Support NeoGAF

[PantherLotus]

What does a tripod do other than hold the camera steady?



Ok, I looked it up. It sounds like cameras are more sensitive to movement than I expected. My pulse can make it move?

 

[Madvillain]

I used one as a weapon once when some bum tried to rob me while shooting in the middle of the night... um... I dunno. I've never really used a tripod for anything other than photography, or to keep a window open.

 

[BlueTsunami]

What does a tripod do other than hold the camera steady?



Ok, I looked it up. It sounds like cameras are more sensitive to movement than I expected. My pulse can make it move?

Camera shake definitely degrades the sharpness of an image very easily but digital noise can be even worse.

What you want to try and do with your camera is have it take a picture at its lowest ISO when placed on a Tripod. In the image you posted on the previous page, it would probably turn out to be a 5-10 second exposure at base ISO.

Generally, everyone who's posting images that are nice and digital clean is due to being mindful of the ISO they're working with.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

What does a tripod do other than hold the camera steady?



Ok, I looked it up. It sounds like cameras are more sensitive to movement than I expected. My pulse can make it move?

To compensate for having low light you either have to sacrifice iso or shutter speed. With a tripod you can significantly slow down shutter speed. The slower your shutter speed, the more light your camera takes in. At slow shutter speeds a tripod is a must because any movement from your hands, no matter how still you think you take the shot will make your picture out of focus. Think about it. If your shutter speed is 1/4000 of a second, your movement really wouldn't translate into the photo. But at 3 seconds, there is plenty of time to bork the picture.

If you have no tripod, upping your ISO is your only choice. In dark condition I recommend a ISO between 400-800 at maximum.

 

[Futureman]

A few of downtown Chicago at night, taken last fall:

What camera and lens? I like the bokeh and colors.

 

[BronzeWolf]

Yes for pics like yours, it's good to pull the ISO all the way down
I use ISo 200 for steady shots at low light with no discernable motion, eventhough my camera goes up to ISO12800 (usable up to 3200, eventhough noise ninja is amazing at cleaning noise at the higher stages)

So now you have put your ISO down, now what?

You have to either open the aperture.This means how open the lens of your camera is going to be and as expected, more open=more light=less exposure time and more closed=less light=less exposure.

This number is usually expressed in the form of fx where x is the aperture number. The lower the number, the bigger the aperture. Most default kit lenses hover from f3 to f5 maximum aperture.

THE MAIN PROBLEM with opening the aperture too much is that your Depth of Field diminishes. Depth of Field just means HOW BIG is the focus area. In your shoot case I don't think it matters that much, so you can open the aperture all you want.

So we've got two variables now: ISO low, Aperture High
Only one that we've got is TIME.

For cameras without stabilizing apparatuses, a (1/80) of a second or faster time is recommended. Your hands shake a lot whether you realize it or not an even with much steady hands, you can go down to maybe a 1/50 of a second. The sensor in your camera is like a canvas that absorbs paint during that lapse. If your canvas moves while you are painting, the final image is going to be blurry. On the other hand, super fast shutter speeds are also quite amazing, once I put my camera on the fastest speed available and started shooting while on an off-road trip. I couldn't see a thing on my viewfinder due to the bumpy road but the pictures came out excellent.

Most semi-pro cameras and/or lenses have stabilizing mechanical (usually Electromagnetic) devices that help you take longer exposed pictures. Mine lets me pull down to even 1/8 s exposure time and have a good picture, providing there are no moving objects. You will have to take some pictures before you get down the time you think is right.

So that's that

ISO low
Aperture High (low number)
Adjust time accordingly, if faster than 1/50 s, use tripod

Soon you will know why people buy super expensive shit. It's not because we like being poor. Consider this:
You want to shoot your parents at that chair without flash. You find that even with a super open aperture you can't get them sharp.
So you push up the ISO to the limits of usable pics. You still can't get a sharp pic.
You lower the exposure time. Now you've got them sharp but they look dark as hell.
These are the limitations of our camera dude, you WON'T be able to take this shoot unless you have either a bigger lens aperture wise, or a more sensible camera (ISO)

 

[chaostrophy]

What camera and lens? I like the bokeh and colors.

5DII w/ Canon 50mm f1.4.

 

[Tokubetsu]

Yes for pics like yours, it's good to pull the ISO all the way down
I use ISo 200 for steady shots at low light with no discernable motion, eventhough my camera goes up to ISO12800 (usable up to 3200, eventhough noise ninja is amazing at cleaning noise at the higher stages)

So now you have put your ISO down, now what?

You have to either open the aperture.This means how open the lens of your camera is going to be and as expected, more open=more light=less exposure time and more closed=less light=less exposure.

This number is usually expressed in the form of fx where x is the aperture number. The lower the number, the bigger the aperture. Most default kit lenses hover from f3 to f5 maximum aperture.

THE MAIN PROBLEM with opening the aperture too much is that your Depth of Field diminishes. Depth of Field just means HOW BIG is the focus area. In your shoot case I don't think it matters that much, so you can open the aperture all you want.

So we've got two variables now: ISO low, Aperture High
Only one that we've got is TIME.

For cameras without stabilizing apparatuses, a (1/80) of a second or faster time is recommended. Your hands shake a lot whether you realize it or not an even with much steady hands, you can go down to maybe a 1/50 of a second. The sensor in your camera is like a canvas that absorbs paint during that lapse. If your canvas moves while you are painting, the final image is going to be blurry. On the other hand, super fast shutter speeds are also quite amazing, once I put my camera on the fastest speed available and started shooting while on an off-road trip. I couldn't see a thing on my viewfinder due to the bumpy road but the pictures came out excellent.

Most semi-pro cameras and/or lenses have stabilizing mechanical (usually Electromagnetic) devices that help you take longer exposed pictures. Mine lets me pull down to even 1/8 s exposure time and have a good picture, providing there are no moving objects. You will have to take some pictures before you get down the time you think is right.

So that's that

ISO low
Aperture High (low number)
Adjust time accordingly, if faster than 1/50 s, use tripod

Soon you will know why people buy super expensive shit. It's not because we like being poor. Consider this:
You want to shoot your parents at that chair without flash. You find that even with a super open aperture you can't get them sharp.
So you push up the ISO to the limits of usable pics. You still can't get a sharp pic.
You lower the exposure time. Now you've got them sharp but they look dark as hell.
These are the limitations of our camera dude, you WON'T be able to take this shoot unless you have either a bigger lens aperture wise, or a more sensible camera (ISO)

Nothing like knowing you could have had that shot if you had a different lens. Haven't really shot anything lately, real down in the dumps about life situation. I think my 20d needs to be cleaned too =/

 

[hEist]

50mm with Raynox DCR-250

 

[mrkgoo]

While I'm here, I thought I'd mention that a long exposure can introduce noise as well.

An advantage, that I've discovered, of the megapixel race is that as you go higher in MP, you do get more noise, but that noise becomes finer and finer. On my 7D the noise looks a bit more pleasing, and less like 'digital' noise.

Exposure is a huge contribution to noise. Shadow areas are already a problem, but underexposing will always highlight dark areas with noise. A way that can help is to overexpose, but without clipping the highlights - that is, shoot as bright as you can without losing information in the bright areas - and then pulling it back.

To understand everything, you have to understand what 'noise' is. I'm a scientist, so I deal with noisy data all the time. In regards to photography, I see it like this:

Each pixel on the sensor is considered a photosite - like a bucket that measures how much light hits it. Open the shutter, each pixel starts counting photons that hit it (conceptually). This counting is inherently imperfect.

This is fine for bright areas. Let's say for whatever setting a pixel is counting 1000 AU (arbitrary unit ). the adjacent pixel might count 990, and maybe the one on the other side is counting 1010. A difference of 1% - no big deal in the overall picture.

But in darker areas, let's say the pixels are counting in the region of 100. Adjacent pixels are counting 90 and 110. That's quite a difference, and this shows up a noise in the dark areas.

Now what is ISO? Iso isn't actually changing the hardwired sensitivity of the sensor - it's just gaining up. Think o fit like counting the pixels in a dark area and then multiplying it up. Those same pixels measuring 90, 100, and 110, scaled up to the brightness of the previous example (x10), and you're looking at 900, 1000, and 1100. Large errors, and hence more noise.

Of course this is all conceptual. I have no idea how sensors REALLY work - a hardwired gaining of sensor iso isn't just scaling up photon counts (which is more a software thing), but is similar.

The reason why digital noise is a lot more horrible than film grain, I don't know, but I'd hypothesise it has to do with the bayer filter over sensors. Each pixel on a sensor only records light. It doesn't know anything about colour inherently whatsoever. The bayer filter applies a colour filter over each pixel, either red, green, or blue, thus making each pixel only measure light of that colour. The camera reassembles the information to make a 8-bit 3-channel colour code known for image files from that information.

The chroma noise, I'm guessing, comes from the inherent sensitivity of sensors to green light, as the pixel arrangement in the bayer filter is 1red, 2 green, and 1 blue for every 4 pixels. So twice as much error goes into the green channel.

Just a guess though. I really am talking out of my butt here. Maybe some technical people can add to clarify.

 

[DrEvil]

While I'm here, I thought I'd mention that a long exposure can introduce noise as well.

An advantage, that I've discovered, of the megapixel race is that as you go higher in MP, you do get more noise, but that noise becomes finer and finer. On my 7D the noise looks a bit more pleasing, and less like 'digital' noise.

Exposure is a huge contribution to noise. Shadow areas are already a problem, but underexposing will always highlight dark areas with noise. A way that can help is to overexpose, but without clipping the highlights - that is, shoot as bright as you can without losing information in the bright areas - and then pulling it back.

To understand everything, you have to understand what 'noise' is. I'm a scientist, so I deal with noisy data all the time. In regards to photography, I see it like this:

Each pixel on the sensor is considered a photosite - like a bucket that measures how much light hits it. Open the shutter, each pixel starts counting photons that hit it (conceptually). This counting is inherently imperfect.

This is fine for bright areas. Let's say for whatever setting a pixel is counting 1000 AU (arbitrary unit ). the adjacent pixel might count 990, and maybe the one on the other side is counting 1010. A difference of 1% - no big deal in the overall picture.

But in darker areas, let's say the pixels are counting in the region of 100. Adjacent pixels are counting 90 and 110. That's quite a difference, and this shows up a noise in the dark areas.

Now what is ISO? Iso isn't actually changing the hardwired sensitivity of the sensor - it's just gaining up. Think o fit like counting the pixels in a dark area and then multiplying it up. Those same pixels measuring 90, 100, and 110, scaled up to the brightness of the previous example (x10), and you're looking at 900, 1000, and 1100. Large errors, and hence more noise.

Of course this is all conceptual. I have no idea how sensors REALLY work - a hardwired gaining of sensor iso isn't just scaling up photon counts (which is more a software thing), but is similar.

The reason why digital noise is a lot more horrible than film grain, I don't know, but I'd hypothesise it has to do with the bayer filter over sensors. Each pixel on a sensor only records light. It doesn't know anything about colour inherently whatsoever. The bayer filter applies a colour filter over each pixel, either red, green, or blue, thus making each pixel only measure light of that colour. The camera reassembles the information to make a 8-bit 3-channel colour code known for image files from that information.

The chroma noise, I'm guessing, comes from the inherent sensitivity of sensors to green light, as the pixel arrangement in the bayer filter is 1red, 2 green, and 1 blue for every 4 pixels. So twice as much error goes into the green channel.

Just a guess though. I really am talking out of my butt here. Maybe some technical people can add to clarify.

How are you liking your 7D? I am thinking of getting one in a week or two, I have a lot of Canon Lenses from my old film cameras that I believe are EF, so they should work with it.. It seems like the best of the bunch (Video is a HUGE plus for me), I just wanted some real impressions of the camera and it's capabilities that weren't a spreadsheet.

 

[captive]

While I'm here, I thought I'd mention that a long exposure can introduce noise as well.

I was going to bring this up too.
Your camera may have two noise settings, one for noise reduction on high ISO shots, which i leave off all the time on my camera. And then one possibly called noise filter for long exposure shots which you want to come on if you do a long exposure.


You can also try on a long exposure shot using a light and shine it over the frame over a long exposure. I have not tried it, but I read about it for doing star trails and lighting the foreground. Probably pretty tricky to get it evenly distributed.


But anyway as others have said a tripod is your best bet and do a longer exposure at the lowest ISO setting.

An advantage, that I've discovered, of the megapixel race is that as you go higher in MP, you do get more noise, but that noise becomes finer and finer. On my 7D the noise looks a bit more pleasing, and less like 'digital' noise.

Noticed this as well, its hardly viewable in print and when it is is looks more like film grain to me.
The e30 and 7d have very similar pixel density which cause finer noise.


nice shot and nice bokeh, heist.

 

[BronzeWolf]

I can sort of clarify, I work with infrared cameras.

Yes, noise is basically the amplified difference between the different black levels of a sensing device. This difference comes from the inherent imperfect trimming of semiconductive photo sensible devices like CCD's and CMOS plus thermal noise that comes from electrons racing to and fro in the device

Why some cameras are more noisy than others? The answer is in the pixel. Mrkgoo already explained in detail the basis of pixel sensitivity but there are very specific reasons for this. Each pixel is made up of electronic devices that operate on a voltage difference. This involves many noise sources, basically You've got

- Leakage current from polarization. As long as you turn your camera on, you've got noise
- Thermal noise: if you cool your camera, you might be able to take those noiseless 12800
- Trimming noise: If every pixel was the same, you wouldn't notice the noise, but since each pixel has nanoscopic differences, the difference between the devices adds to the perception of noise.
- Blur Noise: Ideally, every pixel is supposed to be isolated from others, but in actuality, since most use a single supply source, the difference in power consumption from one to the other can lead to noise. In practice this means that if you've got a purely black picture, your noise levels will in general be lower than if you've got a picture full of white to black transitions
- Instrumentation Noise: Your sensor operates on a series of steps: Set, Reset, capture. The ceiling is set, then the floor is set, then the video signal is obtained. This changes are VERY fast (we are talking at nanoseconds) and as such is very difficult to produce the clean squared signals we want. We often have underdamped responses that produce slightly lower grounds and higher ceilings. This adds to the pixel differentiation and thus, noise
- Implementation Noise: Every amplifier and electronic device before the ADC adds to the thermal noise, although only the first stage is critical.

And since consumer electronics are now all using CMOS, a new source of noise is added:

- Trimming space noise: With CCD's all implementation is done OUTSIDE the sensor, which leads to more space per pixel for instrumentation purposes: better semiconductive specs lower noise. With CMOS, most of the implementation is done ON-SENSOR, which leaves less space per pixel for instrumentation purposes: worse semiconductive characteristics=more noise.

This above is the whole reason that my Pentax Kx ($750 value) is less noisy than a Pentax K7 ($1200 value): The Kx has less channels than the k7, this means less instrumentation space=better semiconductive capabilities. What are channels? The sensor is divided in a certain amount of segments, so in actuality, one sensor might be built of 8 sections, each with it's own data channel. What is the advantage of having more channels? Faster data downloads=faster shutter speeds=faster processing at the cost of more noise

 

[mrkgoo]

hectorse: Thanks for the info that's really interesting.
DreVil: I'll post some impressions tomorrow. They'll be very positive.

 

[OnkelC]

panoramic attempt:


Thinking about switching from the Lumix TZ3 to a Powershot S90 in the next weeks, any experiences with that model, PhotoGAFfers?

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Quick question to your flickr guys and gals. How are you getting people to comment on your photos so much. I love the apple shot, but how did you get so many comments? Was that just by submitting your photos as viewable by anyone through your photo streams?

Also in regards to the fruit head shots. Was software package did you use? I have been using GIMP lately, though I must admit I am pretty bad atm.

I think at this point I need to just keep working on my composition and don't worry about things like RAW and post-processing. The fun will come later.

Also I have moved most of my pictures to private and figure I should only show my best shots in public. :lol

 

[hEist]

Quick question to your flickr guys and gals. How are you getting people to comment on your photos so much. I love the apple shot, but how did you get so many comments? Was that just by submitting your photos as viewable by anyone through your photo streams?

Also in regards to the fruit head shots. Was software package did you use? I have been using GIMP lately, though I must admit I am pretty bad atm.

I think at this point I need to just keep working on my composition and don't worry about things like RAW and post-processing. The fun will come later.

Also I have moved most of my pictures to private and figure I should only show my best shots in public. :lol

just by adding it to other groups, you can get so many comments. groups like "post here, comment there" etc.

I'm using Adobe Lightroom 2 for post-processing.
The photo is not really much post-processed. I only rised the contrast, rest is orginal.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

just by adding it to other groups, you can get so many comments. groups like "post here, comment there" etc.

I'm using Adobe Lightroom 2 for post-processing.
The photo is not really much post-processed. I only rised the contrast, rest is orginal.

How many of your photos do you make public out of a single shoot typically? I think I am going to upload the same amount to flickr, but be more picky on what I make public.

 

[hEist]

How many of your photos do you make public out of a single shoot typically? I think I am going to upload the same amount to flickr, but be more picky on what I make public.

well, it depends which pictures i like. As the Photo of the apple, i took about 28 photos.
some vertical and some horizontal. Some with low aperture and some with high aperture.

Then i import them to Lightroom and look after
- dof (depth of field)
- wiggly (specialy here a lot, 80% of them were blured, because i used no tripod with high aperture)
- composition
- colors/tones

After i evaluated them (1-5pts), only 3 Photos left. Then i pick the one, which i like and upload it.

I took more then 3k Photos, since i am @flickr. And only 90 Photos made it to Flickr

 

[Android18a]

Couple of snaps taken this morning Sorry 'bout the nasty photoshopping.

 

[pringles]

 

[olbareun]

 

[MilesWebber]

Alright Wispy, spill it. What's your post process for that 'Look'?

 

[kid ness]

 

[Zyzyxxz]

LOL, this pic makes me think nasty things.

 

[kid ness]

LOL, this pic makes me think nasty things.

It's pretty straightforward, too. No bullshit.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Alright Wispy, spill it. What's your post process for that 'Look'?

I think he posted about it in the past but it looks to be split toning (with emphasis on blues, probably in the shadows) and a drop in contrast. How its exactly being done, not sure.

 

[guess]

 

[movie_club]

Alright GAF I plan on getting into photography in 2010 however, the problem is i NO NOTHING about photogrophy- for example what ISO is/does, what shutter speed does to a pic... so fort. I am a total n00b. Where is the best place to learn term definitions and their effects on photos?

I have a Canon Powershot SX10IS, but usually keep it on auto...help

 

[BronzeWolf]

Alright GAF I plan on getting into photography in 2010 however, the problem is i NO NOTHING about photogrophy- for example what ISO is/does, what shutter speed does to a pic... so fort. I am a total n00b. Where is the best place to learn term definitions and their effects on photos?

I have a Canon Powershot SX10IS, but usually keep it on auto...help

OK Dude as a noob myself I'll help you out. I just need to check out your camera's stats first.

For starters:

1) Turn off your flash
2) Turn off your digital zoom

First you've got to change to Manual Mode. Yes, your pictures will suck at first: they will either be too "overexposed" (white) "underexposed" (dark), out of focus, or just not fast enough (Blurry subjects)

There are some concepts you need to learn first:

ISO - Sensitivity to light, the higher the ISO, the more sensible your camera is to light. Your camera goes up to ISO 1600. Usually the highest two ISO steps input so much noise they are unusable, so I would only take the ISO up to 400. Set ISO to 100 and only crank it up if you need it. When will you need to crank it up? You'll learn soon enough. For now, 100 is cool

ISO - 100

Aperture - How open your lens is. The more open your lens is, the more light it's going to let in. A lower number means a more open less. Your lens goes from 2.8 on the wide end (zero zoom) and 5.7 on the tight end (zoomed all the way in). While there is a difference in composition between the length angle and the aperture set, I don't think you need to bother with it right now. So just set your aperture to the lowest you can and leave it there, for now.

ISO 100
A f2.8

Exposure Time - How long does the sensor of your camera stay open. The more time it remains open the more light it catches. Here's the catch: if you leave your sensor open too much, any movement at all will blurry the image. Movement is introduced by your unsteady hands and going longer than 1/50 of a second introduces shaky hand blurriness. There is also another catch, if your objects have some kind of movement, you are not photographing buildings or inanimate objects, if you leave it open for more than 1/8 of a second you are going to get blurry objects. But if you open your sensor too quickly, you might not get enough light in and your picture will be on focus... but terribly dark. Fiddle around with it!

If you want to get longer time exposures, you'll need a tripod

ISO 100
f2.8
T maximum 250 milliseconds for people and slow moving objects on a tripod, 1/50 is the slowest for handheld photoshooting.

A last recommendation: When using your camera, set your zoom to the middle and GET PHYSICALLY CLOSE TO THE OBJECTS. Learn to use your feet to compose.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

Alright GAF I plan on getting into photography in 2010 however, the problem is i NO NOTHING about photogrophy- for example what ISO is/does, what shutter speed does to a pic... so fort. I am a total n00b. Where is the best place to learn term definitions and their effects on photos?

I have a Canon Powershot SX10IS, but usually keep it on auto...help

Initially you should probably just shoot as much as you can. You'll learn a lot more in the beginning shooting than necessarily reading. As for basic definitions of iso, aperature size and shutter speed, there are a few explanations in the thread already. Otherwise you should be able to google everything else.

You're onboard flash is not exactly the greatest, thus the suggestion to turn it off. However if you aren't going to be able to get the shot in certain low light conditions, try the flash.

 

[zhenming]

Placement of car could have been better..... orange kinda kills it....

 

[Daigoro]

he is so hard to photograph...

 

[The_Inquisitor]

That's a do not want picture if I ever saw one. :lol

 

[Daigoro]

That's a do not want picture if I ever saw one. :lol

pretty much. :lol

 

[movie_club]

OK Dude as a noob myself I'll help you out. I just need to check out your camera's stats first.

For starters:

1) Turn off your flash
2) Turn off your digital zoom

First you've got to change to Manual Mode. Yes, your pictures will suck at first: they will either be too "overexposed" (white) "underexposed" (dark), out of focus, or just not fast enough (Blurry subjects)

There are some concepts you need to learn first:

ISO - Sensitivity to light, the higher the ISO, the more sensible your camera is to light. Your camera goes up to ISO 1600. Usually the highest two ISO steps input so much noise they are unusable, so I would only take the ISO up to 400. Set ISO to 100 and only crank it up if you need it. When will you need to crank it up? You'll learn soon enough. For now, 100 is cool

ISO - 100

Aperture - How open your lens is. The more open your lens is, the more light it's going to let in. A lower number means a more open less. Your lens goes from 2.8 on the wide end (zero zoom) and 5.7 on the tight end (zoomed all the way in). While there is a difference in composition between the length angle and the aperture set, I don't think you need to bother with it right now. So just set your aperture to the lowest you can and leave it there, for now.

ISO 100
A f2.8

Exposure Time - How long does the sensor of your camera stay open. The more time it remains open the more light it catches. Here's the catch: if you leave your sensor open too much, any movement at all will blurry the image. Movement is introduced by your unsteady hands and going longer than 1/50 of a second introduces shaky hand blurriness. There is also another catch, if your objects have some kind of movement, you are not photographing buildings or inanimate objects, if you leave it open for more than 1/8 of a second you are going to get blurry objects. But if you open your sensor too quickly, you might not get enough light in and your picture will be on focus... but terribly dark. Fiddle around with it!

If you want to get longer time exposures, you'll need a tripod

ISO 100
f2.8
T maximum 250 milliseconds for people and slow moving objects on a tripod, 1/50 is the slowest for handheld photoshooting.

A last recommendation: When using your camera, set your zoom to the middle and GET PHYSICALLY CLOSE TO THE OBJECTS. Learn to use your feet to compose.

Thank You for your advice and help! I am going to try and take some random shots outside my house tomorrow- i will post for critiques!

 

[mrkgoo]

How are you liking your 7D? I am thinking of getting one in a week or two, I have a lot of Canon Lenses from my old film cameras that I believe are EF, so they should work with it.. It seems like the best of the bunch (Video is a HUGE plus for me), I just wanted some real impressions of the camera and it's capabilities that weren't a spreadsheet.

Here are my overall impressions of the 7D. Keep in mind, I started out with a <2 MP Casio P&S, then a 5 MP Sony P&S.

My dSLR history followed by starting with a Canon 350D (8MP), and then a Canon 40D (10MP). The biggest upgrade that I felt was actually the introduction of the back dial. I shoot nearly exclusively in manual exposure, so having a dial to separately control aperture and shutter is huge to me. Viewfinder and LCD screen enhancements were the next biggest upgrades. The new AF and shutter mechanism were enjoyed as well. Of course, magnesium body and allthat too.

The 7D is a great camera. I think it's a milestone camera. Certainly the best APS-C DSLR camera that Canon has put out, and bridges the smaller sensor camera into the realm of professional.

I used to be worried about increase of noise with smaller pixels (a consequence of ever increasing MP counts), but what I found was that the noise (note I shoot JPEGS and often have NR set to standard) at the 100% pixel level was about one stop better than the 40D. This was remarkable in itself, but the biggest deal was that the increased MP meant that when I view images at a reasonable size, noise was even less of an issue. And when no DID show up, it felt much more 'film' like.

On the 350D, Iso 100-400 was the standard. Iso800 was emergencies, and 1600 was nearly a no go. On the 40D iso 100-400 was still the standard, but I'd be willing to go to 800 if need be. iso 1600 for emergencies, and 3200 was pretty bad.

On the 7D, I actually use 200-1600 as standard. 3200 if I have to, 6400 for emergencies, and I rarely shoot in 12,800. But that's remarkable. It really does change your photography.

The other thing I noticed about the 18MP is that it does resolve more detail. the jump from 10MP is moderately significant. I can get near macro-like detail out of my good lenses, and my macro has become nearly an entirely different beast altogether.

The AF system is robust, and thrills the tech gadget geek in me. I know Nikon have been enjoying the LCD overlay style for sometime, but I'm pleased Canon are following. I have had no problems, and I invite the vast arrange of features it supports. I don't do many tracking shots, but I've seen it working and it does so very well.

I love the gorgeous screen. As a JPEG shooter, I chimp a lot, so having a great hi-pixel screen is great. The user customisability of this camera is one of the best too.

Video is great, but as I found out, video shooting on an SLR is something you really have to dedicate effort to. I haven't figured it all out myself. You'll need more gear to make the most of it, the first being a microphone (the built-in mic doesn't cut it as it pickup things like the focus and IS). Stabilisation will also be another requirement. If you plan on using it for video, realise that it's not just click-and-go - it's like getting into flash photography - you'll need to learn and practice a lot.

Overall, I think the 7D is above average in all respects and makes it a superb jack-of-all trades camera, sacrificing very little. I haven't used a full-frame camera, but after playing with the 7D, I feel I don't need to. Well, until the 5D mkIII.

 

[mrkgoo]

Wispy Scoundrel: Great stuff. Curious: if you WEREN'T going for that style, how would you do it?

Daigoro: haha, love it.

Zhenming: I think your HDR-style photographs have come a long way. You've made that look your own somewhat. Whenever I come in and see a picture as I scroll down, I now go "that's one of zhenmings's!"

My firs 2010 post: yeah a cat...


EF85mmf/1.8, f/2.0, 1/1000s, iso200.

 

[Dizzan]

Went to a farm in Armidale. It's an inland town in Australia (NSW). Starting to learn a few things with my camera but I still have a long way to go. I think I need to buy an SLR in the next year.

 

[PantherLotus]

Before PhotoGAF:

After PhotoGAF:

You guys fucking ROCK. I can't wait to show you some pictures I plan on taking. If you can see what my eye sees, I think we'll both be decently impressed.

On this one, it came back extremely yellow, which I corrected in photoshop by adjusting the color balance like +68 blue over yellow. ISO is 400. Other than the need to account for what I can't actually see in person (dust), any further tips are welcome.

 

[BronzeWolf]

Great improvement! I can see a little bit of noise though, but that's probably due to the sensor being funky.

Try taking the shot again, setting ISO all the way down to 100 and closing the aperture to something around 9.

You should be able to set your White Balance in camera. Use manual if it has it or adjust to the type of light, incandescent in this situation

You should be getting a GREAT shot now

 

[Borman]

Interesting picture? Not particularly, I just love this paperweight thing Ive had for years

 

[PantherLotus]

Thanks hectorse! I couldn't find a way to adjust the aperture, but I lowered the ISO to 100. Zoomed in for slightly better lighting, I think. The white balance was already set for incandescent.

I know this seems probably stupid, but I've never taken a picture this well in my life. I can't believe the difference a couple settings can make. I'm not happy with the yellow tint, but I can eff around all night in photoshop. I'd love to hear some post-production tips as well.

Here's the shot with the contrast jacked up and a little bit of blue correction:

Hopefully this isn't considered spamming. I don't really know the protocol of the thread, but I wanted to show the differences in each picture at once:

Bottom left being my favorite.

 

[b.e.r.g]

PantherLotus: Shoot in raw, adjust the white balance in Photoshop Camera Raw.

There are dussins of tutorials and videos out there to teach you how it works

EDIT:

Photoshop is a big part of this. The better photographer you are, the less Photoshop you need, but in the end learning both is important imo.

First of all, forget about "Contrast", learn "Levels" or better; "Curves". It's not that tricky once you get the hang of it. This will also help you understand how to read a histogram which will come in handy.

Also, check out "Selective Color", "Vibrance", "Dodge" and "Burn". You should also learn how to sharpen your images. There is a "Sharpen" tool, but I'd rather recommend this neat little tutorial.

I've applied most of these techniques to the second photo:

 

[captive]

My firs 2010 post: yeah a cat...


EF85mmf/1.8, f/2.0, 1/1000s, iso200.

Oh hai. Or, why are you pointing that thing at me again?

 

[PantherLotus]

PantherLotus: Shoot in raw, adjust the white balance in Photoshop Camera Raw.

There are dussins of tutorials and videos out there to teach you how it works

EDIT:

Photoshop is a big part of this. The better photographer you are, the less Photoshop you need, but in the end learning both is important imo.

First of all, forget about "Contrast", learn "Levels" or better; "Curves". It's not that tricky once you get the hang of it. This will also help you understand how to read a histogram which will come in handy.

Also, check out "Selective Color", "Vibrance", "Dodge" and "Burn". You should also learn how to sharpen your images. There is a "Sharpen" tool, but I'd rather recommend this neat little tutorial.

I've applied most of these techniques to the second photo:

Thanks for the tips! I'm not sure if I have RAW, but I couldn't figure out aperture, either. I'm using a simple Coolpix S203.

Your corrected version actually looks like a great shot to me, and provided better a better subject might be magazine quality, which is my goal. I'm going to pick out some subjects this week and come in for another round of critiques.

Btw, that sharpen tutorial using highpass in photoshop is effing smart. Good stuff.

 

[b.e.r.g]

Thanks for the tips! I'm not sure if I have RAW, but I couldn't figure out aperture, either. I'm using a simple Coolpix S203.

Your corrected version actually looks like a great shot to me, and provided better a better subject might be magazine quality, which is my goal. I'm going to pick out some subjects this week and come in for another round of critiques.

Btw, that sharpen tutorial using highpass in photoshop is effing smart. Good stuff.

Yeah I love using high pass for sharpening Lets you maintain all control!

I'd highly recommend an SLR camera if you want to learn about photography. I don't think that Coolpix has RAW, and even if it has aperture settings, I'm afraid it might be a little misleading when comparing to an actual SLR. Canon has a cheap ass one called 1000D

 

[mrkgoo]

Thanks for the tips! I'm not sure if I have RAW, but I couldn't figure out aperture, either. I'm using a simple Coolpix S203.

Your corrected version actually looks like a great shot to me, and provided better a better subject might be magazine quality, which is my goal. I'm going to pick out some subjects this week and come in for another round of critiques.

Btw, that sharpen tutorial using highpass in photoshop is effing smart. Good stuff.

I was going to say if you're going to be messing with whitebalance, either do it in camera or shoot raw. Jpegs do NOT handle pixel colour adjustments very well (unless you're going for something artistic).

 

[NYR]

A few from yesterday. I'll post some more up when I'm done processing.

You are an amazing photographer, very impressive.

Spoiler

Also, chick is smoking hot

 

[Futureman]

My mom is very near the end after fighting cancer for 4 years now. I'm going through old photos and making some stuff for the viewing/funeral. Here's my first one:

I'm probably going to do some where I remove the strings so it looks like the photos are floating, but I liked them in this one so I left them in.