Got some new toys today!

TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
edited August 2005 in Internet & Media
I got a Rebel XT about a month ago with the kit lens which is all but good to say the least. I ordered a 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC and a APO 70-200mm F 2.8 EX DG/HSM, both by Sigma. Fantastic lenses with clear shots wide open at f2.8.

1850.bmp
70200.bmp
Birds.jpg

The bird shot was taken in daylight, handheld at f7.1 and a shutter speed of 1/1250s. It's to bad the .jpg conversion doesn't do the picture any justice. The raw is fantastic. With the 70-200 lens and the Rebel XT (350D in Europe), you have an effective zoom of 320mm with the Digital SLR crop. Fantastic reach at f2.8 and you can shoot all kind of sports with this combo.

Comments

  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    OMG

    /me is jealous
    I have a rebel (the original) and i've definitely found the limits of the kit lens.

    Congrats, that's an awesome lens.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    It's worth every dollar it costed and then some. I got the 2 lenses, 1.4 teleconverter, vertical grip, 2 batterys and 2 uv filters for $1000 and some change, shipped to Europe which is a steal. Everything brand new with warranty.
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited August 2005
    Mackanz, would it be possible to get the original raw file? See, I keep hearing that it's so great, that jpeg has nothing on it. But my camera (just a "cheapie" digital) takes native jpegs, so I've never been able to tell the difference :(

    Great shot, and great camera by the way.
  • TheLostSwedeTheLostSwede Trondheim, Norway Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    I deleted the raw since it wasn't a serious shot per se. More like a test. However, i'd be more than happy to shoot a few raws for you if you'd like.
  • entropyentropy Yah-Der-Hey (Wisconsin)
    edited August 2005
    Well, if you want to, go ahead. Otherwise whenever you happen to get one on your own, and convert it to jpeg, comparing the two would be really interesting :)
  • primesuspectprimesuspect Beepin n' Boopin Detroit, MI Icrontian
    edited August 2005
    There's not a huge difference that you can see on screen. Printing it, you can definitely see the difference. Plus, when you have a raw image, that is the data that the camera captured at the source, unfiltered, unprocessed, unconverted, uncompressed.

    JPG is lossy compression - meaning you permenantly delete data from the raw source every time you save it.

    Here's a pic. 6.3mp canon raw format from a camera similar to Mack's (his is 8mp, otherwise they are quite similar) and the jpg version. You'll need Picasa 2, photoshop CS or CS2, or Microsoft RAW image viewer to open the .crw file.

    http://www.short-media.com/images/prime/rawtest.jpg
    http://www.short-media.com/images/prime/rawtest.crw
Sign In or Register to comment.