1st DSLR

[o hey tyler]

background compression? eh?

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. I actually did misspeak there. Longer lenses do compress elements and don't allow you to get a feel of the space surrounding your subject. The background is generally blurry with a sharp focus on the subject. Depth of field isn't increased with a longer lens, which I think Joe kind of implied.

 

[ConradM]

I'm not really sure what you're asking but, I generally don't shoot in RAW because there usually isn't much to correct. It helps when you can see the exposure in real time through the viewfinder.

I was told if you want to raise the light/color/make a black and white etc, use the raw image, its not compressed and has more room to edit.

As far as I understood, shooting in RAW is more of a fail safe in case you need to correct something. I've tried it and I can see the value, but again, exposure and WB is pretty easy to get spot on with the EVF.

 

[DiskoJoe]

A faster zoom would be good for sports and the added DOF is nice to have for other applications too. All of my lenses are 2.8 or larger with the exception of my 10-20 which is a f3.5.

You don't add depth of field or background compression with a telephoto lens, subject isolation is increased.

There is added depth of field when you go from a variable aperture of 4.5 - 5.6 to a constant aperture of 2.8 though.

 

[DiskoJoe]

background compression? eh?

terminology - What is background compression? - Photography

 

[o hey tyler]

There is added depth of field when you go from a variable aperture of 4.5 - 5.6 to a constant aperture of 2.8 though.

How is there added DoF when you're getting a lens with a larger aperture?

 

[HughGuessWho]

There is added depth of field when you go from a variable aperture of 4.5 - 5.6 to a constant aperture of 2.8 though.

Huh?