Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Nikon D if you have the money, is worth it. I have one with a bunch of different lenses (the expensive part) and love it
    Manoni Productions
    Pass me another beer...You are still ugly!

  2. #22
    For those with digital cameras, shoot RAW not jpeg. It makes all the difference... seriously.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  3. #23
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    For those with digital cameras, shoot RAW not jpeg. It makes all the difference... seriously.
    Ok, have to ask, but why RAW and not jpeg? my Nikon D60 let me do RAW and "jpeg B" together of one of each.

    So just to clarify
    • Why Raw?
    • Why not Jpeg?
    • Should I shoot in Raw and Jpeg B as it let's me shoot in this setting?

    Any help would be good
    Be curious always! For knowledge will not acquire you; you must acquire it.

  4. #24
    If you intend to colour correct or edit then raw images have a lot more potential. With JPEG it also depends on the compression. Most domestic cameras compress the image quite a lot. My own camera can create a JPEG, RAW and TIFF image at 48bits but the image is 14.6mb!!!

    The resolution of the camera is not the only thing to look at. I have a Konica-Minolta Dimage 7Hi which is a mere 5.2 megapixels BUT the image quality will demolish even an 8 megapixel domestic camera because it has outstanding optics and virtually no JPEG compression.

    One needs to look at the unit as a whole first. If there is a quality bottleneck anywhere in the process an image captured by a $5000 lens is going to be useless even with a 12mp sensor if the resultant file is hugely compressed!!

    Chris

  5. #25
    Quote
    Quote: ChrisHarding
    View Post
    If you intend to colour correct or edit then raw images have a lot more potential. With JPEG it also depends on the compression. Most domestic cameras compress the image quite a lot. My own camera can create a JPEG, RAW and TIFF image at 48bits but the image is 14.6mb!!!

    The resolution of the camera is not the only thing to look at. I have a Konica-Minolta Dimage 7Hi which is a mere 5.2 megapixels BUT the image quality will demolish even an 8 megapixel domestic camera because it has outstanding optics and virtually no JPEG compression.

    One needs to look at the unit as a whole first. If there is a quality bottleneck anywhere in the process an image captured by a $5000 lens is going to be useless even with a 12mp sensor if the resultant file is hugely compressed!!

    Chris
    Right ok step back a tad (all the way to the start) that means nothing to me, step by step please, I'm no the this photography game, one of the reason I bought the Nikon D60 was the it took a photo fast, unlike compact digital, I don't have to wait for it to procese the photo first I can snap and then snap again.

    So please step by step lol
    Be curious always! For knowledge will not acquire you; you must acquire it.

  6. #26
    Senior Member SC358's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    608
    Blog Entries
    2
    I totally agree with Chris on his points.

    If a person's only intention is to show pictures with emails or add to power point's or view them on electronic displays, then I'd say even a low end consumer point and shoot would do well. A camera that shoots RAW would be so over the top, it would be a waste of money.

    If you want to edit/color correct/make big prints of your images, then your looking at a different set of cameras to choose from. One would have to be particular in regards to camera needs vs. image vs. budget.

    If you have sufficient memory capacity to shoot both RAW+ jpg, then go for it. If you don't like the way your image comes out and all you need to do is make some corrections, then you can do it in RAW and make a new jpg. If your picture looks great, then you can share the jpg and not do anything else but keep the RAW ready to print. In either case, the jpgs are ready to download for someone else to look at with any type of picture viewer.

    I always shoot in RAW because I try different angles, f/stops, etc. Then I pick and choose which one I think are the best and then create the jpgs to share.
    SC358
    Relationships are based on compromises - behavior accepted is behavior repeated.

  7. #27
    Quote
    Quote: SC358
    View Post
    I totally agree with Chris on his points.

    If a person's only intention is to show pictures with emails or add to power point's or view them on electronic displays, then I'd say even a low end consumer point and shoot would do well. A camera that shoots RAW would be so over the top, it would be a waste of money.

    If you want to edit/color correct/make big prints of your images, then your looking at a different set of cameras to choose from. One would have to be particular in regards to camera needs vs. image vs. budget.

    If you have sufficient memory capacity to shoot both RAW+ jpg, then go for it. If you don't like the way your image comes out and all you need to do is make some corrections, then you can do it in RAW and make a new jpg. If your picture looks great, then you can share the jpg and not do anything else but keep the RAW ready to print. In either case, the jpgs are ready to download for someone else to look at with any type of picture viewer.

    I always shoot in RAW because I try different angles, f/stops, etc. Then I pick and choose which one I think are the best and then create the jpgs to share.
    Ok thanks for the advice, I like to edit my photo's some times, and as I go hiking a lot, I have vast landscape to get in to one image if you get what I mean?

    I also like taking photo's of animal's and a compact digital like I have said is just to slow and the animal is out of shot befor it has finished procesing the photo, as memory cards are cheap these day's (http://www.memorybits.co.uk/ note the uk on the url) memory isn't a problem really
    Be curious always! For knowledge will not acquire you; you must acquire it.

  8. #28
    Some point and shoots come with the ability to shoot with the power of RAW nowadays, for instance, Canon's G10 and Panasonic Lumix LX3.

    Just note this: Digital photography (if you are serious), like video, is a work flow. The story doesn't end at the click of the shutter. You need 'post-production' wk. Softwares like Photoshop (camera raw or something), Lightroom, Aperture, maybe Gimp or even free software (does infanview do it?) that allows you to tweak the picture. Sometimes the camera comes with software, but as far as I know Nikon (NX2), only a trial version comes with the purchase of your camera.

    Physical hardware is important. Good graphics card (CS4 support graphic rendering or something... apologies I cannot recall), RAM and harddisc space for backups. DVD to hold them (CDs are not big enough, and of course this is not such a big problem because cost is not large).

    Intangible requirements to use/have/develop: Time, Practice, Patience.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

  9. #29
    Quote
    Quote: nagar
    View Post
    Some point and shoots come with the ability to shoot with the power of RAW nowadays, for instance, Canon's G10 and Panasonic Lumix LX3.

    Just note this: Digital photography (if you are serious), like video, is a work flow. The story doesn't end at the click of the shutter. You need 'post-production' wk. Softwares like Photoshop (camera raw or something), Lightroom, Aperture, maybe Gimp or even free software (does infanview do it?) that allows you to tweak the picture. Sometimes the camera comes with software, but as far as I know Nikon (NX2), only a trial version comes with the purchase of your camera.

    Physical hardware is important. Good graphics card (CS4 support graphic rendering or something... apologies I cannot recall), RAM and harddisc space for backups. DVD to hold them (CDs are not big enough, and of course this is not such a big problem because cost is not large).

    Intangible requirements to use/have/develop: Time, Practice, Patience.
    I have PhotoShop Eliments 7, witch will do RAW image convertion.

    As for computer spec,
    coming soon
    Be curious always! For knowledge will not acquire you; you must acquire it.

  10. #30
    Quote
    Quote: eyepatch
    View Post
    Our new Nikons will have 12.3 mpx, so I guess I will know better then.

    I don't think that on-line megapixels make much difference - mostly they all look good on the screen. Your oversize prints will be the proof of mpx quality. I agree that digital can't compare to the quality you get from film.

    eyepatch

    Yup the D3s are really good for editorial and journalist coverage (that's what they were built for). Their tolerance in low light is astonishingly good. I have a D700 in office, and attest to that.

    With the advancement of technology, we might not be able to claim the triumph of film over digital, but rather appreciate what each has to offer, and simply recognize that digital has received the baton of advancement.
    There's no bad camera, just a bad user
    Loong . Singapore

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Subscribe to us on YouTube