saskphotog

<p>Why not just experiment to see how much the meter "overexposes", and then compensate every time you use it by whatever that amount turns out to be? </p>

<p>I agree that virtually any DSLR can produce whatever level of "vibrance and quality" that you desire, if you know how to get those results from your equipment. Good lenses are more important than the specific body. Good technique is vital to exposure and "sharpness". Good post processing is vital to the reproduction of color and the consequent "impact" of the pictures.<br>

But just about any DSLR can be the starting point; certainly the D7000 could work. The rest of the "image quality" you are looking for lies in your own ability as a photographer, and your use and understanding of good post processing. Shoot Raw and learn to get the most from your equipment.</p>

<p>I think saturation can often "startle" you into looking at it. It is strange, shocking, and catches attention. Perceiving content is often a very different process, to the point where black and white may well be the best way to display it. Content takes time to perceive. Unusual saturation attracts attention, but on examination may prove to be just ridiculous.</p>

<p>Colour can often be the content of a picture, however, as has been pointed out. </p>

<p>Well, you can find compatible models and prices easily online, so the only "advice" I would give is don't fall for the false economy of cheaper flashes. The more powerful and versatile your flash is, the more you will be able to use it, and the better your pictures will be. The real secret to pleasing flash is bouncing it off things. Swivel heads and lots of power are really important for that. Compatibility with your camera's electronic exposure controls is also vital.</p>

<p>Don't skimp. Get more than you think you need. You won't regret it in, oh say, 3 years. 430EX is my recommendation.</p>

<p>White balance issues. Were you using Auto? What was the light source? It looks like a combination of two different sources to me that may be making the camera guess at things.</p>

<p>Brendan, if you ask such a question on a photography forum, and the experienced people there all have issues with your plan, maybe it is deeply flawed. Your plan is not reasonable for someone with no experience, no equipment, and very poor understanding of what equipment he needs.</p>

<p>People keep trying to "slow you down" a bit. Take that advice. If you like the 7D, even though in my opinion it is way more than you need at this point, and may not in the end be the best body for you, then go ahead. But most here are saying you should get the camera, get one decent "medium" lens, and then start shooting. Once you have some genuine experience, you will know what lenses and other equipment you will need to get the pictures you can't get with what you have. Everyone is saying that you can't know, at this point, what is the best equipment for you because of your inexperience. </p>

<p>The whole idea that you should go out and buy an expensive package of equipment that you hope (you obviously don't know) will be able to take every picture you have ever imagined yourself shooting is just bad thinking about photography. Your posts here seem to indicate you have made up your mind and want confirmation of your plan. Several here are saying it is not a good plan for a beginner.</p>

<p>I would suggest you practice your lines too. Repeat several times a day, "Do you want fries with that?"</p>

<p>I don't want to completely discourage anyone from following a passion, but it is important to be realistic. You can expect to work for National Geographic with about the same odds as you can expect to make the PGA tour. Actually, it's probably easier to make the tour.</p>

<p>If that is all you do with your pictures, you will not see much difference - in some circumstances. If your comparison was made at say, f8 for all lenses, and the images were of the same thing, taken at the same distance, in good light, with the same shutter speed, and hand held, you may not notice much difference if you don't check the edges or enlarge things very much. But if you can't see the difference between the image quality of the 70-200 f4 and the 70-300IS, you are not trying properly.</p>

<p>In ideal circumstances, viewing small image sizes, there may not be much to see. If you do a valid test, and you view the images at even modest sizes, there are obvious image quality differences. The fact that you can't see any difference may well prove that, for your photography, there is no point in paying the money for high quality glass. If you ever change your methods, the differences may well become important.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you care enough to be good at your craft, why would you not want to preserve the work? If your progeny, heirs, or general public do not care about what you thought important once you cack, that is a different thing altogether.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Who ever thinks like that except photographers? Do cabinet makers fret over preserving every piece they make? Do painters demand that customers make back up copies and store them off site? Do dancers insist every performance is preserved for their progeny? Do house framers make two of everything so they can store one in the cloud? </p>

<p>I am not concerned about wanting to do what you can to not lose stuff, but sometimes photographers take themselves and their pictures just a bit too seriously. The truth is, if all my photographs were destroyed in the next few minutes, the world would continue to revolve. My progeny would likely say, "Too bad all that was lost," but their lives would hardly be ruined.</p>

<p>While I appreciate your appreciation of "testimony" from users, it is important to remember that eye witness reports are very unreliable. Can you expand on what aspects of the lenses you think descriptions of personal experience will be more useful to your decision than measured optical characteristics? It may help people respond with something relevant. </p>

<p>I base my evaluation of lenses on test results much more often than I use someone's "Man, this lens is great!" comments.</p>

<p>I too use Paint Shop Pro, but it has limitations, and is undergoing the Corel tendency to bloat and useless features.</p>

<p>I would also recommend Picture Window Pro, a very powerful program that few seem to know about or use. It's user interface is quite "different", but it does all the things a photographer needs.</p>

<p>Have a look <a href="http://www.dl-c.com/">http://www.dl-c.com/</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Where did he say the women were naked? If you look at the photos he has posted, none are naked.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely correct. Again, I was being glib. Good catch.</p>

<p>Does that fact change anything about the advice I tried to give? Does it make any difference to the problem? </p>

<p>There are many things that make a relationship successful, or not. I said it earlier in a rather glib style, but you really have to make up your mind about which is more important in your life: the relationship or the photography. Decide.</p>

<p>If the woman is more important than pictures of naked women, stop shooting them. If shooting the pictures are more important than the woman, tell her so and let her make up her mind about what she will do. I expect that telling her your pictures of women are more important than she is will likely settle the issue.</p>

<p>I guess it's up to you to decide whether your girlfriend is more important to you than taking pictures of women. Pick one. Live with it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>An extended warranty is a bet by the guarantor that the camera will never cost that much to fix. You are betting that you bought a lemon, and it will cost more. They are the house. They know all the odds very precisely, and they have made that bet. You should never bet against the house.</p>

<p>They also relish the stories about the random events where people have, in fact, needed the warranty. Just like all casinos, they know that random, intermittent reinforcement will keep the gamblers spending.</p>

<p>Bounce it. If the ceiling is the right color and low enough you can get a quite "ambient" effect by bouncing the flash. Walls make good bounced flash too. It is the only way you can get anything that isn't "flashy" with only one light.</p>

<p>Set it to manual. ISO 400. Shutter about 1/125 and f5.6 or so (slower and wider if the bounce is very long, but not too slow or you will get "ghosting") and let the camera expose things as it wants.</p>

<p>Well, first of all the T2i has the same sized sensor as all the other Rebels.</p>

<p>Second, whether or not FF will produce superior image quality to a crop sensor depends on so many factors that there is no definitive answer. FF will be superior if all the factors that contribute to image quality are identical, but that quality will be undetectable unless you print large enough and with enough print quality to see it. There are "true differences", but they are subtle, hard to identify, subject to other factors like lens quality and technique, require proper processing to become apparent, and are not relevant unless you print very large. For viewing on a monitor, or for prints to at least 11x14 or so, you will never be able to tell whether or not it was FF or crop sensors that took the picture.</p>

<p>My advice is to not bother with FF until you have encountered some limitations to your photography that are the result of crop sensors, and you know that FF will provide a solution. For the VAST majority of photographers, that just won't ever happen. If you cannot give up the idea of FF, just make sure your lens purchases are all lenses that will work on FF at some later date.</p>

<p>On the other side of the question, I have often lamented the fact that way too many people are quite willing to pay more for "stuff" in the mistaken idea that expensive means quality, or for the even more mistaken idea that expensive stuff can fix the insecurities they feel.</p>

<p>Quality usually must be paid for in one way or another, and there are very good reasons to search for quality wherever we can find it, but there are many photographers carrying around equipment that is way beyond their true quality needs (raising my own issues of jealousy, apparently). One really doesn't need a 1D Mk IV with the 300mm f2.8 IS to get images of one's kids to post on Facebook. </p>

<p>I think someone who is matching quality of equipment to actual need is not being "mean" at all. Practicality is a laudable motivation.</p>

<p>You can take fantastic images with a D50 and good glass. YOU can, if you use them properly.</p>

<p>My point is that you are the most important part of the equation. Thousands of weddings were done with 6 megapixel cameras until more came along, and the pictures were fantastic. Unless you have a recognized need for more megapixels (bigger files, not just better picture quality) you will be better served by good glass and education than by a new body. </p>

<p>There is no reason you should be thinking you need another camera to get "professional portrait looking photos of my children." Your skills with what you have are almost certainly the critical factor for good photographs. </p>

<p>You need to research "color management". It is a complex issue - complex enough that I won't even guess why you are seeing the results you are. It has to do with monitor calibration and how browsers and image viewing programs interpret colors, and with the color space of your images. </p>

<p>Good wildlife photography that is genuinely shot in "the wild" is physically demanding, time consuming, and expensive. I think those all make it "harder".<br>

A couple of duck shots in the park, zoo pictures, or some hovering gulls at the beach are a bit easier, but I don't think of that as wildlife photography.</p>