mike kelly

I've had the Sony W17 (kit version of the W7) since August. It's a neat, chunky little camera

that will fit in your pocket and that generally gives great results, complementing my 10D

nicely. The manual functions are pretty basic though and I do wish I'd hung on for the

Canon S80 which I understand would give that much more creative control - albeit in a

bigger package.<div></div>

"Apart from weenies who don't do math too well, on a per picture basis DSLRs generally only pay for pros."

Maybe. For me the big payback of going digital wasn't financial but speed of learning. I now take WAY more pictures than I ever did with film, over the course of two delightful years with a 10D. I'm also learning new skills and techniques all of the time, with practically extra zero cost.

Looking back through my old film pics recently there has clearly been a massive improvement in my ability to take the picture I want to take(albeit still a long long way to go!), and for me that is the major digital payback.

I own a 10D and find the most useful lens for photgraphing my kids is the 50mm f1.8. It's

great to be able to take photos indoors without flash in pretty much all light conditions.

The 70-200 f2.8 IS is REALLY big and heavy and I think would be more of a hindrance for

catching fast moving kids

The other lens I use is the 70-200 f4L which is much more manageable than the 2.8 IS and

produces some really nice results if you have the light. (There are examples of kid shots

with the 50 f1.8 and the 70-200 f4L on my photos page).

Fantastic site comparing old and new photographs of New York:

http://www.newyorkchanging.com/index.html

The ratings system is valuable because it forces you to learn one harsh lesson: ignore the

ratings and trust your own judgement.

The question is straightforward and valid and deserves an answer, irrespective of the merit

and interpretation of the system:

Has the ratings to queue position changed recently? It used to take a highish rating to stay

in the queue long enough to get beyond 10 or 15. Now there seems to be a new barrier at

5 or 6.

I had the chance to try the 2.8, the 2.8 IS and the f4 with my 10D in a camera shop before

buying. I'd never picked up a "serious" zoom before and have to admit to being somewhat

taken aback by the 2.8s! Although they both oooooozed quality, they are somewhat

intimidating if you're new to that class of lens, as well as being surprisingly heavy.

I found the f4 a great compromise that's manageable to walk around with and not

ridiculously "in your face" for street use. I'm very happy with it, and bought a 1.4x

extender that can easily be carried in a pack or added for wildlife etc..

The article says the test they did was baased on a 30 second exposure in total darkness,

then noise assessed using the Photoshop histogram feature.

My guess is not that C1 would increase the noise, but that the in-camera jpeg algorithm is

effective at reducing it.

The current UK edition of Photography Monthly magazine has a review of the 20D that

includes a chart of noise levels for both RAW and JPEG files at different ISO settings for the

20D, 10D and 1D. What is most noticeable is that RAW produces consistently lower noise

levels than JPEG at ISO 100 > 800, but massively more noise than JPEG at ISO 1600 and

3200 (on the 10D in particular).

This surprised me, but I took a chance shooting football photos at ISO 1600 in poor light

conditions this weekend and went with JPEG. I was surprised by the low noise levels

compared to a similar event last year when I shot RAW and converted through C1.

Is this a well known effect that I was unaware of? Any other experiences from the floor?

To avoid problem 1: set Aperture priority with a mid range aperture, then manual focus

and select a mid distance focus. Your depth of field should then be sufficient to avoid any

focus issues. (With digital you can of course check you're getting the desired effect early

on).

For low light conditions go with the 1.4 prime at 400 iso - you can forget the flash and get

much nicer pictures.

Maybe other people with my experience? Buy a 10D a year+ ago. Buy "wide angle" 20-35.

Realise it doesn't really give me what I'm looking for. Having just about recovered from

financial bite of the 10D trade up the extra cash for the 17-40 f4L. Happiness!

The fantastic thing with a quality DSLR is the ability to accelerate your rate of learning

about photography. In the space of a couple of hours you can play to your hearts content

until you thoroughly understand each concept: ISO, aperture, RAW vs JPEG etc etc at no

additional cost and with the superlative help of this forum.

I'm very happy with 17-40 f4L, 70-200 f4L and 1.4 x TC. But I also couldn't be without the

50 f1.8 which I really like for portraits.

As someone who only began seriously thinking about developing my photography a year

or so ago I've found PN to be an instructive and valuable forum on a number of counts:

First, it's an invaluable resource for climbing the huge curve of technical understanding

and ability. Secondly, it provides an inspiring spectrum of brilliant images on ready tap.

Thirdly, and most fundamentally, it provides overwhelming evidence that the only thing

that really counts is your own belief in your ability. The usually well-intentioned but often

wayward and contradictory feedback received here can only ever be a complement to that.

(Having said that, the occasional positive comment can work motivational wonders, weak

minded though that may be!)

1. load RAW images into C1

2. Scan previews and delete unwanted / duplicate images

3. Adjust cropping and if necessary exposure settings

4. Batch process medium quality Jpegs of all images

5. Batch process high quality TIFFS of images I may want to adjust further in PS

6. Import processed images into iView Media for review and future viewing

7. Use iView to create web galleries linked to my .mac site if appropriate (weddings, family

functions etc.)

8. Process TIFF files in Photoshop elements 2.0 (typically levels, B&W conversion etc) and

resave as TIFFs

9. Save Photo.net friendly sized versions of relevant images from PS and upload here!

(I use an Apple Powerbook with a separate TFT screen)

A happy evenings work for a typical 50-60 shot days shooting!

I think William Casey Mcallister means Capture 1 from Phase One, the web address is

correct. This is a costly third party product, but gives much easier workflow for RAW

conversion than the Canon RAW converter. I'd suggest you download the free trial and see

what you think. I found the ease of use justified the expense. I use C1 to convert either

directly to jpg for "snaps" or into TIFF then into PS Elements if I want greater image

control.

1. Large jpegs would give you a quick, useable cut of your images (without having to go

through the RAW processing process), obviously at the expense of memory.

2. Don't know, will be interested in the answer!

3. I believe this is designed to avoid using 3200 inadvertently - the level of noise is quite

high, so high that you could consider it unusable. Turning ISO expansion OFF will ensure

that you never dial it in by accident and end up disappointed with the results.

The more I use it the less I like it... The more I use the 50mm 1.8 the more I like it...

I've got to the point now where I won't use the 28-105 unless I really need a good all in

one 'walk around' lens for the day. For that purpose it's fine, but I'm always left slightly

disappointed with image quality.