Support NeoGAF

[The_Inquisitor]

How big of a difference would there be between the 1.8 and 1.4 in real world usage?

Canon or Nikon? For Canon the lens is metal for the f/1.4 instead of the plastic build the f/1.8 is. The build quality is much better. When my f/1.8 dies I will probably get a f/1.4.

The f/1.4 means you can take pictures in even darker environments because the maximum aperture size is larger. You can also focus on an even smaller area.

So really not a huge difference. I have had my f/1.8 for over a year now with no issues. It's significantly better than the kit lenses you have in terms of sharpness. In fact, you may turn out like me and never want to use your kit lens again. There's a reason I am trying to get advice on a good wide angle lens.

 

[element]

If you find out let me know.

Right now I have the lens kit that comes with it and and also a 55-200mm that my brother in law gave to me.

if you are on nikon, this would work well.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html

since you have a 55mm, you aren't used to shooting wide.

I have a canon 18-135mm, and have 50mm 1.8 and borrowing a 50mm 1.4mm. You can really tell the difference when shooting in 1.4, but you need a good 4 to 6 feet to shoot anything other then portraits. Also when shooting in low light, you pretty much have to use manual focus since cameras will have a difficult time finding the right distance.

Which is why I am looking at this, Sigma 20mm 1.8

 

[BlueTsunami]

How big of a difference would there be between the 1.8 and 1.4 in real world usage?

Build quality and more aperture blades in the 1.4 version are the biggest things. Though the 1.4 version isn't even that robust as far as build quality goes (it just goes to show how cheap the 1.8 version is). The 5 aperture blades make themselves apparent in the 1.8 version when stopped down to f/2.8. So if you like close to round or non-hexagonal specular lights (or bokeh orbs some would call them) then the 1.4 version wins in that regard. The $1500 50/1.2L actually has 9 Aperture Blades that are rounded which allows for round specular lights even when shooting at smaller apertures.

If you're talking about the perceived difference between f/1.4 vs f/1.8 apertures there definitely isn't that big a one in both shutterspeed gain and Depth of Field difference. Its negligible.

But other than those two things they both are equipped with great optics and shouldn't be the bottleneck in capturing a high quality photo.

 

[mrkgoo]

Inquisitor, not sure if you read my post above, but the Ef-S 17-55 IQ is awesome.

I personally had some major problems with the 17-55.

The build quality isn't as good. A lot of people just smirk and go, " pfft, who cares, it's image quality that matters", which, while i ultimately true, if a lens is uncomfortable to use, it can make a difference in whether you really want to use it or not. I kind of take my gear a lot of out door places, and the 17-55 was a dust vacuum. There's basically big gaping holes in the from element that lead directly into the chamber. People say you can't see the dust in images, but people are generally just looking for spots in their images, and dust on the glass never show up as spots, but rather, lower contrast. Also, the components are cheaper, and I had my lens break down no less than 4 times, I believe. IS, AF, each broke multiple times.

Also, the 17-40 is lighter. Doesn't sound important, but I like this lens much better despite having lesser IQ. It just feels nicer to use, doesn't extend, proper damped rings, weather-sealed.

My main issue with the 17-40 is that my copy seems a little bit harsh in the corners when wide open, and it has a bit more pin-cushioning at wide angle.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Inquisitor, not sure if you read my post above, but the Ef-S 17-55 IQ is awesome.

I personally had some major problems with the 17-55.

The build quality isn't as good. A lot of people just smirk and go, " pfft, who cares, it's image quality that matters", which, while i ultimately true, if a lens is uncomfortable to use, it can make a difference in whether you really want to use it or not. I kind of take my gear a lot of out door places, and the 17-55 was a dust vacuum. There's basically big gaping holes in the from element that lead directly into the chamber. People say you can't see the dust in images, but people are generally just looking for spots in their images, and dust on the glass never show up as spots, but rather, lower contrast. Also, the components are cheaper, and I had my lens break down no less than 4 times, I believe. IS, AF, each broke multiple times.

Also, the 17-40 is lighter. Doesn't sound important, but I like this lens much better despite having lesser IQ. It just feels nicer to use, doesn't extend, proper damped rings, weather-sealed.

My main issue with the 17-40 is that my copy seems a little bit harsh in the corners when wide open, and it has a bit more pin-cushioning at wide angle.

Thanks Mrkgoo. I was actually starting to choose the 17-40 but this cements it. Any news when the new version of it is releasing?

 

[mrkgoo]

Thanks Mrkgoo. I was actually starting to choose the 17-40 but this cements it. Any news when the new version of it is releasing?

No news. Could be this year, could be next.

could be never.

Keep in mind, I consider the EF-S 17-55 to be one of the most versatile walk-arounds (for crop) ever. You get wide angle to short-tele, f/2.8 with fantastic IQ throughout the range. AND IS. People say you don't need it at wide angle, but IS just add to whatever capability.

But yeah, I use my 17-40 more because I'm just kinda scared to use my 17-55. I mount that more or less permanently on my 40D and my wife uses it.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Another question.

I need a good ballhead mount for my monopod and tripod.

I see this is on sale for 30 after 80 dollar rebate. Is this worth firing on?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/244782-REG/Gitzo_G1177M_G1177M_Magnesium_Center_Ball.html

I'd be mounting my manfrotto quick release on top of it.

 

[bionic77]

Thanks for the advice guys. I am still a beginner, but when/if I want to move away from the kit lens I am definitely going to consider the 55 (undecided between 1.4 or 1.8).

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Thanks for the advice guys. I am still a beginner, but when/if I want to move away from the kit lens I am definitely going to consider the 55 (undecided between 1.4 or 1.8).

If money is an issue don't worry. The 50mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens. Most beginners get this as their second lens (including me)

 

[Danoss]

Another question.

I need a good ballhead mount for my monopod and tripod.

I see this is on sale for 30 after 80 dollar rebate. Is this worth firing on?

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/244782-REG/Gitzo_G1177M_G1177M_Magnesium_Center_Ball.html

I'd be mounting my manfrotto quick release on top of it.

If you've got the money, I've heard great things about the Really Right Stuff ballheads; the BH-40 range in particular.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

If you've got the money, I've heard great things about the Really Right Stuff ballheads; the BH-40 range in particular.

Not THAT much money, haha. I'd much prefer to put my cash into lenses right now.

 

[Insane Metal]

Help me out guys. I'm getting into photography now and don't know which one is the best choice for me.

Panasonic FZ40 or Sony HX1? Or any other at the same price tag? It's the most I can afford.

Some people told me FZ40 is better thanks to HDMI output and better zoom... what about image quality? Also, which one is better for video recording? That would be important for me too.

Thanks in advance.

Anybody?

 

[bionic77]

If money is an issue don't worry. The 50mm f/1.8 is a fantastic lens. Most beginners get this as their second lens (including me)

Did you keep your kit lens?

In what circumstances do you stick with the 50mm and in what circumstances do you use your other lens (whatever that may be).

 

[345triangle]

Anybody?

i don't think anyone here really knows much about cameras like that, because in terms of image quality they're all very similar. are you sure that's the kind of camera you're after? i'm not sure there's much place for bridge cameras in the world anymore - the leap in quality and usability you'd get by spending an extra $100 or so on an entry-level DSLR would be pretty dramatic, and you'd have much more room to grow into it later on if you take to the whole photography thing.

Did you keep your kit lens?

In what circumstances do you stick with the 50mm and in what circumstances do you use your other lens (whatever that may be).

i'd use a kit lens for walking around in daylight when i'm not sure what i want to shoot or when i know i might need a wide angle, and use the 50mm in lower light conditions (because of the larger aperture) or things like portraits where flexibility in focal range is less important. using a prime as a walk-around lens is fun too, though, because it often forces you to use more creative composition.

 

[UrbanRats]

I post of behalf of my brother, since he has a few problems with english.

He was looking for a new lense for his Canon 350D.
The lenses he owns are the kit lense 18/55mm non IS and a Canon ES 50mm f1.8 II.

He found on an auction site, the Canon 24-105 f4 IS L for 450€ (while new is like 800€, apparently).

But was also considering buying a macro lense or a tele-zoom one.

So:

1) Is the 24/105 too much of a deal at that price, to let it go? Is it good?
2) What's a good macro around that price (400€)?
3) What's a good tele-zoom always around 400€?

He's still a newbe, so if you have any other kind of advice, feel free to write it down.

 

[Kamakazie!]

So I am looking at getting a M4/3 camera and was wondering if it is worth getting the E-PL2 over the Panasonic GF2?

The extra size is not too much of a concern (at the moment) and the E-PL2s in body stabilisation looks like a major plus (should make the zooms cheaper too shouldn't it?).

The only thing I am worried about is the autofocus speed? I've heard that it is much improved, but is it as good as the GF2s now?
I'm planning to shoot a fair bit of sports (mountain biking mainly) so could do with fast auto focus in lower light conditions (under trees).

Thanks in advance for the help

 

[Timedog]

I'm looking to buy a decent camera. I can't really go above 800 bucks. I want something the shoots really good looking hd video (720 is fine), and really good stills.

I've been looking at the Olympus XZ-1, and the Canon T2i. The video on the T2i seems insanely good for the price. The XZ-1 comes with a supposedly awesome lens and is cheaper, but doesn't seem nearly as good as the T2i as far as image quality. i've also heard good things about the Canon G12. I'd like to keep price below 800 if possible but I also want great image quality. One other thing is that the T2i comes in a couple different flavors at different price points on Amazon, which I don't understand.

Anybody have some suggestions for cameras for me to do some research on in this price range?

 

[captive]

Not THAT much money, haha. I'd much prefer to put my cash into lenses right now.

yes but theres not point in spending good money on lenses if you cant hold them steady. It's amusing to me to see people spend thousands on lenses and big cameras only put them on rickity tripods and heads that would struggle to hold a point and shoot.

number 1 with tripods and heads buy the nice shit first and save your self money. Thom Hogan has a great article on it.

 

[JediMasterMatt]

number 1 with tripods and heads buy the nice shit first and save your self money. Thom Hogan has a great article on it.

That's why you should proceed directly to a set of carbon fiber legs and a geared head for the win.

After trying a half dozen ballheads over the course of a couple years while looking for precision in setting up shots. Every single ballhead suffers from the same thing... you are the weakest link. You have to move the camera and when you are making the final adjustments, you can't be ultra precise. This is especially componded with ultra-wide angle lenses. With ultra wide, your horizon is so large that messing with a ballhead just takes too long. The Nikkor 14-24mm is a nightmare on a ballhead.

I picked up a Manfrotto 410 junior geared head and haven't looked back since. If you need to make a minute adjustment, just turn the knob.

In theory, the ballhead is faster to adjust because you can get it into the "ballpark" quicker. The problem with that theory is that you then spend a lot of time making small adjustments.

In practice, the geared head is faster to get to the end result. Three adjustments for pan, tilt, and rotation and then small touchups and you are done.

The only downside for the 410 is that it weighs a ton. Even with that, I would never go back for a still camera tripod setup.

*note - the geared head is only applicable for still photography and wouldn't work for you panning video folks.

 

[Unlimited4s]

So I now have a canon 5d, awesome stuff but I have tons of SD cards left from my 550d, is something like this (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-Flash-Memory-Compactflash-Adapter/dp/B003DKGYJA/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1297004682&sr=8-3) a good solution? Or is this too slow?

 

[Spy]

So is the Canon S95 hands down the best compact camera when it comes to picture quality in the market right now?

 

[LJ11]

So is the Canon S95 hands down the best compact camera when it comes to picture quality in the market right now?

There's a new Olympus compact (XZ-1) you may want to take a look at, though you'll probably find the S95 cheaper than that Olympus.

 

[luoapp]

There's a new Olympus compact (XZ-1) you may want to take a look at, though you'll probably find the S95 cheaper than that Olympus.

Dpreview has done some comparison here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympusxz1/page9.asp

IMHO, XZ-1 has the best IQ among the bunch, esp. at the edge. Also, check out their samples ( original size). I dare to say, XZ-1 shows the IQ on par with a DSLR with a quality lens, and completely gets rid of that "DC feeling".

 

[Danoss]

yes but theres not point in spending good money on lenses if you cant hold them steady. It's amusing to me to see people spend thousands on lenses and big cameras only put them on rickity tripods and heads that would struggle to hold a point and shoot.

number 1 with tripods and heads buy the nice shit first and save your self money. Thom Hogan has a great article on it.

Exactly why I pointed to the ballhead that I did. I've seen and heard people who get that ballhead say "why did I waste my money on other, cheaper ones and not get this one instead/sooner?" The head expensive, but that should be no surprise, it's an expensive hobby.

I don't see the point in buying cheap tripods or heads either. No way would I risk expensive equipment (that ballhead can safely hold a 70-200mm ($3,500)) on a cheap stand.

Here's a taste of what happened to Philip Bloom yesterday.

Full story of what happened is here.

He clearly doesn't use cheap equipment and is very experienced. Something similar can happen under much more forgiving circumstances if you're using cheap support.

 

[Unlimited4s]

600D, 1100D and new flashes announced

600D:
-same 18mp sensor as previous model
-rotating display
-wireless flash control

1100D:
-12mp sensor
-720p movie mode
-better AF system

 

[JaggedSac]

So I think I am going to go for a Canon Rebel T2i body only. What would be a good general use lens that I could get for $300 or under? Also, I would assume that the memory card used might affect the speed that photos can be captured. Any suggestions on a good fast one?

 

[Danoss]

So I think I am going to go for a Canon Rebel T2i body only. What would be a good general use lens that I could get for $300 or under? Also, I would assume that the memory card used might affect the speed that photos can be captured. Any suggestions on a good fast one?

If this is your first entrance into the DSLR arena, I would recommend getting it with the single kit lens (18-55mm) as well as a Canon 50mm f/1.8 lens on top of that. Put the money you saved into a neutral density filter and/or a circular polariser, maybe even a cheap flash. You may not have the most flash general use lens, but it's a good start and you can get an idea of what you think you're missing. You can go from there to a more informed lens purchase. The 50mm aka "nifty fifty" will be with you for a long time, it's an excellent value lens.

EDIT: If you don't like the above advice, perhaps something like a Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS if you can find it at the right price. Otherwise you might find a Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS may get you a bit closer to your budget, though you lose your wide shots with this lens.

Sandisk is my go-to brand for memory cards. I would go for a Sandisk Extreme SDHC card in whichever size suits your budget (4/8/16GB). Larger is always better, especially since you can shoot HD video.

One thing to keep in mind with your camera and memory card is image size (megapixels). It's unlikely you'll be needing to use all 18MP that camera has to offer. If you're not going to be printing large photographs (eg. 16x24), drop that down to something more manageable in the menu like 9MP. You won't lose any quality, the image will just be smaller; this means faster writes to the memory card, more space on your memory card and your HDD in your computer. Filters in Photoshop or other image editing programs are quicker to apply with smaller images also.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

Exactly why I pointed to the ballhead that I did. I've seen and heard people who get that ballhead say "why did I waste my money on other, cheaper ones and not get this one instead/sooner?" The head expensive, but that should be no surprise, it's an expensive hobby.

I don't see the point in buying cheap tripods or heads either. No way would I risk expensive equipment (that ballhead can safely hold a 70-200mm ($3,500)) on a cheap stand.

Here's a taste of what happened to Philip Bloom yesterday.

http://i.min.us/iefGbm.png[IMG]

Full story of what happened is [URL="http://philipbloom.net/2011/02/06/death-of-a-beautiful-camera/"]here[/URL].

He clearly doesn't use cheap equipment and is very experienced. Something similar can happen under much more forgiving circumstances if you're using cheap support.[/QUOTE]

Wow, judging from that photo I can't at all imagine how the thing went over. Imagine how he must have felt.

But yeah, when it comes to equipment, your camera body is probably the place to "skimp" most on as it is the only real component that can become "outdated."

 

[captive]

dunno why he thinks the tripod would be ruined. Just wash it off to get the salt out of it and off it and it should be fine.
I have my tripods in water all the time.

 

[JaggedSac]

Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Do you know where to find the best deals on camera equipment?

 

[Danoss]

Awesome. Thanks for the advice. Do you know where to find the best deals on camera equipment?

I assumed you're in the US and can get things cheaper than I could. Unfortunately unless you're in Australia, I'm not much help to you in that regard.

dunno why he thinks the tripod would be ruined. Just wash it off to get the salt out of it and off it and it should be fine.
I have my tripods in water all the time.

I just assumed he figured that because of the wind. If the wind could pick that and the camera up and throw it, maybe it hit the stone ledge on the way in. He's certain used his in water before.

I have no idea why he doesn't mount the tripod to the lens like it was designed.

 

[Kamakazie!]

So I am looking at getting a M4/3 camera and was wondering if it is worth getting the E-PL2 over the Panasonic GF2?

The extra size is not too much of a concern (at the moment) and the E-PL2s in body stabilisation looks like a major plus (should make the zooms cheaper too shouldn't it?).

The only thing I am worried about is the autofocus speed? I've heard that it is much improved, but is it as good as the GF2s now?
I'm planning to shoot a fair bit of sports (mountain biking mainly) so could do with fast auto focus in lower light conditions (under trees).

Thanks in advance for the help

Anyone?

 

[golem]

Anyone?

Its hard to tell if the focus improvement is from the new lens or camera af improvements. Need more indepth reviews. Here's what DPR said in their preview

A full test of the E-PL2's AF capabilities will follow in our forthcoming review, but Olympus's claim that the E-PL2 with the new kit lens offers faster AF than the previous generation E-PL1 with the original 14-42mm is born out in our initial testing. Although from our measurements the speed difference is not enormous, we have found that on the E-PL2, the new 14-42mm II can reliably achieve focus in slightly less time than the older lens. The speed increase is small - typically in the region of 0.1s - but enough to make it feel more positive. This is especially true when refocussing across a small distance range, at which point the E-PL2 with 14-42mm II feels pretty close to instantaneous.

It is worth noting that E-PL1 users will see a significant leap in AF performance from the new 14-42mm II. With the new lens mounted, we found that AF aquisition is typically around 0.2secs faster than when using the original kit zoom. This amounts to an increase in AF speed of almost 30% in some circumstances - a substantial boost. Back to the E-PL2 though, and the impression of better AF speed is aided by the silent focussing of the 14-42mm II. Not only does this make the lens feel swifter in use, but crucially it also means that movie footage from the E-PL2 is not marred by the sound of the lens' AF motor racking back and forth.

I love the built in I.S. on my EP-1

 

[shas'la]

Jumped onto the bandwagon and just picked this up for £375

omn nom nom

 

[hEist]

600D, 1100D and new flashes announced

600D:
-same 18mp sensor as previous model
-rotating display
-wireless flash control

1100D:
-12mp sensor
-720p movie mode
-better AF system

why god damn? seriously... sometimes i think canon are a bunch of jerks...

gimme 5d mark 3.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Canon also announced three new lenses. A new 500/4L and 600/4L but the third one looks a bit exotic...

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS with integrated 1.4x TC

Link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp

If you flip the TC down it'll turn the lens into a 280-560/5.6 lens

Gonna cost a pretty penny though

 

[Always-honest]

Canon also announced three new lenses. A new 500/4L and 600/4L but the third one looks a bit exotic...

Canon EF 200-400mm f/4L IS with integrated 1.4x TC

Link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/1102/11020708canon200400mm.asp

If you flip the TC down it'll turn the lens into a 280-560/5.6 lens

Gonna cost a pretty penny though

Wow, that seems like an interesting lens.
I allready know i won't be able to buy it though.

why god damn? seriously... sometimes i think canon are a bunch of jerks...

gimme 5d mark 3.

i agree. such small upgrades to the models allready here.
But i AM interested in the flashes.

 

[Insane Metal]

i don't think anyone here really knows much about cameras like that, because in terms of image quality they're all very similar. are you sure that's the kind of camera you're after? i'm not sure there's much place for bridge cameras in the world anymore - the leap in quality and usability you'd get by spending an extra $100 or so on an entry-level DSLR would be pretty dramatic, and you'd have much more room to grow into it later on if you take to the whole photography thing.

Yeah looks like I'm asking at the wrong place. I live in a fucked up 3rd world country where everything is expensive.

Those cameras here are around R$ 1.000 (about US$ 610). Impossible to get anything more than that =(

But thanks buddy.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

One thing to keep in mind with your camera and memory card is image size (megapixels). It's unlikely you'll be needing to use all 18MP that camera has to offer. If you're not going to be printing large photographs (eg. 16x24), drop that down to something more manageable in the menu like 9MP. You won't lose any quality, the image will just be smaller; this means faster writes to the memory card, more space on your memory card and your HDD in your computer. Filters in Photoshop or other image editing programs are quicker to apply with smaller images also.

That strikes me as pretty poor advice. With on-camera buffers, write speeds have never been a problem for me unless I'm using bottom of the barrel memory cards. HDD space is dirt cheap, the cost of the 50 f/1.8 will easily buy a terabyte drive (pretty much every picture I've taken in the last four years is only ~50 Gb.) Post-processing manipulations are faster, true, but for the one reason you probably don't want them to be, lack of data. I've never complained that I had too much resolution, but I sure have complained about too little.

(Caveat: There is legitimate debate on cramming too many pixels on too small of a sensor, that's not what I'm taking issue with. I'm just saying that only using a half to a quarter of the pixels your camera is capable of just to get smaller image files is false economy.)

 

[Danoss]

That strikes me as pretty poor advice. With on-camera buffers, write speeds have never been a problem for me unless I'm using bottom of the barrel memory cards. HDD space is dirt cheap, the cost of the 50 f/1.8 will easily buy a terabyte drive (pretty much every picture I've taken in the last four years is only ~50 Gb.) Post-processing manipulations are faster, true, but for the one reason you probably don't want them to be, lack of data. I've never complained that I had too much resolution, but I sure have complained about too little.

(Caveat: There is legitimate debate on cramming too many pixels on too small of a sensor, that's not what I'm taking issue with. I'm just saying that only using a half to a quarter of the pixels your camera is capable of just to get smaller image files is false economy.)

I was expecting someone to have a problem with my post, especially that portion.

I don't really see what the big deal is. If you are never going to use all of that resolution, what's the point (other than "because I can")? I'd liken it to watching Blu-Ray movies on an SDTV or an iPhone.

Write speeds can be an issue if you're shooting in continuous RAW or RAW+JPEG. The fast SDHC cards write at 30MB/s, if you want to shoot quick-succession shots you can fill the buffer quickly enough and there's your bottleneck. Reducing the image size (if you will never use it) eases this problem.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I was expecting someone to have a problem with my post, especially that portion.

I don't really see what the big deal is. If you are never going to use all of that resolution, what's the point (other than "because I can")? I'd liken it to watching Blu-Ray movies on an SDTV or an iPhone.

Put me in the camp that thinks that there's no real detriment to higher resolution besides the space it takes up (and even thats negligible for the reasons already stated). The ability to crop and being able to pick up the smallest of detail are good things. Sure most people won't be printing 20inch posters of their work what are the negatives besides the weight of the files? I've read about the complaints regarding people wanting companies to work on ISO performance and Dynamic Range but these things are intrinsically tied to the resolution of the captured image.

Write speeds can be an issue if you're shooting in continuous RAW or RAW+JPEG. The fast SDHC cards write at 30MB/s, if you want to shoot quick-succession shots you can fill the buffer quickly enough and there's your bottleneck. Reducing the image size (if you will never use it) eases this problem.

Couldn't one just use the smaller resolution sRAW options (I believe thats Canon's name for it) if one finds the buffer filling up too quick? Thats one area I can't argue with and find that large resolution images are good for situations where the body isn't used like a machine gun.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I don't really see what the big deal is. If you are never going to use all of that resolution, what's the point (other than "because I can")? I'd liken it to watching Blu-Ray movies on an SDTV or an iPhone.

And I'd liken it to limiting yourself to VHS quality when you could be showing it on an HDTV. HDD space is a non-issue, and Photoshop will only get faster, so why limit yourself unnecessarily?

Write speeds can be an issue if you're shooting in continuous RAW or RAW+JPEG. The fast SDHC cards write at 30MB/s, if you want to shoot quick-succession shots you can fill the buffer quickly enough and there's your bottleneck. Reducing the image size (if you will never use it) eases this problem.

If you are running up against the write speed, sure, do what you need to get the performance you need. But that's a pretty use-specific advantage to be using as justification for throwing away data as general purpose advice.

 

[phisheep]

Couldn't one just use the smaller resolution sRAW options (I believe thats Canon's name for it) if one finds the buffer filling up too quick? Thats one area I can't argue with and find that large resolution images are good for situations where the body isn't used like a machine gun.

Er, I don't think it works that way. For a given sensor, RAW is RAW - it's just minimally-processed data off the sensor - it doesn't come in different sizes. I think.

 

[Unlimited4s]

Why do some people shoot JPG anyway with their DSLR? I can understand this for simple snapshots or sports photography (due to the massive amount of pics they need to take), but for the rest? Why limit yourself so much by not shooting in RAW if you're serious about photography?

 

[derder]

Why do some people shoot JPG anyway with their DSLR? I can understand this for simple snapshots or sports photography (due to the massive amount of pics they need to take), but for the rest? Why limit yourself so much by not shooting in RAW if you're serious about photography?

There are a lot of write-ups about it. There is a large section of pros that just don't have the time to fiddle with them. There is also a much larger percentage that spend more time on photoshop than behind the lens.

 

[Unlimited4s]

There are a lot of write-ups about it. There is a large section of pros that just don't have the time to fiddle with them. There is also a much larger percentage that spend more time on photoshop than behind the lens.

As far as I know you can just set up a batch to process them exactly like an out of cam jpg.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Alright, after some deliberation, I've decided I won't go cheap on my camera bag. Therefore I have been looking into the newer sling bags.

My eyes have fallen on this.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B003D5TVAO/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Would this be good for my growing/ outdoor photography needs? I saw it getting recommended in my copy of outdoor photographer.

 

[Always-honest]

Er, I don't think it works that way. For a given sensor, RAW is RAW - it's just minimally-processed data off the sensor - it doesn't come in different sizes. I think.

Yep, S RAW and M RAW are available on my 7D. Will never use it though.

 

[345triangle]

fujifilm X100 is 128,000 yen in yodobashi camera :/

that's over 1500 US dollars!

kind of makes me want it even more, but no way.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Why do some people shoot JPG anyway with their DSLR? I can understand this for simple snapshots or sports photography (due to the massive amount of pics they need to take), but for the rest? Why limit yourself so much by not shooting in RAW if you're serious about photography?

If I get hit by a bus, I want my wife to still be able to use the family photos and I'm too lazy to switch back and forth all the time.