[remmib]

I've got two Canon lenses with IS, and the IS really makes the pics less blury when you take pics in low lighting, like shutter speed slower then 1/40 or so.

The shutter speed is thill slow, but the IS "absorbs" the little movements.

[mava330]

Originally Posted by ///Matt

SC,

It doesn't seem like that lens does much then. F4-1/250 and F8-1/15
are pretty similar exposures, I'd think. The point of a low-light lens would be, to me, to allow you to take a shorter exposure with the same f#, OR have a higher f# with the same exposure time.

For instance:
a good exposure is taken with f4-1/15. But you have too much camera shake. You either need to hold the camera more still, or speed up the shutter. So you stick on this low-light lens, and take your picture at f4-1/250, which eliminates the camera shake, while not changing the composition of your pic by altering Depth of Field.

Or you could also have an innapropriate depth of field at f4-1/250, but if you raise your f# you'll underexpose, so you change to this other lens and shoot at f8-1/250, getting the same exposure level but the right DOF.

It just seems like an average lens to me if you're raising f-stops AND lowering exposure time.

One of the best benefits of Image Stabilization lenses is the opportunity to still leverage low noise ISO's (200 and lower) and maintain DOF than risk boosting ISO, add noise and produce an image that doesn't have the DOF that the photographer intended.

Remember folks... You can have the most expensive gear and acroymn-enabled everything but if you can't compose shots and shoot the way your artistic eye sees it then you're a rich tool without talent.

I won't bother getting into talks about consistent f stops throughout a whole zoom range and reduced chromatic abberation that the professional lenses are known for. (Although it seems everything can be post processed anyway you want these days. )

In the meanwhile I'll continue to observe and eat my popcorn watching you all e-debate.

[Nikki]

So yeah does anyone want to comment on my photos? lol maybe they just suck more than i think.

[Neil]

There is a program called NEAT Image that is a direct plugin for photoshop as well as a standalone that can process and remove noise very well for non raw files. Typically you use full resolution JPGs in NEAT.

[///Matt]

Originally Posted by longtran

i guess this is why you didnt become a professional photographer???

Anyone ever tell you you're a real nice guy, Long?



Anyway, there was some misunderstanding. I didn't realize that IS was for Image Stabilization. I was under the impression that it was a specialized lens which allowed the most ambient light to enter the optics.

I understand now what you are trying to say, about being able to have SLOWER shutter speeds, because the lens will absorb shake. That's pretty cool.


Matt

[Daytona_John]

Originally Posted by Nikki

So yeah does anyone want to comment on my photos? lol maybe they just suck more than i think.

The photos are darn nice for using the kit lens...which I thought was okay until I got my first piece of L series glass. For the type of shooting you do Nikki, I would think the 17-40L would be indespensible....It's always in my bag, along with my L series f2.8 70-200 IS.

[kingbriani]

Originally Posted by Nikki

So yeah does anyone want to comment on my photos? lol maybe they just suck more than i think.

what display device are you using on your computer? i glanced at this thread at work and didnt see the noise and fuzziness people were talking about but when i got home and looked with my nice lcd display the flaws became much more apparent.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by kingbriani

what display device are you using on your computer? i glanced at this thread at work and didnt see the noise and fuzziness people were talking about but when i got home and looked with my nice lcd display the flaws became much more apparent.

I am using an lcd. I can see some noise.

[Driv3r]

So "noise" is blurriness ?

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by Driv3r

So "noise" is blurriness ?

no, opposte, it's the graininess, when you can see all of the little dots in the photo.

here i found on google lol:




see all the little dots? that is grain aka noise.

[kingbriani]

Originally Posted by Nikki

I am using an lcd. I can see some noise.

ok well it was a thought. on my computer at work iw as like damn, those are really vibrant and sharp and could only see the noise once i got home. They're still very good though, don't become discouraged. Especially for the low light, no-tripod situation.

Driv3r, noise is the graininess you can see in the darker parts of the picture. It's eaisier to see on flat colors. Looks like a tv with static was superimposed on the image.

[longtran]

Originally Posted by ///Matt

Anyone ever tell you you're a real nice guy, Long?



Matt

yes all the time.

[jadeddjay]

Originally Posted by Nikki

So yeah does anyone want to comment on my photos? lol maybe they just suck more than i think.

if you really want comments from photographers and if you are still learning the manual settings i would suggest posting up your camera settings or leaving the settings embedded in the picture so that we can see it when we download the pictures.

i like the candy machine one the best. its well exposed and well framed, everything is balanced and i like the colors

the butterfly shot is a good composition but its not in focus at all to be honest. if you look, you can see that theres a narrow strip of gravel that is in focus. so first, make sure you have your subject in focus either by making sure that the red focus boxes are locked on the subject... even then any slight move and its out of focus again because youre so close to it and the aperture is probably opened all the way wide so the area of focus [depth of field] is really shallow.

besides that, the first close up of the lightbulb thing is nice but shooting through plastic never lends to good looking pictures

everything else is kinda underexposed but i understand you didnt have much light to work with in the first place and you were already using iso800 and 1/20sec exposeure

[Caster]

Nice shots, you'll love the XTi its a great camera, I still can't get over my XT though =]

In a post I skimmed through before you said you didn't shoot in RAW, which you might want to start doing. As well as shooting in RAW try out the programs that came on the CD, specifically, Digital Photo Professional. When you're shooting in RAW it helps you correct somethings that you might not of caught when you were shooting. As well as helps w/ sharpness, contrast, curves, etc and from there you can start to edit in photoshop.

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by jadeddjay

if you really want comments from photographers and if you are still learning the manual settings i would suggest posting up your camera settings or leaving the settings embedded in the picture so that we can see it when we download the pictures.

i like the candy machine one the best. its well exposed and well framed, everything is balanced and i like the colors

the butterfly shot is a good composition but its not in focus at all to be honest. if you look, you can see that theres a narrow strip of gravel that is in focus. so first, make sure you have your subject in focus either by making sure that the red focus boxes are locked on the subject... even then any slight move and its out of focus again because youre so close to it and the aperture is probably opened all the way wide so the area of focus [depth of field] is really shallow.

besides that, the first close up of the lightbulb thing is nice but shooting through plastic never lends to good looking pictures

everything else is kinda underexposed but i understand you didnt have much light to work with in the first place and you were already using iso800 and 1/20sec exposeure

Thank you

Originally Posted by Caster

Nice shots, you'll love the XTi its a great camera, I still can't get over my XT though =]

In a post I skimmed through before you said you didn't shoot in RAW, which you might want to start doing. As well as shooting in RAW try out the programs that came on the CD, specifically, Digital Photo Professional. When you're shooting in RAW it helps you correct somethings that you might not of caught when you were shooting. As well as helps w/ sharpness, contrast, curves, etc and from there you can start to edit in photoshop.

Yes i plan to start shooting in RAW, I am going to get a 2GB card for christmas hopefully.

[///Matt]

I was looking at some camera's today... what does anyone here think of the Canon 20D? I can get a used one fairly cheap...

[dmontic71]

Originally Posted by Nikki

So yeah does anyone want to comment on my photos? lol maybe they just suck more than i think.

Were there photos on this thread?

[Nikki]

Originally Posted by dmontic71

Were there photos on this thread?

[Gripster]

Nice Nikki. Glad you're enjoying the rebel. Keep shooting.

If you want a really good inexpensive low light lens, try the Canon 50mm f1.8. It's under $100, amazing image quality and great in low light. The big aperture also allows for a very narrow depth of field for blurry arty type pics. At this price, it's a bargain. Trust me, you'll love it.

[Nikki]

Do you think this butterfly photo is better or worse? Extreme DOF lol

[jasper]

I think the photos are great. I have the Rebel 300d and seeing those makes me want the xti. I've played with raw a bit. The files become giant. I've seen your previous photos and those are great too. Keep it up :-)

[jadeddjay]

Originally Posted by Nikki

Do you think this butterfly photo is better or worse? Extreme DOF lol

better... i think part of its wing is sorta in focus lol its alittle too overdigitized looking... too much post processing? maybe it just looks like that. just a guess

these are difficult... with insects you want to get their head and eyes in focus as much as possible but theres no set rule i suppose... just makes sense to me.

the closer you are to something when you are focusing the less dof you have with everything else being the same. so you do want to stop down to a smaller aperture to increase dof.

i think this subject is really difficult to understand... everyone always argues about it and the calculations for it are complected.

i am not saying that these are perfect but while we are on the subject, perhaps i may share some of my crappy amature stuff






^^i wish i coulda had this better... maybe f/11 or something. owell. insects are really hard to photograph