finally did it

[DrMoab]

Well, that is new technology, you have to give it time and I would guess you have lots of other rewarding things to do with your time while you wait. I am pretty sure the next small build, D700 style camera will have video. Too many folks I know prefer the smaller camera bodies anyway for mountaineering, skiing, etc.

I agree 100% but when Nikon comes out with a D700s or whatever they call it, the video part will have to be a large step above the D90 or even the D3s. It's the one (and only the one) area where I feel Canon has left them far behind.

Like I said, I really don't hold any brand affiliation. Either will get the job done and as far as image quality....Nikon or Canon will far outshoot 90% of most photographers skill level.

Taking this back to the original topic. I'm glad Steve went with the 40D instead of a Rebel or a Nikon D5000 or any of the other cheap, so called beginner camera. If he has what it takes to truly be a good photographer he won't outgrow this one so fast.

 

[XJBANKER]

I took some photos again last night just playing around with it and I am tickled pink. i took some of Gabby jumping on the trampoline and guess what THEY ARE NOT BLURRY! For that fact alone is I end up getting serious in photography or give up and keep all the settings on automatic from a fathers point of view it was worth the buy. Those are moments i will never get back and if i can capture her crooked smile or funny faces and the background sucks that is ok for me.

But I do hope with a lot of time, time, time and patience I can make some good framable prints that i can be proud of showing off and I think that this will be a camera that I can live with for a long time. And if and I say IF I outgrow it I guess I will just have two instead.

 

[Tucson T4R]

Congrats on your new toy.

Now you have stepped out onto the slippery slope of never ending lust for wallet depleting glass and post processing software. New L pro glass or send my daughter to college? Ah, she doesn't really need an education. :elkgrin:

Enjoy your journey.

 

[Lost Canadian]

... the video part will have to be a large step above the D90 or even the D3s. It's the one (and only the one) area where I feel Canon has left them far behind.

I'll be the first to admit, when it comes to video I'm in the dark, but with the obvious exception that Canon shoots in 1080p and Nikon is 720p, where are the glaring weaknesses? I dug into this a bit in trying to understand but from everything I've read, aside from that one spec feature, I'm not seeing where the D3s or even the D90 would fall flat on it's face compared to the 5D II. Again though, I'm a complete noob when it comes to video so please excuse my inquiry if the answer(s) are blindingly obvious.

 

[HB 4X4]

I'll be the first to admit, when it comes to video I'm in the dark, but with the obvious exception that Canon shoots in 1080p and Nikon is 720p, where are the glaring weaknesses? I dug into this a bit in trying to understand but from everything I've read, aside from that one spec feature, I'm not seeing where the D3s or even the D90 would fall flat on it's face compared to the 5D II. Again though, I'm a complete noob when it comes to video so please excuse my inquiry if the answer(s) are blindingly obvious.

What that translates into is getting a few minutes of video on the Canon and getting 5 times that on the Nikon. Much less memory usage. Right now the best comparison between the two is the D300s vs. the 7D. The D700x/s (or D800) will hopefully help level the playing field.

The image quality on the Canon movie mode is much more advance as far as appearance. You can attribute that to the 1080p resolution most likely.

If you plan on using the Canon for more than a few minutes of video, you'd better plan on spending a few hundred $$ on larger CF cards.

 

[DrMoab]

^ what he said.

I will admit that other than videos I have seen posted on the internet and such, I have no personal experience with either. I'm going purely off reviews and such.

Another issue I have heard is that Nikon's almost totally have to be on a tripod. They have some issues with movement and such. Canon's have this issue somewhat but far less than the Nikon's do.

 

[XJBANKER]

So what should I shoot in? Raw/jpeg L or since I am learning should I just stick with Jpeg L. Most of my photos will probably just stay on the computer for now. if I get a good one then maybe I will blow it up.

I have a 1 gig card and a 4 gig card

 

[Tucson T4R]

So what should I shoot in? Raw/jpeg L or since I am learning should I just stick with Jpeg L. Most of my photos will probably just stay on the computer for now. if I get a good one then maybe I will blow it up.

I have a 1 gig card and a 4 gig card

I think it depends on how much post processing you want to get into and how much control you want as far as the ability to change white balance, exposure, etc in post processing.

If your desire is to get the best photo you can on the first shot and do minimal post processing then I would say JPG only is fine. If you want to have a lot more post processing control over your photos or get into HDR processing then RAW will give you much more to work with. The challenge there is you will need good software like Photoshop, Lightroom and maybe Photomatix if you want to get serious.

I now just shoot RAW and spend way too much time in post processing. I need to focus more on getting the shot right the first time. :elkgrin:

 

[XJBANKER]

I have a copy of lightroom, I just have not used it yet because my computer is sooooooooo slow. I need to put a new one of those on my upgrade list as well.

 

[DrMoab]

Shoot in Raw+Jpeg. You don't have to process the raw images right now but whats to say you don't get lucky and grab a great shot of Gabby right off the bat. It would be nice to have the extra processing power, even if it's later on down the road.

Right after I bought my DSLR we went to Silverton Colorado and I made the mistake of thinking I didn't need to shoot in raw because I wasn't good enough. Now I wish I could go back and edit some of them further and its hard having Jpeg only.

 

[HB 4X4]

If you want a very simple way to decide, look at it this way:

A RAW file is a digital equivalent of a negative. If you were to shoot film, would you want the negatives?

The up-side is the ability to edit/save your images much better than with a JPEG since the detail/information isn't completely lost. (i.e., a blown out area that appears white will have no data in a JPEG, but can often be saved with a RAW.) The downside is storing them and needing larger memory cards. You will quickly eat through a hard drive storing them, and you will cut the amount of pictures you can fit on a card to a tiny fraction of what it could hold in JPEGs. I can't remember the exact ratio, but I believe I could get 700-1000 on my 4GB CF card, but only about 17X in RAW fine. You will also be responsible for editing every single image since RAW files look more bland. A JPEG is processed with preset settings in your camera (which you can adjust for things like saturation) whereas the RAW is exactly what the camera saw, no processing done.