Hi Roy, I think there are far beter people to ask than myself (especially as I'm a Nikon user)....in fact a dedicated thread may be in order.RoyH said:A question for Andy Bright about lenses. If I go for the 10D I would be looking for something to start me off. What do you all think to the Canon EF 75-300 f/4.56 IS USM just as a starter. I purchased an E20 just 14 months ago I will will be keeping that, I just need to reach parts my fix lens E20 will not do. I am still digiscoping and I think I will have to be satisfied I dare not go down that road of DSLR of expensive prime lenses.
Roy.
Andy Bright said:Hi Roy, I think there are far beter people to ask than myself (especially as I'm a Nikon user)....in fact a dedicated thread may be in order.
It does sound a bargain for an IS lens, though you'll always be hankering for something longer.
Regards,
Andy
RoyH said:Thank you for your comments, I am sure you are right but I have a few months to think about what I am putting up front but I thought the same about the above lens being a bargain.
Regards,
Roy.
John Malloy said:I ordered at Canon 10D last Thursday from 7dayshop.com - arrived on the Saturday morning. Total cost was only £919 - inc VAT, free p&p!
Camera appears to be very good, although I'd like some feedback on the pros/cons of RAW vs JPG - as a digiscoper, I'm used to JPG - never had the opportunity to use RAW format - anyone got any tips/recommendations?
John
peteh said:Hi John
RAW is brilliant if you have time to spend ages in front of the pc
fiddling around.
But if you take hundreds and hundreds of pics in a day I could see RAW being a right pain.
As it takes longer to preview the pic (on the pc) then after you have changed WB or exposure or whatever you then have to transfer the file into a photo program and this also takes about 10-20secs each.
The benefits of RAW is that you are taking what they call a "digital negative"
When you first get it on your pc you can change many of the settings without it affecting the quality of the shot so this means you have a lot more control on how the photo comes out. (If you shoot Jpg your camera would do this as you took the pic depending on the in-camera settings you have selected.)
For example you could have accidentally got your exposure wrong on a pic.
With RAW you can amend the exposure compensation (on the PC) to get the correct exposure. Without any drop in quality. (Obviously this works to a point, theres no bringing back a super overexposed shot or vice versa)
If you had shot this on JPG you would have to change Brightness and Levels and when you change them the quality of the photo decreases.
After I got my 10D I shot for about 2 months in JPG then switched to RAW and have never looked back.
Hope that helps.
Pete.