hey Tug, when you resize do you downsample or just re-size them? How do you get them looking so sharp?

Hey wuffy... typical workflow is done in Lightroom. Only sharpening applied is a boost in clarity which for sunny day landscapes will typically be about +15-25 depending on the scene. When I export the RAW to JPEG and resize, I always leave the resolution at the max 300dpi and set the sharpening for screen.

avantibill wrote:B&W Photo of Milford Sound, looks like a Ansell Adams photo

I actually picked up a cheap book off Amazon recently (arrived on Thursday) that looks at applying Adams' zone technique to modern digital photography. Pretty basic theory in it but some stunning examples of Adams' and his contemporaries' work.

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Landscape ... 68&sr=1-17

My wife is keen to buy a beginners DSLR-type camera, one you can buy lenses for and has some manual controls, etc etc.
What advise is there amongst the Vorbites for a budding photographers first 'proper camera'?

Flyboy wrote:My wife is keen to buy a beginners DSLR-type camera, one you can buy lenses for and has some manual controls, etc etc.
What advise is there amongst the Vorbites for a budding photographers first 'proper camera'?

Go to store, hold all the entry level bodies see which fits and works nicely, play with the menu system.

Then buy it with a 18-55 kit lens and perhaps a 55-250ish zoom.

Theres so little real difference between the entry stuff theres no point arguing over spec.

I found the 1000d to be a great little first camera. The only reason for us to change to a better model was to get video.

The standard 18-55 len's aren't so great. Recommend getting the cheap 1.8f 50mm lens to get great creative results.

like the idea of going into the shops to try different menu systems etc, she is keen to play with different lenses, but again not sure where to start. She has a definite knack to good photos, so im keen to make sure we get something that isnt over-complicated, but still allows some experimentation

All the kit lenses are plenty good enough to keep you happy until you know what else you want.

They dont have much zoom (i.e. reach) so arnt the best for zoo trips etc.

As saif a 50mmf1.8 will give you plenty of arty shallow dof subject isolation for $150-200\

Sounds exactly like where I was when I started out - ended up with a Canon 450D (latest equivalent is 600D).
The latest Canon 1100D looks very similar in spec to the 450D as well..

Absolutely no regrets buying it - does everything I need, and plenty more as well. Sure I lust after the higher spec models, but can see a good few years before I will actaully "need" to upgrade. Will throw higher spec lenses at that body first too.

I specifically chose not to get a video capable DSLR, as my background is in video but I wanted to focus on stills - and knew having HD video capability would sidetrack me from that.

Twin lens kit is a great cheap way to go - 18-55 and 55-250. That's what I'm still using, as well as a 50mm f1.8 as well (cheap and cheerful, awesome bang for your buck).

As RJD said - it's hard to go wrong with the entry level stuff these days.

Went into Harvey Norman & JB HiFi this evening. HN had a guy keen on sports photography & immediately pointed us away from the 1100D to the marginally more expensive Nikom D3100.
Both seem pretty cool, but Mrs Flyboy freely admits to being likely to get frustrated with the steep learning curve; for both of those cameras it was reccomended that a basic photography course would help.

The Lumix G3 is on offer at around the $1600 mark, with a few freebies that make it only about $200 more than the more basic two once you add in the bag, SD card that comes bundled with the G3.

So the G3 is at the moment the more popular option for my better half, on looks, ease of use, high quality accessories.

Is any of this making sense & any opinions?

Flyboy wrote:Went into Harvey Norman & JB HiFi this evening. HN had a guy keen on sports photography & immediately pointed us away from the 1100D to the marginally more expensive Nikom D3100.
Both seem pretty cool, but Mrs Flyboy freely admits to being likely to get frustrated with the steep learning curve; for both of those cameras it was reccomended that a basic photography course would help.

The Lumix G3 is on offer at around the $1600 mark, with a few freebies that make it only about $200 more than the more basic two once you add in the bag, SD card that comes bundled with the G3.

So the G3 is at the moment the more popular option for my better half, on looks, ease of use, high quality accessories.

Is any of this making sense & any opinions?

Really does depend what you want to do with it, the G3 still really is a Point and Shoot camera, you will have better photographic options with a SLR full stop.

For that sort of money you cant go past the Canon 60D, that said first you need to make the decision between point and shoot and SLR.

SLRs are leagues ahead for sports photography, high speed shutters/focus etc.
Point and shoots are smaller and I cant speak about the G3, but they usually suffer from some shutter lag which is painful.
And to top it off, the canons take awesome HD Video.

Tugboat wrote:Soooo I've just had a read of NZ Geographic's email newsletter and I do believe that you actually won the Landscape photo of the year!

Dude that is huge!!!!! Congratulations.

Who? link? which pic? comeon then.

Ummm... the picture was quoted in the same post you just quoted from Chuckie and the photographer is RJD.

Tugboat wrote:Ummm... the picture was quoted in the same post you just quoted from Chuckie and the photographer is RJD.

Well done RJD some awesome pics.

I thumbed through NZGeo in teh bookshop the other day - pic looks mint in print!

Good work RJD

Cheers! I think the big prints & stuff are on tour too, in Napier in jan/feb.