orensztajn

What EOS do you have? If it is a 359D the you need CS2.

Check in adobe.com for info about this, you may need the SW that canon has for RAW files otherwise (don't you have it with the camera?).

Ok it is pretty clear to me now, I have been in adobe.com and looked at the camera raw plug in, CS supports Nikon D70 and a coolpix 8700 so for newer cameras I have to go for CS2.

I do not need all the features in PS, I am prety purist regarding photo, I just need levels, curves, contrast somentimes some filter, not much and HUE. So I will stck with the canon or nikon SW (I have already tried nikon SW) and then as Jay says export into TIF to PS7.

Thanks a lot again, you have been very kind to explain this to me.

I am lost here, if Adobe CS is like photoshop 8 then what is it adobe CS2?

So if my photoshop camera raw plug in does not have support for a 350D (example) then do I have to buy a new photoshop 8 or CS or a photoshop 8.2 or CS2?

How does this work?

Please?

Oh I forgot is this Adobe Camera Raw a plug in that I can add to PS7?

It is different if I have nikon or canon or support all cameras?

Thanks

Thanks a lot Jay, that explains a lot!

I just asked about the RAW because I am into buying a DSLR or somenthing in that level (or less) that shots in RAW (could be E-300 or a coolpix 8800, they are cheap now and price is my number one constraint). You were right I have a cooplix 4300 and does not have NEF just TIFF at it's best.

thanks again!

Hi

I am totally nwebi in this of PS but what are the difference against

CS? I am confussing about these two programs, which one is better

then?

I have PS7, can I load a RAW file from a nikon or canon into it? Or

do I need the brand SW to convert the files to jpeg?

There is an extensio in PS where I could load files .RAW what are

these then?

Thanks!

If you want to have a pocket camera I can recommend the Nikon coolpix they havee now a 7900 very little and a 7MP.

Otherwise a 4600 or 5200 are very good too.

I have a coolpix 4300 and despite that it is an old model it take really good photos and I can enlarge them to a A4 format without problems.

Good Luck

You are right Rob, as I said just before I will go digital and one reason is the film cost.

Thanks

Downloading data from the camera should not be an issue you use only the USB adaptor (I hvae been useing this for months now, I have also a Nikon but a coolpix), you could use a CF card reader too so then you don't need to put your camera thera just take away the card and place it into the reader.

If you don't know a CF (Compact Flash) reader is connected to the USB too.

Hope this can help.

I may be wrong but when you do a white balance yourself, don't you have to point to a white papper in the light that you will use?

It is not used the gray papper to not over(or under)exposure you pictures?

I am a begineer that may think wrong.

Ok, thanks a lot for advices.

I think thanks to them I go for the digital way.

One of the most importat, for me was that thank to digital cameras I picked up photography again, and as somebody pointe put here, digital media is agood way for learn. i learned a lot these lasts months thanks to mi little coolpix.

I have all the PC power that I need + Photoshop and memory cards so I only need a good dig camera.

The 350D is to expensive (it is very over-priced here in Europe) so I may go for the E-300, it is half price of a 350D and it is pretty comparable to a 20d at low iso value or I will go for a 2nd hand 300D and by some good lenses (I was doing some numbers yesterday and with the film cost+some develop I will be paying a dig cam in less than 2 years, I take a lot of photos).

So my way will be the digital one.

Thanks a lot for all advices you all have been very kind.

If we take an example as the 350D, the R&D cost can not be so high it is a 20D with another smaller CMOS sensor (has to be cheaper) and some other less featuretes, sure SW controlled. This camera costs here in Sweden, $1150, this is the whole kit.

So I wonder what people is paying for, here. This camera should be cheaper and the lack of competitors allows Canon to put the prices that they think we should pay.

When a new technology came to us the actor that had the most succefully (Plasma, LCD tv, DVD writers, etc) R&D will take the market and put the price until some others comes up and then the prices go down.

I always though that you could print anny size with a good 6MP or a 8MP.

I did som really good prints 70x100cm from a nikon D70, it was photo quality in photo papper too.

I agree totally with Carl, I learned a lot with my little coolpix 4300 and now, after more than 9 months I feel like I need some better machine, you will find out what you need after spending some months shooting and experimenting, you already bough in 3 weeks more than I could afford in 10 years.

Go and experiment with it, happy shots!

I think 30% is a lot of margin right now for a consummer product as a digital camera. I mean is like 250-300usd per, let's say an EOS 350D,mmmm.

Not bad at all for Canon.

Thanks Carl but as I said before for the 20% cost of a DSLR money I could by a 33V and then a really good lens (with some more money). I can afford that (a good lens I mean).

I have also all the digital stuff (computer, scan, PS, etc) so I do not need to upgrade anything. I just feel that is a lot of money to invest in a 350D where with less that 30% of that cost I will have a killer SLR istead of maybe better photo quality that the 350D and I could just develop the dia and choose what photo to develop and do big print.

Another thing is that lets say after 5 or 6 years the DSLR is dead (we know that electronic digital consumer product are not to be consider to last 10-15 years, and if you have an inssurance to cover this it will cost per year), then after some years you put another 1000 usd while the eos 33 maybe will last 15 years with out problem.

You have also to think that you want to buy somenthing that last and I feel like the SLR will last more that a DSLR, or I am totally wrong in this?

Panos, I understnad I was thinking too in at least 30 rolls per year if not more, (I am fillyng a CD per month with photos) and then then adding the develop work, in a 2 or 3 years I will reach the price of a 350D, so may be I stick with the idea of a better dig cam, may be a cheaper one like a E-300 or a Coolpix 8800 (half price of a 350D).

I want also do big prints like 60x150cm, 100x70cm, A3.

Can this be done in a 8MP camera (either 350D, E-300 or coolpix 8800).

thanks for the help.

Looking in ebay.co.uk I found the eos 33v for 50? (like 100 usd, only body). So I could actually buy a 33V for less than 150usd. This is cheap and I could then buy some good lens to it.

I like to shoot digital but I wonder if the 350D can give as good quality as a 33v (or 30v), for the big money that I have to put in it?

I will annyway keep my 4MP nikon camera, but I wanted somenthing better to get better pictures that this coolpix is not giving me (even if it is a good camera)

Thanks for helping

I forgot to mention:

I have these lenses: EF 22-55 f/4-5.6 USM and a EF 35-80 f/4-5.6 III (this is not good) from a old Canon eos IX7, that I could use until I save some money.

Ok, I have a digital 4MP camera and I want to take better "quality"

picture (I do not mean composition), I see clear a difference as soon

I swith to a D70 (that I can borrow somtimes) so I wanted to buy

another camera.

Here comes the problem,I see that I can get a Canon EOS 33V (30V) for

300-500 Euros. All the time I was aiming for a EOS 350D, but I think

is too expensive right now.

Would you go for the 33V or save some money and buy a 350D?

Is the photo quality better in the 33V? (I mean dynamic range,

colour ,etc).

Thanks for the help.