Excited! Just had to share!

[pstewart]

Today I finally tried my new DRebel EOS for the first time, and here are two of the 109 pics I took. No, I won't bore you with all 109...not just yet, anyway...lol!

This first one was taken with my Sigma 28-80mm lens out a car window (not even down, and not really clean) at a speed of about 60mph.

http://www.pbase.com/image/24282782

This second one was taken hand-held with my Canon 75-300mm zoom in the shade of the house. Not a spectacular pose, but he wouldn't stop eating! See how FAT he is! All my deck squirrels are tubbies...guess I put out too many seeds. Oh well, the extra fat will keep them warm this winter. Just hope they can still climb trees!

http://www.pbase.com/image/24279064

I'm pleased with the results I've seen, and so far have only downloaded 12 images to my computer to look at. Can't wait to find time to process the rest.

[srijith]

Damn. I have my eyes set on this camera for months now. Wish I could buy one. But then beggars can't be choosers!

Nice shots.

[mpdequalsyfsm]

Well Phyllis -- I told you so !!!!

I love the camera and I can see your love affair is just starting! LOL

Can't wait to see what you post!

[pingu]

But no sign of the EXIF, so it's hard to tell what ISO you've shot at - some of the pictures ('breaking through' for instance) look to have quite a lot of noise on them, I'd be interested to know if this was evident in the original shot or is the result of agressive post processing..

Stunning images all the same though ;D

-Alex

http://www.pbase.com/pingu

[pstewart]

Alex,

I'm afraid you misunderstood. The only two pics taken with my new Canon Digital Rebel are the two in the links in this thread. This is the first day I ever used the camera (for anything other than a pencil eraser band for a Whatsit challenge). So the pics in my photography galleries weren't taken with it. Those photos are between 1 and 28 years old, taken either with an old manual Minolta or with a newer Minolta Maxxum.

"Breaking through" was scanned in from a small print since I no longer had the negative, and yes, all of these scans needed Photoshop work, since they were so "soft" ...scanning from prints rather than negatives or slides will do that. I didn't have most of the negatives for those pics, and to make matters worse, nearly all the images in my Kids and Scenics galleries were on "linen finish" print paper in 3.5 x 5.0 size and needed descreening. Yep, they came off the scanner pretty sofffft...a reall challenge to sharpen them to look acceptable!

But these two new pics needed a bit of work in Photoshop too. The farm scene, "Route 47, IL," was taken through a dirty car window bouncing along at 60mph and needed a bit of help with the very slight blur (which you can notice on the barn roof and field). I sharpened it a tad then softened it again by adding a "mist" layer with a bit of gaussian blur layer at about 7% opacity.

The squirrel needed some levels correction to bring out more contrast and color, because it was taken on a shady deck with no adjustment for the snow behind him (I haven't even read the camera manual yet, so I left it in Program mode).

Someday I will organize my galleries better so folks can know the settings for pics, and what camera they were taken with, but I am just starting to learn to use my digital reb so that's a ways off I'm afraid.

[jchambers]

wonderful shots pstewart! You must be so excited about the new camera.

I will make the step next year to a digital SLR myself. I'm waiting to see what the new Canon 1D will be like. It's suggested it may be full frame and cheaper than the current model which is a big plus. But that means a lot of penny saving, and as a token of how much I want this baby, I've even quit smoking to help save the money for it.

So, you've got yourself what I dream of each night at the moment. I really hope to see more photo's from this beauty here. Do you shoot RAW or jpg?

[pstewart]

Do you shoot RAW or jpg?

At the moment, I have no idea. I have spent one day trying it, and have not read the manual. So far all I've figured out is what button turns the flash on/off, how to look at and delete the preview images, and how to plug it into my computer to download the pics. I have a verrrry steep learning curve ahead of me. And I'm way too old to learn new tricks!

[kevinbe]

Glad to see yet another 300D user. Very good shots Phyllis, that squirel is especially sharp. I have been wanting to get some good close-up squirel shots but Heidi, my Jack Russel, keeps them on the run so much it's hard to get a good shot.

Your 75-300 does a good job is it the IS model? That's what I have and it stays on my camera most of the time. I did some shooting today with the Sigma 105 macro lens but haven't had time yet to take a good look at them.

Kevin

[pstewart]

Yes, Kevin, it has image stabilization, so maybe I won't need to buy a tripod after all. I'll find out as I use it more I guess.

[kevinbe]

I shoot raw about half the time. You do get a lot more control in post processing that without it. I wish I had the PS7 plug-in so I could work in Canon Raw inside PS. The Zoombrowser is ok but it's no PS.

[ugot2bkdng]

Kevin,

Take a look at CaptureOne LE (Light Edition). I like it a lot better than the Canon software. They have a 30 day trial and there is also a Mac version Phyllis.

http://www.phaseone.com/

[ugot2bkdng]

JC,

I am also watching for the new 1D. I will have to trade in my 10D if it is what I expect. At least I will have the lenses.

BTW, check your PMs.

[pstewart]

Chuck, what is better about the 1D than the 10D?

Kevin, I found out from hubby he set mine up to use jpegs. The images are huuuuuge when I open them and you can see every hair and pore on a face...can't complain at all. Half the time they need a levels tweak for tone and color, but Raw wouldn't affect that. I can't imagine anything that Raw could contribute except file size and less storage in the camera itself. What do you notice as the advantage/s?

[jchambers]

Chuck, what is better about the 1D than the 10D?

Kevin, I found out from hubby he set mine up to use jpegs. The images are huuuuuge when I open them and you can see every hair and pore on a face...can't complain at all. Half the time they need a levels tweak for tone and color, but Raw wouldn't affect that. I can't imagine anything that Raw could contribute except file size and less storage in the camera itself. What do you notice as the advantage/s?

Actually tone and colour is tweaking is where RAW comes into it's own over jpg, or at least the main reason.

When you shoot jpg, it doesn't have any "detail" advantage over RAW. In fact, at first glance it doesn't have any real advantage. But for some people who like to post process and work in photoshop it really is a whole new world.

here are some of the advantages:

* RAW is the digital equivilent of a negitive. On a jpg image, although the original if shot in high quality mode is almost exactly as good as RAW, each time you modify the image and re-save it, you loose a small amount of quality due to the compression. With RAW, if you save in TIFF format after conversion (or PSD if you have the space) you don't loose any quality. Also, because the RAW is a complete "dump" from the sensor, you don't have the camera doing any "post production" effects added without your approval.

* RAW can be converted to a 16bit format, jpg is only 8bit. This is where correcting exposure, colour etc has more advantage in RAW. (Actually, it's no longer RAW when you do this in photoshop, but usually TIFF). You can test this out easily by changing the colour or working with levels in PS on an 8bit, and where the colour would "pixelate" in 8bit, it is still smooth and has more "depth" in 16bit. In other words, you can correct images better with RAW than with jpg.

* Working with RAW you have much more control in other ways over the final image. JPG has already done an in-camera unsharp mask, where's in RAW, you can do this manually (and if you know what you're doing - much better) in photoshop. You can also have full and easy control over things like white balance.

There are plenty more reasons where RAW has advantages, and actually I use it all the time and can't live without it. Somehow, I never feel that jpg is like the digital negitive that RAW is. When I have only a jpg, it's a bit like only having a "print". This is not a problem with most shots, but it really kills me if that shot I done in jpg was a real keeper, and I didn't have it in RAW to get the most out of it.

On the other hand, there are reasons why many (actually most) people don't want or need to use RAW.

* RAW means "developing" your own negitives. OK, it's a lot easier than film developing. There's no smelly chemical's, no need for a dark room, and if you make a mistake you can always use the "back" button. But it still takes time. Most people want to upload their photo from the camera to the computer and straight on the web. With RAW, you have to first convert it to TIFF, then sit down in photoshop and colour correct, adjust the exposure, run an unsharp mask etc etc. It is possible to create macro's or actions to do these things, but it's still work. If you are one of those people that love this side, working on a photo in PS etc, (like me) then it's fine, but this is certainly not for everyone.

* RAW also takes up more space. Not only in the memory card, but also in the computer. This can bother many people because of the extra cost. But I got around this by having two 1gig microdrives and a 30gig wallet. For me, that was important to invest so I can keep shooting in RAW. Also, a 120gig HD just for photo's is quite cheap to add to your computer, and will take a long time to fill up.

* RAW is also slower to shoot than jpg, because of the longer file writing. This depends on your camera if it will be an issue. It is on my G2 which is real sluggish in RAW, and one of the reasons I want the Canon 1D replacement, as I would expect this to not be an issue. Aparently the 10D is pretty good also, which is why I asked about the 300D.

So, at the end of the day, RAW is sort of for the people who like to post process their images. If this is not you, then RAW is not for you. But if you love to sit down in PS and work on your photo's, or if you want to get every last possible bit of tonal range and colour/exposure out of your photo's and don't mind the extra work, then RAW is the way to go.

That's my 2cents anyway.

For the question of why I am interested in the 1D replacement over the 10D - well, it is supposed to have a lot of extra features like flawless autofocus, faster response and of cause probably higher quality images. At then end of the day, it could mean getting that keeper instead of missing the shot. But the down side is the massive extra cost. Is it worth waiting an extra few months to get the money ready (if I can afford it at all)... that's another question.

[ugot2bkdng]

Phyllis,

The featue that I use the most in CaptureOne with RAW images is the exposure correction.

The current 1D is an 11 megapixel camera. I would expect more from the new one. The sensor is 32.8 x 22.8 mm, close to the 36x24mm of 35 mm film. The sensor has larger pixel size and therefore higher sensitivity, a larger dynamic range, and lower noise. Of course it has all of those neat extra features to make the learning curve steeper.