chris_werner

<p>Justin,</p>

<p>Congrats! In my book, it's always a good thing to ditch a zoom and pick up a prime! (No offense intended to zoom lovers ;P).</p>

<p>Bobby,</p>

<p>The spots don't align between the examples. Assuming your using the same lens, which given the fov you seem to be, that rules out the lens and the imaging chip. You might check both sides of the filters again.</p>

<p>I'm sort of grasping here, but what camera did you use? I'm assuming an optical viewfinder - was it covered during the exposure or not? Though that wouldn't explain why it's only happening with the one filter. Hmm.</p>

<p>Is the filter clean? Not really sure what to make of this but lacking an obvious source of flare that's what occurs to me.</p>

<p>Every time you convert or save a jpg, it compresses the file and you lose information. It's best to work in RAW, keep a final version in RAW, and convert to jpg as needed for display purposes if needed (usually because of email or posting file size limits).</p>

<p>Nat,</p>

<p>Here's a handy little tool that should help narrow the list down for you. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare.asp</p>

<p>I don't think it's that they can't, just that they become prohibitively expensive and heavy if you try to go there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Three types of degenerate are reasonably possible:<br />1. Date corruption in the original file. This will most likely make the file unreadable, but I would guess the individual bits could corrupt that might still allow for reading. Never experienced the later, but have experienced the former.<br />2. Repetitive saving of a jpeg file on itself. Each time it is saved, it is compressed a bit more.<br />3. And as several people noted above, technology advance distortion of our perception of reality.<br />I am regressing and trying to learn how to shoot film. An enchanting life voyage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would argue that there is possibly a 4th - digital media haven't been around long enough for us to truly know what their archival properties are. My memory is a bit fuzzy here (so please chime in and correct me if I'm off) but I believe the technology in computer CD/DVD drives is a dye based process, and differs from the commercial burning process - look at the bottom of a burned CD/DVD and you'll see a color change.</p>

<p>In any case, I'm not comfortable putting my digital files "on the shelf" as it were, so digital belt and suspenders for me, 2 hard drive copies plus multiple optical media, moving to new hard drives every few years.</p>

<p>I too would be surprised if it's up to the task. Remember, those weight ratings are the manufacturer's, so often it's just a bragging contest. Just be careful when you try it out - I'd hate to hear that it slipped and banged your equipment up.</p>

<p>CPU doesn't matter that much anymore, especially since most software doesn't make efficient use of multiple cores.</p>

<p>Not familiar with the video card differences.</p>

<p>4 gig is pretty good, but if you're using a loading large files or running many programs at once more is certainly better. But make sure what you add has low latency or you won't see the full benefit.</p>

<p>Wow. My first reaction was that I am speechless. My second is that I have the words to express my emotions, but dare not speak them - I don't think they would pass the muster of political correctness.</p>

<p>I guess even that may be considered a provocative thing to say. So let's suffice it to say that as the father of 2 daughters, I'm outraged and saddened.</p>

We were downstairs, the dog was upstairs in the kitchen - bouncing up and

down to get her share of my birthday cake which was on the counter,

hence, the missing section.<div></div>

<p>Well - the good news is that it doesn't appear to be the camera! I would just stay in the habit of insisting on getting the whole negative back. But you may never see the issue again.</p>

<p>Linda,</p>

<p>Check this review out - http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q110superzoomgroup/</p>

<p>The two winners as it were, a Panasonic and a Canon will run you about $400 - they are probably your best bet for new equipment. Or you could go used on the DSLR side, but the disadvantage there is increased size and weight, generally speaking.</p>

 

<p>Linda,</p>

<p>You are describing a low light situation, and one where a longer lens is often called for, which the smaller more compact cameras aren't as ideally suited for. But, frankly as long as you will use whatever you get, you just work within the limitations of the equipment - part of the challenge really.</p>

<p>There are many directions you could go with this. The "simple" answer is a DSLR with a normal to tele zoom. But a better way to approach it to me would be - what's your budget? Start there, we'll give you some ideas, and you can tweak your thinking as we go. :)</p>

<p>Johann,</p>

<p>Why did you sell the Canon? And the Nikon before that? You might want to be clear on that point before moving to a 3rd system. The K-x I think offers two things Nikon and Canon don't - extremely small size for a DSLR, and a nice array of prime APS-C lenses.</p>

<p>But you mention neither of those. On the surface it feels more like you're looking in a different equipment direction to scratch some unnamed or unknown itch. That's an expensive way to scratch. Rather than seeing a camera and and going COOL! (and I say that as one who is a bit of a gearhead, so I understand), be clear on what you want in a system and why you have now sold the 2 most popular systems in the market before moving forward.</p>

<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>

<p>Chris.</p>

<p>It's looking at examples like that that leave me thinking people that pixel peep to the level of complaining about noise in a photo like that have never shot film. I don't see noise, I see a pleasant texture to the background that would have been considered a positive with a 35mm camera.</p>

<p>Ugh. I know what - let's go pick a fight with some Canon guys about bokeh! :D</p>

<p>Just kidding of course.</p>

<p>Man that brings back memories! Particularly if I hold my thumb over the SE. I still think I took my best pictures as a teenager / young adult with my K1000 and 50mm f2. :)</p>

<p>I'd suggest taking another roll in and insisting on getting the entire length back. Without being able to look at the negatives it's a bit of a guessing game. You might consider a more pro level lab if you didn't use one the first time. And explain to them that you need the whole negative back to diagnose a possible camera issue; that might motivate them to comply.</p>

<p>Stephanie - did you get the entire length of negative back or only a partial length?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One very good exercise is to put a prime (non-zooming) lens on your camera and go out walking around with it. You will see any number of potential shots that you can't get with the focal length you are carrying, but the challenge is to find another picture (another way of framing) that works with the lens you have with you. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Craig hit on one of the main reasons I dislike zoom lenses. Working with a fixed focal length puts me into a mode where I take what's given me, I make more of the opportunities, and I've found that the structure is beneficial to my results. I have no doubt that this bespeaks of some artistic inadequacies on my part, but when I have a zoom on the camera it's like the process becomes an equation with one too many variables.</p>

<p>As you continue to explore this I would encourage you to try this approach, even if it's only by setting your zoom to a specific focal length and making the decision not to change it for the session, or even just a certain number of shots. I think you'll find it to be a rewarding experiment.</p>

<p>Good reminder - thanks! But I don't think I'll be turning it off much. :P</p>

<p>Very nice Markus! A very beautiful setting - must have been a joy to shoot there.</p>

<p>Roberto.</p>

<p>If you have Canon, no reason to change to Nikon - I'd scratch that off the list and just evaluate the different Canon models. One thing I think you'll find is that the high ISO performance has improved dramatically in the past 10 years. I'm not very familiar with the different Canon models, but I'm sure you'll get some good advice here. Plus, I'd suggest reading through threads in the Canon forum.</p>

<p>Good idea Justin, but as you probably know - never mind - a K-7 it is. :)</p>