[tino]

I already have that =) I mostly use the 35 as my casual/general low-light lens, that 17-55 is one big heavy intimidating bad boy =P

This 28/1.8 is pretty big too. Much bigger than a 50/1.4. Well if you like the focal length then is not expensive for a "gold ring".

[GamePnoy74]

Yeah, I guess I should be looking more into glass outside of the standard zoom range to expand my gear later on, such as a wide zoom or tele-zoom...no rush though. But fast primes are always nice to look at =)

[SaitoH]

Anyone have experience with the Tokina 35mm f2.8 Macro?

I'm interested in getting a macro lens and I love the idea of it doing double duty as a 35mm prime lens.

At $300 on B&H it sounds like a fantastic deal, but Is it any good?

[Antiwhippy]

Aren't macro lenses pretty poor for anything other than macro?

Also, manage to make a mini studio. Would like to know any tips from people with mini studios like this too. Nothing fancy really, just $6 lamps, foamboard, a large white paper and a large black paper. Also have some velcro on the lamps to create removable light blockers made from cardboard.

Plus a led flashlight with a really ghetto diffuser attachment made from wires and tracing paper.

Pictures from it come out alright I think?

[Danoss]

Aren't macro lenses pretty poor for anything other than macro?

Not at all, a number of pros use the Canon 100mm Macro lens for portrait shots. There is one macro lens that is purpose build for macro use only and that is the Canon MP-E 65mm; it's gorgeous, I want it, but I can't justify it.

It looks like you've basically made a miniature studio there. If you're trying for product shots, you may want to try making a lightbox out of the equipment you have and a cardboard box. You'll get more even lighting and more flattering shadows. Something like this should do the trick.

[Antiwhippy]

Oooh, thanks for the link. I think I know what I'm going to make next. The construction of the studio is pretty fun.

Also about macro lenses, it's good to know that they're alright as regular lenses too. I think I might have heard somewhere that the Sony 30mm Macro isn't great as a regular lens so I thought it applied to all lenses.

[Zoe]

What would be a good macro lens for Nikon? (without breaking the bank)

I actually just got in some really cheap macro filters for around $15. Haven't really had a chance to test them out though other than a few quick test shots around the apartment.

[CrudeDiatribe]

What would be a good macro lens for Nikon?

I don't have a specific recommendation, but I'd look at used AI-S ones if you're comfortable figuring out manual exposure and focusing.

[tokkun]

Aren't macro lenses pretty poor for anything other than macro?

The only real weakness of macro lenses is that they can be slow to autofocus and you pay more of a penalty for focus hunting. If you are comfortable manually focusing or are shooting inanimate objects, it's no problem at all.

[phisheep]

Also, manage to make a mini studio. Would like to know any tips from people with mini studios like this too. Nothing fancy really, just $6 lamps, foamboard, a large white paper and a large black paper. Also have some velcro on the lamps to create removable light blockers made from cardboard. Plus a led flashlight with a really ghetto diffuser attachment made from wires and tracing paper.

Ah, now you're rolling Antiwhippy! This is pretty much the sort of thing that I started out with.

Few other things you might want to think about trying:

- get yourself a plain black shiny ball and balance it on a rod in the middle of your setup (use a hollow tube so the ball sits on it - do not do as I did and try to NAIL a ball to a rod, it does not work). You can see in the black ball all the reflections and light sources that affect your image and it's a really quick way of shutting down things you don't want.

- for small objects, try using a narrow depth of field with multiple backgrounds at different distances, gives you a nice blurry background distance thing - also try lighting the background separately from the subject

- try turning the whole thing round 90 degrees on the table so you can use more raking side lighting

- Get a really big cardboard box and paint it matt black inside. that way you'll be able to shoot against a perfectly black background easily (I never got it right with black paper, too much stray light)

Maybey get ahold of one of those big floor-or-bracket-mounted Anglepoises so you can light from above too

Your image links aren't showing up for me, but good luck anyhow. Have fun!

[killertofu]

I had the opportunity to try out my friend's 135mm f/2 L lens today for a concert at my university.
Holy shit. So nice.

[345triangle]

What would be a good macro lens for Nikon? (without breaking the bank) I actually just got in some really cheap macro filters for around $15. Haven't really had a chance to test them out though other than a few quick test shots around the apartment.

the 40mm f/2.8 is pretty cheap and dearly loved by many of my coworkers for shooting inanimate objects like gadgets. it might be a little too short if you want to get up close to bugs and stuff, though.

[Metroid Killer]

Another what lens should I buy post incoming...

I bought a Canon 500D two years ago.

I decided to skip out on the kit 18-55mm lens and went for the 50mm f/1.8 lens that was both cheap and got recommended a lot here at gaf.
Recently my 50mm lens broke, and I need to buy a new one, regardless it was time for another lens.

The 50mm was great for it's price, but often I've felt pretty tight, having to step back in order to not crop too much of the shot. So I'm pretty set on getting a zoom lens starting from ~18mm.

Some (very) quick searching brought me to the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6, and EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6.

I've found that they pretty much cost the same(both in the budget class), so initially I leaned towards the 18-135mm, having both a wider aperture and focal length. But the 17-85mm has a better motor, and a quick glance at reviews seems to put it in a better light...

Any suggestions? It would be cool to go to 135mm, but I'm still a novice and I'm not sure how much I need it, especially when it compromises other things. (I hate the world of lenses, you always end up compromising :p)

I just pulled the trigger on a Canon 24-70 f/2.8L to replace my old 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS as my walkaround lens on my 7D. I really hardly used the 17-85 since I got the 35mm f/1.4L and the 85mm f/1.2L.

Care to talk about your eperience with the 17-85 lens?

Thanks

[Danoss]

Metroid Killer, for that budget, I would suggest a lens that basically lives on my 7D. It's around the same price as the lenses you've suggested and I think it'll do you quite well as a walkaround lens of excellent quality for the price.

Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC)

That 2.8 aperture is going to give you a lot of versatility, especially in comparison to the two lenses you've suggested. The AF isn't USM, it is very quick, it just makes a bit of noise. For the price, that really isn't a big deal and you get used to it; if you've used the Canon 50/1.8, you get the idea of what you're in for in this department. The quality of the pictures it produces is amazing, especially considering the price. The Canon 17-55/2.8 IS does edge it out it quality, but it costs twice as much and isn't worth paying the difference in my book.

I recommend the non-VC (Tamron's version of IS) because it is sharper than the VC version. With 2.8 at those focal lengths, it isn't that likely you'll need it.

It really is criminal that this lens is such good value. Perfect for beginners and experienced photographers alike. The only time I'll think about upgrading from mine is if I ever move to a 5D, which will make the Tamron unusable, then I'll grab a Canon 24-70/2.8 and not a minute sooner.

Good luck and have fun with whichever lens you end up choosing.

[Metroid Killer]

Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC)

Thanks for the quick reply! And you hit it pretty spot on in how you described it together with the 50/1.8. I will have to look into it this week.

Dat 2.8 aperture indeed. I would love for the focal length to be longer than 50mm though, but it always seems to compromise the aperture. Decisions, decisions...

And yeah just checked out the prices on the Canon 17-55/2.8 IS you mentioned, holy shit... too expensive...

[Antiwhippy]

Ah, now you're rolling Antiwhippy! This is pretty much the sort of thing that I started out with. Few other things you might want to think about trying: - get yourself a plain black shiny ball and balance it on a rod in the middle of your setup (use a hollow tube so the ball sits on it - do not do as I did and try to NAIL a ball to a rod, it does not work). You can see in the black ball all the reflections and light sources that affect your image and it's a really quick way of shutting down things you don't want. - for small objects, try using a narrow depth of field with multiple backgrounds at different distances, gives you a nice blurry background distance thing - also try lighting the background separately from the subject - try turning the whole thing round 90 degrees on the table so you can use more raking side lighting - Get a really big cardboard box and paint it matt black inside. that way you'll be able to shoot against a perfectly black background easily (I never got it right with black paper, too much stray light) Maybey get ahold of one of those big floor-or-bracket-mounted Anglepoises so you can light from above too Your image links aren't showing up for me, but good luck anyhow. Have fun!

Thank you so much for the advice. I'm not so sure what you mean by the multiple background things though.

Also, where would you normally get a shiny black ball?

[54-46!]

Are there any decent guides out there on how to take a bit more advanced shots with a basic digital cameras?

I've got a S100.

[Flo_Evans]

What would be a good macro lens for Nikon? (without breaking the bank) I actually just got in some really cheap macro filters for around $15. Haven't really had a chance to test them out though other than a few quick test shots around the apartment.

I love the 60mm AF-D macro. You should be able to find them for $2-300 used. I would recommend getting 60mm+ if you want to take "true" 1:1 macro shots, the 40mm DX micro just has too short of a working distance. If you are trying to do bugs I would go even longer, I would get at least the 85mm http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Micro-Ni...5195993&sr=8-2 but you are atarting to get into the $500 range there.

There are some downsides to using macro lenses in "normal" situations, mainly slow focus, not as sharp at infinity, some of them lose maximum aperture when focused closely (like a zoom). None of this really matters for macro work, but can (not always) impact other uses.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

Are there any cheaper alternatives to the 15-85mm for my APS-C camera? Or something like the 17-85mm but doesn't have a rep for breaking? Everytime I pick out a lens there is always a huge negative associated with it in some way

[Danoss]

Are there any cheaper alternatives to the 15-85mm for my APS-C camera? Or something like the 17-85mm but doesn't have a rep for breaking? Everytime I pick out a lens there is always a huge negative associated with it in some way

See my reply to Metroid Killer a few posts up for more detail regarding the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC). It's a great lens that, whilst not having the reach of the 17-85mm, will give you great quality images, flexibility in varied light conditions, and it is a robust lens.

[Jason Raize '75 - '04]

See my reply to Metroid Killer a few posts up for more detail regarding the Tamron 17-50/2.8 (non-VC). It's a great lens that, whilst not having the reach of the 17-85mm, will give you great quality images, flexibility in varied light conditions, and it is a robust lens.

Thanks. But I need more reach :(

[Danoss]

Thanks. But I need more reach :(

I'm assuming you're after a walk-around lens. If that is the case, as far as I can think of the variety of lenses out there, you have 3 options.

1. Accept the mediocre lenses with the focal length you require.
2. Sacrifice the wide end to get the reach you require.
3. Sacrifice the reach you require and zoom with your feet.

If option 1, you've listed the lenses that'll do the job. If option 2, have a look at the Tamron 28-75/2.8, which is the full-frame equivalent of the 17-50/2.8. If option 3, well, the 17-50/2.8 becomes an option again.

A wider lens is more versatile than a lens which reaches that little bit further. If your back is up against a wall with a longer focal length, you're out of luck. If you need to zoom in a bit more, especially if it's only 35mm, that's just a few short steps forward. Of course if you're on the edge of the water or on a bridge, that's not possible, but those circumstances can usually be planned for and a longer lens would be required anyway e.g. 70-200mm.

There may be other lenses out there that are better suited to the job, but I can't think of any. Hopefully someone else can stick their head in and suggest something. But as a walk-around lens (if that's what this is for), to make sure you miss as few opportunities as possible, I think the 17-50/2.8 is your best bet.

Good luck in your search.

[Flo_Evans]

Got my 17-55 back from Canon!

They replaced the filter barrel, the main barrel and the zoom control for $0! I only had to pay $100 for labor and shipping! Pretty happy! :)

[Crunched]

Someone just offered me a Nikon Coolpix P90, Nikon N90 body, a Canon FD 50mm, and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 for $300. I am pressed for cash right now, but that sounds like a pretty good deal. The P90 itself still retails for $500+ from what I see, and even if all I'm getting is that + the N90 it seems to be a pretty sweet bargain. Any input from you guys? Anyone have experience with this equipment?

I already have a 7D and some good lenses, but have been looking for something more lightweight to carry with me when I don't want to lug around my more expensive gear.

[BlueTsunami]

Not sure about some of the other items but you won't be able to use the FD lens with Canon's DSLRs (extreme mount difference). I think the Vivitar zoom lens is actually interesting, it should be adaptable and its a nice cheap way to be able to shoot at 200mm.

Edit: Actually it depends on the mount with the Vivitar. If its coming with the FD 50 it may also be an FD mount lens. FD lenses are easily adapted to mirrorless bodies since their mount to sensor distance is very short.

[element]

Thanks. But I need more reach :(

Tamron just announced a 24-70mm 2.8 with VC/IS. It is $1200.

[Crunched]

Not sure about some of the other items but you won't be able to use the FD lens with Canon's DSLRs (extreme mount difference). I think the Vivitar zoom lens is actually interesting, it should be adaptable and its a nice cheap way to be able to shoot at 200mm. Edit: Actually it depends on the mount with the Vivitar. If its coming with the FD 50 it may also be an FD mount lens. FD lenses are easily adapted to mirrorless bodies since their mount to sensor distance is very short.

There is some kind of thick adapter ring on both lenses, I think to fit them on the Nikon film SLR. I couldn't get them attached in the short time I had with them but they were bundled with that camera. My longest lens right now is a 50mm Zeiss, and I've been looking at a budget zoom to go a little farther.

Are there any decent guides out there on how to take a bit more advanced shots with a basic digital cameras? I've got a S100.

I don't have experience with that model camera, but I would say every camera does the same basic thing. I don't know what you mean by "more advanced shots." Lately I've been trying to take pictures with my smartphone just for the heck of it, to see what I can turn up with, and I've scored some nice shots. Your S100 should be able to give you keepers as long as you have some patience, and can provide it with enough light that you don't rely on high ISOs or shutter speeds. The thing with cheaper digital cameras is they don't often provide you with RAW files, which gives you limited freedom in post. That's not insurmountable, though. I don't know the specifics of that camera. Does it allow manual control of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO? You won't have any direct control over DoF, and I'm not sure if you have any sort of extended manual focus controls, but I've found that focusing in close on a subject allows you to achieve at least a slight DoF effect even with cheaper cameras. The closer you're able to focus, the narrower your DoF will be. You may also be able to play a bit with focus if you have an optical zoom, but zooming in might make it tougher to achieve sharp focus. I would not underestimate your camera's ability to work for you. Trying to separate your foreground and background subjects via DoF or lighting will do a lot to help your pictures from looking flat.

Tripods can help get clearer, crisper pictures, and you don't need anything fancy. If you are on a very tight budget, you can try simply resting your arm or camera against a solid surface to prevent camera shake. This is especially important when dealing with longer shutter speeds. If your camera has a long exposure or fireworks mode, you'll want to make sure it's still while using them.

I actually recommend getting a sandbag or cheap camera pillow. The are small, portable, inexpensive, and allow you stability and flexibility while framing shots. I use one sometimes with my 7D.

[CrudeDiatribe]

Someone just offered me a Nikon Coolpix P90, Nikon N90 body, a Canon FD 50mm, and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 for $300.

Actually it depends on the mount with the Vivitar. If its coming with the FD 50 it may also be an FD mount lens. FD lenses are easily adapted to mirrorless bodies since their mount to sensor distance is very short.

Might be a Nikon mount though, since there's a N90.

I have a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4.0 macro in a Nikon mount. Works well, though it is very heavy, and the barrel zoom creeps very easily.

Here are some things I've shot with it, on a D50 and D90.

[tino]

Someone just offered me a Nikon Coolpix P90, Nikon N90 body, a Canon FD 50mm, and a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 for $300. I am pressed for cash right now, but that sounds like a pretty good deal. The P90 itself still retails for $500+ from what I see, and even if all I'm getting is that + the N90 it seems to be a pretty sweet bargain. Any input from you guys? Anyone have experience with this equipment? I already have a 7D and some good lenses, but have been looking for something more lightweight to carry with me when I don't want to lug around my more expensive gear.

N90 is about 30, probably lower if its not a N90s. 70-210? Maybe 50-70? FD 50 f1.8? probably 40. P90 has a 1/2.33" sensor and goes for 200-250 on ebay. I wouldn't take it. You can't use any of them. It's a hassle to move them on ebay.

[reggieandTFE]

I happened upon an OM-D at a camera store in St. Louis and jumped at the chance. Anyone want a cheap 2-month old GF3 body? $200? Some product shots of the OM-D and then test shots:

Olympus OM-D & Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4


It's much smaller than it looks when alone.


Great Olympus color in JPEGs


view North


view East


Obligatory Cat Shot


Love the camera so far although I'm having a trouble transferring the videos to my computer. My SD card might be too slow for the video resolution.

[Radec]

^
I've tried that OM-D a few weeks ago along with the Noktor 50mm f0.95 lens. I don't find the OM-D comfortable at all. Buttons are so cramped in the palm area. It is pretty small indeed, but the grip really turned me off.

<3 the face detect though. Even on manual focus it works. lol

[reggieandTFE]

^ I've tried that OM-D a few weeks ago along with the Noktor 50mm f0.95 lens. I don't find the OM-D comfortable at all. Buttons are so cramped in the palm area. It is pretty small indeed, but the grip really turned me off. <3 the face detect though. Even on manual focus it works. lol

I could completely see that as the camera is tiny for those used to normal SLRs. The optional battery grip may help for those looking for a little more room; it felt great at the store and comes in two parts so you don't need to have a vertical grip on at all times. i'll pick it up once my wife gets over me buying another camera :)

[Radec]

^
I have small hands :P

haven't tried the external grip though.

That lens looks perfect for the OMD IMO. :)

[Flo_Evans]

I'm confused, isn't that the sears tower in Chicago? What store in St Louis had an OM-D? I want to go fondle one.

[Zyzyxxz]

I happened upon an OM-D at a camera store in St. Louis and jumped at the chance. Anyone want a cheap 2-month old GF3 body? $200? Some product shots of the OM-D and then test shots: .

Nice that's my dream setup right now, using a GF2+14mm 2.5, saving for the Panna-Lecia 25.

Can you upload some high ISO stuff? I'd like to see how usable it'd be from a fellow GAFer.

[reggieandTFE]

I'm confused, isn't that the sears tower in Chicago? What store in St Louis had an OM-D? I want to go fondle one.

Creve Couer Camera in O'Fallon, IL; it's a chain based in St. Louis. I highly recommend them for anyone in the area. The salespeople were knowledgeable, not pushy and seemed interested in photography. I was in the area for work but live up in Chicago.

Nice that's my dream setup right now, using a GF2+14mm 2.5, saving for the Panna-Lecia 25. Can you upload some high ISO stuff? I'd like to see how usable it'd be from a fellow GAFer.

I'll take some shots tomorrow with the OM-D and with the GF3 so you can compare. Unfortunately, Lightroom still doesn't process OM-D raw so they'll be JPEG comparisons. On first blush I think 3200 ISO is perfectly useable and 12,800 shots will be useable after LR noise reduction. The 25600 setting is useless and strictly a setting to put on the box. Also, the 5-Axis IS is godly for video; it's like having a steadycam with every lens.

[Skel1ingt0n]

Hey photo-GAF!

First post here! ... I have a Canon 40D, and just a crappy kit lens and a ~$100 nifty-fifty. I was very lucky to go to a journalism school that allowed me to rent out just about any lens I needed, and so for the last few years I've enjoyed playing around with a fair bit of L-glass.

I'm *far, far, FAR* from a great photographer. I know the rules, how to handle a camera, and can get decent shots. But I would barely consider myself an amateur hobbyist, and so now that I'm graduated, I'm having a very hard time saving up for expensive lenses. Not just the fact that they're pricey, but I also can't really justify buying them much at all.

Anyway, to compound that, my new job is gonna have me travel quite a bit - possibly several different locations a month. And so the 40D and a few lenses seems like way too much to bring around with me (size, weight, cumbersomeness); but I definitely want to have a camera with me, and I want more than a P&S or my iPhone.

And so, I find myself looking into a Micro Four-Thirds or similar camera, and just one or two small lenses. But since getting my 40D so long ago, I haven't followed anything at all, and am curious if there are any quick and dirty recommendations? If I could get a camera, a fast low mm prime, and a ~35-~85mm zoom, all in a small package, I'd be very happy. And I'd like to keep the price as low as possible. ~$500 would be awesome; but I'd be willing to work up to ~1K. I know that's pretty tight, so if I'm way off base, let me know. But I don't mind going lightly-used if that helps.

I'm not gonna be buying for a couple months; so if there's something worth waiting for, that's fine, too.

Basically, I'm just looking for a jumping off point. I don't need to much of anyone's time; but I would appreciate any input.

Thanks!

[Antiwhippy]

Unless you want to go used it's going to be somewhat hard to find all of that at around $500. Especially if you want a fast prime too. Body and kit lens combos usually go around $600-700

Maybe like a used Olympus Pen EP3? You can add the samsung summilux 25mm/1.4 which goes for around $500.

[shantyman]

Hey photo-GAF! First post here! ... I have a Canon 40D, and just a crappy kit lens and a ~$100 nifty-fifty. I was very lucky to go to a journalism school that allowed me to rent out just about any lens I needed, and so for the last few years I've enjoyed playing around with a fair bit of L-glass. I'm *far, far, FAR* from a great photographer. I know the rules, how to handle a camera, and can get decent shots. But I would barely consider myself an amateur hobbyist, and so now that I'm graduated, I'm having a very hard time saving up for expensive lenses. Not just the fact that they're pricey, but I also can't really justify buying them much at all. Anyway, to compound that, my new job is gonna have me travel quite a bit - possibly several different locations a month. And so the 40D and a few lenses seems like way too much to bring around with me (size, weight, cumbersomeness); but I definitely want to have a camera with me, and I want more than a P&S or my iPhone. And so, I find myself looking into a Micro Four-Thirds or similar camera, and just one or two small lenses. But since getting my 40D so long ago, I haven't followed anything at all, and am curious if there are any quick and dirty recommendations? If I could get a camera, a fast low mm prime, and a ~35-~85mm zoom, all in a small package, I'd be very happy. And I'd like to keep the price as low as possible. ~$500 would be awesome; but I'd be willing to work up to ~1K. I know that's pretty tight, so if I'm way off base, let me know. But I don't mind going lightly-used if that helps. I'm not gonna be buying for a couple months; so if there's something worth waiting for, that's fine, too. Basically, I'm just looking for a jumping off point. I don't need to much of anyone's time; but I would appreciate any input. Thanks!

If you were okay with the fixed equivalent 35mm and the price, the X100 would be the camera for you.

[54-46!]

I don't have experience with that model camera, but I would say every camera does the same basic thing. I don't know what you mean by "more advanced shots." Lately I've been trying to take pictures with my smartphone just for the heck of it, to see what I can turn up with, and I've scored some nice shots. Your S100 should be able to give you keepers as long as you have some patience, and can provide it with enough light that you don't rely on high ISOs or shutter speeds. The thing with cheaper digital cameras is they don't often provide you with RAW files, which gives you limited freedom in post. That's not insurmountable, though. I don't know the specifics of that camera. Does it allow manual control of aperture, shutter speed, and ISO? You won't have any direct control over DoF, and I'm not sure if you have any sort of extended manual focus controls, but I've found that focusing in close on a subject allows you to achieve at least a slight DoF effect even with cheaper cameras. The closer you're able to focus, the narrower your DoF will be. You may also be able to play a bit with focus if you have an optical zoom, but zooming in might make it tougher to achieve sharp focus. I would not underestimate your camera's ability to work for you. Trying to separate your foreground and background subjects via DoF or lighting will do a lot to help your pictures from looking flat. Tripods can help get clearer, crisper pictures, and you don't need anything fancy. If you are on a very tight budget, you can try simply resting your arm or camera against a solid surface to prevent camera shake. This is especially important when dealing with longer shutter speeds. If your camera has a long exposure or fireworks mode, you'll want to make sure it's still while using them. I actually recommend getting a sandbag or cheap camera pillow. The are small, portable, inexpensive, and allow you stability and flexibility while framing shots. I use one sometimes with my 7D.

Thanks for the info. I want to learn more about ISO settings, manual focus and a lot of its other features, I guess it's a matter of playing around with the camera some more.

I should always shoot stuff in RAW I take it? I'm guessing Photoshop 7 can't open them (it's what I've been using for the last 10 years), are there any decent (preferably free) programs that can open RAW?

[Flo_Evans]

7D video rig back in action! w00t!

[Crunched]

Thanks for the info. I want to learn more about ISO settings, manual focus and a lot of its other features, I guess it's a matter of playing around with the camera some more. I should always shoot stuff in RAW I take it? I'm guessing Photoshop 7 can't open them (it's what I've been using for the last 10 years), are there any decent (preferably free) programs that can open RAW?

RAW files will allow you more freedom, since they hold much more information than jpegs. You'll have a much easier time adjusting exposure and white balance in post with RAW. Of course, you could always strive to get it right in-camera :p

The downside is they can quickly eat up space.

I don't know about PS7, but I know in the past Adobe software has required propriety RAW formats to be converted into DNGs. You might look for a RAW to DNG converter online. Hopefully you'll be able to get your files working in the software you already have.

@Flo_Evans: that's a beautiful sight.

[reggieandTFE]

Some OM-D high ISO samples. I shot this on a tripod with the Image Stabilization and the noise reduction set to off. The scene was a challenge for the camera to meter because of the floor to ceiling windows sending in light on the left and shadows around the bookcase. 25600 is useless. However, I believe ISO 3200 is usable in most situations and 6400 and 12800 will do well with black & white conversions. I rarely shot my E-P3 above 800 and will happily be shooting at 3200 with the OM-D.

200 ISO
http://g1.img-dpreview.com/4D0E4D1C9...96B87CB1D3.jpg

1600 ISO
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/710D06147...54CF8BFECD.jpg

3200 ISO
http://g3.img-dpreview.com/EC4ED3D0F...A198A64CF7.jpg

6400 ISO
http://g2.img-dpreview.com/59E186B31...DD61CFCCD8.jpg

12800 ISO
http://g3.img-dpreview.com/370F05B85...31841A257D.jpg

25600 ISO
http://g3.img-dpreview.com/9CF1943B9...476AA34957.jpg

[Zyzyxxz]

Wow I'm surprised at the 6400 and 12800 ISO.

I'll wait for GH3 before I decide my next body though.

[luoapp]

Did you resized them or 100% crop?

[Jayayess1190]

First Sony NEX-F3 photo. Same sensor as my C3 but new processor. Wonder what the 5N replacement will bring?

[GamePnoy74]

I happened upon an OM-D at a camera store in St. Louis and jumped at the chance. Anyone want a cheap 2-month old GF3 body? $200? Some product shots of the OM-D and then test shots: Olympus OM-D & Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4

Congrats reggieandTFE, shots look great from your OM-D =)

I'm kicking myself for skipping out when Amazon had the OM-D with 14-42 kit in stock earlier this week. I had the body-only version on pre-order since Feb. 8th and who knows when they'll get it in stock...(I'm sticking to buying it on Amazon because I have $250 in gift cards to use towards it)

I jumped on the chance when J&R had the Panny 25mm in stock yesterday, I'm hoping I got in...I'll be cancelling my Panny EPP order if so (in which I just got another e-mail from them saying it's still backordered...whoopee =P)

[zephervack]

If you were okay with the fixed equivalent 35mm and the price, the X100 would be the camera for you.

After our talks 2 weeks ago I ended up getting a used X100 for $850, This thing is amazing, AF is not as fast as my 7D (duh!), but its nowhere near as bad as some reviews make it out to be.

More importantly, im finding a new joy in photography that I had lost, Its so easy to take this out anywhere and with a filter I dont even bother to carry the lens cap which means im always ready to take a shot, im loving this thing, one of my favorite gadgets/cameras ever.

[Flo_Evans]

whoa...

http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/26/mo...0-rumors.aspx/

The price of the D600 is rumored to be very low - maybe as low as $1500. The sensor inside the D600 will probably be 24MP (made by Sony, modified by Nikon). The D600 will probably not have an internal AF motor, which means it will work only with AF-S lenses (just like the D3200 and D5100). The D600 will have HD video.

wonder if they would do this.

[luoapp]

The days of APSC are numbered!