one (and rebates/discounts on the earlier version).

Darren Addy
Kearney, NE

 

[Mike Umscheid]

The 1.6 crop factor does make it a bit of a pain to get a wide angle image. You can't beat the value of the 18-55 kit lens, 18mm will get you a nice 28.8mm equivalent wide angle image.

My favorite lens for structure shots is the 15mm 2.8 Sigma fisheye. It does not have the obvious "fishy" look to it when used with the 1.6 crop factor cameras and it has a 90 degree FOV. Very sharp lens and the image is easily corrected using panotools for a rectilinear image. You would need to get a 12mm lens to get the same wide angle results that the 15mm fisheye gives. The fish is a much cheaper solution for really wide images.

For Nikon photographers, the ultra wide solution is their incredible 12-24mm f/4 "G" lens. This is a thousand dollar lens, however, but it is high on my wish list. I doubt I'll have this lens this season, as the Nikkor 18-70 lens provides a wide enough field of view at the wide end. 12mm, non-fish eye, (before the 1.5 crop) will provide one heck of a wide angle solution for landscape/stormscape photography. Just wish I had the money now to throw down on this puppy!

Mike U

 

[Chris Gullikson]

For Nikon photographers, the ultra wide solution is their incredible 12-24mm f/4 "G" lens. This is a thousand dollar lens, however, but it is high on my wish list. I doubt I'll have this lens this season, as the Nikkor 18-70 lens provides a wide enough field of view at the wide end. 12mm, non-fish eye, (before the 1.5 crop) will provide one heck of a wide angle solution for landscape/stormscape photography. Just wish I had the money now to throw down on this puppy!

Mike U

That would be a sweet lens but the price is out of my league. Canon has the 10-22 lens which would also be sweet but very pricy. I was looking at the Sigma 12-24 EX which gets great reviews but is also pricy so I settled with the 15mm fish for half the price.
18mm works great for storms, but I am a wide angle junky and needed more FOV.

Chris.

 

[Jeff Lawson]

What software are you guys using to manage your RAW images?

I recently started using Capture One for processing my RAW files. I've been impressed, so I'll probably purchase it once the trial period runs out. Before, I was using the Canon RAW processor/converter. It works, but it's slow and clunky.

Anyway, I do fine-tuning in Photoshop 7 (I don't have CS, so I can't use Adobe's RAW converter).

Yeah, the 50mm 1.8 is pretty darn good. Not crazy about the plastic mount construction, but its hard to beat the optical performance of this lens for the price.

This is my favorite "everyday use" lens. Cheap construction, but you're right - for the price, you can't beat the image quality! It's light as a feather and super-fast in low light, too.