What's new

60D!!!

My next Ebay purchase.
 
I have one plus a 5D3. Thought I might sell the 60D but I do like the camera and it has it's uses so I probably will keep it. I'm thinking it might work in street photography better than the 5D. It takes great pictures....
 
I like mine...okay...

Honestly the most attractive feature is the hinged LCD. The image quality is mediocre and has a very digital feel to the photos, while my 1D's photos feel more organic. Not to mention that my 1D's color reproduction is sooo much better.
 
Those of you who have it.. What is the best format for quality of pictures?
Like the raw and whatever
 
Yes, for the best quality RAW is the way to go. It requires processing of the image after you take it though.
 
rexbobcat said:
Yes, for the best quality RAW is the way to go. It requires processing of the image after you take it though.

Really? Cause it was on raw and it seemed very noisy
 
I sold my 7D to help fund my 5D3 and later picked up a 60D for my wife. Her primary use is for video , but now she has started playing with photography. We love the feel of the 60D but I've noticed all my lens are back focusing so I'll be sending it into Canon under warranty . But as for feel in the hands it awesome!
 
rexbobcat said:
Yes, for the best quality RAW is the way to go. It requires processing of the image after you take it though.

Really? Cause it was on raw and it seemed very noisy

JPEG applies more noise reduction than RAW because the camera is doing all of the processing itself. You can turn noise reduction to its lowest setting but the camera still applies a certain amount typically. It also tends to add contrast and sharpness to the JPEG files that it doesn't do (as much) to RAW files.

The reason to use RAW is because you have almost complete control of what you want to do. If you like the noise, then you can leave it, but if you don't like it then you can use noise reduction software.

RAW files will typically be noisier right after the camera, but you have more editing latitude to do all kinds of adjustments without handing over too much control to the camera itself.

If you look at a RAW file at high ISO compared to a JPEG, I'll bet you $100 that the RAW file has more detail.
 
rexbobcat said:
Yes, for the best quality RAW is the way to go. It requires processing of the image after you take it though.

Really? Cause it was on raw and it seemed very noisy
I see that Rex already replied, but I'll weigh in a bit more...this also may only make sense if you're of a certain age....if you're too young this analogy might be lost anyway...

Think of RAW as having the undeveloped film still in the camera. You have complete control over the eventual prints, because you literally have the raw data from the sensor. There is no contrast adjustment, no noise reduction, no sharpening. You have a lot more control over white balance when shooting RAW as well.

Once it's been converted to jpg in the camera, there's very little you can alter without introducing a fair amoung of noise from whatever program you're using.


With all that said, storage of RAW files can become a bit unmanageable when you're taking 10's to 100's at a time and they're 25-30 MB's a piece. I personally don't shoot RAW, there have been times where it could definitely have made a shot better, but I've been mostly quite happy with my shots SOOC(straight out of camera).

I'm shooting with a T3i, fwiw, so same sensor, but with some different buttons ;)
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom