# Canon 7D



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

I've ordered a canon 7D, should arrive in a week. I picked up a Sigma 10-20mm lens and the camera comes with a 28-135mm lens. I also have a non IS 17-55 from my Rebel and I have a prime 50mm 1.8.

Also bought a speedlite 430ex as it can be controlled remotely by the 7D.

Can't wait for it to be here!


----------



## incognito (Dec 5, 2007)

congrats... im jealous

im still rockin my 30D and one of these days, i will upgrade to a 7D or something


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

My current camera is a Rebel, from 2004 ;-) I've not used it for a while it lacks so many features compared to the current ones. I really look forward to the new one. I've ordered all the stuff from a ton of shops.

* Camera from Ebay - Authorized Dealer though (you get a nice receipt for service though) [Canon 7D]
* New tripod from Adorama, $150 one, should have probably bought a carbon fiber one, but I guess I can see this if I find it too heavy. [Vanguard Alta 265AB]
* Camera Flash from Amazon Fresh (came this morning with my shopping ;-) ) [Speedlite 430ex]
* Nice new wide angle lens from B & H [Sigma 10-20mm]
* A 16gb fast compact flash card from New Egg [Transcend TS16GCF400]

Phew... a lot of stuff and I have no idea how long it will take to arrive, lol. Well I have the flash. got to learn how to use it though, never used a separate flash before.

Super excited!


----------



## coaspak (Feb 4, 2010)

Lucky b******

I want a 7D too....still working with a 40D

You will enjoy the Sigma 10-20 - I have the same lens and it opens up a whole range of possibilities such as these.....


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

Awesome pictures. I can't wait for it all. I live up in the Pacific Northwest and there are some amazing locations, lots of mountains here. I moved here just over a year ago and not gone out anywhere around as I didn't want to do it without a camera. So looking forward to the great.

Did you go up that building in Dubai?


----------



## coaspak (Feb 4, 2010)

Ravage said:


> Did you go up that building in Dubai?


Tks....no, haven't been to the top of Burj Khalifa yet.....it opened briefly to the public and then closed down indefinitely after there was a problem with the elevators to the observatory. Not sure when it will open next but will be waiting to get in line when it does open.


----------



## alexjems41 (Mar 17, 2010)

I've shot film and digital EOS series cameras for quite a while. The 7D is a huge step up from my 30D. Here's what I like after a long weekend: 

The 100% 1x viewfinder is a nice change, once I stopped compensating as I did with my 30D. Also, the overlay screens, like the grid, is helpful in keeping the horizons and verticals aligned without being obtrusive. 

Although there's been a few rumbles about the on/off switch being moved to the top left, once you get used to it, it is easier to use - I like it. The lock for the quick control wheel is in approximately the same place. 

The 3" LCD screen is big, bright and beautiful. There's a big difference, even in brightness. Less glare, too - noticeably less. The 7D has a level function which lets you judge if your camera is leaning to one side or tilting forward or back. Anyone who's peered over a bubble mounted on a hot shoe will appreciate this luxury. And the LCD is bright enough to make this feature useful in daylight. 

Another nice feature is that the menu structure is changed. There are more tabs, but all the menu items available on that tab are visible at once. No more scrolling off the screen to get to "format" or other functions. 

The 7D lets you shoot 3 different sized RAWs in addition to the usual slew of JPEG sizes. I like shooting the highest quality RAW + highest quality JPEG (so you get two files for each picture). These files sizes are HUGE! I found JPEGs to range from 4.73M to 11.1M and CR2 files range from 20.7M to 30.4M. My 8G Sandisk Extreme IV held 237 shots (474 files). 

Rather than give you my subjective opinion on picture quality (I am totally satisfied with the quality of the photos), I point you to the best technical reviews of cameras that I know of - dpreview. (Google it and you'll easily find it, I can't post the entire URL). As of now they just have a preview of the 7D. I'll post a few shots from Vermont w/ exposure info.


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

That's awesome. I heard a few people had problems with focus, but from what I understand it is because the focus system has changed so much it is difficult to learn. Either way I'm full amateur, so if I mess up at the beginning then I can always go back out and try again ;-)

I look forward to it. I was hoping it would arrive on friday, but it turns out it's Monday, this is going to be a long weekend. Not to mention I have a new Tag Heuer watch arriving next week also (I hope)!


----------



## Island_Watcher (Jan 18, 2010)

I have almost exactly the same set up!


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

coaspak said:


> Lucky b******
> 
> I want a 7D too....still working with a 40D
> 
> You will enjoy the Sigma 10-20 - I have the same lens and it opens up a whole range of possibilities such as these.....


Breathtaking shots. :-!


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

So how do you like the 7D so far? I took a look at it yesterday, too, and it's amazing. Really like the weight and feel of it.

How does it compare to other in the same class. Say, the Canon 50D or the Nikon D90?

:thanks


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

BenL said:


> So how do you like the 7D so far? I took a look at it yesterday, too, and it's amazing. Really like the weight and feel of it.
> 
> How does it compare to other in the same class. Say, the Canon 50D or the Nikon D90?
> 
> :thanks


I love it, but need to get out with it. I took a few pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevierg/sets/72157623580879593/

The weight is a lot heavier than my old Digital Rebel, but the weight is way worth the difference. I love how much control I have over everything.

Some concepts are new to me, such as the different type of metering modes and the billion custom functions.

Auto focus takes a while to understand also. I think once I get out more it should be ok.

In regards to the 50D and D90, I'm not too sure. A friend who has the D90 says my camera feels more advance and compared to the 50D it's a step up. I know I couldn't be happier. :-!


----------



## Island_Watcher (Jan 18, 2010)

One reason why I bought the 7D instead of the 50D was the new 19-point (all cross-type, BTW) autofocus. I found with my XTi the 9-point system was always hunting around for the right focal point. Since the 50D shares the same system, I thought I'd have the same problem. I also wanted the 8.0 fps to shoot sports. That's a step up from the 6.3 fps of the 50D. Finally, I live in Hawaii and shoot a lot on the beach, so I wanted the weather sealing. It's a step above the 50D, but not quite as good as the 5D MKII from what I read.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> I love it, but need to get out with it. I took a few pictures here http://www.flickr.com/photos/stevierg/sets/72157623580879593/
> 
> The weight is a lot heavier than my old Digital Rebel, but the weight is way worth the difference. I love how much control I have over everything.
> 
> ...





Island_Watcher said:


> One reason why I bought the 7D instead of the 50D was the new 19-point (all cross-type, BTW) autofocus. I found with my XTi the 9-point system was always hunting around for the right focal point. Since the 50D shares the same system, I thought I'd have the same problem. I also wanted the 8.0 fps to shoot sports. That's a step up from the 6.3 fps of the 50D. Finally, I live in Hawaii and shoot a lot on the beach, so I wanted the weather sealing. It's a step above the 50D, but not quite as good as the 5D MKII from what I read.


:thanks for the comments, guys. I've been really struggling to find which is the "right" DSLR for me. I've been reading up a lot, and I've seemed to narrow it down to maybe 3-4 models now (Canon 50D, 7D, Nikon D90, or maybe the D300).

From what I've read the auto focus, like you guys mentioned, can act up on you. I'm not really sure what that means yet, but maybe you guys can elaborate?

The Canon 7D, of this bunch, is definitely the most high-end model. The Canon 50D is also arguably superior to the Nikon D90. However, given the lower price-point of the D90, it really gives the 50D a run for the money.

On the other hand, the Canon 50D and the Nikon D300 are probably the closest competitors in the same class. Is that about accurate?

There is also a small chance I'd just go with an entry level 550D/D5000 or something. But my main concern would be that I'd outgrow it within 6 months.

Has anyone been in the same boat as me before? Thoughts/opinions? :thanks


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

It's not that there are focus issues, it's that there are so many options it's tricky to choose the right one. I think I'm going to put it into single point mode which is what I used to use in the Rebel, the great thing is in the 7D is that there are 19 points unlike the 9 in the other Canon's of a lower caliber.

You won't outgrow the 550D either. I had the Canon 300D and it's still a good camera, there are features that I missed, but 90% of them are on the 550D now.

I think you have two things to look at, Canon vs Nikon and Entry vs Semi Pro.

For my, Canon was an easy choice, I grew up on them, my father had them and when the 300D came out, it was the best option at the time. Now I considered moving to Nikon and even sold one of my expensive lenses, but then canon came out with the 7D and when the 550D came out I decided to pick up a new Canon. I feel like the video options give me some more choices while Nikon is awful with the video in any of the current range.

If you are new to DSLR then you won't have any lenses so choosing between Nikon and Canon is harder. If you want some video options then I say Canon gives it the edge, otherwise you need to try out the cameras and get a feel for the brands before you choose.

Now between entry level and semi pro. Well I was going to buy the 550D, I was so sure of it. I loved the specs, it has everything I needed, the price was perfect, but when I tried it in a shop I just did not like the feel of the camera in my hand. Compared to the 7D, the 550D is a lot smaller, but the 7D has better features like a stronger body & weather sealing. Though to make use of the weather sealing you need expensive lenses.

Something else to consider between the models is that the 7D with an cheap lens will not take crisper pictures than a 550D with an expensive lens. The most important part of the camera is the lens an the money you can save going to the 550D will allow you to buy an L lens. I have three L lenses on my list; $1500, $1100, $900. That is a lot of cash and I won't be able to buy the first one until next year.

Also you need good equipment such as a tripod. Now your 50 quid chain store tripod is no good, you need a really good one. Do some research. The one I have is $150 and I think it may have been a mistake. For a good tripod head and legs it can cost around $700 and that will be more useful to own than the 7D over the 550D.

Ultimately it comes down to cash. If you can afford the good lenses and good tripod and still have money left over then get the 7D, otherwise get the 550D. Remember now, you don't have to go all out and get everything at once. A 550D with the kit lens is pretty sweet.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> It's not that there are focus issues, it's that there are so many options it's tricky to choose the right one. I think I'm going to put it into single point mode which is what I used to use in the Rebel, the great thing is in the 7D is that there are 19 points unlike the 9 in the other Canon's of a lower caliber.
> 
> You won't outgrow the 550D either. I had the Canon 300D and it's still a good camera, there are features that I missed, but 90% of them are on the 550D now.
> 
> ...


Thank you for these well thought-out suggestions. I think I am going to mainly target the mid-range (or prosumer) category. And you are right: having no lenses previously from either brand makes it very tough to choose between Canon or Nikon.

I've heard some salespeople say that Canon is better for portraits or if you take lots of pictures of people. It's also good for action pictures (like racecars or sports). Nikon, on the other hand, is a little better for scenery or landscape photos. True or not?

I was also reading some reviews that led me to believe that Nikon was actually not bad for videos, especially with the D90. Is that not true?

I know this is awfully subjective, but of the models I'm considering it seems they could be compared this way (in terms of capability): Canon 550D < Nikon D90 < Canon 50D < Nikon D300 < Canon 7D. Sound about right?

I don't think I'd really consider anything above the 7D (yet). The trick is finding the best one for me in this range. :think:


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

In regards to videos on the D90, I hear there is lots of issues with fast movement and there are not so many features such as 24fps at 1080p for instance. Also in fairness to both cameras, while the video is outstanding, it requires some good technical photography ability to get the most out of either camera. It's not like a camcorder. Also Canon have a lot more experience with video outside SLR cameras than Nikon does.

It doesn't really make a difference what your subject matter is, there will be little difference between the camera's. The difference comes from the Photography using the camera and the lens on the camera.

The way you compare them is interesting, but not necessarily correct. In terms of features this might be correct, but I don't know a huge amount about the Nikon's. One thing I can say is that the 550D has less features than the 50D, but has a better sensor and some other better features. If you were choosing between the canon's there, you should compare the 550D to the 7D and forget about the 50D I would think. That's not to say the 50D is not a good camera. You might also pickup a good 50D second hand since a lot of users have upgraded to the 7D.

As for the Nikon's, I read one guy who bought a 7D after selling his Nikon D300. He looked at the new D300s which has some video features compared to the D300 and he thought it was old and clunky feeling compared to the 7D.

This is the way I would play it. Figure out what sort of photography you want to take. Decided on the lenses you need. Cost them up, maybe 1 or 2 lenses of good quality. Then see how much cash you have left. 2 good lenses on the 550D will be better than the stock lens on the 7D.

If you can afford a good lens and the 7D then maybe that is the way to go. Have a look at something like the 24-105mm f/4L IS and the 70- 200mm f/4L IS.
Alternative to the 24-105 you could get the 24-70mm f/2.8L USM which has a bigger aperture but no IS.

If you are taking pictures of your watches in close detail a 60mm macro lens from canon would be great.

If you want some big landscape photos you can either stitch them together or use something like the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, or get what I just purchased the Sigma 10-20mm lens; which I have to try out still outside 

Choosing those lenses would make more of a difference than the 550D and the 7D.

Of course there is nothing wrong with the 550D and it's kit lens either. It really is in the skill of the photographer. I'm thinking of attending classes to learn new concepts, but good photography is a lot harder than good equipment.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> In regards to videos on the D90, I hear there is lots of issues with fast movement and there are not so many features such as 24fps at 1080p for instance. Also in fairness to both cameras, while the video is outstanding, it requires some good technical photography ability to get the most out of either camera. It's not like a camcorder. Also Canon have a lot more experience with video outside SLR cameras than Nikon does.
> 
> It doesn't really make a difference what your subject matter is, there will be little difference between the camera's. The difference comes from the Photography using the camera and the lens on the camera.
> 
> ...


I agree with pretty much everything you said, especially that last part!

On the Canons, I just thought that the 550D was a natural progression from the 500D. While the 550D might have new features, my understanding was that the 50D platform ranked higher in the Canon hierarchy - is that true?

I haven't really figured out what I'll be taking pictures of mostly. But you can be sure that watches will be part of it! Haven't thought too much about lenses yet, either. Actually I was thinking about just going with the standard kit lens for a while first and seeing where it goes from there.

While I'm a big fan of Canons, I also get the feeling that Nikons tend to give you more for the same money. I really don't know DSLRs that much yet, and I may be just comparing price and specs.


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

How's Canon better for people photography than Nikon? or vice versa? I've not heard that before.

Here's my take on it...

Which camera? Depending on the purpose, your skills and your budget.

If your skills are not on a certain level, makes no difference. You will end up with mediocre images with either of the cameras you listed. What is even less important in this case is the brand of the camera. 

If you have skills but are not going to use the camera in severe weather conditions, won't be shooting sports where you will need 8 frames per second, then there is very little reason to get 7D over 550D, in my opinion, other than for the fact that it is of course a better built body(but also much bigger and heavier) with weather sealing and more features than you will need and use. Trust me, I would love a 7D, but I personally don't think my skills would allow me to produce any better images than I do now with my 500D/T1i.

Ravage makes an excellent point in his last reply about lenses. I agree 100%. You slap some good L glass on a 500D or 550D and it will blow away 7D with a lesser lens. That is true. 

In the hands of a skilled photographer, and I'm talking not only skills to photograph but in image post-processing as well which is sometimes not any less important, even a half decent point and shoot will result in him/her producing excellent images.

I know I'm still learning and I have not outgrown my T1i yet. I'm having a blast learning with it though, it's lots of fun. The camera produces outstanding image quality.

Read books on photography. There is a series of books on digital photography and post processing by Scott Kelby, who writes very good and his books are straight to the point, easy to understand and contain tons of explanations and recommendations. 

Learn photoshop. Shoot in RAW, use Canon's DPP, or the software that came with your brand camera, to play with raw files, convert them to TIFF, JPEG, play around with the images in photoshop and see what you can do. Go out and take some pictures, try different settings, come back and process your images in Photoshop. Understand your camera. It's all about fun. 

Alright now. the rant is over...


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

BenL said:


> On the Canons, I just thought that the 550D was a natural progression from the 500D. While the 550D might have new features, my understanding was that the 50D platform ranked higher in the Canon hierarchy - is that true?


So the Canon models go like this:

xxxD
xxD
xD

The less numbers the better. Then there are categories within.

So for the xxxD models, the 300D was the first and the latest is the 550D. The 550D is a replacement for the 500D.

With the xxD, it's the same, the 20D replaced the 10D and the 50D replaced the 40D which replaced the 30 and the 20.

xD makes a change though, you have the 1D then the 5D then the 7D. The 1D being the best, but you have the Mark 1, 2, 3 & 4 of the 1D, each one replacing the previous version. For instance the 5D Mark II is probably better than the 1D Mark II.

The 7D also makes a change as the 1D and 5D are full frame sensors, while the 7D is a cropped 1.6 frame sensor.

If I was you, I would buy the 550D with Kit Lens and pick up the 70-200mm F4 lens. Get the IS version of the 70-200 if you could afford it. This gives you 18mm to 200mm coverage which will suit a lot of shooting.
If you are wanting to shoot stuff up close, you will need a macro lens and the EFs 60mm lens from canon is a good one for the 550D and 7D.

An alternative to audphile1's comment about Photoshop is to get Adobe Lightroom which probably processes pictures a little better than Photoshop, but you can't do edits like removing a tree from the picture. Lightroom is also about $250 while Photoshop is $600 or so.

My personal choice is Canon, I know them well and they have let me down yet. I have friends with Nikon and I'm not jealous of them, they don't have anything I don't have. Also Nikon owners like to tell Canon owners that they are Nikon owners, while Canon owners just get on with life. I don't know some different mentality with them ;-)

Either way you will be happy with what you buy, you would have to go out your way to make any mistakes.

Oh one last thing, if you get a camera, buy a big flash, for a Canon get a Speedlite 430ex II, I wish I picked up one years ago. The 7D can remote trigger the flash, or you could buy a remote trigger for the 550D at little extra.


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Lightroom 3 Beta is available for download now. You can use it for free until June 30th 2010. I'm planning to check it out this weekend. I've never used Lightroom, but heard good things about it.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/?trackingid=FDKYW


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

Yeah, I've been using it for all my photo's since I picked up my 7D. It's really nice. I upgrade to Photoshop CS 4 from CS for $200, but I've not touched it, lol. I do some web design, so the upgrade is nice for that. Lightroom is next on my list of software to get. Going to buy Lightroom 3 when it's released, but the beta so far is awesome.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

audphile1 said:


> How's Canon better for people photography than Nikon? or vice versa? I've not heard that before.
> 
> Here's my take on it...
> 
> ...


Some pretty good advice in here. :thanks


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> So the Canon models go like this:
> 
> xxxD
> xxD
> ...


This is what I thought, too. Thanks for confirming. It's too bad Nikon's nomenclature is a bit confusing. At first I thought it was like this:

Dxxxx
Dxxx
Dxx
Dx

Especially since the D3000 or D5000 are considered their entry level and the D3 is the flagship. But then, it turns out that the D300 is a higher-end camera than the D90. Very confusing. o|


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> If I was you, I would buy the 550D with Kit Lens and pick up the 70-200mm F4 lens. Get the IS version of the 70-200 if you could afford it. This gives you 18mm to 200mm coverage which will suit a lot of shooting.
> If you are wanting to shoot stuff up close, you will need a macro lens and the EFs 60mm lens from canon is a good one for the 550D and 7D.


I will definitely consider this. But why the 550D choice over the, say, 50D?



Ravage said:


> An alternative to audphile1's comment about Photoshop is to get Adobe Lightroom which probably processes pictures a little better than Photoshop, but you can't do edits like removing a tree from the picture. Lightroom is also about $250 while Photoshop is $600 or so.


"Better" exactly how? Like in terms of ease of use? Because I'm really struggling with Photoshop, and I've been trying to read the books, too. :roll:



Ravage said:


> My personal choice is Canon, I know them well and they have let me down yet. I have friends with Nikon and I'm not jealous of them, they don't have anything I don't have. Also Nikon owners like to tell Canon owners that they are Nikon owners, while Canon owners just get on with life. I don't know some different mentality with them ;-)
> 
> Either way you will be happy with what you buy, you would have to go out your way to make any mistakes.
> 
> Oh one last thing, if you get a camera, buy a big flash, for a Canon get a Speedlite 430ex II, I wish I picked up one years ago. The 7D can remote trigger the flash, or you could buy a remote trigger for the 550D at little extra.


I think in general Canon has better user interface. Or maybe that is just because I'm used to them on the P+S models.


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

BenL said:


> I will definitely consider this. But why the 550D choice over the, say, 50D?


That's a good question and one which is hard to answer. So the 7D is sort of a replacement for the 50D, though nobody knows if a new xxD is coming out. the 550D is a lower model range. The 50D is a good camera, but the 550D has better video and a larger sensor. It probably has better ISO range and less noise.

A 50D would be a good choice, but personally I'd toss it up between the 550D and the 7D.



BenL said:


> "Better" exactly how? Like in terms of ease of use? Because I'm really struggling with Photoshop, and I've been trying to read the books, too. :roll:


Lightroom is designed to just "develop" photo's. It's like a digital darkroom. It has great control of importing pictures and fast control of modifying raw images. Even though I bought photoshop, I'm going to buy lightroom to do all my post editing in first. Try it out and I am sure you will be impressed!



BenL said:


> I think in general Canon has better user interface. Or maybe that is just because I'm used to them on the P+S models.


Canon interface is good and if you have experience of other canons then this will help. Mind you I have to Canon 300D and the 7D and using the 7D is like learning photography all over again, such a difference between them. The 550D and the 7D however are very similar.

Head down to a camera store and try them all out. Set a budget and then choose what you want in that range. The 7D might be a bit of a heavy weight to start with, but it is a great camera. You will not be annoyed if you get the 550D either. Remember, the lens and the photographer have greater impact than the camera body.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> That's a good question and one which is hard to answer. So the 7D is sort of a replacement for the 50D, though nobody knows if a new xxD is coming out. the 550D is a lower model range. The 50D is a good camera, but the 550D has better video and a larger sensor. It probably has better ISO range and less noise.
> 
> A 50D would be a good choice, but personally I'd toss it up between the 550D and the 7D.
> 
> ...


The price-point on the 550D (even though more than the 500D) is also much better than on the 7D!

Thanks a lot for all your input, Ravage. You've been a big help. Now if I can get someone to say more on the Nikons...:think:


----------



## danielb (Aug 29, 2008)

Interesting, worth reading topic guys:-!


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Ravage, I'm curious...have you installed and tried Canon Digital Photo Professional?

The reason I'm asking is that I've been playing around with Lightroom 3 Beta and while I like it, I don't find it all that great for $200. Canon's DPP makes pretty much the same RAW adjustments you can make in Lightroom. I doubt this soft is worth $200. At least for me it doesn't. I mostly shoot RAW. Yeah, LR has some cool tools, but I prefer PS for all the final adjustments, so LR is more of a RAW adjustment tool for my workflow. And I can perform all these adjustments in Canon's DPP software, which is included when you buy a Canon DSLR. 

I use Photoshop CS3 and what I appreciated right away in LR3 is the Neutral Density filter. That is just awesome! I know it's available in CS4 but is missing in my CS3. I would love that feature. Even though CS3 has Gradient Layer adjustment, it isn't as cool as LR3 Neutral Density adjustment. But that alone still does not warrant the LR purchase for me. I guess I'll keep using the free Canon DPP to edit RAW images, then convert to TIFF or JPEG and finish them off in CS3.

So have you tried DPP?


----------



## Ravage (Feb 7, 2010)

audphile1 said:


> Ravage, I'm curious...have you installed and tried Canon Digital Photo Professional?


To be honest, no. Well not entirely true, I used the version that came with my 300D (Drebel), but that was awful compared to Photoshop CS.

I use photoshop for other things, so upgrading to CS 4 was fine. Plus I heard that you can't upgrade from CS to CS 5 once it's out.

I like the workflow in Lightroom and I have a Mac laptop and a Windows desktop. The windows machine is my work horse, but Photoshop is not cross compatible with the two machines. Adobe Lightroom does however work on both machines, so this is a benefit.

I'll give the Canon software a go this weekend and I'll report back.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

Ravage said:


> To be honest, no. Well not entirely true, I used the version that came with my 300D (Drebel), but that was awful compared to Photoshop CS.
> 
> I use photoshop for other things, so upgrading to CS 4 was fine. Plus I heard that you can't upgrade from CS to CS 5 once it's out.
> 
> ...


I actually tried using Lightroom on a friend's computer yesterday. Keep in mind that I know pretty much close to nothing about PS and LR. But it seemed to me that the LR software was pretty limited in what it can do. I couldn't even select which area of the image I wanted to edit.

But perhaps that is not what LR is designed to do? :think:


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

Ravage said:


> To be honest, no. Well not entirely true, I used the version that came with my 300D (Drebel), but that was awful compared to Photoshop CS.
> 
> I use photoshop for other things, so upgrading to CS 4 was fine. Plus I heard that you can't upgrade from CS to CS 5 once it's out.
> 
> ...


By the way, have you tried Adobe Camera Raw plug in for the CS4? 
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html

I'm out of luck with that because I use CS3 and the plug-in for CS3 doesn't support my camera. Of course the CS4 plug-in can't talk to CS3. Figures...

For CS4 though, 7D is supported.

Try the new DPP that came with your 7D. There may be a possibility that if you establish the image workflow between DPP and CS4, you will not need Lightroom 3.

Let us know what you think about new version of DPP. I personally think it's very good, simple to use and allows pretty much all RAW adjustments you need prior to working with an image in Photoshop.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

I've been fooling around with my buddy's software some more (before I decide what to get myself).

Can you guys tell me what is the difference between Lightroom and Bridge?

What is the purpose of having these "photo importing" programs anyway? :think:


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

BenL said:


> I've been fooling around with my buddy's software some more (before I decide what to get myself).
> 
> Can you guys tell me what is the difference between Lightroom and Bridge?
> 
> What is the purpose of having these "photo importing" programs anyway? :think:


Not sure what Bridge is for. I have it but do not use it. I think it's more for organizing...not sure. When you pull up an image in Bridge and double-click on it, it brings it up in Photoshop. I haven't spent much time in Bridge because Photoshop is pretty much all I need.

As I see it, the purpose of Lightroom is RAW conversion with light image editing, preset special effects and then importing the ready/converted images to the folder from which you will continue working in Photoshop.
But again, this is just my understanding.

On the other hand, Canon's DPP is free, allows plenty of RAW adjustments and it's pretty much all that's needed BEFORE you start editing images further in Photoshop, or whatever your editing pgm is.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

audphile1 said:


> Not sure what Bridge is for. I have it but do not use it. I think it's more for organizing...not sure. When you pull up an image in Bridge and double-click on it, it brings it up in Photoshop. I haven't spent much time in Bridge because Photoshop is pretty much all I need.
> 
> As I see it, the purpose of Lightroom is RAW conversion with light image editing, preset special effects and then importing the ready/converted images to the folder from which you will continue working in Photoshop.
> But again, this is just my understanding.
> ...


So is it safe to assume that I won't really "need" Lr or Br if I don't really shoot in RAW mode? What are the advantages of shooting in RAW anyway?


----------



## JohnF (Feb 11, 2006)

Hi -

I'm coming from a completely different viewpoint: buy the lenses, not the camera!

Seriously: the more advanced you become as a photographer, the more you think and plot before taking a picture, the more you will use manual and aperature-controlled exposures. The whole programmed set is for the folks who spray-and-pray or can't be bothered to think photographically.

With this mindset, the least expensive body is fine: when you upgrade your bodies, you get more robust shutters, moisture/dust/weatherproofing, better resolution of the sensor, new processors, etc. But think how rapidly the bodies become obsolescent! After 2-3 years there's something out there that does it faster, etc.

Hence: buy the lenses you want, the quality you want, and start out with the least expensive body out there.

Me, I use the two of the three companies with the best possible optics out there: Leica and Olympus. I use the 4/3 system with Olympus digital Zuiko lenses, as well as legacy Nikon, Olympus and Leica lenses via adapters.

Take a long look at the lenses you want to use and decide based on that. Everything else is marketing.

Seriously.

JohnF


----------



## audphile1 (Feb 24, 2009)

BenL said:


> So is it safe to assume that I won't really "need" Lr or Br if I don't really shoot in RAW mode? What are the advantages of shooting in RAW anyway?


I'm pretty sure you don't need Bridge and I'm even thinking there really is no need for LR if you will install Canon's DPP or Nikon's raw converter.

You will need Photoshop though, to finish the images off.

You don't have to shoot in RAW, but RAW has few advantages over JPEG.

Even the latest DSLRs can't do White Balance correctly at times. This is common and isn't really an attribute of any particular camera brand or model. They all to some degree screw the WB up.
When you shoot in RAW(Canon for example), you have the ability to correct White Balance in DPP. If you shoot JPEG, you CAN correct WB in Photoshop, but it is a bit more complicated and isn't as precise because you don't get to dial in the color temp you want.

Basically all you have to do right when you shoot in RAW is the image composition and focus. Even exposure can be only pretty close to correct if something went wrong. All these things can be adjusted in DPP if you shoot RAW. WB temperature control, WB presets(Cloudy, Daylight, Shade, etc), Picture Styles, everything you can adjust in your camera when you take a shot, you can adjust later on in DPP if you shot it in RAW.

Let's say you shoot in Monochrome. If you shot that in JPEG, this is all you will have. If you shot in RAW, you go to DPP and you have both versions, color and B&W. It's like taking a picture over again. Unless of course it is badly screwed up to begin with. Then you are out of luck.

Once you think you corrected the WB, Exposure and whatever else you were playing around with in DPP, you can convert the images to JPEG at various resolutions, or to TIFF at 8 or 16 bit rate, or do TIFF and JPEG at the same time. After this you can either delete the RAW or keep it until you decide to get rid of it.

The only thing I do in DPP is WB and Exposure. I shoot RAW in Neutral Picture Mode so I get bland colors and soft images. I can change a preset in DPP and have the image a bit more vibrant prior to converting it to JPEG, but I usually don't do that. I also do not adjust Curves, Contrast, Sharpness, Saturation, etc in DPP. I do that all in Photoshop as it's better handled there.

Now, if you get Photoshop CS5 when it comes out on April 12, you will be able to use the new Adobe Camera Raw plug-in, which I am sure will support 550D. In this case, you will most likely not even need DPP.

Once you get your DSLR, you will figure it all out I'm sure.


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

JohnF said:


> Hi -
> 
> I'm coming from a completely different viewpoint: buy the lenses, not the camera!
> 
> ...


This is a completely new way of looking at it, John. Thanks for the suggestion.

As a newbie to DSLRs then, what exactly should I be looking for in lenses?


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

audphile1 said:


> I'm pretty sure you don't need Bridge and I'm even thinking there really is no need for LR if you will install Canon's DPP or Nikon's raw converter.
> 
> You will need Photoshop though, to finish the images off.
> 
> ...


Very good information. Thank you, audphile. So is it safe to think of a RAW image as sort of a digital negative? And processing it is sort of like "developing" the negative?

I didn't know CS5 was coming out in a few days' time. Perhaps I should continue to play with my buddy's CS4 and wait to buy CS5.


----------



## narcosynthesis (Dec 28, 2009)

BenL said:


> This is a completely new way of looking at it, John. Thanks for the suggestion.
> 
> As a newbie to DSLRs then, what exactly should I be looking for in lenses?


I am going to be awkward here and just say go for the basic kit lens.

Despite that, I agree fully with Ben's post, and have much more money invested in glass than my camera body (my 10-22mm for example cost more than my 400d kit did as a whole, then you can add in other lenses and flashguns and so on...) and while my 400d is presumably now considered well out of date, it still takes fantastic pictures and serves me well. The difference in quality between using the kit lens and a 10-22mm however is much more apparent than I would get using a 550d over my 400d.

To clarify my statement though, getting your head around digital SLR's is a pretty big task, so instead of jumping in the deep end and getting lost just stick to the easy approach for the moment. Something like a 550d and 18-55IS kit lens is a more than capable system and will take fantastic pictures when you know how to use it.
When you have gotten to grips with how the camera works, you will then be in a much better place to figure out what lenses make sense for you as a photographer (and fit your budget) - do you just want a better quality version of the kit lens, different focal lengths (telephoto or wide angle) or would you prefer to look into fast aperture prime lenses or many of the other more speciality lenses.
I know that the two lenses I commonly use (10-22mm and 60mm macro) probably wouldn't be the most useful for a lot of other photographers, yet they suit what I want to do perfectly, which I have figured out through working with the kit lens and finding its limitations and what I need most.


----------



## narcosynthesis (Dec 28, 2009)

On the software side of things, for any Mac users I would definitely recommend Apples Aperture software - not as in depth and powerful as something like Photoshop, but gives you a good range of basic editing power (raw conversion, contrast, density, white balance and so on) and is a nice management program for keeping everything organised and easy to use.

If you are intending getting into the more in depth work involving layers and lots of fine tuning, then things like photoshop will give you more power, but for the basic stuff Aperture is excellent.


----------



## JohnF (Feb 11, 2006)

Hi -

The simple answer: it depends.

What sort of photography do you do? That's what's going to drive your decision. I don't know your level of expertise, your interests, etc, so I can't give you an answer.

You're the person who will have to decide what you want. 

Seriously: the thing you should be looking for in lenses is quality. The quality of the image. Everything else is secondary: all the technical aspects are all very nice and fine, but the lens with the best quality will always win hands-down. Or, inversely, the finest photographer around can't produce really outstanding work with poor kit, but the very best kit doesn't guarantee really outstanding work either.

If you're someone who just doesn't want to deal with multiple lenses, etc., then what nacrosynthesis recommends might indeed be a good starting point: the "standard" kit lens is a good starting point. You may want to check the usual test web sites and take a critical look at how the standard kit lenses perform in terms of sharpness, contrast and what is called MTF (which is a standardized methodology for testing lenses), especially in terms of distortion and color aberrations.

A really good lens has to provide it all: great sharpness and contrast, low distortion, minimal color aberration. This can be done by pretty much all manufacturers for their professional-level equipment, but at a substantial price. I don't know Canon or Nikon current offerings, but I can give you an example from Olympus.

The kit 14-45mm lens is also available as a super-high-grade lens for about 6 times the price (!). The difference between the two is that the SHG lens is a full stop brighter, autofocuses much faster on the upper-level bodies (E3, E30), and is a more consistent performer over the entire range of focal length. The kit lens is an excellent performer, but is relatively slow, has a plastic mount (only relevant if you change lenses a lot...) and is a better wide-angle performer than telephoto. 

To a certain degree, you always get what you pay for. If you need consistent, top performance, you'll have to go with the expensive glass. But you may well find that you are perfectly happy with the kit lens, since the improvements are, more often than not, incremental and minor.

Hence: think about what you want from your kit, what you need it to do. If you do sports, then you're gonna be unhappy with a 300 f5.6 lens when you really need that 300 f2.8. If you do portraits, you'll be unhappy with a wide-angle to short-tele zoom that has a maximum aperature at the long end of 5.6 or worse, since you'll not get any decently small area of sharpness to separate the person from the background, and you'd be happy with a short tele dedicated for that purpose. If you want a general-purpose lens, from wide angle to decent tele, then you'll either have to compromise with one of the classic 28-200 or even 28-300 zooms, which usually have decent performance shut down an f-stop or two, but will drive you crazy otherwise wide-open with relatively soft performance and, especially at the wide-angle side, some obvious color aberration.

If you can throw money at the problem, sometimes it helps. But there are always compromises due to the laws of physics, especially glass physics.

narcosynthesis said it right, though: you might want to start with the bog-standard kit lens...it's a good starting point, and it does take time and experience to understand what you need.

JohnF


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

JohnF said:


> Hi -
> 
> The simple answer: it depends.
> 
> ...


Wow, I had to read your post 2-3 times just to digest it all. Great suggestions in here, JohnF. I really appreciate your input. :thanks


----------



## BenL (Oct 1, 2008)

narcosynthesis said:


> On the software side of things, for any Mac users I would definitely recommend Apples Aperture software - not as in depth and powerful as something like Photoshop, but gives you a good range of basic editing power (raw conversion, contrast, density, white balance and so on) and is a nice management program for keeping everything organised and easy to use.
> 
> If you are intending getting into the more in depth work involving layers and lots of fine tuning, then things like photoshop will give you more power, but for the basic stuff Aperture is excellent.


Is there something on the PC that is the Aperture equivalent for the "basic stuff"?


----------



## hydrocarbon (Aug 18, 2008)

BenL said:


> Is there something on the PC that is the Aperture equivalent for the "basic stuff"?


For most people, Picasa from Google works as well as or better than more complicated programs. Plus it's free so you have nothing to lose by trying. And the image sorting and viewing features are brilliant.

Regarding equipment, it makes no sense to buy an expensive body and budget glass. I have a 10-20 Sigma and it's a fun lens at times, but the image quality leaves something to be desired, and the build quality is basically crap.

Anyway, go take some good photos of non-boring subjects and post them.


----------

