precious moment

brvheart

Hi Guys -

This is one of the first images with my new to me XTi, I thought that it was a quite moving moment to captured and wanted to share - CC appreciated - please be easy new to the DSLR world and still learning. I prefer the BW, but I love the color one as well. I had trouble not blowing out the white shirt - any suggestions on that would be appreciated.

Flutist

White can be difficult to photograph especially in such harsh sunlight, as I'm sure you are aware. I don't think you are a newbie to photography by any means. Below I did a really quick edit in nothing more than iphoto. I brought down the exposure a little bit and bumped up the contrast a little. With more time, in photoshop it certainly could be far better, but just wanted to show you how a quick fix can even help a little bit.






Welcome to the digital world. Endless possibilities!

brvheart

Shannon - thank you! Your quick treatment did help quite a bit - I need to learn some solid PP - I have CS3 and do not use it to its potential. I also think that I should start shooting in RAW + JPEG - baby steps

Flutist

brvheart wrote:

Shannon - thank you! Your quick treatment did help quite a bit - I need to learn some solid PP - I have CS3 and do not use it to its potential. I also think that I should start shooting in RAW + JPEG - baby steps

I personally only shoot in RAW. I don't shoot Jpeg+ (anymore) because I can always convert to jpeg if needed when the pics hit the computer, why take up more space on my card!
Shooting in RAW will certainly help because once you are able to use PS it will allow you to adjust these things (like blown out white) much easier. I prefer (based on the advice of a good friend) to have Adobe camera RAW open my pics before they open in PS. I can do a lot there even before I hit PS, and start really getting into pp, which I also need a lot of training on.

An XTi is a good starting camera to learn on! That's what I learned on, and it's a great camera. If you are able to move up in the glass department, the XTi/glass can produce some truly remarkable shots!

divamum

I was SOOOOO "afraid" of raw before I started using it about a year ago. I'm not quite sure WHY we all think it's some huge big deal (maybe it was once upon a time?) but with CS3 or lightroom it is a complete NON-issue and yields far superior results, or at any rate more PERSONAL results instead of the camera's opinion on what they should be

And here's the real reason to just jump in and try: in all the Adobe products there are "automatic" versions of the main adjustments, so you can click on those and see what the program thinks. I'll be honest - I frequently use LR's "auto" exposure adjustments as starting point. Sometimes I reject it; sometimes it nails it, and saves me some slider-moving time.

In any case, be not afeared! Raw really isn't "hard", and the payoff is well worth any extra effort involved

Flutist

divamum wrote:

I was SOOOOO "afraid" of raw before I started using it about a year ago. I'm not quite sure WHY we all think it's some huge big deal (maybe it was once upon a time?) but with CS3 or lightroom it is a complete NON-issue and yields far superior results, or at any rate more PERSONAL results instead of the camera's opinion on what they should be

And here's the real reason to just jump in and try: in all the Adobe products there are "automatic" versions of the main adjustments, so you can click on those and see what the program thinks. I'll be honest - I frequently use LR's "auto" exposure adjustments as starting point. Sometimes I reject it; sometimes it nails it, and saves me some slider-moving time.

In any case, be not afeared! Raw really isn't "hard", and the payoff is well worth any extra effort involved

I do the same thing. Sometimes I like it and use it, and other times I question the programs ability, and say "um, no" and move on. Good point Divamum!!!

brvheart

real quick - not to side track the thread -

If I was to buy one lens - an all round on the camera 95% of the time.....what would I invest in?

TangoJuliet

That really depends on what you shoot and your shooting style. For me, I usually have my 75-300 EF mounted on my camera, but I'm also usually shooting small flying aircraft and need the length to bring them closer than I can safely get.

Flutist

I shoot People , and Tamron 28-75 2.8

divamum

brvheart wrote:

real quick - not to side track the thread -

If I was to buy one lens - an all round on the camera 95% of the time.....what would I invest in?

I absolutely love my Tamron 17-50 2.8 as an affordable walkaround zoom on a crop camera. Mine is fast, scary sharp, and a very reliable lens. In a perfect world, it would be a 17-70 (and maybe have IS), but hey, we can't have everything... It has more than repaid the $300 shiny dollars I paid for it (lucky find on Craigslist, since it was like-new AND came with a circular polarizer and UV filter....)

My kit currently consists of:

Tam 17-50 f2.8
50mm f1.8 (which I don't use that often since I got the Tamron, but it comes in handy when I need the extra light)
100mm f2
200mm f2.8

I also have an older, slower Canon 70-210 which I've kept in case I ever need the focal lengths in between my primes, but I don't mind foot-zooming when I can and thus don't use it that often.

I'm happy with my lenses at the moment; the only things currently on my wishlist are a 50mm 1.4, the 135 f2.0 (omg I LUST after that lens) and maybe at some point a slightly longer 2.8 standard zoom to fill the 50-100mm gap. But for now, I'm good.

I probably use the 100mm lens the most, followed by the Tamron, and it's the Tamron that lives on my camera when it's in the bag (on the grounds it's the most versatile lens I have)

Richard

brvheart wrote:

real quick - not to side track the thread -

If I was to buy one lens - an all round on the camera 95% of the time.....what would I invest in?

You would need to tell us what you shoot 95% of the time.

Seriously, unless you are very specialized, one lens probably is not going to be sufficient if you develop a serious interest in photography. Trying to find a lens that meets a wide variety of shooting conditions usually means sacrificing quality in all of them. I think it is better to think of which ranges you want to attack first--wide, standard zoom, medium telephoto or super-telephoto--and plan a long term strategy for acquiring lenses that will last.

adbsgicom

Nice shot, esp w/ the little extra PP. Kids seem highly contemplative around railing. I always end up with one I like of my kid on a bridge watching the river, or anything like that. From what I've been learning, I'm hoping my next one has a nice sky and good fill, instead of a blown out sky...

As for lens, what are you shooting with now? THen ask yourself, "Self, do I feel that I wish I could shoot wider since I can't back up anymore; or am I throwing away a bunch of pixels because I couldn't get any closer?" That will give you a good metric of what you want.

Edit: What Richard said above....

brvheart

thank you all

I will mostly be shooting landscape/cityscape and photos of my kids and other people in a variety of settings from candid to portraits to sports (soccer etc). I bet I am going to get the - nope sorry, you are going to have to invest in a boat load of glass for that lol

Scott_Quier

brvheart wrote:

thank you all

I will mostly be shooting landscape/cityscape and photos of my kids and other people in a variety of settings from candid to portraits to sports (soccer etc). I bet I am going to get the - nope sorry, you are going to have to invest in a boat load of glass for that lol

For all but the soccer, I would suggest something in the 17ish - 50ish range. Divamum is loving her Tamron.

I absolutely love my 17-55 f/2.8 IS on my 50D. This lens will perform in like manner on your XTi.

For the soccer, you need a bit more reach:

• For outdoor soccer, my first pick would be the EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM at $1,500
• The The EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM at $640 might be long enough - depends on how close to the action you can get. If you can get on the sidelines, then you're golden. Oh, BTW, for shooting soccer with camera/lens on a tripod, I don't think I would worry too much about getting an IS version of this lens as IS works well for countering camera motion it does nothing for stopping action. I think, for outdoor shooting, the f/4 should be fast enough. If not, the f/2.8 ($1,250) is also available.
• The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 II EX DG APO Macro HSM AF ($800) is said by many to be a stellar and very sharp performer.
• Might be a little slow, but the Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM AF at $1,060 is a sweet lens.

There are, of course, other lenses, but this might give you a start.

bdcolen

brvheart wrote:

Hi Guys -

This is one of the first images with my new to me XTi, I thought that it was a quite moving moment to captured and wanted to share - CC appreciated - please be easy new to the DSLR world and still learning. I prefer the BW, but I love the color one as well. I had trouble not blowing out the white shirt - any suggestions on that would be appreciated.

Nice try - You missed by inches - well, maybe by a foot. If you had moved slightly to your son's right, so that we could at least see a hint of his face/expression, this would be a really nice shot. As it is, it's a nice first try. I like the composition, but it's lacking that connection.

As to your later lens question - I'd urge you to invest in the highest quality, fastest (largest aperture) lens you can afford that will cover the range you'll use most of the time. Given that, I'd say go for something that will give you the 35 mm equivalent of about 28mm to somewhere between 75 and 110 - that way you'll have a good, comfortable wide lens, and a short tele for portrait work.

pathfinder

On full frame camera, the EOS 24-105 f4 IS L is really hard to beat as an all around lens. On a crop body camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS that Scott suggested is excellent, but a bit large and heavy. Out of doors, I usually carry a Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Vr lens on my 50D for snapshooting. About 35mm FF equivalent field of view, but will reachhh out enough when desired to be quite helpful as well. Tamron's 17-55 anf 28-75mm lenses are both highly regarded as well.

We are all spoiled by good zooms today. Good primes are even better. 35mm f2, 50 mm f1.4, 85 f1.8, 135 f2, 200mm f2.8 L are all outstanding lenses from Canon.

I suspect I understand BD's desire for the fastest lens, but I find with modern high ISO capable cameras that f 1.2 lenses or even f2 lenses are often unnecessary and rather specialized tools.

bdcolen

pathfinder wrote:

On full frame camera, the EOS 24-105 f4 IS L is really hard to beat as an all around lens. On a crop body camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS that Scott suggested is excellent, but a bit large and heavy. Out of doors, I usually carry a Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Vr lens on my 50D for snapshooting. About 35mm FF equivalent field of view, but will reachhh out enough when desired to be quite helpful as well. Tamron's 17-55 anf 28-75mm lenses are both highly regarded as well.

We are all spoiled by good zooms today. Good primes are even better. 35mm f2, 50 mm f1.4, 85 f1.8, 135 f2, 200mm f2.8 L are all outstanding lenses from Canon.

I suspect I understand BD's desire for the fastest lens, but I find with modern high ISO capable cameras that f 1.2 lenses or even f2 lenses are often unnecessary and rather specialized tools.

Agreed that they are no longer necessary in terms of shooting in low light. However, the faster the lens, the shallower the depth of field for the given focal length. So I'd still urge trying to get the fastest glass one can. Also, even though high iso performance is dramatically improved, there's still usually some benefit to keeping the iso toward the lower end of the range.

brvheart

pathfinder wrote:

On full frame camera, the EOS 24-105 f4 IS L is really hard to beat as an all around lens. On a crop body camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS that Scott suggested is excellent, but a bit large and heavy. Out of doors, I usually carry a Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Vr lens on my 50D for snapshooting. About 35mm FF equivalent field of view, but will reachhh out enough when desired to be quite helpful as well. Tamron's 17-55 anf 28-75mm lenses are both highly regarded as well.

We are all spoiled by good zooms today. Good primes are even better. 35mm f2, 50 mm f1.4, 85 f1.8, 135 f2, 200mm f2.8 L are all outstanding lenses from Canon.

I suspect I understand BD's desire for the fastest lens, but I find with modern high ISO capable cameras that f 1.2 lenses or even f2 lenses are often unnecessary and rather specialized tools.

I am off to research - that is greek - I dont know what a full frame/crop body is. Darn newbs! lol

adbsgicom

brvheart wrote:

I am off to research - that is greek - I dont know what a full frame/crop body is. Darn newbs! lol

Full frame are like the Canon 5D/5Dmk2 where the sensor is the size of 35mm film. Most of the other Canon bodies have a 1.6x crop, meaning that the sensor is smaller than film, so your lens is effectively 60% longer than it would be on an old film camera (or a 5D). The XTi and 40/50 series are all 1.6x. The 1D has a 1.3x crop if I recall. The optics are all set appropriately so you see what you will get through the finder so you don't really have to worry about this, other than if someone says, look at my great vista with my 12mm lens on my 5D, and you try the same thing, you won't get as wide a shot. On the flip side, if I go out with my 5D and 200mm lens to do nature photos, and you come along with your 200mm lens, you have a 320mm equivalent, so you get a much closer shot than I do. Happy researching....

Scott_Quier

pathfinder wrote:

On full frame camera, the EOS 24-105 f4 IS L is really hard to beat as an all around lens. On a crop body camera, the 17-55 f2.8 IS that Scott suggested is excellent, but a bit large and heavy. Out of doors, I usually carry a Tamron 28-300 f3.5-6.3 Vr lens on my 50D for snapshooting. About 35mm FF equivalent field of view, but will reachhh out enough when desired to be quite helpful as well. Tamron's 17-55 anf 28-75mm lenses bot are highly regarded as well.

PF, if you'll forgive me ... when I saw that above (the part I bolded), it got me to wondering. So I did a quick comparison and thought it might be minimally interesting to some.. (oh, forgive the poor photography, I just did a quicky...):D

On something like either the 5DII or a 50D, which are essentially the same size and weight, these two come in about on par. On the other hand, the 17-55 might be considered a little large and heavy on the smaller and lighter dRebel variants.

Memories by Melinda

I have the XTI and LOVE my 17-55 f2.8 IS. Scott suggested it and I have not regretted the purchase. I use it the majority of the time when shooting my kids as well as for portraits. I did a maternity shoot with just my 85mm f1.8. Weight with the 17-55 has not been an issue at all and I also have a grip on my XTI. I hope this helps.