St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Unless you've changed the settings in the camera you are shooting in JPG.

JPG images are fine for most people and it's only when you need more that you might consider moving to RAW.

There are pros and cons to everything in life. S-

graybeard

A Philosopher as well as a PHotographer. I have learned a few tidbits here tonite. There is nothing worse than a person who goes thru life without learning in the process. That's my piece of wisdom for the night.

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Learn something new everyday! S-

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

not downloaded? aren't you curious as to how they look?

LFingar Loc: Claverack, NY

Unlike a roll of film, which can sit safely on a shelf for long periods before being developed, digital images can be lost in the blink of an eye by an electronic glitch. That card in your camera can fail at anytime. Unlikely, but it can happen. It is to your advantage to download and backup your photos to safeguard against loss. Do yourself a favor and find backup procedures that work for you. A semi-professional friend of mine got a bit lazy and lost 25,000 photos when his computer crashed. Some beautiful work gone forever.
BTW, photos most always look fine when reviewed on the camera's LCD screen. To really see what you have you need to download them to a computer.
Also, with your T3 you can not only shoot RAW or JPEG, but you can also shoot both at the same time. A RAW image normally takes at least twice as much storage space as a JPEG. Something to keep in mind if you are shooting RAW or RAW + JPEG on a small card.
I had the same 2 "kit" lenses when I had my T3i. They did a fine job. No need to be ashamed of them at all. As you know, it's all in how you use them.
Have fun!

Cwilson341 Loc: Central Florida

I know a lot has already been said about this question of "kit lenses". My take would be that it doesn't necessarily mean inferior image quality. So called kit lenses may not be built "like a tank" but that isn't an issue if you take care of your equipment. Kit lenses will not have the wider aperture capability but this isn't a big issue for most photography and other settings can compensate for that in many cases. Than goodness these lenses exist. Otherwise many of us would be financially shut out of this great hobby.

As others have stated, the skill developed by the photographer is the one element that should be of the highest possible quality in order to achieve outstanding photos.

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

the kit lenses that came with my K-50 are weather-resistant and are both outstanding....

the only difference between these two lenses and the same lens you would buy individually is that these do not have a steel mount and did not come with hoods or storage bags...

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

Yeah, I grew up by the Soo Line tracks in Chicago. The theme of my H.O. layout is of the Soo Line, and of course, The Chicago & Northwestern. Oh, I had to throw in the Milwaukee Road and... But I digress.

All manufacturers make some good kit lenses, but there is a noticeable difference once you step up. Nikon's Nikor, Canon's L series, Sony & Carl Zeiss. Night & day difference between these and the kit lenses. My daughter uses the kit 18-55mm lens on her (mine) Sony and she is just fine with it. I tried to give her some lenses that were a step up, but she has no interest in them. He pictures are just as good as those taken with a $3,000.00 lens for what she does.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

One example is that I have a camera modified to be able to capture IR. If I use the 18-55mm kit lens, the central portion of the image is much brighter (called a hot spot). If I use a better lens, there is no such problem.

This is just one example showing how a kit lens manufactured with some compromises doesn't match up to a better lens.

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Check out this article that I posted a while back on kit lenses. I did real well with mine and finally outgrew them. But they were great for learning on, kinda like training wheels. It may be all you ever need. Good luck and keep learning!

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-228609-1.html

graybeard

I get an idea from the LCD. There is just so much learning to do I haven't had a chance to do any of the computer related stuff.

blankmange Loc: down on the farm...

fair enough - but as stated above, one glitch and they are all gone...

Mr PC Loc: Austin, TX

Also, the pros, among them Scott Kelby, are pretty emphatic that the LCD is a very poor representation of your image compared to what you'll see on your computer... It is based on the JPG the camera processed and not the RAW file.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Believe it or not, but the term "kit" lens is a marketer's invention. Photographers refer to their tool boxes as "kits". i.e.,a photographer carries in his "kit" his camera bodies and some of his lenses. A photographer rarely buys a "camera" in the sense that it has a body and a lens. So, when a photographer equips his first "kit" he needs a body and a lens. From that point on it is a matter of a lens or a body, but rarely both together. In the last year Canon has begun to bundle "L" lenses with certain bodies as "kit" lens, that's not a bad lens at all. It would seem that today's entry level buyers are more say than before and have some ideas of what they are getting into.

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thank you Graybeard, good answer.