Dslr

[zeg]

I guess I'll have to get myself familiar with Lightroom.

Go to Adobe's site and download it - you get a 30-day free trial, so there's nothing to lose.

If you're a student, you can get a big discount on Lightroom ($99 versus $299, I think). At $99, it's a no-brainer. At $299 I might think a little harder about managing files myself and using other tools to do editing, but I would probably still make the investment at some point. Check out the demo and give it a chance---it's a little quirky at first, IMO.

Adorama and B&H; are both solid, reputable sites that offer fair prices on

I almost always wind up buying from B&H; or occasionally Amazon. Adorama is certainly legitimate, but I don't tend to range outside those vendors for the reasons outlined here. It's pretty rare to get legit great deals except on the body/lens kits that you're looking at, and usually those are the same at all the major vendors. B&H; has always had good service for me, plus you get their whomping huge catalog of crazy photo/video equipment.

[wrx_junki]

For now since I missed out on the Newegg deal, I'll wait around to see if I can find a deal just as good. While I wait, I'll play around with the Lightroom. B&H; charges tax since their based out of NYC so that kills any deals they have. Adorama refurbished might be an option if I do not find any deals.

[wrx_junki]

Installed Lightroom and wanted to know if you guys have any good suggestions on tutorials for it.

[Mac62]

Installed Lightroom and wanted to know if you guys have any good suggestions on tutorials for it.

Julieanne Kost has a bunch of great tutorials

here . I also found Scott Kelby's Lightroom book very helpful.

[newtogolf]

Installed Lightroom and wanted to know if you guys have any good suggestions on tutorials for it.

Kelby's book is a good introduction to Lightroom and an easy read but you have to endure his numerous attempts at humor which sometimes miss the mark badly. He covers the areas you're most likely to use, but doesn't go into much detail.

If you want more of a reference type book with more detail then I'd suggest Martin Evening's book, The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Book: The Complete Guide for Photographers. Evening is not as easy a read but he goes deeper into Lightroom than Kelby does on all levels. Keep in mind Lightroom combines many of the useful photography functions from Photoshop with a asset management database, but it does have some limitations compared to Photoshop. Most of what you do in Lightroom is non-destructive to the original image. I do most of my work in Lightroom and use it's database to manage my images, but I also use Photoshop CS5 Extended alot to do actual image editing which Lightroom does not support. You should take a look at both applications. If you go with the Nikon, you should also consider their Capture NX2 product which provides photo editing capabilities and is optimized to work with the Nikon RAW file format.

[wrx_junki]

Going to read up a bit on that link for now and then possibly look into a book. I'll for now work with Lightroom. Thanks.

[TN94z]

I am just starting to really research the cameras and what to buy, so forgive me if these questions are obvious.

1) What makes up the biggest price difference between the different camera bodies? Is it the name, sensor size, or is the quality that much better?

2) As far as the crop factor goes, I read that most entry level cameras have a crop factor of 1.5. What are the crop factors for mid-level to high end cameras and how does the price reflect it?

3) Is it better to spend less for a larger crop factor (assuming that the larger the crop factor the cheaper the price), which will allow you to spend less on lenses, or better to get a smaller crop factor?

Again, I am just starting to read about this stuff, so I hope these questions aren't stupid.

[iacas]

1) What makes up the biggest price difference between the different camera bodies? Is it the name, sensor size, or is the quality that much better?

Sensor size (and a bunch of other things) speaks to the cost and quality, so that's highest up there. Additional functionality (see Canon's 1D line) accounts for some. Name is in there a little but not really a lot... Canon vs. Nikon vs. the others is pretty fierce and keeps prices from being too high. Primarily quality and functionality.

2) As far as the crop factor goes, I read that most entry level cameras have a crop factor of 1.5. What are the crop factors for mid-level to high end cameras and how does the price reflect it?

I think you should look into what crop factor is, as you don't seem to quite understand it yet... And many Canons are 1.6, or 1.3. Crop factor just means the sensor is small and doesn't take up the entire image circle, but that makes wide angle lenses tougher to build (among some other tradeoffs).

3) Is it better to spend less for a larger crop factor (assuming that the larger the crop factor the cheaper the price), which will allow you to spend less on lenses, or better to get a smaller crop factor?

Again, I'm not entirely sure you understand crop factor. It's a smaller sensor so the primary reason to get a larger sensor (i.e. no crop factor or 1.3 crop factor instead of 1.5/1.6) would be quality of the image, particularly in low-light scenarios. And by "low light" I mean almost anything indoors without strobes.

Read the article at DSLRU.

[newtogolf]

I am just starting to really research the cameras and what to buy, so forgive me if these questions are obvious.

Price difference in camera bodies is based on a number of different features; physical sensor size, number of MP, fps of continuous shooting, rated number of shutter actuations, body construction material, rear LCD resolution, and size, ISO range, focus points, number of built in image processors, metering option, and video capabilities.

The top of line bodies tend to have full size CCD/CMOS sensors and / or high number of fps of continuous shooting. Higher end bodies are marketed to professional photographers so they are rated with higher shutter actuations than cheaper bodies. At the high end and low end it's pretty easy to make your choices, it's in the mid-level where you are making real trade-off decisions and should know what's most important to you. If you're shooting action sports, especially outdoor you'd want a camera with a high number of fps, fast autofocus, and high ISO range. If you're going to shoot mostly indoor portraits with set lighting and flash you may opt for a full size CCD and Megapixels and be less concerned about fps. Crop factor doesn't determine quality, as some high end sports camera use crop sensors to achieve a high fps. The Canon EOS 1D Mark IV has an MSRP of $4999, and uses a 1.3 16 MP crop sensor, but can shoot 10fps. The Canon 5D Mark II sells for $2699 but uses a full frame 21 MP sensor but can only shoot 3.9ps. When Canon releases the EOS 1Ds Mark IV it will likely have an MSRP of around $8000, with a full frame 21MP sensor and shoot around 8fps. The decision on whether to buy a full frame or crop sensor is more related to what you want to do with the camera (portraits or action photography). With either type of sensor you want to use quality glass. I relate the importance of a lens to speakers on a sound system. A good lens can make a less expensive camera take great pictures under the right conditions, but a cheap lens will produce poor results regardless of the camera body.

[iacas]

Crop factor doesn't determine quality

Yes it does, as a smaller sensor at the same resolution will almost always suffer in quality compared to a larger non-crop sensor.

The decision on whether to buy a full frame or crop sensor is more related to what you want to do with the camera (portraits or action photography).

Bit more to it than that, but if you want to generalize a TON, yes.

Generally, though: Crop sensor = slightly lower quality (particularly in low light), telephoto "for free," tougher wide angle, less expensive... Full frame sensor = slightly higher quality, lack of telephoto "freebie," better wide angle, more expensive (simply a chip size issue).

[newtogolf]

I agree a small sensor with same MP will produce lower quality images than full size sensor. In the examples I'd given the EOS 1D Mark IV has a lower MP count than the 5D Mark II. I wouldn't consider a Canon EOS ID Mark IV to have poor image quality just because it uses a crop sensor.

Bit more to it than that, but if you want to generalize a TON, yes.
Generally, though: Crop sensor = slightly lower quality (particularly in low light), telephoto "for free," tougher wide angle, less expensive... Full frame sensor = slightly higher quality, lack of telephoto "freebie," better wide angle, more expensive (simply a chip size issue).

I don't know about you but sports photographers I know, want more fps, the extra "free" telephoto (smaller lenses), don't care about wide angle, use fast lenses and shoot in areas where there is adequate lighting. That's why many sports photographers who can't justify the 1Ds use the ID Mark IV and not the 5D Mark II as the speed difference between 1D's 10fps and the 5D's 3.9fps outweighs the benefits of a full frame sensor. As I said in the post, it's about making tradeoff decisions unless you have the money for a 1Ds. BTW the 1D Mark IV (crop sensor) is more expensive than the 5D Mark II (full sensor)

[iacas]

I wouldn't consider a Canon EOS ID Mark IV to have poor image quality just because it uses a crop sensor.

I never said "just".

I don't know about you but sports photographers I know, want more fps, the extra "free" telephoto (smaller lenses), don't care about wide angle, use fast lenses and shoot in areas where there is adequate lighting.

And most people who are just looking to get into a DSLR are not "sports photographers," so I doubt this guy cares all that much. A lot of people new to DSLRs want good low-light performance (partly because they shoot indoors, partly because they don't know how to use a flash very well), they want to shoot some pretty landscapes, and they want to shoot pictures of their family (hence the "indoors" part).

I understand everything you're saying, but you're virtually the only person using the word "sports" in this whole thread. I personally use both a 5D and then added a 5D Mark II and love the quality and the benefits and features of a full-frame camera. Plus, all of my glass will work on a crop sensor camera, while not all (almost none) EF-S lenses will work on a full-frame camera.

[newtogolf]

I understand everything you're saying, but you're virtually the only person using the word "sports" in this whole thread.

He didn't say what he wanted it for, I was trying to explain that just because a camera used a crop sensor it didn't mean it was inferior. Sports or action photography is an example where the 1D is preferable over our 5D Mark II's. You're right about the glass, EF-S lenses are too deep to mount on a full-frame camera, but there's very few EF-S lenses I'd suggest someone spend money on for that and other reasons.

[TN94z]

I think you should look into what crop factor is, as you don't seem to quite understand it yet... And many Canons are 1.6, or 1.3. Crop factor just means the sensor is small and doesn't take up the entire image circle, but that makes wide angle lenses tougher to build (among some other tradeoffs).

I understand crop factor to be that it takes a smaller rectangular area of the circular picture that you see through the lens. What I didn't really understand was how it directly related to the sensor....I get it now. The sensor size is what effects the crop factor, correct? The smaller the sensor, the higher the crop factor?

I read the article at DSLRU. That's where I started.

And most people who are just looking to get into a DSLR are not "sports photographers," so I doubt this guy cares all that much. A lot of people new to DSLRs want good low-light performance (partly because they shoot indoors, partly because they don't know how to use a flash very well), they want to shoot some pretty landscapes, and they want to shoot pictures of their family (hence the "indoors" part).

Just to clear things up as far as I'm concerned, this is more of what I will start out doing. I would possibly take pictures of my step-son golfing or playing ball next summer. I would basically be taking pictures of everything I could just to learn how to use the camera. I wouldn't classify it as strictly "indoors" because I would want to take a lot of outdoor pictures too, but that pretty much explains it.

[iacas]

I understand crop factor to be that it takes a smaller rectangular area of the circular picture that you see through the lens. What I didn't really understand was how it directly related to the sensor....I get it now. The sensor size is what effects the crop factor, correct? The smaller the sensor, the higher the crop factor?

Essentially, yes. EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle, so they "crop" automatically. (To speak to the Canon lenses, that is.)

I read the article at DSLRU. That's where I started.

OK. Great. If you have any questions or we can make it better let me know.

Just to clear things up as far as I'm concerned, this is more of what I will start out doing. I would possibly take pictures of my step-son golfing or playing ball next summer. I would basically be taking pictures of everything I could just to learn how to use the camera. I wouldn't classify it as strictly "indoors" because I would want to take a lot of outdoor pictures too, but that pretty much explains it.

I hope it's some consolation, but even if you end up choosing poorly you'll still be able to do everything rather well. A crop sensor camera still has wide-angle lenses and a full-frame camera still does great at sports (look up any of the photos I've taken at The Memorial the past four or five years).

[darkhunter139]

Iacas do you have a flickr account or anywhere that you upload your pics?

[iacas]

Iacas do you have a flickr account or anywhere that you upload your pics?

Do I have a flickr account?

Yes. Do I upload my pics? Uhhh... no. Not in a long time. Been a very busy year. http://photos.nslog.com/ has some photos too, but I stopped posting there a long time ago too.

[wrx_junki]

I finally took the plunge and purchased a Nikon D3100 and a 55-200mm.