quality.

[john_bullock5]

<p>hello, i have been shooting film for almost 2 years now. before i started shooting film, i owned a rebel xt, and it was an ok camera. however i am wanting to get back into digital, and want something with a little more quality.<br>

any suggestions on what camera would be nice, and $1000 or less would be helpful, here are my priorities.<br>

i need great iso performance.<br>

could care less about video, but if its there i might use it.<br>

good megapixles for cropping and printing 8x12's, probably no higher.<br>

i dont need a bunch of insane features, i mainly use my camera in av mode.<br>

i do not have photoshop software, so i need a camera that delivers great quality right from the camera.<br>

thank you very much for any suggestions.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

The successors to your original DSLR might do the trick - models like the t2i, etc.

 

Dan

[john_bullock5]

<p>i was actually condidering the t1i, but i almost feel the camera is decietful, like taking a station wagon, and shaping it into a porche.</p>

[jaydesi]

<p>The new 60D is about $1100 for just the body, assuming you have lenses and SD cards. I would think it'll do better at higher ISO than anything in the Rebel series. You'll get more reach if you can spend an extra $50 or whatever it is for noise reduction software like Noise Ninja.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>For APS-C perhaps a 50D or 7D may do the job - the 50D is a very well made and priced camera. If you want even more quality then perhaps a used full frame body like a 5D MK I.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

john bullock , Oct 26, 2010; 09:46 p.m.

i was actually condidering the t1i, but i almost feel the camera is decietful, like taking a station wagon, and shaping it into

a porche.

 

Hmmm...

 

That aside, it can produce quite fine image quality, and the price is lower than that of the larger cropped sensor bodies.

But you get to choose...

 

Dan

[nathangardner]

<p>If you don't have photoshop, I'd suggest putting $700 into a camera setup and buying Adobe Lightroom. This way you can shoot in RAW and have full control over the image. LR will have the biggest impact on the final product than anything else. The post side of things is really where you can take a good photo and make it breathtaking. I know some people argue that post processing is cheating, but its been done forever, even by Ansel Adams himself in the darkroom. And in all reality, you must be proficient on the post side to even have a chance at keeping up with current photographers and creating images that are up to par with what good photographers are producing. </p>

<p>That being said, with the money left and for 8x12 prints, I don't thik there's a better bargain than the Canon 20D. Its 8MP (plenty) and I've seen them for $200 on craigslist. With the remaining money you could get a nice zoom and a 50mm f/1.8 for low light. Here is an example of what just a couple minutes in Lightroom can do to your photos.</p>

<p>Left is the untouched RAW file, Right is a few adjustments to make the photo look more pleasing.</p><div></div>

[nathangardner]

<p>Okay, after rereading my last post, I don't want to sound misleading. I said,</p>

<blockquote>

<p> LR will have the biggest impact on the final product than anything else.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By saying this, I didn't mean the photographer doesn't have any impact. You must have a good photo to work with in the first place; you can only polish a turd so much. But what I meant is that if you are taking great shots, sometimes a little tweaking in post can be the difference in a photo that you'll look at on the computer to a photo that you'll put over the mantle. I've had nicely composed photos at art fairs that people didn't give a second glance, but with a few tweaks to bring out some color and contrast the photo can really get some attention. What I was trying to say is that a lot of times a good hand in post processing can give a great photo that extra "umph" to really catch your eye. But as I said, you've got to have something to work with in the first place.</p>

[john_bullock5]

<p>nathan, i appreciate your input, however ive always shyed away from things like lightroom, and photoshop because they seem too confusing to learn, and although im patient when im photographing, im not patient sitting in front of a computer trying to figure out what the heck im doing haha, anyways, it's something to consider, and how hard is lightroom to learn?</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Canon's free (!) DPP is sufficient for most people's post processing.<br>

After you outgrow that it's time to think about lightroom. (IMHO of course...)</p>

[markonestudios]

John, I understand where you're coming from :) When I first moved to dSLR from film, I was extremely disappointed with the results from my 400D straight out of camera. It was only later that I realised that post processing is nigh on necessity even when you get it right in-camera (hand-held incident meters and such). It is simply the nature of the digital beast. Don't shy away from DPP or LR or PS, they are actually a part of the process.

<p>Digital sensors generally lack the dynamic range of film (especially colour negative film) so you have to do a bit of tweaking to get what you want out of the digital file. Film prints were the same to an extent. The printer would bring out the details he/she wanted through the use of various techniques. I spent many hours sitting with the printer and telling him what I want to achieve from a particular shot. It's not that different with digital, just that the 'pre-print' work is often the onus of the photographer. You could always outsource your post-processing, of course :)

[ken schwarz]

<p>John, it's MUCH easier to get quality results by shooting RAW and working with Lightroom than it is to get standard JPEGs right in the camera. I don't know why people call RAW shooting "advanced". To me, only the most advanced user has a hope of getting exposure, color temperature, color "style", and contrast curves just so in the field. It's totally unnecessary. Assuming that you get exposure basically correct (which you already know how to do), then you can deal with all of the other things when you get home.</p>

[mike_sinquefield]

<p>John, the basics of Lightroom are actually pretty simple to learn. It's very intuitive. I would highly recommend that along with the new camera...</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>LR is cake. Its just a bunch of sliders that work like magic. Just play around with them until the image looks the way you want. Over time you'll learn exactly how each slider affects a photo and you can manipulate better and more efficiently. That is why shooting in RAW and saving those RAW files is crucial. You may learn something days, months, or years down the road that you want to apply to a particular photo and with the RAW file, you can open it up and start from scratch again. I have never read a book or tutorial on LR, and although I'm not near the best at post, LR makes it easy enough that a self taught person like myself can make a really nice image.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I bet you'd enjoy a used 5D. It's well made, feels like a real camera, is rather basic in its features, has wonderful image quality, 12 MP (which is overkill for an 8x12), is full frame (24x36), and falls comfortably within your budget. Down-sides are a mirror detachment problem (warranty recall -- free Canon repair) and a pretty lousy LCD (somewhat dim, often with a yellowish color cast).</p>

[john_bullock5]

<p>thank you all for your input, much to consider, i also checked out the canon 60d, and apparantly you can shoot in raw, edit the picture in camera and transfer it to a jpeg file, how releveant is this to actually having the raw file on your computer?</p>

<p>p.s i honestly dont know the difference in jpeg and raw images :(</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>and to add to what Ken said,</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Assuming that you get exposure basically correct (which you already know how to do), then you can deal with all of the other things when you get home.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This also allows you to focus more on the photogarph itself and the composition instead of worrying about WB, color settings, etc. In a way it kind of dumbs it down, in a good way. You still have to get exposure and ISO right, but any time you can make things simpler it will allow you worry about the more important things, like subject matter. I haven't touched a WB or color settings option in ages. With these things out of the equation I can focus more on correct focus, composition, light, DOF, and all the other things that go into a photo. The rest can get tweaked at home, like Ken says, when I have more time to think about it. And chances are, even if you mess with these settings, they'll end up getting tweaked anyways.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>here's the easiest way I can put it. A Jpeg is like a 4x6 print of an image and the RAW file is like the negative. </p>

<p>A Jpeg is a compressed file and once its been saved this way, it is what it is; there's not much you can do to it. However, a RAW file is the original full size file with all the info intact so you can do most anything want to it. You can go from color to black and white and from b/w to color and the color settings and white balance can all be adjusted. You just have so much more control over the RAW file. </p>

<p>And as for RAW conversion on a 60D, this may be good in the field to see what is possible, but I doubt you'll have the control or possibilities of adjusting it on the computer with more advanced software and a large computer screen.</p>

[bms]

<p>Coming from a Nikon shooter: cannot say from first hand experience, but my friend is extremely happy with his T2i. Plenty for 8x12's IMHO. To echo what others have said; Shoot RAW, post process (not in camera) with DPP (free), Photoshop Elements ($), or Lightroom ($$, really what you should get IMHO, organizes, does all the basics very well).</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>The big downsides of RAW is that the image files are big (use a lot of memory) and that you need to process them when you get home. The processing involves making decisions about how you want the image to look--you preview them in the processing software on your computer. Once you've made these decisions, you can create a derived image in the form of a JPEG file, which is much smaller and can be expected to appear the same way on any photo viewer or browser. The JPEG is smaller because a lot your options to make further adjustments have been removed. And, the image appears the same everywhere because JPEG is a standard that every computer supports more or less consistently. RAW is entirely specific to the camera so you need to convert it to JPEG (or another standard) for it to be universally viewable.</p>

<p>So, for someone who cares about fitting more images on a memory card and doesn't want to deal with options when they get home, JPEG from the camera is perfect. I suppose that's why it's considered a good choice for beginners. However, beginners interested in "quality" (the title of your question) will find that making their options right for quality in the field is ridiculously hard, so it's better to shoot RAW and postpone all of the decision-making until later, when you can take your time, see what you are doing, and experiment freely.</p>

<p>The good news is that memory cards are cheaper than ever--at last no longer anything the constraint they used to be. Also, you get free post-processing software from Canon with your camera. It's not nearly as nice as Lightroom, but it's certainly serviceable.</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>Although post processing is an important component in the photo process, it seems the thread has kind of been hijacked by it. To go back to the camera selection, there are lots of options here so I won't tell yoy that one camera setup is better than all others. Just keep in mind that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; a $900 body with a $100 lens won't yield the quality of a $500 body and a $500 lens. And with making only 8x12 prints you can save money on the body b/c anything that's 8MP will do just fine, allowing for more money on a nice lens, which is really where the quality comes from.</p>