Mr_Rose83 Blue Ridge Protects the HolyRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
Hey all. I've been reading this thread with interest and am now seriously considering an entry-level dSLR purchase.
However, I just went into a B&M store to try out the EOS 400D and came away somewhat disappointed by the overall feel of the device.
Since I was there, I also tried out the Nikon D40 and D60, of which the D60 seemed far more comfortable to me, as well as feeling a bit sturdier.
I've been looking at some reviews on-line and have discovered that basically they are nearly identically specced (the D60 and the 400D) and ownership is basically a matter of feel and personal taste, which points me toward the D60 right now.
However, the point of this post is to seek information and opinions: Do any of you have experience with the Nikon D60 on an ongoing basis and/or general opinions of it?
So what I'm saying here isn't that you can't print below your camera's max resolution (no fucking shit, by the way) but that you gain nothing by buying a higher resolution camera because you're never going to use the extra pixels for anything.
That's not strictly true. You are assuming that the image scaled down to 4"x6" from a 12 MP camera looks exactly the same as the natural 4"x6" image from a 6 MP camera. And that's just not strictly true. In a low light situation a 6 MP point and shoot might produce a fairly grainy 4"x6", and while the 12 MP camera also produces a grainy image, *because* you have so much more data/pixels with a 12 MP when you scale the image down to 4"x6" a lot of that graininess goes away.
No need to get so angry. Sorry if I came off as calling you stupid. You clearly aren't.
So what I'm saying here isn't that you can't print below your camera's max resolution (no fucking shit, by the way) but that you gain nothing by buying a higher resolution camera because you're never going to use the extra pixels for anything.
That's not strictly true. You are assuming that the image scaled down to 4"x6" from a 12 MP camera looks exactly the same as the natural 4"x6" image from a 6 MP camera. And that's just not strictly true. In a low light situation a 6 MP point and shoot might produce a fairly grainy 4"x6", and while the 12 MP camera also produces a grainy image, *because* you have so much more data/pixels with a 12 MP when you scale the image down to 4"x6" a lot of that graininess goes away.
No need to get so angry. Sorry if I came off as calling you stupid. You clearly aren't.
It's actually a lot more like for a camera with twice as many pixels on a sensor of the same size to falsely light pixels inaccurately and give you noise on your image. The lower res camera with the same size sensor will have larger pixels on the sensor that are less likely to false trigger.
Also, image editing programs are more likely to make mistakes resizing from 12 MP to a 4 MP image than going from 6 MP to 4 MP. Resizing algorithms are not infallible, although if you're using a relatively recent edition of Photoshop on a computer with decent specs you're not going to see much difference either way. Still, what you're arguing here is at least in theory contrary to reality.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Yeah... I agree that you have to watch out for the camera manufacturer pushing the CCD to a higher MP level for marketing reasons at the expense of the quality of each pixel it actually captures.
So what I'm saying here isn't that you can't print below your camera's max resolution (no fucking shit, by the way) but that you gain nothing by buying a higher resolution camera because you're never going to use the extra pixels for anything.
That's not strictly true. You are assuming that the image scaled down to 4"x6" from a 12 MP camera looks exactly the same as the natural 4"x6" image from a 6 MP camera. And that's just not strictly true. In a low light situation a 6 MP point and shoot might produce a fairly grainy 4"x6", and while the 12 MP camera also produces a grainy image, *because* you have so much more data/pixels with a 12 MP when you scale the image down to 4"x6" a lot of that graininess goes away.
No need to get so angry. Sorry if I came off as calling you stupid. You clearly aren't.
It's actually a lot more like for a camera with twice as many pixels on a sensor of the same size to falsely light pixels inaccurately and give you noise on your image. The lower res camera with the same size sensor will have larger pixels on the sensor that are less likely to false trigger.
Also, image editing programs are more likely to make mistakes resizing from 12 MP to a 4 MP image than going from 6 MP to 4 MP. Resizing algorithms are not infallible, although if you're using a relatively recent edition of Photoshop on a computer with decent specs you're not going to see much difference either way. Still, what you're arguing here is at least in theory contrary to reality.
Yep, which is one of the arguments Nikon made with its D3 full frame sensor at only 12 MP vs the Canon 1Ds Mark 3 at 21. In low-light conditions, that many megapixels on an equivalent sized sensor often leads to worse performance and more grain.
The biggest advantage I find with a higher MP count comes when I need to crop something tight (wildlife or sporting events) and the extra resolution often means that I can get in closer to the subject with greater detail than I could with a lower MP sensor.
But, all in all, if you're good at what you're doing you can definitely turn out great pictures with low MP. One of the most award-winning of photographers that I've met while here in Alaska shoots with a Canon 1D which hovers at around 4MP I believe. He's got years of experience and some great lenses, but it just goes to show that a great camera that's a bit old shouldn't be discounted because it doesn't compete in MP.
So, I just got a Canon Powershot A460 (they were on clearance at K-Mart for 95$). Already got a 1GB SD card for now.
The previous camera that I had (which had it's LCD screen shattered and now no longer takes pics) was the A310. With the Zoombrowser software, I could customize the startup image, sounds, etc.
However, when I try to change sounds or anything, they don't actually take. I can't even pull the default images from the camera, like I could with the A310. Did they remove the customization functionality and their software is too stupid to realize that the camera doesn't support it?
And yes, I've already messed around with installing CHDK.
I have a question, is it better to shoot in the best JPG format I can (Rebel XTi, but really this could apply to any digital) or shoot in RAW and have the software (Canon's or I also have Photoshop) convert it over? I do enjoy getting the 400+ shots in JPEG vs. 100 or so RAW, and not needing to do the extra step when I connect my camera is nice, but I want to make sure I'm getting the best picture I can as well.
I like shooting in RAW (Canon 10D) because then you can use the incamera controls to adjust the picture in Canon's FileViewerUtility. The one I tend to get the most use out of is the white balance (I think that's what it's called, you know where you can change the color temp), and digital exposure compensation. If you have some shots in RAW, open up FileViewer and open the directory with the RAW images, you'll see a drop down box labelled "common processing", change that to "EOS 10D" (for you it might be "Rebel XTi" or something), and you'll see new menu options that let you effect these changes. You cannot do this with jpgs using FileViewer. Photoshop also can do some nifty things with RAW, but I don't really use photoshop.
You do lose data if you shoot jpg, but if you don't do much post-processing (meaning your shots go right to print or distribution as-is out of the camera, instead of tweaking them in FileViewer or photoshop) then perhaps you won't be hurt shooting jpg.
But flash is so cheap, and you really should have more than one chip.
JPEGs are automatically processed by the in-camera processor (sharpened, saturation adjusted, etc) so they generally look "better" than RAW files (as RAW files are completely untouched). Some people prefer shooting in JPEG because of this, but RAW files typically end up looking much better after being processed.
I shoot exclusively in RAW and process all the images in photoshop's Camera RAW plugin (pretty amazing). Besides having the original RAW file as a permanent backup, it lets me adjust the photo however I want (exposure correction, white-balance adjustment, sharpening, and lots more).
Mephistopheles on
"Friends are just enemies in reverse."
- Gary Busey A Glass, Darkly
Yeah... I agree that you have to watch out for the camera manufacturer pushing the CCD to a higher MP level for marketing reasons at the expense of the quality of each pixel it actually captures.
Do you have a favorite point and shoot, Pheezer?
The last point and shoot I used was a Canon Powershot A420, and it was everything I'd ever asked for in a P&S camera.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I'm kind of kicking myself in the nuts for not getting one that takes AA's. I hate having to bring a charger along on trips... and it is especially inconvenient when you go off the grid / to countries with strange power outlets.
So what I'm saying here isn't that you can't print below your camera's max resolution (no fucking shit, by the way) but that you gain nothing by buying a higher resolution camera because you're never going to use the extra pixels for anything.
That's not strictly true. You are assuming that the image scaled down to 4"x6" from a 12 MP camera looks exactly the same as the natural 4"x6" image from a 6 MP camera. And that's just not strictly true. In a low light situation a 6 MP point and shoot might produce a fairly grainy 4"x6", and while the 12 MP camera also produces a grainy image, *because* you have so much more data/pixels with a 12 MP when you scale the image down to 4"x6" a lot of that graininess goes away.
No need to get so angry. Sorry if I came off as calling you stupid. You clearly aren't.
It's actually a lot more like for a camera with twice as many pixels on a sensor of the same size to falsely light pixels inaccurately and give you noise on your image. The lower res camera with the same size sensor will have larger pixels on the sensor that are less likely to false trigger.
Also, image editing programs are more likely to make mistakes resizing from 12 MP to a 4 MP image than going from 6 MP to 4 MP. Resizing algorithms are not infallible, although if you're using a relatively recent edition of Photoshop on a computer with decent specs you're not going to see much difference either way. Still, what you're arguing here is at least in theory contrary to reality.
Yep, which is one of the arguments Nikon made with its D3 full frame sensor at only 12 MP vs the Canon 1Ds Mark 3 at 21. In low-light conditions, that many megapixels on an equivalent sized sensor often leads to worse performance and more grain.
That is only true if you compare sensors of the same generation. New sensors don't only pack more pixels in but they also improve the microlenses. Just because a camera has fewer pixels in the same size sensor doesn't mean it captures more light per pixel. There is an inefficiency in the empty space between the pixels that newer sensors are much better at mitigating.
Also, Canon makes 2 1D mark 3's. The 1Ds with 21mp, and the 1D with 10mp. The 10mp one is for sports and action, with 10fps. The 21mp one is for portraits and whatnot.
Their li-ion cells are super easy to remove. It's usually just a latch on the bottom to open the battery compartment, and then a clip to let the cell drop out. New one goes straight up in, latch pushes shut and you're done. A lot of P&S cameras with li-ion cells have relatively complex or tricky battery swap procedures because of form factor issues. Also their batteries tend to not be compatible with any other model of camera ever, whereas DSLRs tend to be pretty neatly cross compatible within their manufacturer's model lineup.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Hey all. I've been reading this thread with interest and am now seriously considering an entry-level dSLR purchase.
However, I just went into a B&M store to try out the EOS 400D and came away somewhat disappointed by the overall feel of the device.
Since I was there, I also tried out the Nikon D40 and D60, of which the D60 seemed far more comfortable to me, as well as feeling a bit sturdier.
I've been looking at some reviews on-line and have discovered that basically they are nearly identically specced (the D60 and the 400D) and ownership is basically a matter of feel and personal taste, which points me toward the D60 right now.
However, the point of this post is to seek information and opinions: Do any of you have experience with the Nikon D60 on an ongoing basis and/or general opinions of it?
I use a Nikon, but not specifically, the D60. My understanding is that you've got the idea... At that level - its more about the feel you like.
I was looking at the 400D, and then realised I needed a better ranged lens than the stock one. The Cost of a 400D + new lens, was more than a Nikon D80 (next range up, that was getting better reviews) that had a decent stock lens. I like the bigger range of cameras like the D80 or 10D/20D - they feel more comfortable in my hand and I dont really mind the extra weight (For me, once you go DSLR over point and shoot - you've decided to lug a bigger camera around - a few extra grams doesnt matter to me). I also like the room for the top display - meaning you dont need to use the LCD... Better Battery life.
I like the bigger range of cameras like the D80 or 10D/20D - they feel more comfortable in my hand and I dont really mind the extra weight (For me, once you go DSLR over point and shoot - you've decided to lug a bigger camera around - a few extra grams doesnt matter to me).
I like the bigger range of cameras like the D80 or 10D/20D - they feel more comfortable in my hand and I dont really mind the extra weight (For me, once you go DSLR over point and shoot - you've decided to lug a bigger camera around - a few extra grams doesnt matter to me).
I'm curious - what does "bigger range" mean?
The above post was correct - sorry if I was unclear. I did mean physically larger. I had no idea until I actually went to a shop to hold them. The larger models fit my hands better and creates the space for a top screen for your settings (shown below) as opposed to having to use the LCD Screen.
I should also mention that these "Larger Models" afford them some extra features too - but I was mainly referring to comfort.
I could take or leave the top LCD -- but having a rear LCD that is really big, bright and high res is truly important. I just got a Nikon D300, and really what sold me over the Canon stuff was the Command Dial on the back by your thumb and the Sub Command dial on the front under your index finger. Changing aperture and shutter speed on Manual Mode was just too easy and intuitive. Just about all of the Nikon DSLRs are like this, and that rocks.
I'm way, way, WAY over my head with this camera but I'm loving it all the same. The quality of the panel is really what people are jumping up and and down about, and they are right. Photos shot at 3200 ISO are just ridiculously good and damn low in noise compared to everything else that I've owned. Low light indoor shots are simply jaw dropping. I'm not sure why I bought an SB-800 Speedlight flash unit now...
It's looking like I might actually end up with a Nikon D40 instead of the K100D I was looking at, since I need one rightthefucknow for things.
The D40's still a pretty good camera, right? Does it have any trouble with taking shots freehand(as opposed to on a tripod) in terms of motion blur and such? Are there any others in the 500-or-less range available in B&M stores I should consider instead?
The D40 is one of the cameras that leaves you high and dry for autofocus on a lot of lenses. And even once you get good at manual focus, it's still nice to be able to spot autofocus here and there.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
It's okay. But the lack of internal motor is going to mean that you're going to have to look for lenses with on-board motors which can be a little more expensive.
You should also seriously consider trolling Craigslist for a used Nikon D70, as opposed to a D40. You can usually get a pristine condition example for about $400. I'm considering picking one up just for infra-red photography, and have it converted by LifePixel.
It's okay. But the lack of internal motor is going to mean that you're going to have to look for lenses with on-board motors which can be a little more expensive.
Why not look at the Rebel Xt?
That could also work, though I'd have to quickly pick up a compactflash card. Would I have to worry about anything like terrible compatibility or high cost with new lenses?
i've been wanting to get a DSLR for awhile (had a thread in the help forum couple months back), but some things came up preventing me from doing so, but now i'm once again wanting to pick one up and wanted to seek some advice... so sorry to hijack the thread.
Was orginally thinking of picking up the D40 but with the whole lens compatibility thing, i was now thinking of a D70/D80...
i have around 2000 to spend so was maybe thinking of picking the body up then a lens? if the kit-lens are of inferior quality?
It will be for amateur work, portraits and scenery mostly, and whatever else i can photograph... all my friends have point and shoot camera's that can be carried in the pocket so i was more looking for a good camera that i can use to get into amateur photography with.
I'm way, way, WAY over my head with this camera but I'm loving it all the same.
*snip*
This is me.
Does anyone know a good tutorial website? What I'm really looking for is something to say - right - go take a photo of this on a sunny/cloudy day. Take one photo with these settings, another with these other settings... See the difference?
It's not a website, but the I found the National Geographic Field Guide (Burian & Caputo) to be an excellent learning and reference tool for noobs, as I once was. It for the most part pre-dates digital SLRs, but in all honesty, digital hasn't brought much new to the table (in terms of composition and how to actually use the camera) other than needing to know your multiplier for focal lengths. That said, they've added some info on digital, but at least the edition I have you can tell that the core of it was written some time ago, but it's all perfectly relevant.
The book does an excellent job explaining apertures, shutter speeds, their relation to light, and field of view, etc. It goes into how to deal with different subjects (night, people, fog, architecture, underwater, etc), and has contributions from some of National Geographic's top photographers. The real benefits of the book are its relatively compact size, meaning it is easy to carry around if you need it for reference. Also the paper stock its printed on is outstanding, some really vivid pictures in there. It also seems they have a Digital Version, though I've never seen it so can't really make a recommendation.
And a question:
Have any of you any experience with Adobe Lightroom. I know you can download a 30 day demo, but often the quirks of such software don't manifest until you've really gotten to know the application, and thirty days isn't enough for that. Anyone have opinions? I'm especially interested in how useful it is without Photoshop...I hate Photoshop.
It's okay. But the lack of internal motor is going to mean that you're going to have to look for lenses with on-board motors which can be a little more expensive.
Why not look at the Rebel Xt?
That could also work, though I'd have to quickly pick up a compactflash card. Would I have to worry about anything like terrible compatibility or high cost with new lenses?
Nope. All of the EF and EF-S mount lenses will work with it and it can autofocus any lens for those mounts. Yes, it's a relatively new mount and it breaks backwards compatibility with older FD mount lenses, but the nice part is that there's no inconsistency in compatibility. If it's EF, it'll work as advertised.
Also while yes you'd need a CF card, CF cards tend to be faster anyhow. A 2GB card will suffice.
Pheezer on
IT'S GOT ME REACHING IN MY POCKET IT'S GOT ME FORKING OVER CASH
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Posts
However, I just went into a B&M store to try out the EOS 400D and came away somewhat disappointed by the overall feel of the device.
Since I was there, I also tried out the Nikon D40 and D60, of which the D60 seemed far more comfortable to me, as well as feeling a bit sturdier.
I've been looking at some reviews on-line and have discovered that basically they are nearly identically specced (the D60 and the 400D) and ownership is basically a matter of feel and personal taste, which points me toward the D60 right now.
However, the point of this post is to seek information and opinions: Do any of you have experience with the Nikon D60 on an ongoing basis and/or general opinions of it?
Nintendo Network ID: AzraelRose
DropBox invite link - get 500MB extra free.
That's not strictly true. You are assuming that the image scaled down to 4"x6" from a 12 MP camera looks exactly the same as the natural 4"x6" image from a 6 MP camera. And that's just not strictly true. In a low light situation a 6 MP point and shoot might produce a fairly grainy 4"x6", and while the 12 MP camera also produces a grainy image, *because* you have so much more data/pixels with a 12 MP when you scale the image down to 4"x6" a lot of that graininess goes away.
No need to get so angry. Sorry if I came off as calling you stupid. You clearly aren't.
It's actually a lot more like for a camera with twice as many pixels on a sensor of the same size to falsely light pixels inaccurately and give you noise on your image. The lower res camera with the same size sensor will have larger pixels on the sensor that are less likely to false trigger.
Also, image editing programs are more likely to make mistakes resizing from 12 MP to a 4 MP image than going from 6 MP to 4 MP. Resizing algorithms are not infallible, although if you're using a relatively recent edition of Photoshop on a computer with decent specs you're not going to see much difference either way. Still, what you're arguing here is at least in theory contrary to reality.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Do you have a favorite point and shoot, Pheezer?
Yep, which is one of the arguments Nikon made with its D3 full frame sensor at only 12 MP vs the Canon 1Ds Mark 3 at 21. In low-light conditions, that many megapixels on an equivalent sized sensor often leads to worse performance and more grain.
The biggest advantage I find with a higher MP count comes when I need to crop something tight (wildlife or sporting events) and the extra resolution often means that I can get in closer to the subject with greater detail than I could with a lower MP sensor.
But, all in all, if you're good at what you're doing you can definitely turn out great pictures with low MP. One of the most award-winning of photographers that I've met while here in Alaska shoots with a Canon 1D which hovers at around 4MP I believe. He's got years of experience and some great lenses, but it just goes to show that a great camera that's a bit old shouldn't be discounted because it doesn't compete in MP.
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
The previous camera that I had (which had it's LCD screen shattered and now no longer takes pics) was the A310. With the Zoombrowser software, I could customize the startup image, sounds, etc.
However, when I try to change sounds or anything, they don't actually take. I can't even pull the default images from the camera, like I could with the A310. Did they remove the customization functionality and their software is too stupid to realize that the camera doesn't support it?
And yes, I've already messed around with installing CHDK.
You do lose data if you shoot jpg, but if you don't do much post-processing (meaning your shots go right to print or distribution as-is out of the camera, instead of tweaking them in FileViewer or photoshop) then perhaps you won't be hurt shooting jpg.
But flash is so cheap, and you really should have more than one chip.
I shoot exclusively in RAW and process all the images in photoshop's Camera RAW plugin (pretty amazing). Besides having the original RAW file as a permanent backup, it lets me adjust the photo however I want (exposure correction, white-balance adjustment, sharpening, and lots more).
- Gary Busey
A Glass, Darkly
The last point and shoot I used was a Canon Powershot A420, and it was everything I'd ever asked for in a P&S camera.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Except for the fact that my A460 refuses to let me customize it.
Damned if I can ever find an AC adapter for these things, though.
DSLRs are different, but that should be obvious.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
That is only true if you compare sensors of the same generation. New sensors don't only pack more pixels in but they also improve the microlenses. Just because a camera has fewer pixels in the same size sensor doesn't mean it captures more light per pixel. There is an inefficiency in the empty space between the pixels that newer sensors are much better at mitigating.
Also, Canon makes 2 1D mark 3's. The 1Ds with 21mp, and the 1D with 10mp. The 10mp one is for sports and action, with 10fps. The 21mp one is for portraits and whatnot.
Raptr profile
In that they need more juice than AAs offer, or that their li-on cells are usually easily removable?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I use a Nikon, but not specifically, the D60. My understanding is that you've got the idea... At that level - its more about the feel you like.
I was looking at the 400D, and then realised I needed a better ranged lens than the stock one. The Cost of a 400D + new lens, was more than a Nikon D80 (next range up, that was getting better reviews) that had a decent stock lens. I like the bigger range of cameras like the D80 or 10D/20D - they feel more comfortable in my hand and I dont really mind the extra weight (For me, once you go DSLR over point and shoot - you've decided to lug a bigger camera around - a few extra grams doesnt matter to me). I also like the room for the top display - meaning you dont need to use the LCD... Better Battery life.
I'm curious - what does "bigger range" mean?
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
The above post was correct - sorry if I was unclear. I did mean physically larger. I had no idea until I actually went to a shop to hold them. The larger models fit my hands better and creates the space for a top screen for your settings (shown below) as opposed to having to use the LCD Screen.
I should also mention that these "Larger Models" afford them some extra features too - but I was mainly referring to comfort.
To Illustrate:
The smaller 400D (Rebel XTi for the US):
The larger D80 (notice the display)
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
I'm way, way, WAY over my head with this camera but I'm loving it all the same. The quality of the panel is really what people are jumping up and and down about, and they are right. Photos shot at 3200 ISO are just ridiculously good and damn low in noise compared to everything else that I've owned. Low light indoor shots are simply jaw dropping. I'm not sure why I bought an SB-800 Speedlight flash unit now...
The D40's still a pretty good camera, right? Does it have any trouble with taking shots freehand(as opposed to on a tripod) in terms of motion blur and such? Are there any others in the 500-or-less range available in B&M stores I should consider instead?
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH
Why not look at the Rebel Xt?
Ryan M Long Photography
Buy my Prints!
That could also work, though I'd have to quickly pick up a compactflash card. Would I have to worry about anything like terrible compatibility or high cost with new lenses?
i've been wanting to get a DSLR for awhile (had a thread in the help forum couple months back), but some things came up preventing me from doing so, but now i'm once again wanting to pick one up and wanted to seek some advice... so sorry to hijack the thread.
Was orginally thinking of picking up the D40 but with the whole lens compatibility thing, i was now thinking of a D70/D80...
i have around 2000 to spend so was maybe thinking of picking the body up then a lens? if the kit-lens are of inferior quality?
It will be for amateur work, portraits and scenery mostly, and whatever else i can photograph... all my friends have point and shoot camera's that can be carried in the pocket so i was more looking for a good camera that i can use to get into amateur photography with.
This is me.
Does anyone know a good tutorial website? What I'm really looking for is something to say - right - go take a photo of this on a sunny/cloudy day. Take one photo with these settings, another with these other settings... See the difference?
Anyone know any good resources?
It's not a website, but the I found the National Geographic Field Guide (Burian & Caputo) to be an excellent learning and reference tool for noobs, as I once was. It for the most part pre-dates digital SLRs, but in all honesty, digital hasn't brought much new to the table (in terms of composition and how to actually use the camera) other than needing to know your multiplier for focal lengths. That said, they've added some info on digital, but at least the edition I have you can tell that the core of it was written some time ago, but it's all perfectly relevant.
The book does an excellent job explaining apertures, shutter speeds, their relation to light, and field of view, etc. It goes into how to deal with different subjects (night, people, fog, architecture, underwater, etc), and has contributions from some of National Geographic's top photographers. The real benefits of the book are its relatively compact size, meaning it is easy to carry around if you need it for reference. Also the paper stock its printed on is outstanding, some really vivid pictures in there. It also seems they have a Digital Version, though I've never seen it so can't really make a recommendation.
And a question:
Have any of you any experience with Adobe Lightroom. I know you can download a 30 day demo, but often the quirks of such software don't manifest until you've really gotten to know the application, and thirty days isn't enough for that. Anyone have opinions? I'm especially interested in how useful it is without Photoshop...I hate Photoshop.
Nope. All of the EF and EF-S mount lenses will work with it and it can autofocus any lens for those mounts. Yes, it's a relatively new mount and it breaks backwards compatibility with older FD mount lenses, but the nice part is that there's no inconsistency in compatibility. If it's EF, it'll work as advertised.
Also while yes you'd need a CF card, CF cards tend to be faster anyhow. A 2GB card will suffice.
CUZ THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GIVING ME A RASH