Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 7, 2005, 3:30 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

Hi. I'm about ready to invest in a 300d, but I do have one question. I am a TOTAL novice and will have to start out in auto until I start learning.

How much post-processing is necessary?

I mainly want the best possible pictures of my toddler in everyday indoor (fairly low light) and outdoor situations. However, I don't have a great deal of time to invest in post-processing (or in learning how to do it.)

The pros on this board are getting me a little worried. Am I getting in over my head here?
MistyR75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 7, 2005, 3:51 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

Well it matters on how good the picture is to start with.

I have found most day to day photos dont require much or any special post processing becuase it is just that a day to day photo, alas a special photo like a familt portrate or other major photo you may want to touch up.

One thing to consider before buying a DSLR is the cost to get the same len range on a P&S digital with manual controls.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 4:04 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 14
Default

VictorEM83 wrote:
Quote:
One thing to consider before buying a DSLR is the cost to get the same len range on a P&S digital with manual controls.
And, in your opinion, can a good P&S (say a Panasonic FZ20 or even an Oly 8080) compete with therebel interms of image quality?

What I'm really aiming for here is really good pictures of my daughter.

Thanks for your reply.
MistyR75 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 4:30 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

What I am saying is if you went with a Panasonic FZ20 you get a F2.8 36 - 432 mm equiv. lens. to get that range on a DRebel at F2.8 you would be spending at lot of money you would need a 24-70mm F2.8 Lens that would cost around $500-$1200 a 70-200 mm F2.8 lens would cost about $800-$1200.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 5:17 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

For indoor shots, just get the canon 50mm f1.8 lens. Really good for low light situations. It goes for under $80. The 300d will give you nice pictures compared to the FZ20 as bigger sensor on the 300d has much lower noise but you will have to learn to use either of these cameras.Post-processing wise, not much. If you shoot RAW, then convert, adjust levels etc, and sharpen. You can shoot jpeg and bump up the saturation/sharpening parameters in the camera so that should take even less time.

BTW - I have the old FZ1 and 10D.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 5:48 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
VictorEM83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 156
Default

I agree you can get a lot of good lenses with the Drebel but that is the problem that means you have to have the right lens on at the right time a ton of primes are cheper but you will be stuck swapping lenses like crazy to get the right focal length, thus zoom lenses would be a wiser call.
VictorEM83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 6:26 PM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 38
Default

Hi Misty,

You can get very nice photos with no post processing, no problem. The latest dSLR's are made with Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation options which when turned up will give you results similar to a point-and-shoot.

Don't be scaredby all the talk of RAW and what not. You can use these cams as a point and shoot, if you think you would like the extra quality and room to develop that it will give you.As you start to learn maybe you will want to delve a little further into the possibilites.

Good luck!

Tim


timmyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 6:46 PM   #8
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Misty,

You won't have to post process for sharpness, color, etc. to get good pics right out of the camera. Where you might have to post-process is to correct exposure issues - especially if you shoot indoors a lot. I think you'll be pleased with your outdoor shots right out of the camera if you leave the parameter setting on '1' (which will do some sharpening/contrast/saturation right in the camera).

To improve your low-light shooting indoors there are two options:

1. Invest in an external flash (I found the mounted flash on my 300d to be pretty weak and was not happy with it's results - also a problem with my older Canon s-40 point and shoot).

2. Invest in a fast lense like the 50mm 1.8 - at $70 it's a real bargain.

What I would recommend since you are a novice to DSLRs is get the Canon with either kit lense (17-85mm if you can afford it). Practice with that and get used to it. See if you have good luck using the kit lense and the internal flash indoors - if so Great. If not you'll have some experience under your belt and a better idea what your next purchase should be.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 8:17 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 301
Default

You certainly don't have to buy an "L" lens to get pictures that are better than what you would get from a point and shoot. Even the kit lens can give pretty good pictures for a very reasonable price. I have the 24-70L, and it is a fantastic lens ... but it is also expensive and heavy. Also, if you are a beginner with an SLR, getting the exposure right will make a bigger difference in the photos you take than the lens you select. Once you master exposure, start shopping for a better lens if you need/want one.

Note that with a DSLR,with everythingset to neutral (i.e., sharpness, contrast, saturation), your pictureswill look a bit soft compared to the results from a point and shoot, and the colour won't be as intense.

To make a fair comparison, try one out in a good camera store and ask them to display the results with the DLSR set to maximum sharpening, and one notch up from neutral for both contrast and colour saturation. Try out a good point and shoot also ... you may find that a P&S is plenty for the types of photos you want to shoot.

If you will rarely make prints larger than 4x6", and will never buy a second lens for the DSLR, I think you would be better to buy a P&S. Actually some P&S cameras have very good lenses and 7 or 8 MP sensors, so even creating large prints isn't always a problem.



Bob
BobA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 7, 2005, 8:26 PM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 46
Default

Here goes my 2 cents worth. My previous experience was with a P&S; it was a Sony S-85(I think). The "still" shots with this camera are awesome - I am not a pro, but I was very pleased and did enlargements up to 16x20; many of these were extremely sharp. I bought a 20d about 4 months ago - initially, I was very disappoint (before I go further, I am very happy with it now). My mistake was an assumption that the kit lense would be sufficient. Well, my first photos were at my daughters basketball game - indoors, low light, fast action, kit lens, inexperienced photographer = disaster! I was shooting away at 5 fps, but almost nothing was worth saving. Since then, I have learned a lot about ISO, aperture, and shutter speed - and fast lens. I bought a Canon 85/1.8 for the reminder of the basketball season - it worked very well. I also bought a Tamron 28-75/2.8 for my "walk around" lens - again, I am pleased with this one. Finally, within the last couple of weeks, I broke down and bought the Canon 70-200/2.8 - hurts the pocketbook, but a great lens. Now, to your point - for action shots, there is no comparison; I simply could not capture these any other way. I am sure that others (especially, those of you who are "good" photographers) will disagree, but in general, I have not produced noticibly better quality stills with the 20d than with the P&S. However, I must say that I have more good captures because of the speed - my youngest frequently looked away before my P&S finished capturing the moment. Anyway, IF your main quest is non-action photos, I believe the best P&S cameras on the market will be cheaper and just as good on quality. FYI, I do not know much about all of the adjustments in Photoshop - I have tried it, but I have not mastered it. Currently, I am trialing free download versions of PS CS and Paint Shop Pro 9. Working with JPEG's - I havent done much with RAW (yet), I find that Paint Shop, which has a "one touch fix" gets pretty darn close to what I want to see. So, there's my 2 cents worth, but since it went so long, I may need to charge a nickel:-) I hope you find this helpful in some way.
acrabb is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:38 AM.