09-05-2010, 02:02 PM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283693670' post='2503']
I think you are right, but I just wanted to check. Another quick question; I have an old Tamron 28-200 for my EOS 350. What would it do with a 7d? Do you think I could get useable results? Kind regards Economic Wolf
[/quote]
EOS 300?
On a 7D the 28-200mm Tamron will mainly show its age... being a film era superzoom. I would not expect great results.
Using JPEG or RAW is not all that different. Just that when you need to or want to process a file a lot, RAW gives you more headroom.
RAW just needs to be developed, and then you have an image like a JPEG, where then the biggest difference is in the information steps in each colour channel (R G and <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... 8 bits in JPEG and 16 bits in developed RAW. Not that all of those 16 bit steps really are worthwhile, as they do not map directly to the way steps are mapped in RAW. But that starts to be WAY too technical.
Plus points for JPEG:
Small file size, you need less harddrive space.
Plus points for RAW:
No information gets lost from capture to JPEG conversion, so you have more to work with in post process.
I never shoot both JPEG and RAW, as that takes away the only plus point JPEG really has (saving space on cards and on computer.
RAW is not so scary, especially when you start with Aperture or Lightroom. Quick conversions are... quickly made.
But, you can also get great results with JPEG, also with post processing. But post processing JPEGs demands more knowledge and knowing your way around the very complex tool that is Photoshop, and so its steep learning curve will pose a problem.
So again, my suggestion... start with lightroom (or aperture) and learn your way into the digital darkroom step by step.
I think you are right, but I just wanted to check. Another quick question; I have an old Tamron 28-200 for my EOS 350. What would it do with a 7d? Do you think I could get useable results? Kind regards Economic Wolf
[/quote]
EOS 300?
On a 7D the 28-200mm Tamron will mainly show its age... being a film era superzoom. I would not expect great results.
Using JPEG or RAW is not all that different. Just that when you need to or want to process a file a lot, RAW gives you more headroom.
RAW just needs to be developed, and then you have an image like a JPEG, where then the biggest difference is in the information steps in each colour channel (R G and <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />... 8 bits in JPEG and 16 bits in developed RAW. Not that all of those 16 bit steps really are worthwhile, as they do not map directly to the way steps are mapped in RAW. But that starts to be WAY too technical.Plus points for JPEG:
Small file size, you need less harddrive space.
Plus points for RAW:
No information gets lost from capture to JPEG conversion, so you have more to work with in post process.
I never shoot both JPEG and RAW, as that takes away the only plus point JPEG really has (saving space on cards and on computer.
RAW is not so scary, especially when you start with Aperture or Lightroom. Quick conversions are... quickly made.
But, you can also get great results with JPEG, also with post processing. But post processing JPEGs demands more knowledge and knowing your way around the very complex tool that is Photoshop, and so its steep learning curve will pose a problem.
So again, my suggestion... start with lightroom (or aperture) and learn your way into the digital darkroom step by step.