Pro Cameras: Canon and Nikon

[shreddy]

Being biased for the Canon camp (own A95, SD-870, S5IS) I have to say you cant go wrong with either Canon or Nikon both are quality products. ISO noise performance is a primary concern for concert photography, then comes glass. A great lens can break the bank but if you can find a good lens with acceptable performance your in good shape.

The photogs that posted on this thread are all really great and there is lots of great suggestions dpreview is the ultimate site for photography information.

Also Canon has just announced the 1000D a new entry level DSLR there are some samples of it shooting at ISO 1600 on dpreview that look rather nice.

[Empress]

Originally Posted by Chris Rifkin(HalcyonF5 and Stu

what is the f stop on your glass(think I asked you a few months ago)
I just picked up a Tamron 28-75 2.8f,its almost the equal of the Canon L series that it replicates.
And as I told you last year
Nikon is Japanese for "Oh Shit,I should have bought a Canon"( I hang out with a bunch of Nikon users from Model Mayhem,and always use that line)
I'll be getting a 40D very soon(as adjusting my F stop with what I have is not fun)

This is my lens, Chris! =)

[Chris Rifkin(HalcyonF5 and Stu]

Originally Posted by Empress

This is my lens, Chris! =)

and that came with your camera?
wow,you got a great deal,and that is perfect glass for concert photography
I like my Tamron for the versatility
especially when I do something like this and get pics like this(THIS is when you go to manual,I was fumbling with my meter in rapidly changing light conditions and under exposed this horribly(this was taken a month ago south of Chicago on I 94/80 near JJ Kelly's in Lansing

[MEFlyingV]

Hi everyone.

Very cool thread. I don't shoot much (not live at least, lots of trip pics and faily though) but recently started trying to use Georgina's Olympus SP-500 in manual mode, adjusting the f-stop etc (the only thing I can't do manually is focus on this model). I saw that ESA brought up the subject of RAW versus JPG. So I checked the camera, set it to one of the RAW settings (there are multiple) and took a quick shot in our living room. Came out well. And I like the idea of the extra flexibility it gives in post processing. But I noticed it took a long time for the file to save to the card. So my question is, what are the pros and cons of the multiple RAW types? I used SHQ.
I hope that made sense.

Thanks

Mark

[esa]

The thread lives!

Originally Posted by MEFlyingV

So I checked the camera, set it to one of the RAW settings (there are multiple) and took a quick shot in our living room. Came out well.

Hmm... there's a step missing here. How (with what software) did you process the raw image?

But I noticed it took a long time for the file to save to the card.

Yep, I referred to that downside earlier: RAW images are 2-3X the size of even the highest-quality (lowest-compression) JPGs for a given camera. They take longer to save, and reduce the effective capacity of the continuous shooting buffer accordingly. However:

So my question is, what are the pros and cons of the multiple RAW types? I used SHQ.

Very few cameras have "multiple RAW types." I suspect you shot with a setting that saves both a RAW image AND a JPG, and the quality setting for the JPG was SHQ (highest quality.) Unless you went through a RAW conversion step with Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or similar software (or possibly the software that came with your camera), I think you actually examined the SHQ JPG and not the RAW image.

Once you figure out the RAW conversion step (if all else fails, download Picasa or the 30-day eval of Lightroom), perform the following experiment:

Take two shots, each one twice: first as JPG, then as RAW:

1. A deliberately underexposed (by around 2 f-stops) image
2. Set the camera white balance to "tungsten" or "fluorescent" and shoot a daylight outdoor scene

Next, try to correct both pairs of images in software (compensate for underexposure, and correct the white balance.) You will find that the RAW image will turn into a decent image with reasonably correct looking exposure and accurate white balance, while the JPG will not without severe posterization (blockiness) artifacts.

[MEFlyingV]

Thanks Esa

I didnt actually move the file to my PC yet.

When I said it came out pretty good, I meant that when I viewed it back on my camera display, it looked noticably different(better) than the JPG I took immediately afterward. The color was just better.

My camera setting had a RAW and a SHQ setting among others (it was originallyon HQ, and saving as JPG). When I clicked on RAW it gave me the following options. I see now that at the top of the screen, it says JPEG DUPLICATE OPTIONS.

OFF
SHQ
HQ
SQ1
SQ2

I I guess that is what you meant, that I saved the shot as two files. Sure enough, I just looked and thats what happened. I have both a RAW and a SHQ file. On the camera LCD they look similar. The HQ file I took immediately afterwards has different color to it.

Thanks for the clarification!