This is a picture of Whistler Mountain in British Columbia. It was given to me.

I could be wrong, but it is the lens that has the image stabilization and not the camera on dslr's (cameras with interchangeable lenses). I don't know how it works with point and shoot cameras with that feature.

I have a Canon 20D and all Canon lenses, the kit lens (no IS), 28-135 IS lens which is on most of the time (the 17-85 L IS is better, couldn't afford it), 50mm 1.8 (sharp and under $100, no IS), and 10-22 wide angle (gets super sharp great color but not practical for a lot of situations, mostly use it for landscape shots, no IS). Also have the 580EX flash. I improvised a diffuser for that which works for me. I'm so glad I bought that flash, no red eye ever, fewer harsh shadows, more even lighting, and it's just better than the on board flash which I seldom use now.

It does not have movie mode if you like that.

I love it. It took some getting used to but not as bad as I thought. I started in P mode and worked up from there, now shoot in all modes, never use auto or the picture icons except sports mode which is very helpful at times. I also shoot RAW and post process with Adobe CS2. I don't know how to shoot full manual in the daytime, don't know what settings to choose, but have to for night photos, and I'm still using trial and error for those, improving with that.

Some photos if you make them small enough for web viewing don't really have to be post processed.

You can sink a lot of money in equipment if you don't watch out. I would love to have the 70-200 L IS 2.8, the 100-400 L IS, and the 100mm macro lens. Right there, you are looking at just under $3000 combined for all three.

I have a good Bogen tripod, can't remember the model w/o looking with a three-handle head, need to get a panning head at some point, also use a monopod at times, cheap and helps, haven't used that with the 20D yet.

If you have an IS lens, you turn it off when you use a tripod and I don't know why, it doesn't work right if you don't. You must have a tripod for good night photos and shoot full manual in most cases.

Also have a polariser and neutral density filter, found out I don't like messing with them, need more practice there.

I am getting shots I could have never gotten with my point and shoot in low light (dusk, evening), bump up the ISO to 1600 or 3200 (get some noise at 1600 and 3200), but the point and shoots are all too noisy at ISO 400, useless unless you buy more stuff like Noise Ninja which I might sometime.

The new 30D is out and there is a lot of hype about that, but I have seen samples, they are as good, but not any better than what I am getting imo, so I'm not upgrading.

Now after writing all that, sometimes I miss my little point and shoot because it had good color, took great "semi" macro shots, needed a tripod for super macro, but too many limitations.

I had a terrible time choosing between the Nikon D100 and the Canon. The tiebreaker was the noise issue and Canon has a better lineup of lenses that are cheaper than Nikon. The D200 is one fine camera, and they do get slightly sharper shots out of the camera imo. To add more confusion to the mix, Fuji is excellent expecially with skin tones, but more expensive.

I got lucky and saved hundreds of dollars when Dell started marketing Canon, no deals like that now. Watch for rebates and be sure to follow the instructions to the letter. There should be more coming out this fall. It was the combination of the rebates, the off-the-top discounts and Dell coupons at places like techbargains, and using my Dell preferred account that got me such good prices. I watched for almost two years before I jumped in, reading reviews, comparing, researching.

The Rebel XT is good, too, I can't tell any difference when really good photographers post their photos.

In point and shoots, I like the Olympus 8080 and the Canon Pro 1, tried the S2 IS, it was ok, but when I zoomed way in, it was one big blur and hard to locate the target, it gets good photos though, especially macro. The colors were too saturated for me.

No matter what you choose, they all have drawbacks. Dynamic range with digital isn't as good as film - yet, and just about every camera I've seen gets that purple or blue or cyan fringing at times which I hate.

Some of the professional models are probably better, but the average person cannot afford those, and the photos are too big, take up too much memory, use the exact same lenses. 8 mp is plenty for me.

Aliska,
I love reading your comments. You really seem to know your way around cameras. Interesting comment about the Nikon and Canon. I also had a tough time choosing. My first camera was a Minota (which was stolen), second camera Canon G2, third camera Nikon D70 & lastly Canon S2IS. Thinking about purchasing Nikon D200. But you are correct the Nikon lens are really expensive. It's interesting you say you don't use any of the icons and shoot RAW. I always wondered or wanted to see the difference between a RAW pic & a JPEG pic. Can you post one? I tried it and really didn't notice a difference (of course I'm just an amateur and still learning). I would love to see your pic (RAW & JPEG). Thanks.

I can't post a RAW image (file extension .CR2). Nobody's browser could read/see it.

The biggest reason for shooting in RAW is if you get the exposure a bit off, too dark or too light. You get a "second chance" to correct the exposure up to one full stop (it's in 1/3 increments) after you download the photo to your computer. You can also do the same thing with free Canon software DPP, maybe Zoombrowser, don't know the half of some of that (which I don't have as good a handle on).

This photo I backed off to the "as shot" settings. You can see that some of the highlights on the blossom are too bright, blown to me. This is how it looked straight out of the camera. I had to convert it to .jpg so I can post it here, but I did not make any changes at all, converted from .CR2 to .jpg, cropped, and saved at quality 5.

The following one is after I got done messing with it, first I cranked down the exposure in the Adobe RAW processor, then converted to .jpg and opened in regular PS CS2 and played some more with it. Can you tell a difference?

I only took this one shot of a branch on that tree this year, took some with the whole tree, until a few days later I was trying some fancy trick to catch a petal falling, won't go into that, did get one, it's not something anyone would write home about but it did work; it's not germane to your question and I shouldn't have mentioned it other than to point out I don't know everything.

I should point out that even if you don't shoot in RAW, you can make a lot of adjustments to the .jpg photo, but RAW gives you a few more options is all.

Straight out of the camera, shot in RAW, cropped smaller, you don't want me to post an 8mp photo, no color corrections, sharpening, anything else.

Oh, I usually shoot all this type of photo using aperture priority f5.6 for this one, sometimes f6.3, f7.1 for deeper depth of field (more of subject in focus) camera picked a shutter speed of 1/2000 sec, I had exposure compensation set at -1/3, ISO 200, histogram doesn't show the highlights blown but I had trouble thinking of which one to post.

{{gwi:2013125}}

After adjusting exposure in Adobe RAW reader and adjuster (don't know what it's called officially, a pre-processor I guess), converting and automatically opening in Adobe CS2, tinkering with it (can't remember at this late date what all I did, took it Apr 20 this year), levels, curves (makes it more contrasty), sharpened it last). What do you think between the two?

{{gwi:2013126}}

I didn't revert to "as shot" settings, a mistake, but "image settings". There was very little difference. The photos show the general idea anyway. It brings back some of the missing detail if you scrutinize them closely in the brighter areas. Sometimes you cannot get it back because it just is not there, but sometimes you can if you are not off by more than one full stop.

It also corrects white balance after-the-fact if you get that wrong (affects color temperature that you really can't adjust the same in CS2). It does some other things I don't understand yet! I don't fuss much about white balance, mostly use auto and sometimes custom with a piece of white paper, but the really good photogs do fuss about it a lot, shoot with cards, graycards, some special gadget called WhiBal?, a certain Pringle potato chip can top was all the rage awhile back, now they have changed it, and use custom WB, one more confusing thing to bring up.

But if you choose like tungsten light setting instead of fluorescent, etc., you can correct it after download.

Sorry I flooded you with so much. An expert could explain it better. I have just read, read and read some more and experimented.

Here is a link that might be useful: White balance cards

This is what they look like, reverted to shot settings, before conversion, 19.3% of actual size, not much difference from the first one above I posted.

{{gwi:2013127}}

I love your comments and explanations... This is the stuff that really helps to understand on how to improve...
I can see the diff...The first one seems a little more blurred(?) where as the second smoothed and finer detailed, sharp!
Surely appreciate and enjoy you sharing the knowledge...:)

Juanita

I don't put the settings, but I usually always put the camera used. I never use a tripod, except for waterfalls and night shots (like fireworks, northern lights).
JoanMN

The image stabilization (IS) for the Canon Digital Rebel is in the lenses, not the caemra. I had to get 3 75-300 mm zoom lenses to finally get good results, I tried the first 2 without IS.

I'm so impressed. This has helped me a great deal. I would love to just verify one thing. You said Image Stabilization is possible thru the use of a special lens?

Shooting pics in RAW you need to make color corrections? So it's not a perfect picture just by pointing and shooting with RAW? You still have to make corrections?

The photo's are beautiful and the hands on monitor pic is great. If I only understood it. But, I'm learning a bit as I go.

Thank you so much Aliska, you are so very kind.

Starduster

"I'm so impressed. This has helped me a great deal. I would love to just verify one thing. You said Image Stabilization is possible thru the use of a special lens?"

Yes, some lenses have it, some don't. Some don't matter as much. My 10-22 does not have it, and it gets photos as if it did. Each lens is different. I only have one lens with IS, the 28-135, but what it basically means is you can get clear shots at lower shutter speeds (NO BLURRING DUE CAMERA SHAKE BUT BLURRING IF YOU DIDN'T NAIL THE FOCUS RIGHT), down to like 1/10 sec that you could not without it. 1/60 a sec is about the limit handheld w/o IS, but some people are steady enough and/or use a monopod and can get 1/30 and still sharp. Monopod you can get down to around 1/10. Any lower than that and you need a tripod. When you look at the lineup of Canon lenses, it says IS on the description. That means it has image stabilization. With Nikon, I think it is VR. Means the same thing.

IS is almost a must if you have a long zoom lens and want to shoot say birds closeup without a tripod.

JoanMn made some good comments.

"Shooting pics in RAW you need to make color corrections?"

Not always. It just gives you a second chance to change exposure and white balance, also does color corrections if needed. Some are not needed.

"So it's not a perfect picture just by pointing and shooting with RAW?"

Not usually with me, but when you have more experience and know what settings and approach to use, you up your chances of getting a perfect photo out of the camera. That is the goal. RAW just gives you a better second chance. Post processing jpgs gives you a second chance with color, sharpening, contrast, other things but will not get back lost detail. It gives an otherwise blah photo more "punch". RAW can do that but sometimes the lost detail just isn't there.

"You still have to make corrections?"

Most people do on photos they display on the web, those who want perfection, here I think most are posting out out of the camera shots. At small sizes, it's not such a big deal but can be. If you want really nice prints, you should tweak most of your photos but you do not have to. At the minimum, you should straighten and sharpen them. Photos out of dslr cameras tend to be soft. A little sharpening makes them look better. I sharpened my white dogwood blossoms. You can tell the difference. I did not have to shoot RAW to do that, but did have to shoot RAW if the white balance was off (I liked it the way it was) and I lost some of the detail in the bright areas. With RAW, I got most of it back. You can't do that shooting in JPG. There may be other things about it I'm not up on yet that make it more advantageous. It can be a pain because it involves some more steps in post processing, but it is worth it to me on my nicer photos. Others I don't bother, like one you want to post on ebay, proofs, quick and dirty, etc.

"The photo's are beautiful and the hands on monitor pic is great. If I only understood it. But, I'm learning a bit as I go."

After I saw it explained about 10 times and saw examples people posted on another forum, can't name it here, rules, I began to see the advantages. Once I started doing it, it started making some sense and I'm comfortable with it now, but haven't reached expert status. I was looooooost at first. But my experience with my little point and shoot which had some advanced features helped a lot and in no time I was shooting in aperture priority, shutter priority, and doing some night fireworks shots full manual.

If you do decide to go dslr, you can get some basic settings from people, shoot in program mode just like a point and shoot and grow into the advanced features at your own pace. Some of this is advanced, and you cannot possibly be expected to understand it. You will understand it more as you see it discussed and think it over. I inundated you with too much information, but if you are thinking about a Rebel XT, those are the possibilities.

One very important thing I failed to mention is that with the low noise at high ISO on the XT and mine, you can take really, really nice photos indoors without a flash. Nikon isn't quite as good that way but excels in other ways. Sometimes you need a flash anyway because the available light is just not sufficient. You get to know by practicing what you can and cannot do. The big thing with some people are concert photos. If you get the XT or a Nikon, you are not allowed to use flash in some venues, sometimes no camera at all. If you are not allowed to use a flash but are allowed to take photos, you bump up the ISO way high (advantage of Canon, silky photos at high ISO, no noise until 1600 and 3200, amazing) and get photos you simply could not get any other way. Stunning ones by those who know what they are doing with just the right lens for that situation.

I chose the white blossom photo because of the white highlights, there were others I could have used for an example.

I shot a race today and I did not get my exposure right and did not shoot in RAW for the action shots won't go into why, shot all the stop action shots in sports mode. Thank heaven for Photoshop. The runners are too dark because the camera metered on the whole scene, the bright buildings in the morning sun and the runners were mostly shaded. I should have chosen a mode where I could use partial metering. Now I am going to have to use the shadow highlights tool to correct most of them, shot 595 photos. You can batch process, I don't know completely how to do that, so many things to learn yet, but as far as I am concerned, CS2 was worth it just for that one tool, shadow highlights which will fix most of the keepers for me (I actually got a bunch of duds I will toss) even though you can probably do it in other programs as well. That is going to be a lot of work and is an example where you color correct even though you didn't shoot in RAW. I shot a few in RAW where there wasn't so much motion. I should have taken some trial shots, read the lcd and histogram (you want a nice mountain touching both ends if you can get it, sometimes not possible, have to compromise) and used those numbers to go full manual or something, don't know yet but will find out. I can't see those little numbers that well for one thing on the lcd or in the viewfinder, and I am not expert enough to shoot full manual a whole series of shots. Some do. There are other ways around that, and I will try to get some answers as to what I should have done from the "pros" lol.

If I was able to be any help to you, I'm happy for that. Kind of a hasty response; I've been up since 5:30, and it is getting hot. Days of it ahead yet according to forecast.

As you move along, you will get some "aha" moments, that's what she was talking about. That's the way it's been with me. I need some more "ahas" myself lol.

Yes I see the difference! I have so much to learn...for example why is it hard to get a good picture of red? Take these two pics, the color seems too saturated. Another problem I have is it seems most of my pics need to be auto adjusted due to not the correct exposure (not sure) or light. Any advice? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a forum called, "Critique My Photo"....

Reds tend to be oversaturated, yellows, too. I have problems with both of them with my expensive camera.

I turn down the saturation on the red channel in hue saturation or turn down the general saturation. Most graphics programs have something like that. My daffodils were too yellow, I cranked down the yellow and actually got back more detail and not with RAW although I probably shot them in RAW, adjusted the converted version. You don't want to turn it down too much.

Also you could try on very sunny and overcast days (fool you), turning down the exposure compensation one, two, or three notches in the minus range and run a test. Then you are less likely to blow the bright colors. Blues can be almost as bad, any bright color sometimes gives me trouble.

I'll never forget my red geranium super macro I was so proud of. It looked so good on the monitor. Then I had a print made at the local camera shop. One big smeary blob mostly. Then I had another one printed at the place I send my photo processing to now in S. St. Paul and which I like very much. They got it better, but it still wasn't right. Never took the time to mess with that one any more. I need to calibrate my monitor to their specs. Uh huh. One more gadget to buy. It gets to be a royal pain. I just make do until something comes up where I really have to have something.

I never use auto adjustments, often use levels and curves in Photoshop, also color balance, amazing how you can make a jpg look better with that.

What graphics program are you using? Those are nice photos, I don't think the red is that bad really.

You can also turn down the saturation in your camera, most models anyway, not just the fancy ones.

I forgot to mention that for several months, I had my eye on a Minolta Dimage that had some features I liked. Let somebody talk me out of that and got a cheapie Olympus. Just as well.

And I know my way around cameras? Yes and no. You don't know what I don't know lol. I'm still learning all the time. Some things are still too advanced for me.

Thanks Aliska. You would think with such expensive equipment you would at least get a decent picture but of course the camera can't do everything...like I said I'm still learning but I really appreciate your advice. I use PICASA and sometimes JASC. I'm still learning ADOBE too. Practice, practice, practice. I'll have to experiment on the saturation part. Thanks again.