timinich

<p>First, thank you all for the help.</p>

<p>I have not found a solution that I'm happy with, but I think that I at least have a better grasp of what's going on.</p>

<p>First, the decrease in quality comes from the 680 pixel requirement. Exporting JPEGs from Lightroom and Photoshop using the various permutations, but forcing to 680, always results in a JPEG that I'm not happy with.</p>

<p>Peter, the diagonal cables are one of the things that was bothering me, but just one of many quality problems.</p>

<p>Lex, thanks for the tips on converting stylized images to JPEGs. I hadn't noticed some of the problems in the full sized JPEG. My usual MO is to export full sized JPEGs from Lightroom and then upload. My JPEG looks fine, but I never thought to compare it to the full sized JPEG on the PN, which is reduced to 1500 pixels wide.</p>

<p>For now, the answer seems to be that's just what a 680 pixel wide image looks like on PN. My complaint now changes to, shouldn't PN, a website where photographers critique each others photos, do at least as good a job as something like Facebook?</p>

<p>Compare the two images:</p>

<p>https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100395314523765&l=2c62ec3af3</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/17934450&size=md</p>

<p>Is there any plan for PN to upgrade the way it handles JPEGs. Shouldn't it at least be able to match Facebook, or dpchallenge, or most websites that deal with photography, really?</p>

<p>Also, I've realized that I've noticed the difference more since I've upgraded to a Mac with a "Retina" display. In the past, I might not have noticed the difference as much because my screen literally couldn't show as much of the difference. Has anyone who recently upgraded the quality of their monitor had the same experience?</p>

<p>And, shouldn't PN be on top of this type of thing? For example, the "photo.net" on the top left of every page is blurry on my screen, which is something that happens on websites that haven't been optimized for newer monitors.</p>

<p>So I'm a little disappointed because it seems the only thing I can do is wait for PN to get an upgrade, but at least I think that it's not really something I've been doing wrong. I've been hitting my head against a wall for a while trying to work this one out.</p>

<p>Thanks Again,</p>

<p>Tim</p>

<p>And other thing, when you type something in the reply box and press enter, the space is bigger than it will be when posted. Why PN, why?</p>

<p>I know this has been brought up before, but I've been unable to resolve the problem.<br>

When I upload a JPEG to PN, it becomes significantly more blurry and/or pixilated.<br>

For example, my picture of a bridge. It looks fine on my hard drive, it looks fine when uploaded to Facebook, but the exact same file looks blurry and pixilated on PN.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/17934450<br>

Has anyone found a way to deal with this? If Facebook can handle this, why can't PN?<br>

Thanks for the help.</p>

<p>For those are interested, I made a decision...</p>

<p>Instead of the NEX, I decided to upgrade the lens for my 450D. Getting away from the kit lens was long overdue. I ended up buying the 50MM F/1.4 USM. It seems that most people love the NEX, but aren't quite willing to give up the DSLRs just yet. Because of my love of landscape and architecture photograpy, I'm planning on getting a Mark II when finances allow it. It looks like a great value for a camera with a full size sensor. You can get one used on eBay for $1500.</p>

<p>I'm still definitely going to keep an eye on the mirror-less cameras, but most people seem to view them as a quality, portable compliment to DSLRs rather than a replacement. I've come up with quite a to buy list. It won't happen all at once, but...</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Mark II</li>

<li>Good quality wide angle lens</li>

<li>New computer (getting critical, I have a MacBook. Not a Macbook Pro, I have the discontinued white one)</li>

<li>Mirrorless Camera</li>

<li>Additional lenses for both cameras</li>

</ol>

<p>So that's a $4000-$6000 list. We'll see how quickly that happens.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for your advice,<br>

~The Original Tim</p>

<p>It seems like a know a lot more about everything, and therefore and am even further away from making a decision. </p>

<p>One option is to commit to Canon and get some better lenses. I've been looking at the 50mm/f1.8, which apparently works well and is very affordable, but has poor build quality. On one hand, I'm very careful with my lenses, but on the other hand, I know I'm not trying it out. I'll have it for a long time. So the 50mm/F1.4 seems like the obvious choice, with its better build quality, but it's more than twice as expensive, and there isn't much of a discount for getting it used. The best I could find is one for $150 with a broken auto-focus, a $100 repair. So $250 plus the hassle. Other than that, $300 seems to be the normal used price, while it can be had for $370 new. I'm also very interested in wide angle lenses, which really means ultra-wide since I have an APS-C sensor. There aren't really affordable options made by Canon.</p>

<p>Now, if I switch to the Sony, there seems to be some more affordable, meaning under $300, new lenses available. The 16mm/f1.8 for $250 especially caught my eye. You just can't get that in Canon lenses, and there's an ultra-wide and a fish-eye adapter. I'm not sure how well those work, but it's something.</p>

<p>In addition to all this, Andy L pointed out that you can get some inexpensive, high quality Minolta/Rokkor lenses used. With Canons, you lose auto-focus, which I don't mind for wide angle or macro, but I do mind for normal and telephoto lenses. Sony makes a $400 adapter for its NEX camera that supports auto-focus. Once again, expensive, but it might open the door to a plethora of affordable, high quality auto-focus lenses.</p>

<p>The more I learn, the more options I have, and the more confusing things get.</p>

<p>You all raise great issues, some which I thought of and some which I haven't.</p>

<p>Andy ~ I'll definitely be trying one out before I buy anything.</p>

<p>Gregory ~ Why switch? I've been trying to decide if this is an upgrade over my current camera, a lateral move. The review on dpreview.com leads me to believe a DEX will get better results than my 450D, and not just because of the higher MP. That's why I wanted to see if anyone had switched. I'm not really interested in an equal but different camera. As to the drawbacks.</p>

<p>1. Didn't think about phase detect. Good point.<br>

2. The viewfinder issue is why I'd probably get the add-on viewfinder or the 7X.<br>

3. Definitely want to feel out the camera before I buy one.<br>

4. The Sony lenses are comparable, if not cheaper, than the Canon lenses, though I didn't look into 3rd party lenses.</p>

<p>Robert ~ I'm definitely leaning towards the NEX-5N for the reasons you mentioned. I'm shooting at 12Mp now, so either is an upgrade. I shoot mainly outdoors, so I almost never use a flash, much less the hot shoe.<br /> I'll definitely be looking for that 5F. I didn't know about it.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the help, everyone. Looks like I still have some thinking to do.</p>

<p>The mirror-less cameras have really caught my attention, and I'm considering switching to them, and the NEX series seems to be the way to go. Olympus looks good, but I'm drawn to Sony's larger sensors. Has anyone gone through this process? Not just adding a mirror-less as a smaller camera, but upgrading from an older DSLR? I would sell my current camera to pay for the new one.<br>

<br />Right now, I have a Canon 450D. I'm eying the NEX-5N. It doesn't seem that much of a downgrade from the NEX-7, but it is quite a bit cheaper. I do like the built-in viewfinder in the NEX-7, and the add-on for the NEX-5N is $350, which makes it almost the price of the NEX-7.<br>

A few things about my shooting habits. I tend to shoot landscape and architecture, with a healthy dose of street photography. I definitely spend a lot of time in the "digital darkroom", including HDR photography. I've grown very comfortable with the controls on my Canon. I like having control, but I don't care about any kind of camera photo effects. I typically shoot raw and neutral, and then process heavily in Photoshop. I'm satisfied with Sony's options for lenses. For now, I'd only use 2 or 3 lenses. I'd say I'm an intermediate photographer. Definitely not a beginner, and definitely not a prosumer.<br>

So, what would you do if you were in my shoes?<br>

<br />~Tim</p>

<p>I'm an Aperture/CS5 user and have spent a little time using Lightroom. Aperture & Lightroom are very similar management programs with basic editing. Lightroom is probably the better editor, but Aperture is probably a bit easier to use. Both are very good for organization. If you want to do anything beyond global editing, you'll need at least Photoshop Elements. I will say that both Aperture & Lightroom have a few powerful, 3rd party plug-ins available if you want to do more than the basics of editing, but don't really need to go too far. Take a look at the software by Topaz Labs & OnOne.</p>

<p>The truth is that computers have become so powerful that photo editing is no longer something that requires Cadillac hardware.<br>

I'm running a MacBook (not MacBook Pro) with a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo and 4Gb of RAM. That means I'm using an integrated video card, unlike the MacBook Pro. Most people would tell you that my computer is underpowered for running CS5, and they're kinda right, but I only have noticeable slow down when I run CS5 & Aperture at the same time.<br>

The point is, whatever you get, it will blow my computer out of the water, and mine is doing just fine so long as I don't try to run two major pieces of software at the same time.<br>

All that being said, it's very easy & cheap to add RAM or add a bigger, faster hard drive in the future, but you're stuck with your CPU, so if you plan to have this computer for a long time, spend your money on the things you can't change later. For photo editing, you software will run great no matter what, so just get the best you can afford. And everyone here is right, don't buy your RAM through Mac. They're overpriced.</p>

<p>I think it may be even easier than what's been discussed. There is a lot of software out there with great effects, especially for wedding photography. I took the example picture and used two effects, "Bleach Bypass" & "Golden Hour Enhancer". His photos are a bit more yellow, but that's easily adjusted. Anyway, I think this is pretty close.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Send me a message if you want more details about Prague. I lived there for a year.</p>

<p>I'm going to agree with Tom Yin & say Prague. Amazing photography, some of the best beer in Europe, and so cheap compared to Western Europe. It's easy to navigate with plenty to see and do. I recommend DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Prague as a great travel book.</p>