Will pull the trigger on a DSLR - bought it (Canon T2i)

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Will pull the trigger on a DSLR - bought it (Canon T2i)

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:01:12 AM EDT

I've resisted a SLR-type camera since the Vivitar I bought in 1989, but I think it's time to add one. We had some friends visit and she had a Nikon D7000. I knew the picture quality would be better than my point-and-shoot, but I was surprised by just how much - even on mundane shots.

For me, the best choice looks like the Canon T2i with the included 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens isn't supposed to be the best, but considering where I'm coming from it'll be a while before I outgrow it and it's not going to cause much pain when/if I decide to dump it. $769 online, but Best Buy just sent out their 10% off coupon for Reward
Zone members, so that makes the same camera $779 locally with tax.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:17:43 AM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

I've resisted a SLR-type camera since the Vivitar I bought in 1989, but I think it's time to add one. We had some friends visit and she had a Nikon D7000. I knew the picture quality would be better than my point-and-shoot, but I was surprised by just how much - even on mundane shots.

For me, the best choice looks like the Canon T2i with the included 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens isn't supposed to be the best, but considering where I'm coming from it'll be a while before I outgrow it and it's not going to cause much pain when/if I decide to dump it. $769 online, but Best Buy just sent out their 10% off coupon for Reward Zone members, so that makes the same camera $779 locally with tax.

I just bought my first DSLR camera, a Nikon D3100.

Compared to pictures taken with my wife's Olympus point and shoot, the difference is staggering.

I paid $749 at BB for the D3100 kit and a 55-200mm AF-S lens. I also bought a 50mm AF f1.8 lens, some UV filters, a circular polarizer filter and a GorillaPod. That's enough to work with while I figure out what heck I'm doing.

Be warned, AR guys have nothing on camera guys when it comes to gear and accessories.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:21:44 AM EDT

[#2]

I dunno man - you price a Schmidt and Bender lately? Seems like all too many people here think that's the only thing that will do for their rifles. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to resist buying stupid expensive lenses pretty well, considering my most expensive optic after all these years is an EOtech.

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:28:25 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

I've resisted a SLR-type camera since the Vivitar I bought in 1989, but I think it's time to add one. We had some friends visit and she had a Nikon D7000. I knew the picture quality would be better than my point-and-shoot, but I was surprised by just how much - even on mundane shots.

For me, the best choice looks like the Canon T2i with the included 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens isn't supposed to be the best, but considering where I'm coming from it'll be a while before I outgrow it and it's not going to cause much pain when/if I decide to dump it. $769 online, but Best Buy just sent out their 10% off coupon for Reward Zone members, so that makes the same camera $779 locally with tax.

Go for it. But, just as another warning, you're going to be looking at longer lenses within days.

And don't forget memory, camera bags, flashes, Photoshop, a new body when it comes out a month after you just got one...

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:32:47 AM EDT

[#4]

That reminds me - I have to order some flash...

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:36:56 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
I've resisted a SLR-type camera since the Vivitar I bought in 1989, but I think it's time to add one. We had some friends visit and she had a Nikon D7000. I knew the picture quality would be better than my point-and-shoot, but I was surprised by just how much - even on mundane shots.

For me, the best choice looks like the Canon T2i with the included 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens isn't supposed to be the best, but considering where I'm coming from it'll be a while before I outgrow it and it's not going to cause much pain when/if I decide to dump it. $769 online, but Best Buy just sent out their 10% off coupon for Reward Zone members, so that makes the same camera $779 locally with tax.

Try to find the kit that comes with the 50-250mm lens also, it should only be $100 more, the lens is usually $200-250 by itself. I bought the kit with the 50-250mm because if you think you will be "zooming in" with the 18-55mm kit, you will be VERY dissappointed. I got those two lenses and a T1i last fall.

If you can afford it, trying buying better lenses though, because when it comes to shooting something like a hockey game, or anything that is moving fast you will need better lenses to get pictures that are good because cheaper lenses such as teh 50-250 will take amazing pictures with the right amount of light, but when you set the shutter to really fast speeds the 4-5.6 aperature really kills you. Unfortunetly good lenses are more then the camera itself.

As for cards I'm going to recommend (if your on a budget like me) to get one really good card such as a sandisk 30MB/s card in 4-8gb, and then get a Transcend card 32gb Class 10 card. The Transcends are good but they're transer rate is around 20MB/s. The 4gb Sandisk class 10 card cost me $30 and the Transcend 32gb cost $50

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:49:38 AM EDT

[#6]

The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

Posted: 3/15/2011 9:11:39 AM EDT

[#7]

The kit lens in the T2i is actually a pretty good lens, and I think you will appreciate the IS. I bought some bigger and better lenses, but the 18-55 is still in my bag. If you don't buy the kit with the 55-250, you can find it used at reasonable prices. Again, for its price, it is a pretty good lens. If you start to notice that you are limited by those two, then figure out what upgrades might be necessary.

Posted: 3/15/2011 9:17:33 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

I'm about as non-professional as it comes.

I set my camera to JPEG fine and picture size to large. I copy the pics over just like a flash drive, so I guess I'm saving them at the biggest size possible. I pick the ones I like and size as needed.

I've had the camera for a week. There is a steep learning curve. I'm sticking to easy stuff like waterfalls and covered bridges until I get to know the camera better.

As far as lenses go, I went out and found a waterfall. After a few frames with the 18-55mm lens I switched to the 55-200mm and took much better pictures. For general outdoor shooting the big 55-200mm is becoming a favorite.

Posted: 3/15/2011 9:32:03 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

Storage is cheap. I shoot RAW in the camera and leave them full resolution until I decided to do anything with them.

It's easy to resize a large/hi res image to a smaller size. Not so easy to make a low resolution image into a higher one.

Posted: 3/15/2011 10:32:00 AM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

I'm about as non-professional as it comes.

I set my camera to JPEG fine and picture size to large. I copy the pics over just like a flash drive, so I guess I'm saving them at the biggest size possible. I pick the ones I like and size as needed.

I've had the camera for a week. There is a steep learning curve. I'm sticking to easy stuff like waterfalls and covered bridges until I get to know the camera better.

As far as lenses go, I went out and found a waterfall. After a few frames with the 18-55mm lens I switched to the 55-200mm and took much better pictures. For general outdoor shooting the big 55-200mm is becoming a favorite.

You really ought to try shooting in RAW. With a jpeg, if you shoot a bad picture, you're stuck with it, but you can fix a lot in RAW. ViewNX is "ok" but I highly recommend Capture NX2.

Posted: 3/15/2011 10:38:21 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

You'll want both the 18-55 and 50-250 for the reach with the latter. The entry level duo for those two lenses on either the Canon or Nikon side is great value for the money.

As far as saving photos, I always shoot in RAW at the max size and save the originals. There is a lot more you can do with the photos, especially if you get more into the post-processing as you have the camera down the road. Hard drive space isn't an issue these days. If you won't have the post-processing capacities to start, you can do JPEG or save in both JPEG and RAW.

Posted: 3/15/2011 10:41:39 AM EDT

[#12]

In regards to RAW mode: Given that most of my pics would tend to be family/pet type snapshots, is there really a benefit for capturing in RAW mode? I can see going on vacation and switching to RAW for those once-in-a-lifetime kind of shot...

In regards to the storage size: I still think I'm going to resize my snapshot-type pics extensively. There's simply no medium I will use to display them that could take advantage of all those pixels...

Posted: 3/15/2011 11:13:00 AM EDT

[#13]

I bought it during lunch, BTW. $779 OTD at Best Buy - I talked the sales guy into honoring the coupon a day early, even though I didn't even have the coupon on hand.

Posted: 3/15/2011 11:42:13 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

I bought it during lunch, BTW. $779 OTD at Best Buy - I talked the sales guy into honoring the coupon a day early, even though I didn't even have the coupon on hand.

Congratulations. Another money pit to go along with AR's

ZM

Posted: 3/15/2011 4:42:32 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
In regards to RAW mode: Given that most of my pics would tend to be family/pet type snapshots, is there really a benefit for capturing in RAW mode? I can see going on vacation and switching to RAW for those once-in-a-lifetime kind of shot...

In regards to the storage size: I still think I'm going to resize my snapshot-type pics extensively. There's simply no medium I will use to display them that could take advantage of all those pixels...

RAW will let you adjust the white balance, has more bit depth for color and more dynamic range than JPEGs. Like someone said, memory is cheap. Shoot simultaneous RAW and JPEG and save the RAW's so you can edit them later if you want.

Posted: 3/15/2011 4:49:31 PM EDT

[#16]

I'm new to DSLR too. I got a t2i package for Christmas, with the kit 18-55 lens, and a EF-S 55-250 f4-5.6 IS lens.

The 18-55 isn't as bad as you're saying, according to this review.

Since then, I also bought the EF 50mm 1.4 USM prime lens and the Speedlite 430 EX.

This will keep me busy for a while.

I now shoot in RAW to take full advantage of the adjustability within Aperture and PS Elements.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:09:23 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

I dunno man - you price a Schmidt and Bender lately? Seems like all too many people here think that's the only thing that will do for their rifles. I'm pretty sure that I'll be able to resist buying stupid expensive lenses pretty well, considering my most expensive optic after all these years is an EOtech.

I agree. The only reason I have a rifle scope that cost more than $400 {Trijicon ACOG} is because I got it for free by cashing in some gift certificates at work for Amazon.com

I also bought the Canon T2i and have only added a wireless remote and a protective cover the LCD preview screen on the back: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003HM3LZE

Wireless remote: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0037NX6JY

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:19:26 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

Harddrives are so cheap I just copy and paste straight from my card, and I am shooting in jpeg + raw. I am no pro, Hell my DSLR is my first camera and I got it in Decemeber. The Raw files allow you to go back and change any setting that you had on your camera other then aperature and iso.

Where are you buying the t2i from? I bought a refurbished T1i straight from Canon and it came to $600 for the two lenses and camera. Cannon refurbs are supposed to be VERY VERY good, but if you can afford a new one, definetly get one.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:37:11 PM EDT

[#19]

Best Buy. $799 for the kit with the 18-55mm lens, minus 10% Reward Zone coupon, plus 8.25% sales tax.

Posted: 3/15/2011 7:57:54 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Best Buy. $799 for the kit with the 18-55mm lens, minus 10% Reward Zone coupon, plus 8.25% sales tax.

If you can wait there are some great deals to be found on the internet. Check out slickdeals.net and find their photo section. I was just on there and there was a deal for the new T3i with the 18-55mm lens for $700, but that deal is over.

I just found THIS, now I am not sure if the T3i is an upgrade to the T2i, but I am assuming it is. That link is for the T3i with the 18-55mm for $709, I just looked and it takes 5% off when you add it to you cart making it $673

Posted: 3/15/2011 8:42:49 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Best Buy. $799 for the kit with the 18-55mm lens, minus 10% Reward Zone coupon, plus 8.25% sales tax.

If you can wait there are some great deals to be found on the internet. Check out slickdeals.net and find their photo section. I was just on there and there was a deal for the new T3i with the 18-55mm lens for $700, but that deal is over.

I just found THIS, now I am not sure if the T3i is an upgrade to the T2i, but I am assuming it is. That link is for the T3i with the 18-55mm for $709, I just looked and it takes 5% off when you add it to you cart making it $673

The T3i is an upgrade, but it's mostly a video-mode upgrade.

The T2i was my first DSLR. I got it last August and took some pretty good shots with it. Great little camera.

Flickr.

Posted: 3/16/2011 4:26:43 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

The T3i is an upgrade, but it's mostly a video-mode upgrade.

The t3i also has an articulating monitor rather than the fixed one. This isn't a huge deal to me since I do my pic shooting through the viewfinder and shoot very little video.

Posted: 3/16/2011 5:53:54 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The 55mm is basically 2.5x optical zoom, so I know where you're coming from.

The longer zoom lens is $200 more, so not much savings over buying the body and the lens outright. With 18MP, you can crop to zoom to an extent also.

For you guys who AREN'T professional photographers: What size do you save pics on your HDD?

Personally, I resize to about 2500 pixels horizontally; it's well bigger than any monitor out there. We don't print many pics, and if we do they're 4x6.

Harddrives are so cheap I just copy and paste straight from my card, and I am shooting in jpeg + raw. I am no pro, Hell my DSLR is my first camera and I got it in Decemeber. The Raw files allow you to go back and change any setting that you had on your camera other then aperature and iso.

Where are you buying the t2i from? I bought a refurbished T1i straight from Canon and it came to $600 for the two lenses and camera. Cannon refurbs are supposed to be VERY VERY good, but if you can afford a new one, definetly get one.

Wait... what?

Raw gives you more data, that is all. You cannot change any settings the camera had.

You can adjust white balance in a JPG as well as a RAW... BUT if you blow one (or more) of the channels in JPG, you can't get that data back, which can screw up white balancing bright areas. With RAW you can recover slightly blown highlights... but if you blow them too bad in RAW, you're still screwed.

Posted: 3/16/2011 6:00:42 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The T3i is an upgrade, but it's mostly a video-mode upgrade.

The t3i also has an articulating monitor rather than the fixed one. This isn't a huge deal to me since I do my pic shooting through the viewfinder and shoot very little video.

but its 130 cheaper then the T2i op is looking at.

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:02:48 AM EDT

[#25]

I may have overexaggerrated about raw files but u can change a lot of things. The only things that are permanent are the "physical" settings of the camera at the time the picture is taken. There is probably a few more things you cannot change. If it wasn't to raw none of the pictures I took of the lunar eclipse wouldn't have look good at all.

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:15:48 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

I just found THIS, now I am not sure if the T3i is an upgrade to the T2i, but I am assuming it is. That link is for the T3i with the 18-55mm for $709, I just looked and it takes 5% off when you add it to you cart making it $673

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Thunder_Cameras

Doesn't look good...

But yeah - that's a smokin' deal, and way less than a comparable T2i from a reputable dealer. The T3i was $100 more at BB.

[ETA] Oh well - I'm happy with the deal I got. It's pretty much the same as what I would have paid ordering online. Please refrain from posting more smoking deals that make me feel bad about my purchase.

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:18:12 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

I may have overexaggerrated about raw files but u can change a lot of things. The only things that are permanent are the "physical" settings of the camera at the time the picture is taken. There is probably a few more things you cannot change. If it wasn't to raw none of the pictures I took of the lunar eclipse wouldn't have look good at all.

See - that sounds like a perfect application for RAW files. For everyday point-and-shoot type of pics? I really don't see the need for the size and hassle of dealing with RAW.

BTW: You did pique my curiosity about RAW mode. How were you able to fix the pics in RAW but not in JPG? I've never worked with them before.

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:21:21 AM EDT

[#28]

Follow-up question:

I have not installed any of the software that came with the camera. Is there something very compelling about any of it that is a "must-have"? I have Photoshop CS2 FWIW...

[ETA] Looks like I already installed ZoomBrowser EX when I got my printer/scanner. I already have ACDSee, which is far superior. Yuck on Zoom Browser. Picture Style Editor looks like a crappy version of simple editing software, and Digital Photo Professional seems unnecessary with Photoshop. Well, it does offer dust erasure processing...

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:42:43 AM EDT

[#29]

I use raw therapee and its free I'd give you a link but I'm posting on my phone. (Macro economics is boring)

Jpegs are a compressed format and a lot of info is lost. When I took pictures of the lunar eclipse I had to crop a lot. With jpegs a lot of detail ws lost. When I made png images from the raw files which looked considerably better.

You seen to be too worried about saving space when a 1tb had is $50. I would hate to have an amazing photo look Medicare because I used compressed jpeg.

ETA raw files from my t1i are 15-20mb which do take up a lot of room but if you buy that 32gb card I mentioned for $50 you can fit nearly 1000 jpeg + raw.

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:57:58 AM EDT

[#30]

I have about 30GB space left on my HDD on my laptop - we don't have a desktop in my house anymore, so yeah: space is a little bit of an issue. Next laptop (this one is getting a bit long in the tooth) will obviously have a bigger HDD.

It goes beyond that though. Navigating pics takes longer, loading them up takes longer to look at, editing takes longer, etc. You sound like you're taking lots of high-quality pictures so RAW is good for you. Me? Mostly inane pics of the cat or someone blowing out candles on a birthday cake or stupid stuff like that.

Heck - I have over 12,000 pictures of stuff like that since our first digicam in 1999. If all those were saved in RAW @ 18MP, I'd be in trouble...

I can easily switch to RAW if I know I'm about to take some cool pics so I'll go that route. I'll also experiment with RAW and JPG to see what the differences are when I take some shots. If it's that much of an improvement, or if I get burned by JPG, I'll switch over.

Posted: 3/16/2011 8:08:57 AM EDT

[#31]

I think I see the difference between RAW and JPG now that I looked through the DPP manual.

There's the raw picture data.

There's the adjustments to the picture based on camera settings such as "picture style", white balance, etc. They are basically like adjustment layers in Photoshop.

JPG = Compress to JPG( Flatten(raw data + adjustment layers) )

RAW = raw data + adjustment layers (Basically like a .psd file)

So with the RAW format, you retain the raw image data and have the camera adjustments which were applied sitting there as well. You can then modify/delete/whatever the adjustments if the camera did a bad job picking them. With JPG, you're stuck with them in a flattened image.

Does that sound right?

Posted: 3/16/2011 8:56:48 AM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The T3i is an upgrade, but it's mostly a video-mode upgrade.

The t3i also has an articulating monitor rather than the fixed one. This isn't a huge deal to me since I do my pic shooting through the viewfinder and shoot very little video.

but its 130 cheaper then the T2i op is looking at.

I see, I didn't see the deal you found.

Provided the dealer is legit, if you can get the t3i for LESS than the t2i, go for it.

Posted: 3/16/2011 9:02:01 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I just found THIS, now I am not sure if the T3i is an upgrade to the T2i, but I am assuming it is. That link is for the T3i with the 18-55mm for $709, I just looked and it takes 5% off when you add it to you cart making it $673

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Thunder_Cameras

Doesn't look good...

But yeah - that's a smokin' deal, and way less than a comparable T2i from a reputable dealer. The T3i was $100 more at BB.

[ETA] Oh well - I'm happy with the deal I got. It's pretty much the same as what I would have paid ordering online. Please refrain from posting more smoking deals that make me feel bad about my purchase.

The same thing happened to me after my Christmas t2i was bought and paid for.

You got a great camera at a good price. Don't look back.

Posted: 3/16/2011 11:23:52 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I think I see the difference between RAW and JPG now that I looked through the DPP manual.

There's the raw picture data.

There's the adjustments to the picture based on camera settings such as "picture style", white balance, etc. They are basically like adjustment layers in Photoshop.

JPG = Compress to JPG( Flatten(raw data + adjustment layers) )

RAW = raw data + adjustment layers (Basically like a .psd file)

So with the RAW format, you retain the raw image data and have the camera adjustments which were applied sitting there as well. You can then modify/delete/whatever the adjustments if the camera did a bad job picking them. With JPG, you're stuck with them in a flattened image.

Does that sound right?

Kinda, JPEG is a compressed format of the camera. RAW preserves the data that comes from the sensor and with more data you can adjust the pictures to a greater degree because there's more data there for Photoshop to interpret and make adjustments for. If you totally screw up then it's still gone.

RAW is great for large prints or portraits where you're trying to make detailed adjustments to clean up the image. Also landscapes to burn highlights or dodge shadows or whatever. You have more data for PS to use and therefore you'll get a higher quality end product that can be printed larger and clearer (theoretically).

With RAW you use buffer space faster and it takes more space on the card. Unless I'm doing a landscape, portrait, or something that I know will need adjustment for some reason I shoot JPEG and just get the exposure right in the camera.

ETA: Basically for you right now you'll not want to mess with RAW. I don't think CS2 can even handle non-converted modern Canon RAWs anyway.

Posted: 3/16/2011 11:31:45 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
I have about 30GB space left on my HDD on my laptop - we don't have a desktop in my house anymore, so yeah: space is a little bit of an issue. Next laptop (this one is getting a bit long in the tooth) will obviously have a bigger HDD.

It goes beyond that though. Navigating pics takes longer, loading them up takes longer to look at, editing takes longer, etc. You sound like you're taking lots of high-quality pictures so RAW is good for you. Me? Mostly inane pics of the cat or someone blowing out candles on a birthday cake or stupid stuff like that.

Heck - I have over 12,000 pictures of stuff like that since our first digicam in 1999. If all those were saved in RAW @ 18MP, I'd be in trouble...

I can easily switch to RAW if I know I'm about to take some cool pics so I'll go that route. I'll also experiment with RAW and JPG to see what the differences are when I take some shots. If it's that much of an improvement, or if I get burned by JPG, I'll switch over.

LINK

I honestly dont take many high quality photos. Since I have gotten My DSLR in early december I have taken pictures of the moon, my new aimpoint PRO, my cousins hockey game, and random picture or two to post on here thats it.

I just keep jpeg + raw on because I know the one time I will want a raw file too, I will have it turned off.

raw files are basically the data the camera captures and then makes the jpeg from. The camera usually does a really good job with the jpegs but the jpegs cannot hold as much detail, and adjusting colors and other advanced stuff is much easier with a jpeg.

When it comes to having raw files enabled my philosophy is "Why limit yourself?"

AS for RAWS us THIS program, it is free and much faster then Photoshop (and lighter on your PC)

Posted: 3/16/2011 11:48:06 AM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

ETA: Basically for you right now you'll not want to mess with RAW. I don't think CS2 can even handle non-converted modern Canon RAWs anyway.

CS2 can handle RAW just fine from what I can tell. Worst case it needs an update to the RAW importer.

Posted: 3/16/2011 2:21:57 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

ETA: Basically for you right now you'll not want to mess with RAW. I don't think CS2 can even handle non-converted modern Canon RAWs anyway.

CS2 can handle RAW just fine from what I can tell. Worst case it needs an update to the RAW importer.

Adobe doesn't support newer cameras with some of their older software. I'm not sure about CS2, but I know my copy of Lightroom 2 can't read the RAW files from newer cameras, and it is not possible to update the software to do so.

Posted: 3/16/2011 4:43:14 PM EDT

[#38]

You're right. They make new versions of their Camera Raw software only available for the newest versions. Guess I'll have to install Canon's program if I want to muck with RAW files.

Posted: 3/16/2011 5:44:43 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
You're right. They make new versions of their Camera Raw software only available for the newest versions. Guess I'll have to install Canon's program if I want to muck with RAW files.

Try that program I gave you a link to, its free and it is relatively light on your PC.

Posted: 3/16/2011 6:53:05 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:

You're right. They make new versions of their Camera Raw software only available for the newest versions. Guess I'll have to install Canon's program if I want to muck with RAW files.

Try that program I gave you a link to, its free and it is relatively light on your PC.

Thanks - I'll do that.

BTW: When you save the file, what format do you use to keep the image as lossless as possible to import into Photoshop? TIFF or PNG?

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:12:22 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're right. They make new versions of their Camera Raw software only available for the newest versions. Guess I'll have to install Canon's program if I want to muck with RAW files.

Try that program I gave you a link to, its free and it is relatively light on your PC.

Thanks - I'll do that.

BTW: When you save the file, what format do you use to keep the image as lossless as possible to import into Photoshop? TIFF or PNG?

I'm not sure, but with PNG it is NOT compatible with any windows things, the only thing you can do is print it. But if you are worried about space PNG files are 60+mb

Posted: 3/16/2011 7:20:46 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You're right. They make new versions of their Camera Raw software only available for the newest versions. Guess I'll have to install Canon's program if I want to muck with RAW files.

Try that program I gave you a link to, its free and it is relatively light on your PC.

Thanks - I'll do that.

BTW: When you save the file, what format do you use to keep the image as lossless as possible to import into Photoshop? TIFF or PNG?

Generally TIFF is standard.

Posted: 3/16/2011 8:20:59 PM EDT

[#43]

Just for clarification:

RAW files give you access to all the data the sensor captures... which takes up a lot of space.

JPG files give you a finished/adjusted (and compressed... although not badly compressed if you use the large/fine setting) picture, which does not contain all the data. IMO, the only MAJOR thing you lose with JPG is the extra 2 (or so) stops of light that you can recover from an over-exposed RAW file.

Since I tend to intentionally over-expose and adjust in post (read Expose to the Right for an explanation) JPG is not really an option. However, shooting JPG wouldn't be a problem if you try to "get it right" in camera (properly exposed, no post processing), in most all circumstances.

EVERY other thing you can do to a RAW file can be done to a JPG, short of putting color back in a b/w or similar things you shouldn't be having the camera do in the first place (instead do it yourself in post).

Another thing to consider... you can always convert all your RAW files to JPG and free up your hard drive space later. You can't get back a blown channel/highlight from a JPG. While I don't think most people will notice any benefit of shooting RAW, it's worth considering just for that reason.