[Goombi]

hey guys. my technical terms are still lacking, so I was wondering if anyone could explain this for me. I'm going to an NHL game and I looked up the official website on what camera policy is.

Does that mean I can't bring my 55-250mm? or do they mean physically the lens can not be longer than 75mm? This is an unusual request and possibly not suited for the thread. Sorry if it isn't but I don't want them to take my baby away.

For concerts that I've gone to, or that my friends have gone to, we had the same restrictions. We never had a problems using a prime under 75mm. I believe using a zoom with that focal length isn't allowed since they'll be assuming you'll be not just utilizing the 55-75mm range of your lens.

Thanks! Well technically not first because I've had weddings before but didn't own a DSLR back then

Thanks for the tip! I used Canon body 50D, Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and Canon flash speedlite 430 ex II. I wish the 50D had better in-noise reduction capabilities, but it's still manageable

On a sidenote, I'll be getting my 5D mkII next week, can't wait!

Oh man, I'm jealous of the body Compared to the XSi, the xxD series handles light conditions much better. Grats on updating, I'll be needing to save a lot before I can even buy a 50D, let alone the 5D

EDIT:

I have a question for PC/Mac users. I use Macs for all my editing, but after talking with friends and comparing monitors, it seems that PC's as a whole display photos a lot darker than Macs. This could be calibration discrepancies, but as a whole, what do you guys do about it?

[ash--x]

Hiyaaa
well, i'm planning on buying a dslr for the first time ever, and im stuck between the olympus e450 (purely because its small, lightweight and good to carry round), the olympus e620 (autofocus) , the nikon d60 ( but it doesn't have live view) or the canon e450.

I'm really stuck as to what camera to choose from, as i would prefer a relatively cheap lightweight camera as photography is really only just a hobby. I'm also open to any other suggestions
Thank you very much!

[Baatar]

I have a question for PC/Mac users. I use Macs for all my editing, but after talking with friends and comparing monitors, it seems that PC's as a whole display photos a lot darker than Macs. This could be calibration discrepancies, but as a whole, what do you guys do about it?

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the monitors themselves rather than the mac or pc. In general, do nothing. Calibrating the monitor is only useful for making prints. I don't plan on making any prints that must be true-to-life colors, and even if I wanted to, I don't have the resources to do it. If it really bothers you, you can buy a calibration tool. But If you think about it, everyone else's monitor is uncalibrated, meaning what they see still varies from monitor to monitor. If the picture is viewed online, that can make a picture look a little different too (by browser, and by site).

[yuns]

Hiyaaa
well, i'm planning on buying a dslr for the first time ever, and im stuck between the olympus e450 (purely because its small, lightweight and good to carry round), the olympus e620 (autofocus) , the nikon d60 ( but it doesn't have live view) or the canon e450.

I'm really stuck as to what camera to choose from, as i would prefer a relatively cheap lightweight camera as photography is really only just a hobby. I'm also open to any other suggestions
Thank you very much!

About the live view thing, I wouldn't make live view a factor for choosing one camera over another. I have the Canon 450D and the live view has focusing issues. I very rarely use it except to cheat when I want to know if the lighting's alright.

[brianb032]

Hiyaaa
well, i'm planning on buying a dslr for the first time ever, and im stuck between the olympus e450 (purely because its small, lightweight and good to carry round), the olympus e620 (autofocus) , the nikon d60 ( but it doesn't have live view) or the canon e450.

I'm really stuck as to what camera to choose from, as i would prefer a relatively cheap lightweight camera as photography is really only just a hobby. I'm also open to any other suggestions
Thank you very much!

If you can live without image-stabilization for all lenses that don't have it I guess you'd be fine choosing between an e450 or the d60. However, if you do want IS I'd rather get the e620. I'm a total n00b and with IS I've been able to get sharp photos at even 1/5 a second without embarrasingly lugging around a tripod. The e620 is also quite a bit more $$$ so you definitely have to take that into account if you've got budget restraints.

If you go the Olympus route, may I highly suggest the 25mm pancake too. I've bought and sold a couple of Olympus lenses (and a Nikon 35 1.8G) in the height of gear-lust, but the only lenses that I've kept are the pancake and the 40-150 for my set-up. If I could live with just one one lens it'd seriously be the pancake. It's small and just makes my camera fun to use. Whatever choice you make, you really can't go wrong.

[Mr. Chan]

I'm still new to photography. I have a Nikon D60 with stock lens. Perhaps in the future I'll get some Macro ones, only because I like taking super close up pictures of things.

[epark1281]

Hiyaaa
well, i'm planning on buying a dslr for the first time ever, and im stuck between the olympus e450 (purely because its small, lightweight and good to carry round), the olympus e620 (autofocus) , the nikon d60 ( but it doesn't have live view) or the canon e450.

I'm really stuck as to what camera to choose from, as i would prefer a relatively cheap lightweight camera as photography is really only just a hobby. I'm also open to any other suggestions
Thank you very much!

I wouldn't even bother looking at the e-450...it's basically the same as the e-420, and the latter is much more affordable.
If you can live without the "art filters", then e-420's a great place to start.

[dot1q]

About the live view thing, I wouldn't make live view a factor for choosing one camera over another. I have the Canon 450D and the live view has focusing issues. I very rarely use it except to cheat when I want to know if the lighting's alright.

Thats really odd. One of the main strong points of live view is that it uses the data on the sensor for focus so it should be dead on relative to the focus points used. This in comparison to possible back/front focus which can occur from using the lens. I never owned a 450D, but I definitely wouldn't say its a common characteristic to have focus issues with live view.

[MKYOO]

i'll try my best to explain what i'm gonna ask lol

can you take a black and white picture with only one color? example: a picture of a girl wearing a red beany. the picture is b&w except for her red beany.

i have a canon rebel xs.

also another question

is okay or good to put on a lot of filters? uv protection filter/ macro +1 filter/ polarizing filter

[awdark]

i'll try my best to explain what i'm gonna ask lol

can you take a black and white picture with only one color? example: a picture of a girl wearing a red beany. the picture is b&w except for her red beany.

i have a canon rebel xs.

also another question

is okay or good to put on a lot of filters? uv protection filter/ macro +1 filter/ polarizing filter

As far as I know all those pictures are photoshopped, and they desaturated by selection.

I don't think people normally use multiple filters because it can degrade image quality, cause lens flairs, or vignetting which won't be good. O_o but if it doesn't bother you go for it.

[DarkWaltz]

i'll try my best to explain what i'm gonna ask lol

can you take a black and white picture with only one color? example: a picture of a girl wearing a red beany. the picture is b&w except for her red beany.

i have a canon rebel xs.

also another question

is okay or good to put on a lot of filters? uv protection filter/ macro +1 filter/ polarizing filter

I think some cameras offer that feature (XS, i dont think so), to filter colors so you can directly take a pic with only one color, but I'm not sure. I might have heard wrong, but it's possible this feature is on the upcoming Canon powershot G11. If not, you can always do it manually in photoshop, it's not too hard

Stacking filters will most likely produce vignetting, so I wouldn't always recommend it.... you should just alternate between the UV and polarizing and others I guess. It'd be pointless to stack the UV + polarizing for example, since the polarizing protects the lens just like the UV, but filters the light too

[erure]

i'll try my best to explain what i'm gonna ask lol

can you take a black and white picture with only one color? example: a picture of a girl wearing a red beany. the picture is b&w except for her red beany.

i have a canon rebel xs.

I think almost all Canon point and shoot cameras have that function but it's not perfect. Photoshop is the only way to go -- just copy the layer, make it black and white, and then erase the part you want in color.


This is the only one I've done recently :T

[awdark]

^Oh wow they do?
Never had a canon point and shoot before, had an olympus from 1998 and a Sony. Those canon point and shoots are quite interesting... especially with chdk that works on some of their cameras. But that's the first time I heard of it, normally the "artistic" filters I see are rather limited like sepia and black and white.

[yuns]

Thats really odd. One of the main strong points of live view is that it uses the data on the sensor for focus so it should be dead on relative to the focus points used. This in comparison to possible back/front focus which can occur from using the lens. I never owned a 450D, but I definitely wouldn't say its a common characteristic to have focus issues with live view.

Okay so I just googled this and I've worked out why focusing was such an issue before. The default setting disables auto-focus on live view which is why it's never worked for me (odd that it's disabled and I had to go into a menu that I never knew existed haha). Once it's enabled, it's actually quite good. If it weren't for your comment, I wouldn't have picked up on this so thanks.

[blush]

Heyy guys.
To get clear vivid pictures on a dslr, do you think it's more of the lens or the camera itself? or possibly the post-processing?

I mean, there are some photos when you look at it, it's like WHOA, the quality is spectacular, it's so clear, vivid, and it just pops out. And no, I'm not talking about HDR photos.

[Goombi]

I'm pretty sure it has more to do with the monitors themselves rather than the mac or pc. In general, do nothing. Calibrating the monitor is only useful for making prints. I don't plan on making any prints that must be true-to-life colors, and even if I wanted to, I don't have the resources to do it. If it really bothers you, you can buy a calibration tool. But If you think about it, everyone else's monitor is uncalibrated, meaning what they see still varies from monitor to monitor. If the picture is viewed online, that can make a picture look a little different too (by browser, and by site).

Very good point. There's no edit that can please all screens. So I'll just make it look the best on the one I've got

[phantompc4]

Heyy guys.
To get clear vivid pictures on a dslr, do you think it's more of the lens or the camera itself? or possibly the post-processing?

I mean, there are some photos when you look at it, it's like WHOA, the quality is spectacular, it's so clear, vivid, and it just pops out. And no, I'm not talking about HDR photos.

lens>camera
pp barely does anything

[echoism]

Heyy guys.
To get clear vivid pictures on a dslr, do you think it's more of the lens or the camera itself? or possibly the post-processing?

I mean, there are some photos when you look at it, it's like WHOA, the quality is spectacular, it's so clear, vivid, and it just pops out. And no, I'm not talking about HDR photos.

Definitely the lens. The camera body is basically just there to make the imprint of whatever the lens captures.

[[HyuNi]]

Heyy guys.
To get clear vivid pictures on a dslr, do you think it's more of the lens or the camera itself? or possibly the post-processing?

I mean, there are some photos when you look at it, it's like WHOA, the quality is spectacular, it's so clear, vivid, and it just pops out. And no, I'm not talking about HDR photos.

Hmmm, I think it really depends..
In different instances, it can be the camera body, the lens, or even the post processing.
For example, the body would make something more dramatic in lowlight situations. Compare a Canon XT vs a 5D MarkII at ISO1600. The difference is night and day.
The lens is probably the most credited to IQ, but personally, I believe that the difference is marginal... When I had my 40D, the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 was just awesome. I actually miss that lens, even when I have the 16-35L now.
I think PP certainly helps the photo become more vivid and eye popping. To tell you the truth, the one big thing I credit to the improvement of the quality of my photos are 1) shooting from jpeg to raw and 2) switching from Canon's DPP to Lightroom2.

At this point, the one thing other than skill and more knowledge that would increase the quality of my photos aren't lenses, but a camera body... I used to think spending $2.5K on a camera body was crazy, but I'm slowly starting to convince myself that the 5D MarkII is a reasonable price to pay for a hobby of mine...

But I think in reality, the photo that has the WOW factor really doesn't depend on crisp and vivid the photo is, but how interesting and thought out the photo is. Something that I see TONS of is people shooting odd things like batteries or things lying around the house. It's one thing to take something and MAKE it look interesting, but when you're just shooting something to show the razor thin DoF, it may impress non-photographers, but it definitely won't have that wow factor.

That being said, I don't have wow photo's but the good thing about photography is that is compels you to go to places you normally wouldn't go to and see things in a different light or perspective than what's normally seen.

[Baatar]

lens>camera
pp barely does anything

I would have to disagree on the 2nd part of your statement. pp definitely helps for "clear, vivid" pictures. The difference between a non-pp'ed and pp'ed photo is very distinct. All dslrs have an anti-aliasing filter in front of the sensor which slightly blurs the photo. You will have a hard time getting those clear pictures if everything is slightly blurry (unless you were viewing the pic at a small size such as the dslr lcd). Sharpening and playing with contrast will help most pictures become more clear and vivid.
If you are shooting jpeg you may find your pictures are clear enough. Thats beecause the camera applies a little sharpening when it processes the pic. Compare a raw with jpeg and you will see the difference.
For me, it is lens > pp > camera.