Recognitions:
Gold Member

## PF Photography Thread

I got an unexpected bonus this year! Since the wife and I have been wanting a new camera for quite awhile now, we started doing some research on beginner DSLR cameras. I've always owned <$200 point-and-shoot cameras, so, needless to say, I haven't really been inspired to take very many pictures outside of family events, major vacations, etc. Since the bonus gave us a significant amount of financial freedom this season, we decided that it was a good time to buy a real camera. After quite a bit of research, we decided to go with the Canon EOS Rebel T2i (EOS 550D in Europe and Asia). We bought it yesterday, and I've been fiddling around with this amazing camera (on full-auto mode) for a few hours; I'm thoroughly impressed. It has inspired me to add a photography class to my schedule next semester so that I can learn to use it to its full potential. I'd like to get to the point where I can do everything manually and have no need for the preset modes. I'd also like to get a telephoto lens and a tripod so that I can start taking pictures of wildlife and my siblings' games/performances, but I think we're going to let the dust settle before spending any more money. I'm looking forward to participating in the photo contests!  Recognitions: Gold Member Congrats, Dembadon! Canon has a very nice selection of lenses, and reasonable upgrade-paths. Their best lenses are , but there are some nice L-series zooms that will cover a lot of territory. I have a 100-400 IS USM and it delivers really crisp contrasty images. I was doing film photography back when zooms started getting popular, and avoided them like the plague. The 100-400 performs almost as well as my old dedicated Olympus and Bronica primes, and performs really well as a macro, too.  Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member Nice Dembadon, got the same camera, but maybe if I had to buy one today, I would also have considered the brand new Canon 60D, which is bridging the gap between the 550D and the 7D, all with the same sensor but with different sets of gadgets. Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS. But the most important part of all camera's starts at about one inch behind the camera. Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by drizzle Sure, let us know how it goes! Oh dang, I forgot about that, but she made it all the way and I got a thanks for my support. Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by Andre Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS. I wanted to get a long, fast prime, but those are horrendously expensive. The 100-400 covered a lot of the range I wanted without all the $ and extra lenses. I have to put up with the relatively slow f:ratio, but with digital cameras, that's a lot easier to accommodate than with film.

 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member ...especially when your DSLR is very good at high iso's like the Canon 550D/7D/60D, but also the Pentax K-x and probably the successors (k-r and K-5) and the Nikon D3S and successors.
 Recognitions: Science Advisor Just to completely change the subject... I've got nothing for this week's contest (snow&ice) since snow season starts in another month or so, but I would appreciate any hints/tips regarding winter photography, for example- 1) how do you deal with thermal issues- does the camera need to equalize when going out, and how do you prevent/minimize condensation when coming back in? 2) How can I set my exposure stop to allow good contrast (for example, the texture of a snow-covered hillside), while still getting a good 'white' tone? Similarly, any ideas for getting a good 'white-on-white' (say a snowdrift)? 3) The overall lighting here is very 'grey'- heavy overcast skies. How can I make any spots of color really pop out? I'm hoping to get some good macro shots of snowflakes this year- One thing I miss about the South are those ice storms where everything- every leaf, individual pine needles... gets coated in a 1/8" sheath of crystal clear ice- it's as gorgeous to look at as treacherous to drive on.
 Admin I don't care too much when I go out, but I don't open the bag/remove camera after getting inside till it gets warm. As for 2&3 - in my experience when there is no light, there is no pictures, no matter how you try. But I am eager to learn something new.

Blog Entries: 2
Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Andy Resnick 1) how do you deal with thermal issues- does the camera need to equalize when going out, and how do you prevent/minimize condensation when coming back in?
Going out is no problem, except that the batteries may die in extreme cold weather. But before that you get to take the most noise free shots you get, thanks to the increased sensitivity of the cooled sensor. Also consider taking out the battery and carry it in a warm pocket, if it takes a while to get to the shooting location in the cold.

Going in is definitely a problem. Best is to store it in something air tight, a heavy duty plastic bag or something before going in.

 2) How can I set my exposure stop to allow good contrast (for example, the texture of a snow-covered hillside), while still getting a good 'white' tone? Similarly, any ideas for getting a good 'white-on-white' (say a snowdrift)?
Use a tripod and make multiple shots with different exposures one stop apart, to select the best one at home, or use HDR. Also modern Canon EOS camera's have an enhanced high tone sensitivity setting.

 3) The overall lighting here is very 'grey'- heavy overcast skies. How can I make any spots of color really pop out?
Use RAW and play with color saturation and other settings in post processing.

Succes

 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member Anyway, after posting the previous I made this picture during a short hike with my point&shoot (Panasonic DMC TZ7). This is what the original jpg looks like: and this with some enhancing contrast, and color using Canons DPP (Digital Photo Profesional) software
 Recognitions: Science Advisor Andre- Thanks! I understand what you mean. Was the original shot with in-camera HDR? I like how you can make the distant snowy trees 'pop'.
 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member No in camera HDR, I just did exactly what it said, point and shoot to get something like this (in another direction): Then I loaded the jpg into DPP and played with the colors as follows: Notice that I also fooled around with the blue and red 'curve tone', adding some red in the (low) foreground and removing some more blue in the background (high) And this is the result (all pics are reduced to 18%):

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by turbo-1 Congrats, Dembadon! Canon has a very nice selection of lenses, and reasonable upgrade-paths. Their best lenses are , but there are some nice L-series zooms that will cover a lot of territory. I have a 100-400 IS USM and it delivers really crisp contrasty images. I was doing film photography back when zooms started getting popular, and avoided them like the plague. The 100-400 performs almost as well as my old dedicated Olympus and Bronica primes, and performs really well as a macro, too.
 Quote by Andre Nice Dembadon, got the same camera, but maybe if I had to buy one today, I would also have considered the brand new Canon 60D, which is bridging the gap between the 550D and the 7D, all with the same sensor but with different sets of gadgets. Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS. But the most important part of all camera's starts at about one inch behind the camera.
Is there a significant AF speed difference between a non-USM lens and a lens that uses micro-USM? I've read reviews claiming that the focusing speed difference between the 70-300 IS USM and the 55-250 IS is negligible due to the USM in the 70-300 being "micro-USM" instead of "ring USM," whatever that means.

I'm inclined to save up the extra $300 for the 70-300 if the AF speed is significantly faster.  Recognitions: Gold Member I don't know about the autofocus speed or accuracy, but one factor that should be considered is the difference between the construction of the rear element of the lens types. The 55-250 is an EFS lens and the 70-300 is an EF. If you should decide to get a full-frame DSLR later, the EFS won't work with it because the rear element of the lens would protrude too deeply into the mirror-box and interfere with the operation of the mirror. EF lenses will fit full-frame cameras and 1.6x cameras (smaller sensor, smaller mirror box). You might not be considering a body upgrade in the near term, but if you find that you really like your lens and want to keep it, it would be best to have chosen an EF to avoid compatibility problems if you want to buy another body with a full-frame sensor. Here's a review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-review.aspx Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by turbo-1 I don't know about the autofocus speed or accuracy, but one factor that should be considered is the difference between the construction of the rear element of the lens types. The 55-250 is an EFS lens and the 70-300 is an EF. If you should decide to get a full-frame DSLR later, the EFS won't work with it because the rear element of the lens would protrude too deeply into the mirror-box and interfere with the operation of the mirror. EF lenses will fit full-frame cameras and 1.6x cameras (smaller sensor, smaller mirror box). You might not be considering a body upgrade in the near term, but if you find that you really like your lens and want to keep it, it would be best to have chosen an EF to avoid compatibility problems if you want to buy another body with a full-frame sensor. Here's a review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/r...ns-review.aspx Good point. Thank you, Turbo. The link you provided leads to a review of outstanding quality. I'm leaning towards holding off for the 70-300mm IS USM. Recognitions: Gold Member  Quote by Dembadon Good point. Thank you, Turbo. The link you provided leads to a review of outstanding quality. I'm leaning towards holding off for the 70-300mm IS USM. If you can wait and save the extra money, I think you'll be well-served. I have a Canon 28-135 EF. It's a light-feeling lens with a lot of plastic, but the glass is really good for the price. If Canon should introduce a really attractive full-frame, I'll probably be happy to have that lens and the 100-400. Frankly, i'd keep both 30Ds and put the 100-400 on the full-frame, but then I'd be falling into the 4-body all-prime trap (shooting film with Olympus gear). I need a full-frame sensor and an aberration-free lens that zooms from 18mm to 500mm. Piece of cake!! (Gotta be fast with a really noise-free sensor, though. And under$5000 )

 Blog Entries: 2 Recognitions: Gold Member Not a lot of chance for an economical full frame , I would think, Turbo, for the simple reason that the lastest "full frame" the 1D MarkIV is not a real full frame anymore but has a crop factor of 1.3. Moreover you can spend a lot of money on the mini-professional -1.6 cropped- 7D with gadgets similar to the 1D/5D series. So it seems that the trend is to leave the full frame eventually. About the 55-250 versus 70-300, Dembadon, I went for the latter because of the enthousiast test reports. and I am very picky about image quality, a so called pixel peeper. However when in an dynamic environment, shooting nieces on galloping horses or toddlers running, I find that the long end -300mm- is great, but sometimes the short end -70mm- is a limitation, especially when you can't go five steps back. Moreover, the USM of the lens is fast enough to keep up with the burst speed of the 550D

 Tags photography