Pics from a 350D / Rebel XT

[NTB]

the pics

the Akira cover is from another thread; the butterfly is an old camping pic from a couple years ago. The rest are either 100% crops, or full pics resized to about 2MP - I do *not* want to be responsible for killing the site If anybody wants to see (or volunteer to host) the full 8MP shots, PM me. All pics were shot with the kit lens, and most were shot at either ISO 400 or 800, so I could keep the shutter speeds low (no tripod at the moment).

I make no claims about being a photographer, so please don't tear me into too many pieces

Nate

 

[dartworth]

thanks

 

[NTB]

bump.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

I'm always happy to see someone elses pics from a DSLR. Yours looks as bad as mine do . I have a D70 and it out of the box underexposes. I have to dial in (or change in Nikon capture) exposure compensation all the time and thats on top of a custom curve thats adding some. Just about any pictures out of mine that I want as keepers require post processing. The quality after post processing is better than my old P&S could ever do but I wish I knew what I was getting into before buying it.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I'm always happy to see someone elses pics from a DSLR. Yours looks as bad as mine do . I have a D70 and it out of the box underexposes. I have to dial in (or change in Nikon capture) exposure compensation all the time and thats on top of a custom curve thats adding some. Just about any pictures out of mine that I want as keepers require post processing. The quality after post processing is better than my old P&S could ever do but I wish I knew what I was getting into before buying it.

with the exception of being resized or cropped, those were straight out of the camera. And all of them (with the exception of the behind-the-waterfall shot) are shot with available light only. That waterfall shot was a little too dark, so I brightened it up a little, but not much. I believe the EXIF data is still available for all the pics there.

Nate

 

[zoiks]

Very nice pics.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

Originally posted by: NTB

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I'm always happy to see someone elses pics from a DSLR. Yours looks as bad as mine do . I have a D70 and it out of the box underexposes. I have to dial in (or change in Nikon capture) exposure compensation all the time and thats on top of a custom curve thats adding some. Just about any pictures out of mine that I want as keepers require post processing. The quality after post processing is better than my old P&S could ever do but I wish I knew what I was getting into before buying it.

with the exception of being resized or cropped, those were straight out of the camera. And all of them (with the exception of the behind-the-waterfall shot) are shot with available light only. That waterfall shot was a little too dark, so I brightened it up a little, but not much. I believe the EXIF data is still available for all the pics there.

Nate

They look pretty much exactly like how my D70 performed when I first got it.
Since its your first DSLR get this book and it will give you a big boost.

Amazon link

Non-PP pics.
Pic the first night I got it. The white balance was way off but I kinda liked the color.
The other cat. They have since learned to run from the camera.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: NTB

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge
I'm always happy to see someone elses pics from a DSLR. Yours looks as bad as mine do . I have a D70 and it out of the box underexposes. I have to dial in (or change in Nikon capture) exposure compensation all the time and thats on top of a custom curve thats adding some. Just about any pictures out of mine that I want as keepers require post processing. The quality after post processing is better than my old P&S could ever do but I wish I knew what I was getting into before buying it.

with the exception of being resized or cropped, those were straight out of the camera. And all of them (with the exception of the behind-the-waterfall shot) are shot with available light only. That waterfall shot was a little too dark, so I brightened it up a little, but not much. I believe the EXIF data is still available for all the pics there.

Nate

They look pretty much exactly like how my D70 performed when I first got it.
Since its your first DSLR get this book and it will give you a big boost.

Amazon link

thanks for the link.

Nate

 

[OffTopic1]

Canon Sample Images

It might help if you use a better lens such as the standard 50mm and a tripod.

It looks like I'm going to give up my darkroom & film bodies for digital, because the quality is just about as good as my EOS film bodies produce.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

A minute in Nikon capture Just a simple curve adjustment and some brightness and contrast.

 

[Staples]

What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Well until I saw these pictures

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Staples
What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Phil is a lazy assh0le in my opinion. His site has gone to his head. I mean, yeah his reviews are thorough, but he's being paid off by so many companies that his conclusions are very weak...he's affraid to take too much of a stand on any one product, no matter how good it is.

 

[GTaudiophile]

BTW, if you want to compare, these were some of the first pics I took with my EOS-20D, right out of the box, using the 17-85mm F4.0 IS USM lens. Photoshop used ONLY to crop the photos or reduce file size.

Shell on the beach: 100% Crop
Bird on the beach: Reduced
Bird on the beach: 100% Crop
Indoor painting: Reduced
Indoor painting: 100% Crop
Indoor St. Peter: Reduced
Indoor St. Peter: 100% Crop

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Thanks for posting the pics, Nate. Several, particularly the flower shots, look rather out-of-focus. Hopefully, it's because you were closer than minimum focusing distance to the flowers. I say "hopefully" because my XT kit will be arriving tomorrow.

Signed, your fellow "Nate", fellow dpreview.com-er ("imn8"), and fellow first-time slr owner

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Staples
What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Phil is a lazy assh0le in my opinion. His site has gone to his head. I mean, yeah his reviews are thorough, but he's being paid off by so many companies that his conclusions are very weak...he's affraid to take too much of a stand on any one product, no matter how good it is.

Harsh words...

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
BTW, if you want to compare, these were some of the first pics I took with my EOS-20D, right out of the box, using the 17-85mm F4.0 IS USM lens. Photoshop used ONLY to crop the photos or reduce file size.

Shell on the beach: 100% Crop
Bird on the beach: Reduced
Bird on the beach: 100% Crop
Indoor painting: Reduced
Indoor painting: 100% Crop
Indoor St. Peter: Reduced
Indoor St. Peter: 100% Crop

Those look good, but it's hard to tell how much of the difference is due to the camera and how much due to the lens. Your camera costs 50% more than the XT, but your lens costs about 6x as much as the kit lens.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
BTW, if you want to compare, these were some of the first pics I took with my EOS-20D, right out of the box, using the 17-85mm F4.0 IS USM lens. Photoshop used ONLY to crop the photos or reduce file size.

Shell on the beach: 100% Crop
Bird on the beach: Reduced
Bird on the beach: 100% Crop
Indoor painting: Reduced
Indoor painting: 100% Crop
Indoor St. Peter: Reduced
Indoor St. Peter: 100% Crop

Those look good, but it's hard to tell how much of the difference is due to the camera and how much due to the lens. Your camera costs 50% more than the XT, but your lens costs about 6x as much as the kit lens.

The 17-85 IS is regarded as a great walk-around lens, but falls way short of any of the "L" lenses. It also tends to exhibit more CA than "L" lenses. But, I would agree it's a step up from the 18-55 kit lens.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Thanks for posting the pics, Nate. Several, particularly the flower shots, look rather out-of-focus. Hopefully, it's because you were closer than minimum focusing distance to the flowers. I say "hopefully" because my XT kit will be arriving tomorrow.

Signed, your fellow "Nate", fellow dpreview.com-er ("imn8"), and fellow first-time slr owner

yeah, on some of them I probably was. I'm starting to wonder, also, if the center focus point is a little off from where the focusing screen says it should be. I wonder what would be a good way to test that?

Nate

 

[OffTopic1]

Originally posted by: NTB

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Thanks for posting the pics, Nate. Several, particularly the flower shots, look rather out-of-focus. Hopefully, it's because you were closer than minimum focusing distance to the flowers. I say "hopefully" because my XT kit will be arriving tomorrow.

Signed, your fellow "Nate", fellow dpreview.com-er ("imn8"), and fellow first-time slr owner

yeah, on some of them I probably was. I'm starting to wonder, also, if the center focus point is a little off from where the focusing screen says it should be. I wonder what would be a good way to test that?

Nate

It could be that the camera had multiple focus point and was confused of where it should focus on when the general area have the same brightness/contrast that why your shot is out of focus (try set the focus area to manual and pick the area that you want to be in focus).

It could be that you depressed the shutter button halfway to lock the focus point, then move back/forward from your subject prior to take the picture, therefore you have an out of focus shot (steady your arms/body against something, or best get a tripod).

It also help to close down your aperture to increase depth of field when shooting close up, because DOF is very short when shoot close up (might want to get a lens that have DOF & aperture guide lines, but using 2 point focus to find the zone would also help). The flower stamen is generally what you want to have the focus point when shooting flowers and the eyes/nose for animals/human.

Photographic technique improvement:
1. Get a tripod
2. Record the aperture, shutter speed, lighting, weather condition of every shot you take for comparison & study.
3. Take multiple shot of the same subject with different angles and try to make every shot different (one of my favorite is to give students a foot square of dirt in the field & they have to take 10 completely different shots out of a roll of 24 and they are not allow to manipulate the dirt.)
4. Photographic ability will improve with time and lots of picture taking.

 

[Doggiedog]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
BTW, if you want to compare, these were some of the first pics I took with my EOS-20D, right out of the box, using the 17-85mm F4.0 IS USM lens. Photoshop used ONLY to crop the photos or reduce file size.

Shell on the beach: 100% Crop
Bird on the beach: Reduced
Bird on the beach: 100% Crop
Indoor painting: Reduced
Indoor painting: 100% Crop
Indoor St. Peter: Reduced
Indoor St. Peter: 100% Crop

Those look good, but it's hard to tell how much of the difference is due to the camera and how much due to the lens. Your camera costs 50% more than the XT, but your lens costs about 6x as much as the kit lens.

The 17-85 IS is regarded as a great walk-around lens, but falls way short of any of the "L" lenses. It also tends to exhibit more CA than "L" lenses. But, I would agree it's a step up from the 18-55 kit lens.

I've got the 17-85 IS and its a versatile lens but I find the PQ lacking when compared to my 50mm f/1.4. There is almost no bokeh on the 17-85mm.

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: OffTopic

Originally posted by: NTB

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence
Thanks for posting the pics, Nate. Several, particularly the flower shots, look rather out-of-focus. Hopefully, it's because you were closer than minimum focusing distance to the flowers. I say "hopefully" because my XT kit will be arriving tomorrow.

Signed, your fellow "Nate", fellow dpreview.com-er ("imn8"), and fellow first-time slr owner

yeah, on some of them I probably was. I'm starting to wonder, also, if the center focus point is a little off from where the focusing screen says it should be. I wonder what would be a good way to test that?

Nate

It could be that the camera had multiple focus point and was confused of where it should focus on when the general area have the same brightness/contrast that why your shot is out of focus (try set the focus area to manual and pick the area that you want to be in focus).

It could be that you depressed the shutter button halfway to lock the focus point, then move back/forward from your subject prior to take the picture, therefore you have an out of focus shot (steady your arms/body against something, or best get a tripod).

It also help to close down your aperture to increase depth of field when shooting close up, because DOF is very short when shoot close up (might want to get a lens that have DOF & aperture guide lines, but using 2 point focus to find the zone would also help). The flower stamen is generally what you want to have the focus point when shooting flowers and the eyes/nose for animals/human.

Photographic technique improvement:
1. Get a tripod
2. Record the aperture, shutter speed, lighting, weather condition of every shot you take for comparison & study.
3. Take multiple shot of the same subject with different angles and try to make every shot different (one of my favorite is to give students a foot square of dirt in the field & they have to take 10 completely different shots out of a roll of 24 and they are not allow to manipulate the dirt.)
4. Photographic ability will improve with time and lots of picture taking.

Thanks for the tip. as for the multiple focus points, I had the camera set (or at least, I *thought* I did) so that only the center point was used.

Nate

 

[Staples]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Staples
What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Phil is a lazy assh0le in my opinion. His site has gone to his head. I mean, yeah his reviews are thorough, but he's being paid off by so many companies that his conclusions are very weak...he's affraid to take too much of a stand on any one product, no matter how good it is.

What other photography review sites would you recommend? To be honest, I solely visit dpreview because it is the only name I can remember. The other ones have harder names to remember.

 

[DeafeningSilence]

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Staples
What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Phil is a lazy assh0le in my opinion. His site has gone to his head. I mean, yeah his reviews are thorough, but he's being paid off by so many companies that his conclusions are very weak...he's affraid to take too much of a stand on any one product, no matter how good it is.

What other photography review sites would you recommend? To be honest, I solely visit dpreview because it is the only name I can remember. The other ones have harder names to remember.

Here are a few I know of:

bobatkins.com
steves-digicams.com
dcresource.com
fredmiranda.com (user reviews, mostly lenses)
imaging-resource.com
luminous-landscape.com

 

[NTB]

Originally posted by: DeafeningSilence

Originally posted by: Staples

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Staples
What I want to know is what is taking so long for dpreview to post a review of this camera. I am interested in it. II wanted the 20D but this is cheaper and almost as good as far as I can see.

Phil is a lazy assh0le in my opinion. His site has gone to his head. I mean, yeah his reviews are thorough, but he's being paid off by so many companies that his conclusions are very weak...he's affraid to take too much of a stand on any one product, no matter how good it is.

What other photography review sites would you recommend? To be honest, I solely visit dpreview because it is the only name I can remember. The other ones have harder names to remember.

Here are a few I know of:

bobatkins.com
steves-digicams.com
dcresource.com
fredmiranda.com (user reviews, mostly lenses)
imaging-resource.com
luminous-landscape.com

looks like you've got most of them (I was going to list a few until I saw this). I just started reading the luminous landscape site; I like it

Nate