I did six months in a photo lab. This is pure crap. Two near identical photos. Both completely different.
I miss film.
So you feel that your calibrations and Harvey Norman's would be similar somehow?
How about photo books? I have about 4000 photos sitting on my hard drive from the last holiday that I never printed, will have to be careful about what I do with them after reading the above story.
Have a bit of a lens question; I'm looking at getting the Sigma 17-50 2.8 as kit lens upgrade. I've seen Sigma also have a 18-35 1.8 which also sounds tempting. Am favouring the former at this point as the extra zoom might be a bit more versatile for a holiday. Though I question whether it be worth say, buying the 18-35 instead in addition to a 50mm 1.8? I suppose this is subjective, but thought I might canvas a few opinions. How well will a 2.8 work at night or indoors? The 50mm price means I'll probably buy one just for the hell of it at some point anyway.
crikey! the 18-35 is a serious piece of gear, is quite big and heavy. optically is reportedly outstanding, price tag is not insignificant. 35mm is perhaps a bit short for portraits unless they be full bodied or "environmental" / documentary. the 1.8 will let in stacks of light, so yeah night shots / indoor handheld becomes more viable.
the 17-50 2.8 is a good lens. it'll let in more light than your kit lens. it's half the price of the 18-35 and unless you really have specific needs is probably a far better bet for casual photographers. the 50mm is better for portraits, the 2.8 will allow some blurring of backgrounds. As a one-lens-for-all adventure use, this is a better option. It has one final big advantage - optical stabilisation. on your nikon body, this is an advantage because it reduces camera shake and means that the f2.8 indoors isn't at such a big disadvantage compared to the 1.8 .
But - don't you hate "but"s? - a curve ball. for a holiday, if you plan to get a cheap 50mm 1.8 anyway, and you are thinking about a one-lens option that can do wide and long(ish) then why not look at the sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4.0 ? It also is optically stabilised and is still way cheaper than the 18-35. Purely my opinion, but i think the 50mm prime can do the really low light stuff / shallow DOF and the 17-70 is no slouch at either end either.