donald_a

The title says it all. I'm looking for photo editing software for Windows. The only thing I need to be able to do is add text to images and make collages with several images, hopefully with a way to make collages for 2, 3 and 4 images. I want to work with .jpg images and also save in the .jpg format. Thanks!

<p>If you're just comparing the kit lenses, the Fuji is definitely noticeably better. I had the NEX-6 with the 16-50 and sold it for the Fuji and I'm glad I did. The only thing I miss about the NEX-6 is the flip out LCD screen which is good for some street photography like keeping the camera at waist level to compose your shots more discreetly. Also the NEX-6 + 16-50 combo is very noticeably lighter than the Fuji.</p>

<p>You may want to check out this thread also: http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00cO9N</p>

<p>As for what I'm currently lacking now, it's mainly IQ. I have the 16-50 and it just doesn't cut it for me. The resolution is obviously lacking and the glare is the worst I've ever seen (I'm hoping it's just the lens and not the body).</p>

<p>So I have to upgrade and the only zoom option is the seemingly over-priced 16-70. So switching systems at point isn't going to cost anything vs. upgrading my Sony system, i.e I can get the X-E1 + 18-55 + 35 f/1.4 for maybe $100 more than the 16-70.</p>

<p>Right now, I'm leaning more toward sticking with Sony and upgrading to the A6000 + 16-70. At that price the thing darn well better have IQ exceeding the Fuji 18-55. Plus I really use the wider 16mm vs. 18mm.</p>

<p>However, the Fuji 10-24 is something I could see keeping on the camera a lot also. And it just seems Fuji has a more dedicated eye on image quality vs. Sony, making high quality lenses the default and adding consumer lenses as an afterthought whereas it's the exact opposite with Sony. And I see people commenting about a certain "pop" that the Fuji lenses have.</p>

<p>The main question would be if I take the same shot would an 8x12 look basically the same, a little different, signficantly different, night-and-day different. I know the last two categories probably won't apply here, but if the IQ is a little different and I can deal with all the other features why not get the one with better IQ? That way I can't blame my camera for my mistakes!</p>

<p>Where is the Fuji sale?</p>

<p>Thanks, I know a lot of people like the Olympus lenses, but I'm not really interested in the micro 4/3 format. </p>

<p>I have a Sony NEX 6 and I'm considering switching to the Fuji system because I get the impression from reading online that the image quality for Fuji might be a tad better than Sony and I've realized that Sony's comparable lenses aren't that much cheaper than Fuji. So in terms of image quality would either one of these systems be noticeably different? Or am I just dancing on the head of a pin at this point and should just pick my system based on other factors (size, weight, ease of use, etc.)</p>

<p>Sony: A6000 + Sony 10-18 + Sony Zeiss 16-70 + Sony 35 f/1.8<br>

Fuji: E-X2 + Fuji 10-24 + Fuji 18-55 + 35 f/1.4</p>

<p>Since the A6000 hasn't come out yet just assume it's the NEX 7.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

<p>Sony just released two mid-range zoom lenses, a Carl Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS ($998) and E PZ 18-105mm F4 G OSS Power Zoom Lens ($598). This is a very good thing because as a new NEX 6 owner and previous Canon Digital Rebel owner I was extremely disappointed with the kit lens (besides the great small size and 16mm on the wide end). <br>

Now my question is which one to get. It seems like the 16-70 is the better option for me. Like I said, I love having 16mm on my main lens. Plus it's lighter and smaller than the 18-105 and has a smaller minimum focusing distance. But I wonder about the image quality between the two. The 18-105 is a G Lens, which I assume is the equivalent of Canon's L lenses. But why would the non-G 16-70 cost more than the 18-105? Is it just a German lens vs. Japanese lens thing? Can I expect the IQ to be more or less equivalent between the two?</p>

<p>I'm looking for a point and shoot that takes good video. I have a DSLR that I use for photo taking, so this P&S purchase is really mostly about video and having something small enough to take anywhere. Almost all of the current P&S are small enough for me and take decent enough pictures for spur of the moment type pictures, so the determining factor is video capturing ability. I'd like something that is especially good in low light and that has a stereo microphone. I don't think I need something that records 720p. I'm also not looking to spend a lot of money (<$200). Right now, I'm leaning towards the Lumik LZ8, which at $120 fits the bill although it has a mono microphone. Are there any other good options out there?</p>

To make your life simple I would just shoot at 1/200. You're indoors so I don't see any reason why you should have to shoot with a faster shutter speed. The bottom line is that you will able to shoot faster than 1/200 only if the on-board flash is down OR you have a Canon flash attached.

Daniel, that's a good point. I don't know how those Bowen flash heads work. Are they triggered by a flash? Anyway, you can get higher shutter speeds if you use Canon's dedicated flashes, like the 430 or 580.

You must have had the on-board flash popped up. The sync speed on the 400D is 1/200. Lower the flash and you'll be fine.

There are an endless amount of things to buy. What are your needs? Like others have said, do you have all the non-

lens equipment you need, tripod etc? If you want until Christmas :) and can bump your budget up to say $350 here

are some options:

1. If you want to go for a nice potrait lens, get the 85mm f/1.8 2. If you want to try macros, get the 60mm

f/2.8 3. If you want to get a new walkaround lens, sell the 17-40 + $350 = 17-55 f/2.8

 

But unless you're really annoyed with your current setup there's really no need to add anything else.

>>>>But if the street price still falls in the $650 range, that's a high price to pay for the convenience knowing that you can purchase the new kit lens (18- 55IS) plus an excellent 70-200 f/4 (nonIS) for a street price of $750 total.<<<<

 

Or a Tamron 17-50 plus the 55-250IS for around $650.

 

Even if the performance is darn close to the 18-55 + 55-250IS set I just don't see the justification for paying a $300 convenience premium.

OK, maybe casual wasn't the right word. G Dan Mitchell's test procedure seems to be pretty straightforward and would give results of what to expect if taken of my typical subjects. I'll give that a try. But I would think that even handheld with enough care (high enough shutter speed, careful focus, etc.) the lens would be the dominant contributor to image quality, but maybe I'm wrong. I can try a shot-to-shot test also to see how much contribution I'm causing to image quality.

Can anyone help me with ideas for a "real-world" lens test. I'm not interested in taking pictures of lens charts or

even using a tripod because that's not how my pictures will be taken. I just want to have a couple of go to tests that

I can use to quantify the overall performance of a lens. I'm thinking of things like:

 

1.) Resolution - Picture of a sign that's relatively small in frame (use text on sign for res test)

2.) Distortion - Picture of building like a church from close range. Churches usually have towers that show distortion

well, at least that's what I've experienced so far.

 

I just bought a Tamron 17-50mm and want to compare it with my Canon 18-55mm IS and Canon 50mm f/1.8

because if it doesn't provide much visible improvement over the combination of the other two (besides the

convenience of not having to switch lenses) I can return the Tamron within 14 days and save my 400 bucks for

another lens.

 

Thanks for any help you can provide.

My wallet isn't liking those responses. Since I have the 50mm f/1.8, that is an argument to get the 85, but my experience with the 50mm 1.8 is that it's good but not great at f/1.8-2.0 and hard to focus sometimes in low light and I expect the 1.4 to be better in both respects.

I'm trying to decide whether to buy the 85mm f/1.8 or the 50mm f/1.4. I assume both have roughly the same the

same image quality, so the main difference comes down to the usefulness of each lens (I want it to be a lens that

I use regularly). I want to use the lens for portraits and as many other uses as possible. I'm thinking the

50mm will have more uses since indoors the 85mm will probably only be able to capture head and shoulder shots.

On the other hand, the 85mm will probably be more useful outdoors (soccer, volleyball, concerts) and well as

larger rooms indoors since I can stand farther back. Anyway, my main question is whether the 50mm on a crop

sensor provides the same face-flattening AND bokeh as the 85mm on full frame. Since the 50mm on the crop sensor

has roughly the same FOV as the 85 on FF, this means that I would stand roughly the same distance from the

subject for a given shot, which means the perspective/bokeh should be the same right? Any other

advice/experience of these lenses on a crop-sensor would be greatly appreciated.

What about the Tamron 17-50 and the Canon 70-300 IS? I say that because your proposed kit would be relatively slow. You should also get the 50mm f/1.8 since it's only $80 and you can practice with the shallow depth of field.

The first step to actually making good use of an external flash is to not point it directly the subject without something to diffuse the light. You can pick up two cheap items that will help you. The first is the Stofen Omnibounce (OMEW) plastic cover, which will cost you $11 at Amazon.com. The second is to make yourself a bounce card. The materials cost at most $5 and it's easy to do. See this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/photography-lighting-equipment-techniques-forum/00Pgem

 

The bounce card works really well, especially in smaller rooms. Practice a lot at partys and look at you pictures. You should have absolutely no red-eye and no harsh, flat flash lighting on people's faces. That alone will set you pics apart from the pics of the standard P&S, or even DSLR with on-board flash.

I would go with the Canon batteries. It's just not worth it to have a battery fail on you. The battery is only $50 online.

 

I'll be interested to see what the verdict is regarding battery life for such exposure lengths. Of course I expect the number of shots to go down, but in such a scenario you're probably only getting 10 shots per night max.

What's the most compact way to have a memory storage/backup system for the Rebel XTi? Suppose I have a 2GB

card and I want to use fill it up every day during a trip and dump the data somewhere at night. What's the smallest

(in size) set of equipment that will let me do that? Thanks.

The 50 f/1.4 is a great lens, but 50mm is not wide enough on the XSi as a standard lens or for indoor shots. You should get the 35mm f/2.0 or one of the 28mm lens to have a field of view comparable to a "normal" lens on a non-cropped body.

If you're willing to spend the money, I think #1 is the best fit. It covers a much more useful range than the 24-XX zooms for a 40D. Are you really sure that a film equivalent of 38mm will be wide enough for you? I think you'll want to have f/2.8 instead of f/4.

Are you really going to be able to live with nothing wider than 45mm (film equivalent)? Have you thought about the 18-55mm IS? It's $180 now, but I would expect the price to drop once the XSi comes out in April, since it's only selling for a $100 premium in the kit version.

Have you considered selling the 18-55 and the Tamron 28-75mm and getting the Tamron 17-50mm? That way you'd have a single zoom with a more useful range. Other than that I think the next prime you should pick up is the 35mm f/2 so that you'd have a normal prime.