Digital Photography Thread

[gingernut]

Is there a difference?

Also, anyone any experience of using a D60?

I'm after a DSLR which allows easy manual control.

I've had nothing but good experiences with Nikons compacts.

Thanks ginge:)

[Bushfiva]

Lenses made by Nikon are branded Nikkor.

The D60 supercedes the D40x. It's a fine camera at its pricing and user-skill point. Canon, Pentax and others have similar cameras at that particular marketing point. Whichever you choose, you won't be making a mistake.

[crewmeal]

Agreed - I bought a D60 through Amazon.co.uk in April and have never looked back. It came with the standard Nikon (Nikkor)18-55mm lens but I bought a Nikon (Nikkor) 55-200 lens for close up shots. But this lens is best used with a tripod. The quality of the shots are good and you can work in RAW mode for additional quality.

The price of this camera is dropping all the time as I believe a new model has been released.

[preduk]

This is a big newbie question, I haven't been doing photography for very long but what is the major difference between the D60 and D40x? I've got a D40X at the moment, really love the camera being my first would like to go the next step but not sure what the real difference is.

Is it something that a newbie like me wouldn't really notice?

[crewmeal]

Is it something that a newbie like me wouldn't really notice?

Have a look at this review

Nikon D60 Digital SLR Compared to D40x and D40 (http://www.digitalreview.ca/content/Nikon-D60-Digital-SLR.shtml)

That should give you an idea between the 3 Nikons

[Loose rivets]

To answer the question, I have to say I can't, cos don't know.

The names seem to be interchangeable, but I'd always thought that the Nikkor might be a slightly cheaper version. However, folk with lenses marked thus, do not seem to think they've gone down market.


I got a D50. The 6mp has never been an issue, and the money I saved getting a 'Refurbished' (obviously untouched) meant that I could put the 15-55 lens to one side, and get a good lens (off Craigslist) for the difference. my 18-70 really is a serious piece of kit. Good light-gathering with its 67mm glass at $240 used.

The higher pixel count is tempting, and I've looked at higher end cameras to get the detail. But the fact is that it just isn't worth having a lesser quality camera just to get more pixels. Wanting to print out to very large photos might change all this, but I do put the pics on a 50" hi def, and never have I been troubled by pixelation.

[Bushfiva]

but I'd always thought that the Nikkor might be a slightly cheaper version

Nope. Lenses are Nikkor, bodies are now Nikon. I'd be interested to know which lenses your friends have that are marked Nikon rather than Nikkor.

[Loose rivets]

Got me curious, so I fished them out again.

The kit lens is Nikon DS AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm 1.35-5.6 G ED

The bigger one exactly the same, 'sept for 18-70mm 1.35-4.5

Underneath, they are both marked Nikon DX SWM ED IF Aspherical the range and Made in Thailand.

Just taken the cap of the kit lens for the first time in ages, and the face rim shows both Nikon and Nikkor on the same ring. Ha! so does the picture on the link above. Seems to answer the question. :)


Has anyone got any opinion about the build quality of the 40 v the old 50? My son looked at upgrading the pixel count but shied away from the general feel of the body. My dreams of getting one of the new big array units vaporized with conversation with a certain NY company. Load of gangsters.

[Bushfiva]

40 was replaced by the 40x, which was effectively replaced by the 60. From a 50, go to a 60 or 90 depending on the budget.

[Bushfiva]

Preduk, if you have the 40x, the only real difference is that the 60 has a sensor cleaning feature. A complete list of differences was posted by Crewmeal.

[gingernut]

Thanks for the input chaps.

[Out Of Trim]

A point to note about the Nikon D40, D40X, and the D60 is that these bodies do not have an in-built Auto-Focus motor.

This means, that you must consider very carefully what lenses you intend to use on your new camera.

So if you want to have lenses that Auto-focus you must buy only the newer AF-S type lenses that have their own built-in focus motor.

Otherwise, I think that all of these are fine.

If you want something a bit better, with more features then, I would advise looking at the older D80 which has just been replaced by the new D90 - So you could well find the D80 at bargain prices. These two do include a built-in Auto-focus motor so that they can use a much wider range of lenses.

Have a quick look here (http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/cat4.html) for some current pricing info..

[Bushfiva]

you must consider very carefully what lenses

We're talking about newcomers to DSLR. AF-S has been around since 1998. People don't have to be "careful", they have to use the lens which comes in the kit and go from there. Seasoned analog film users will be able to work this out for themselves. And with the D60 and D90 on the market, they won't get the D80.

[mixture]

AF-S has been around since 1998. People don't have to be "careful"

Well said Bushfiva. Stop spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) ... OoT. :=


Also, to be honest, people using Nikon's consumer DSLRs are probably better off using AF-S lenses, preferably ones with VR too. There are lots of good ones out there... the 18-70 and 18-200 are both fine examples.

Non AF-S lenses are noisy too ! :cool:

[Out Of Trim]

AF-S has been around since 1998. People don't have to be "careful"
Well said Bushfiva. Stop spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) ... OoT. :=

Err - I wasn't spreading fear, uncertainty or doubt!

I merely stated a fact.

I have read of many adopters of D40's etc, trying to understand why there newly purchased 50mm F1.4 lens etc etc wont auto-focus!

I'm a Nikon user myself with a Nikon D70 and a Nikon D300 and was trying to be helpful. :rolleyes:

[gingernut]

I love my old Nikon Coolpix, but I miss the ability to have any manual control over the lens ( either to throw things in the background out of focus, or to maintain a large depth of field for landscape shots). I also miss the manual B setting. (the compact has a fireworks mode which is a bit hit and miss.)

I take it that the autofocus mode can be turned off?

And will the software be the same ?

Thanks, ginge:)

[Loose rivets]

There are no doubt some good lenses that have easy to use rings, but I find that while DX lenses usually can be clicked to Manual, they are harder to manipulate than the fine old lenses, and I end up using tricks to use the automatics. ie pointing at a brighter scene at the same length, then holding the button till I'm on subject. I went into digital photography thinking that virtually all my work would be manual. Frankly, the auto systems are so good that I find it hard to beat them. Shots at 12" or less are the exception.

Kit lens c$50, has AF/M slider on the side.


Talking of B settings, this was still in the Bucket from JB, so easy to re-show. Taken by camera in the reflection - even though the angle doesn't look right.

I didn't want to flash at the critter.

While it wouldn't win any prizes for photography, I had no idea that it would be a 1.5 second shot. I was astonished that it didn't give more shake than it did. No anti-vibration device.

What I'm again trying to emphasize, is the importance of spending a good proportion of your budget on the lens. Same shot with the kit lens wouldn't have had any significant detail.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/Image00001-3.jpg


Although it's an expensive item, I tried out the the hi-selling 18-200 $700 inside Worst Buy. I'll post comparison pix when I get a moment.

[Bushfiva]

I take it that the autofocus mode can be turned off?

You'll have as much control you want. Autofocus can typically be switched of at the body, at the lens, or simply overridden by grabbing the focus ring even when in autofocus mode. You can do full auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, fully manual or whatever.

The camera shoots two formats: jpegs and RAW The camera can shoot both at the same time. RAW gives you much more control over the final image. I believe you get basic RAW conversion software in the D60. You can also do substantial post-processing in the camera, if you wish. People tend to use their favorite software for manipulating images, ranging from free to very expensive.

The D60 kit lens supercedes the one with the D40x and is reportedly much better, though I haven't used it.

[mixture]

Err - I wasn't spreading fear, uncertainty or doubt!

It's not worth arguing over, but your post was worded in such a way to imply that AF-S was something new and hence a fair amount of attention was needed when selecting a lens.

The fact is that the vast number of Nikkor lenses the average consumer is likely to come across in your average high street shop are going to be AF-S not AF.

the the hi-selling 18-200

Some love it, some hate it. I prefer the 70-200 over the 18-200, but for holiday lightweight backpack moments, the 18-200 is quite handy.

As others have said though, budget priority should go on lenses, not camera.

[gingernut]

Thanks chaps:)

[BwatchGRUNT]

To update an earlier posters error - don't you just hate it when people guess!!

The D40X did not replace the D40 as the D40 is still current. The D60 replaces the D40x.

The new D90 replaces the D80

[mixture]

The D60 replaces the D40x.


Sorry to be pedantic, but .....

If you take a cursory glance at the Nikon catalogue, you will find the D60 being presented alongside the D40x.


Nikon UK - Products - Catalogue - Digital Cameras - SLR - Consumer (http://www.europe-nikon.com/family/en_GB/categories/broad/317.html)


The eventual plan may be to kill off the D40 series, but for the time being, you should see them side by side in the shops.


Whether anyone wants a D40 is another matter .... :cool:

[Bushfiva]

Come on guys, get a grip on reality.

1) In any market I can find, the D60 kit is cheaper than the D40x kit.

2) The D60 body is better than the D40x body.

3) The D60 kit lens is better than the D40x kit lens.

The only reason the D40x is listed is because there's unsold stock. So now tell Gingernut why he should buy a D40x.

[Out Of Trim]

mixture wrote


Sorry to be pedantic, but .....

If you take a cursory glance at the Nikon catalogue, you will find the D60 being presented alongside the D40x.


To be pedantic; :E

Now, take a look in any Shop or On-line outlet and find a D40X.

You won't find it, as earlier stated correctly; it was replaced by the D60 using the same sensor. Any D40x stock has long since been sold.

You will find in the consumer range the D40, D60, D80 (until all stock is sold), and the D90 (The replacement for the D80).

You said earlier, it's not worth arguing over!

Agreed, I'm not here to argue; I made a valid point that you misconstrued for some reason best known to yourself. Many people after buying a new camera with kit lens; look at what other lenses they would like to own.

Quite often they go for the nice cheap Nikkor 50mm F1.8D lens that is widely available for around £79.00 and guess what, it's not AF-S!

So my reason for pointing out the AF motor issue was valid and something a potential buyer might want to know.

You appear to be on some kind of mission? Not sure why you're getting so upset about others posting their responses here. :ugh:

To the OP, I think the D40 is a great introductory DSLR and I have seen some wonderful images produced by it. It is however, fairly basic just 6MP and getting a bit long in the tooth. However it's not all about the Megapixels. The D60 introduces some more features and is 10.2MP. I'm sure you would be happy with either camera.

As for lenses, the 18-55 VR is quite good I believe.
Although, I've not tried that one myself. I have the 18-70 and 16-85 VR - both are really sharp and I would recommend those. The 18-135 is pretty good but has a plastic mount, so not as sturdy. The 18-105 D90 Kit lens is also now available and seems to be good too.

The 18-200 is OK especially for travelling with only one lens say.

The 70-200 F2.8 is in another league and is pro quality. If you want more range than 200mm the 70-300 VR is probably a good option

cheers OOT.

[Bushfiva]

the 70-300 VR is probably a good option

There's certainly a lot of bang for the buck in that lens. I'm unhappy with my own sample, though. Historically, people were told that it's pretty tough to go far beyond 200mm hand-held, and here we are offering 450mm (equivalent) lenses telling people that the VR will automagically fix things up. Well, VR is indeed great, but it's not magical.

Sharpest lens I've got at the moment appears to be my old 20-35mm f/2.8, which is scary if true, because it never reviewed well on chromatic aberration. 18-200 is a great "one lens fits all" thing. My 12-24 is pretty good. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 is wonderful at night but you have to think a bit.

Ginge, if you're still reading this thread, you have an E7600 and you like taking pics of bosoms. If you're going from an E7600 to a DSLR because you think your pictures will get automagically better with some mysterious aspect of manual control, think on this: the best camera is the one that you always have with you, and the one others aren't concerned about. I'm a Nikon guy, but my pocket camera is currently a Ricoh GX200. You should check it out: all the manual controls you want, and it slips into a pocket. You don't have to get a DSLR to take very acceptable pictures with as much control as you want.

[Loose rivets]

the best camera is the one that you always have with you,


As I've cried into by beer on many occasion. Stunning spring morning out of Norwich. Coltishall says, "XX look to your left." There above the Norfolk countryside was a Spitfire that had formated on me. One of many fine pics -that I didn't get. :{

[gingernut]

Ginge, if you're still reading this thread, you have an E7600 and you like taking pics of bosoms.

Guess I deservedthat!

I will look at the Ricoh.

[Bushfiva]

I don't necessarily mean that's the right camera for you, I mean it's representative of cameras that give you far more control over the image than your current E7600. Casio Exilim Pro EX-F1and Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28 are another class of camera that might attract you. Anyway, have fun searching for your new toy :-)

[gingernut]

Thanks for the advice.

I do agree, the best camera is the one which is with you.

Indeed my firsr camera was a "Kodak Retinette" bought by the 'eld fella when he was a soldier. Was an old thing, but took great shots.

I have had some experience with an slr (I own a film slr, but now "enjoy" the advantages of digital).

I'm not a great photographer, but the slr allowed me more creativity, which the compact doesn't allow-eg there used to be a way of increasing the sharpness of everything in the shot, by selecting a small aperture and sliding the infinity point on the lens to the edge of the focus limits for that aperture. Invariably, I needed a tripod, but the results were good.

There's other stuff where it's hard to fool the compact, like shooting into light, or long exposure night shots. And focusing on one point exactly. (Sometimes possible by half holding down the shutter button-but fiddly).

Cheers again.

[bnt]

Pentax has a cashback offer going at the moment that includes the K200D. This is one of their cameras newer that has image stabilization in the body, which means that you don't need special lenses.

I have one of their older DSLR bodies (*ist DS), with a mix of old and new lenses, and I like how Pentax makes a point of lens compatibility. It works with every lens they've ever made, even "dumb lumps of glass" from the 70s, though it doesn't add automatic focus or exposure to manual lenses that don't have those.

[mixture]

Now, take a look in any Shop or On-line outlet and find a D40X.


Pleanty of new ones available on Amazon .... no doubt other places too. :ok:

On the other stuff.... I'm not going to bite, sorry..:p .... I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, just trying to correct some incorrectness.

Perhaps I could have worded slightly differently, yes, but forum postings are not really meant to be mulled over like letter writing ...... :cool:

[Loose rivets]

So many of the new Nikons look kind of ‘plasticy'...just haven't got that solid feel of the older ones. Am I right in thinking this and can someone give me a quick comparison to try to get this overall quality issue sorted?

When I started with digital, for most people that wanted Nikon SLR, it was the D70. It was quite expensive and used prices were very high, given that it was a 6.1 Mp. (as against Canon's XT at 8 mp)

The D50, I thought, was a down-graded version at a more user-friendly price, and I chose one of these because - A, I couldn't detect a significant difference between the 8 and the 6, ( I borrowed the Canon for a couple of days from the Uni. ) But I could detect a difference in the build quality compared to Canon.

Also, I allowed myself to be influenced by a well known reviewer, who said that he was unbiased and paid for all his own kit, but it was Nilon or Nikon. And never mind the Mp.

Well, that was then, and the difference was ‘only' 2mp. Now 10 is the base line I would think.

Now that we have a whole new range of Model numbers, is there a 10 Mp equivalent to the split between the 50 and the 70 above?

And as importantly, how does the build quality and general functionality of this new range, compare with the old D70?

[Out Of Trim]

So many of the new Nikons look kind of ‘plasticy'...just haven't got that solid feel of the older ones. Am I right in thinking this and can someone give me a quick comparison to try to get this overall quality issue sorted?


Try picking up a D200, D2X, D300 or D700 - Along with the D3 and the New D3X - all are made of magnesium alloy and feel very solid indeed!

The D70 was a nice chunky size but a little lighter than one might expect; as it was made of polycarbonate on top of a metal chassis.

I still think if feels nice in the hands, compared to much of its competition though!

Try comparing with the Canon 350D, 400D, 450D etc.

[Loose rivets]

Yes, I tried picking up one of the hi-end ones, but they told me to put it down again 'till I'd paid.:}


So, at 10mp What feels chunky at under $750 ?

[Jofm5]

As mentioned previously after some disappointing pics from Biggin Hill with my trusty £50 Benq point and click I took some advice from people on here and invested in a second hand Nikkon D100 body.

Its a fantastic camera and I have been playing with it for a month or so now with a 55-200mm f4-5.6G ED AF-S DX NIKKOR Zoom Lens - which is giving me some good results.

I wish to get some more lenses and maybe some filters - I feel I stand out as a bit of a perv taking pics of my 9mth old on the swings with such a big lens lol - so I was looking for a lens a tad more appropriate in size for the family type pics where no zoom is required - any ideas, suggestions and best places to purchase.

Another question is I shoot in RAW generally and convert to JPG on the PC, apart from the reduction in speed are there any other pitfalls in doing this (storage is not a problem as have 2x4gb flash cards). I am thinking of purchasing some filters to play with but are they much better than using something like photoshop to apply the filters ?

Any hints would be gratefully received.

Cheers

[Loose rivets]

I've got an 18-70 67MM wide angle. No AV, but a very good all rounder.

I would have thought it would have complimented your existing lens well.

It has very good write-ups below, and one bloke had got the lens that I want, the famed 18- 200 and he repurchased the 18 - 70 again cos he missed it so much. Word to that effect.


Nikon | 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 G-AFS ED-IF DX Autofocus Lens | 2149 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/324190-GREY/Nikon_2149_18_70mm_f_3_5_4_5_G_AFS_ED_IF.html)


They had one used for $ 179 tother day.

[Bushfiva]

Re filters, you can do most effects in Photoshop. I'd suggest simply a UV filter partly to, well, filter UV and partly to protect the lens, plus a circular polarizer to control reflections, water, cloud contrast etc.

[bnt]

re shooting in Raw and converting on computer - that's pretty much the standard "workflow". A friendly program for doing this is Google's Picasa, which is free, while for more Pro work you'd look at something like Adobe Camera Raw. Both do non-destructive editing, so your Raw files remain unchanged, like film negatives, and the JPEGs you create are the "prints".

Historically, a good Portrait lens has been a prime (non-zoom) lens in the 85 - 110 mm range, but with the smaller APS-C sensors in these cameras, the equivalent is 50 - 80mm. (I don't know what Nikon has in that range, though, or whether that camera can handle old lenses.)

Filters: there are things some filters can do that you can't replicate on the computer. One is a Polarising filter, to reduce glare from e.g. water. Another is to use a graduated filter to e.g. darken a bright sky. In both cases it's not just an effect, it prevents part of the image "blowing out" and lets you capture more detail from darker areas of the frame.

[Jofm5]

Cheers for that - will look into picasa etc.

Best price I have found on the 18-70 lens so far is £175 (new or 150 seond hand) so far. I am not expecting something for nothing but trying to go a little cheaper as I am by no means any expert or professional lol so if a lesser quality option is availble pls let me know. I do appreciate I have moved towards the higher end of photgraphy so must pay the price as the lens are expensive but.......... damn its expensive lol.

Now if you could just let me know where to get all the lens' for around £20 each that would be just fine ! hehe - just kidding of course, I will pay what I need to pay (with bitching and cursing) of course.

[green granite]

I've just brought a Canon 400D body on E-Bay for £220, and after some research ended up paying the same again for a refurbished 29-135mm IS Canon lens. If when you think you have settled on a lens, read the reviews at: Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests)

Filter wise, yes a good UV filter will protect the front lens element from dirt and scratches, don't buy a cheap one as they cause reflection problems, a lens hood is a good thing as it also helps reduce reflections, a rubber one is fine as you can peel it back out of the way at wide angles to prevent vignetting. The only other filter I have bothered with is an infra-red one but that's just for experimentation really.

As for RAW, it's the best for quality, but do all your adjustments of the image in that format and then make a copy of it as a jpg etc keeping the original RAW so that you can re-work it at any time.

[Bushfiva]

18-70 lens

That's a very well-regarded lens: lots of bang for the buck. You might want to compare it against the AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR DX if you can. If you want aperture, the AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED can have great performance, but it's a monster piece of glass, not very wide at the wide end and maybe overpriced. It probably comes into its own on FX sensors rather than DX.

Regarding UV filter, I agree with GG on going for quality, but not for the same reason: glass filters UV anyway. Lenses are made of glass. So they all filter down to around 350nm just fine. You want one that filters down to 400nm. This has a couple of effects: it can remove the blue cast at altitude, but more importantly it cuts through haze because, although cameras are not very sensitive to UV, they're more sensitive than humans with the rough result that they see more haze than the Mark I eyeball does.

Also, don't buy a used polarizer, since they are lifed items.

[mixture]

Jofm5,

Congratulations on going Nikon, don't listen to the Canon types. :ok:

Ref. lenses.

My suggestion would be to look at the fastest lenses your budget allows, this will give you more flexibility in conditions where lighting is, shall we say, less than adequate. This is even more important for you because of your choice of a D100 rather than something more modern such as a D300 where many improvements have been made in sensor technology.

Also, try to stick to "AF-S" types rather than plain "AF", "AF-S" focuses so much faster !

If you can't afford the fast lenses, then the next best are some of the fantastic "VR" ranges, which will help eliminate some of the shake you would otherwise get in low lighting.

The 18-200 is a great consumer lens, and as a general holiday/family event lens, it's more useful than an 18-70, which you might find limiting when you're trying to grab some snapshot moments.

I am assuming you are in the UK, in which case I would suggest you try somewhere like Greys of Westminster. They've got an excellent second hand range that's all in pretty good nick, and if you ask them nicely they might let you try them out for a weekend before commiting to a purchase.

[mixture]

By the way.....

Do I really interpret your post correctly in that you think the 55-200 is pervy ?

That's a tiny lens !

You should see my 70-200 .... I wouldn't go within a mile of a children's playground with that ...... :cool:

[Bushfiva]

So you're saying your 200mm zoom is better than his 200mm zoom. In context, his is a better zoom than yours because it has a zoom range of 3.63:1, whereas yours is only 2.85:1. In absolute terms, you both top out at 200mm so are identical. I'd also wonder about your classification of the 18-200 as a "consumer" lens: the technology is no different to that in any other recent Nikon lens. What would be the "pro" alternative at this point? I guess maybe the 18-200mm VR II, which is actually optically and VR-wise identical apart from the zoom lock at 18mm. Announced July, available September, and I've played with it.

Given the range of advice JOFM has received so far, I'd actually narrow my own suggestions to one item: if JOFM shoots outdoors, buy an expensive circular polarizer without telling anyone, and report back in a month.

[Skyfan]

I've always found a Neutral Density filter to be handy (reduces brightness without a major impact on colour/saturation)

[Loose rivets]

The 18-200 is a great consumer lens, and as a general holiday/family event lens, it's more useful than an 18-70,

It got one heck of a write up, and at least one new factory was opened just to accommodate world demand.

I have been waiting for a bargain. It started out at $600 odd, and went to $1,000 in no time. As orders were filled, it came back to the $600s again, but I seldom see anything under $590. 'My' 18 -70 at less than 200 would be a snip. Haven't looked at sterling prices.

It was all Ken Rockwell's fault. He said that he often doesn't bother taking anything but the 18 - 200. The world seems to listen to him.

[green granite]

In some reviews it did but not in all:

Regarding some glowing reviews available on the web the expectation were rather high. Unfortunately the (tested sample of the) Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G IF-ED VR II DX wasn't able to convince completely. Weak points are rather hefty distortions and high vignetting (@ f/3.5) at 18mm. Apart from a few weak spots the resolution figures are quite good though and it is possible to get very decent images from this lens under field conditions. The VR can surely help to save the day in situations where similar zooms must fail utterly The build quality is a little soso for a lens in this price class and probably the biggest disappointment. All in all the Nikkor is a highly interesting lens but not without flaws (hardly surprising for a 11x zoom).

[mixture]

Bushfiva,

So you're saying your 200mm zoom is better than his 200mm zoom.

Sometimes I wonder why I bother posting on PPRuNe, I really do. Why can't people take the time to read a post in context before hitting the "Submit Reply" button ?

Let me put it in plain English as follows :

The point I was trying to make is that I was surprised that he was feeling self-concious about a 55-200. I would not consider 55-200 to be a "pervy lens", and infact, in all honesty I was thinking that if he does consider it to be such a lens, why he bothered to buy a DSLR in the first place if he was worried about the size of the lenses he put on the front.

The reason for bringing up the 70-200 was as a comparison in physical size to demonstrate why I consider the 55-200 to certainly not belong on the "pervy" department.

It was by no means intended to be a willy waving post. The 70-200 is a great lens, there is no doubting that .... but I am not so insecure as to need to come on here and brag about it !

In absolute terms, you both top out at 200mm so are identical. I'd also wonder about your classification of the 18-200 as a "consumer" lens: the technology is no different to that in any other recent Nikon lens.

And by the way Bushfiva, I own both the 18-200 and the 70-200.

When you use them side by side, it doesn't take long to tell which one is consumer and which one is pro. And the "top out" at 200 is not strictly true, the 70-200 has a slight edge because of the focusing mechanism.

There are many ways to define "pro" vs "consumer" range, one major point for me is the aperture. You don't get 2.8 throughout on a "consumer" lens, for example. Another major point is consistency, see green granite's post about distortion etc.

[green granite]

There are many ways to define "pro" vs "consumer" range, one major point for me is the aperture.

Indeed, many amateurs can get by with a relatively slow lens as the shots they are taking are not either speed or depth of field critical.

Professionals need to be able to cover both, if they are taking action shots that require a fast shutter speed in poor light conditions to earn their living that week then they need a fast lens to help them, depth of field is also very important as it can help make the point of interest in the photo stand out from the background. Or in other words they need as much control over and help from their gear as possible.

I appreciate of course there are those who fall in between, who want to take professional quality pictures, but only for pleasure not reward in which case they are going to buy the right gear for the job.

Basically the faster the lens the more you will have to pay for it, but having said that at least with a DSLR you can change the effective ASA speed without having to change the film, which does at least give you a fighting chance of recording the moment despite bad conditions and a slower lens. You'll just have a noisier picture equivalent to the grain increasing if you move to say a 1600ASA film from a 200ASA one.

[Jofm5]

Cheers all for the comments: -

Mixture, I wanted the D300 but being my first forray into DSLR and having a steep learning curve there is no way I could justify the money.

As for taking the camera to the playground - it was not really what I bought it for but comparing the pics of it with the BenQ makes me want to take the SLR each time - I just feel I get funny looks sometimes being its a tad on the larger side. Putting the playground aside just taking the odd pic of my boy around the house with the 18-200 means I have to be across the other side of the room which is another reason to get a shorter lens.

I actually bought the camera to take to outside events e.g. air shows etc not for what I have been using it for recently - I have been using it alot to play with mainly so when I do go to an event I will be familiar with the camera and its functions.

Loose Rivets:
$600 is way too expensive for the 18-200, I paid £169 out of curry's of all places (a bit of an impulse buy to try the camera body out).

[green granite]

Loose Rivets:
$600 is way too expensive for the 18-200, I paid £169 out of curry's of all places (a bit of an impulse buy to try the camera body out).

Are you sure it's a Nikon lens and not the Sigma or Tamron version? The cheapest listing I can see is around £540 from UK supplier and around £450 from Hong Kong.

edited to add Curries price is £599.99
Currys - Lenses (http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/cur_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0925752479.1249334164@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccfcadehmfjhldgcflgceggdhhmdgmh.0&page=ProductList&category_oid=-31543&fm=9&sm=4&tm=4&show_all=true#%28any%29:%28any%29:100:600:PageNo_1:SortOrder _DOWN)

[Jofm5]

Currys - Shop for Cameras - SLR Lenses - Nikon 55-200mm Lens (http://www.currys.co.uk/martprd/store/cur_page.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@0393190586.1249334420@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccdadehllhjdelcflgceggdhhmdgml.0&page=Product&fm=null&sm=null&tm=null&sku=319705&category_oid)=

This is the one I have tho I just noticed that Loose Rivets was on about the 18-200 so I am talking cross purposes lol.

See - told you I was new to this m'larky

[Squealing Pig]

Rather than using a Canon/Nikon own brand lense there is an alternative, Ive owned a Sigma 18-200mm for my EOS400D for 2 years now and am very impressed with the results 18-200 is roughly 28-300mm in 35mm terms and this lense has an image stability function in the form of one of the internal elements activly moves to stabilise the image.

Im very impressed with this one, beats the pant off Canons own lense, highly recomended, has hardly ever been off the camera since i got it.

sigma 18-200mm lens - Jessops (http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/Accessories/Camera%20Accessories/Lenses/products/Sigma/18-200mm%20f3.5-6.3%20DC%20OS%20(Nikon%20AF)-48646/Show.html)

Shop around for the best price and there is also a cheaper version on the market without the image stab bits.

[Bushfiva]

And by the way Bushfiva, I own both the 18-200 and the 70-200

Quite partial to fast glass myself, too.

[Barkly1992]

The Digital Darkroom - Digital photography Forums - Powered by vBulletin (http://www.digi-darkroom.com/)

Check out this digital photography forum. You will find me there (as a newbie) and a great deal of advice. It has a nikon thread as well as other major brands.

I'm an Oly user.

Barkly

[mixture]

Jofm5,

Guess I should clarify one or two points.

Mixture, I wanted the D300 but being my first forray into DSLR and having a steep learning curve there is no way I could justify the money.

Never said the D100 was a bad choice. Infact I think it's an excellent choice, much better than buying one of the plasticy D40s or something like that.

Honestly, I've never had a bad Nikon. And any of the Dx00 range should be a safe bet. I was perfectly happy with my D200 until the D300 came along, the only reason I'm now a firm D300 supporter is because of what it's sensor can do amongst many other improvements.

However, as you say, it's a learning curve. I've been a digital Nikon user for a long time, and if I were starting again, you wouldn't find me going straight for the D300, I too would opt for something lower down.

Sorry if I gave the wrong impression there.



As for taking the camera to the playground

Sounds like I might have to re-read your posts and re-consider my suggestion of an 18-200.... :cool:

[green granite]

Thats a useful looking forum Barkly, thanks for that. :ok:

[PPRuNe Towers]

I'll ban myself for thread drift in a mo but the D40 is actually a very popular and in demand niche body.

It's the last of the hybrid shutter line and thus flash synch goes all the way up to 500th second. The real secret is it synchronises much faster than that if using pro flash heads and a flashmeter. A specialised talent but if it's something you need it's a body you can't do without. Two of them here at the Towers complementing the, so called, serious bodies, Strongly recommended along with fast glass, prime lenses and seriously studying reviews of non nikkor offerings.

Rob

[green granite]

Of course if you want a real lens........................... :hmm: : Used SLR Camera Lenses | B&H Photo Video (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/116642/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html)

And that's a second hand price.

[Dop]

Filters:-

UV filter - can be left in place all the time and will give some protection to the lens against stray fingerprints, dust, etc.

Polarising filter - use it to cut glare, reflections, and turns to help darken the sky at some angles (don't use on wide angle lenses as it looks odd).

Neutral Density Graduated filters - usually square and require a special holder, but very useful for landscape photography as they cut light from the sky so you don't underexpose the ground or overexpose the sky.
Half the filter is clear, and the other half slowly gets darker as you approach the top.

I shot this using an ND grad:-
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2473/3780667621_52dea09c5b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajshepherd/3780667621/in/set-72157621921877596)
The sky's well exposed and so is the ground. Without that filter either the sky would be pale and washed out or the ground detail too dark.
I use the Cokin (http://www.cokin.co.uk/) system but there are others.

You can't duplicate a polarising filter in photoshop, or a ND grad (short of using HDR techniques).

Hope this helps.

[Out Of Trim]

I'd advise the 18-70mm is the one to go for.. It's fairly cheap and widely available. I bought my D70 with that Kit lens and its very nice; i've had many good and very sharp images using that lens. The only cheaper alternatives would be an 18-55mm or you might find a second-hand 18-135mm. Both of these ar'nt bad either! There is also a newer 18-105mm VR lens which was the D90 kit lens and may be found now. The 18-135mm and the 18-105mm VR have plastic mounts. but the others are metal. (although) not sure about the 18-55mm.

I've now bought the 16-85mm VR; it's very good too, but quite a lot more expensive and mainly lives on my D300 most of the time.

[Loose rivets]

Huh! Something told me to look on Craigspi$$ed this morning. "The 18-200 will be there my psychic voices said. There it was, the very last entry. Spooky.


Anyway, it's two months old and the bloke has got a full frame camera so this one's no good to him. He want's $650 for it.

Since I've seen them at Worst Buy for $699, I'm going to enter into negotiations if he'll play. In the US, prices do not include tax, so 8.25% would have to be added to the retail price in Texas, but not of course to the used price. (saying that, car sales are taxed, used, private or dealer.)

[esreverlluf]

I agree with all of DoP's points except for one. In Photoshop CS4 Camera Raw, it IS possible (indeed it is very easy) to apply a graduated filter effect under software - it is AWESOME!:ok::ok: You can even apply several graduated effects to the one image. I cannot speak highly enough of CS4, and I think I've only scratched the surface of its capabilities.

Haven't checked, but I don't think this feature existed in earlier versions.

[Bushfiva]

But applying the gradation in post-processing can't recover any highlights blown out in the original image, so it's better to do ND graduation at the lens.

[Loose rivets]

I got the lens. Silly question, but I got a filter as part of the deal. He said that he'd paid $40 odd for it, but it simply says Sunpack UltraViolet.
Can one a bit more information by certain trials? Polarized...should be able to work that out with some sun glasses, but assessing the other characteristics...how to do that?


Also, what noises should I expect to hear from this VR lens? Auto focus is noticeably faster than the 18 - 70, but the noises are strange to me.

[Bushfiva]

It reduces UV. To be pedantic, a good brand may reduce UV. In practice, if it's a good brand, it will cut through haze a little (cameras see a little more haze than people do), take away a little blue tinge, and increase contrast. You may or may not observe these effects. It's typically used to protect the front glass, for those who like protecting the glass.

A polarizer is a very different animal, looks very dark, and has a front ring that rotates. It's used for controlling the sky and reflections (see posts passim).

Your filter, if it's the 72mm CF7037UV, retails for $10-$14, it would appear. The DF7037UV is around $16-22. Not to say it's a bad filter, 'cos that's what they all sell for.

Re lens noise, not much at all. I can't listen at the moment because the lens is loaned out.

[Matt.V]

35mm or 50mm prime. I'd suggest 1.4
12-24mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8

That is all you need most of the time.

Some good info here. (http://www.kenrockwell.com/)

[esreverlluf]

Fair enough Bushfiva - but the graduating effect that can be applied under software is still awesome and can be applied multiple times in multiple places - much as you could apply to a negative in a darkroom I guess. Loss of detail in the highlights doesn't seem to be much of an issue - at least with the D300.

[Bushfiva]

OK, but I think in that context you're probably referring to the digital equivalent of dodging and burning, since you refer to multiple times and places?

[Jofm5]

Oh dear, I thought I asked a simple question lol

I need to do a hell of alot more reading to understand the above - cheers all for the comments I will try decipher shortly.

Jof

[esreverlluf]

Bushfiva - negative on the dodge & burn issue, though I can understand your confusion. The "Graduated Filter Tool" is indeed a brand new feature in Photoshop CS4 Camera Raw (it lives on the menu up the top of the screen in camera raw and is easy to miss unless you know about it).

In addition to exposure, you can also adjust brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity, sharpness and colour which are then blended into the image in much the same fashion as you'd get if you applied a graduated filter either on the lens or in the darkroom in the traditional film analogy.

More here Five Adobe CS4 Goodies for Photographers (http://pcworld.about.com/od/pcw/Five-Adobe-CS4-Goodies-for-Pho.htm) .

Apologies for the thread drift Jof, but stick with it and enjoy!

[Jofm5]

Carry on - all interesting stuff :ok:

[green granite]

Perhaps Saab could rename this thread (with Jofm5's permission of course) to something like photo matters

[Jofm5]

I am learning from it so dont object at all.

[Saab Dastard]

Done - I've gone for Digital Photography Thread to maintain the link with C&I ;)

SD

[green granite]

Excellent title Saab :ok:

A useful technique, and because of it I settled for a slightly longer bottom ended zoom lens (28-135mm), is photo stitching, (google it for free software) Just shoot 2 overlapping pictures and then stitch them together, ok you get an elongated aspect ratio but that doesn't IMHO matter very much. For example these 2 were merged using photoshop. Not perfect but with more care taking the originals would have been better

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/71dc33bf.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/4ca0738f.jpg

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i11/orangeherald/b1bf7064.jpg

[Saab Dastard]

It's a nice effect / technique, and you can have some fun by having someone pose in different places in each photo, so they appear twice (or more)!

SD

[bnt]

It was all Ken Rockwell's fault. He said that he often doesn't bother taking anything but the 18 - 200. The world seems to listen to him.
Don't get me started on Rockwell. Since he negatively "reviewed" the camera I have (Pentax *ist DS) while happily admitting he had never even see one, he's been on the "no-fly" lists of many Pentax owners. He's also one of those who thinks your only camera choices are between Canon and Nikon = another reason to ignore him. :mad:

ps: if you have $38,000 spare, you might like one of these lenses:
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/cantbelieve5/lens.jpg

(Sigma (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3) APO 200-500mm f2.8 EX DG) :8

[Loose rivets]

I'd have to hire the bloke to carry it for me.:(

[Coconutty]

Re : effects in Paint Shop Pro / Adobe Photoshop etc ....

For anyone that doesn't have decent graphics editing software, I can recommend "Photo Pos Pro",
which is FREEWARE, and IMHO rivals earlier versions of Paint Shop Pro :
Free Photo Editor, Free Image Editor, Photo Editing Software, Image Editing Software and Free Photo Tools (http://www.photopos.com/index.asp)

( Although Paint Shop Pro Photo x2 Ultimate is awesome ! )

BTW - What happened to the "stickiness" of the Ultimate List of Freeware thread ?

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d129/coconut11/Coconutty.jpg

[TerminalTrotter]

As a complete novice in photography, but one who has a couple of nice (not SLR) digital cameras, is anyone able to recommend a beginners guide to photo editing? I find I don't even understand most of the terms used in the photo editing software, never mind how to use them.

TT

[foresight]

As a complete novice in photography, but one who has a couple of nice (not SLR) digital cameras, is anyone able to recommend a beginners guide to photo editing? I find I don't even understand most of the terms used in the photo editing software, never mind how to use them.


If you are thinking of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements try the 'Missing Manual' series. Pretty comprehensive and very easy on the brain.

[green granite]

Try:

Digital Camera Tips and Reviews: Photonhead, The Essence of Modern Film and Digital Photography (http://www.photonhead.com/)

Photpshop specific: Photo Editing on Your Computer With Photoshop : Beginner Guide : Tools for Adobe Photoshop CS2: A Beginners Guide | TechOnVideo (http://www.techonvideo.com/2007/10/29/photo-editing-on-your-computer-with-photoshop-beginner-guide-tools-for-adobe-photoshop-cs2-a-beginners-guide/)

Gimp guide (probably the best free editor there is): Gimp Tutorials Beginners Guide to The GIMP TipClique Tutorials (http://www.tipclique.com/tutorial/gimp/beginners-guide-to-the-gimp/)

Some thoughts before you buy software
Before You Buy Photo Editing Software (http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pixelbased/a/bybphotoeditor.htm)

[Barkly1992]

As a GA pilot first (when I used to fly and I should I say it I worked for the Oz regulator), I learned a couple of things.

1. All pilots understand technology.
2. Therefore, they normally understand computers (and other electronic devices).
3. When they fly they normally carry cameras with them and take pics.
4. Therefore the best pics of aircraft are normally taken by pilots.
5. But they also use programs like photoshop and manipulate pics to make them real good.

Keep it up.

:E

[TerminalTrotter]

Foresight & green granite

Many thanks. That has certainly given me somewhere to start. I have to admit that I have always found myself to have the kind of brain (such as it is) that needs to RTFM rather than wing it with occasional resort to the help file.
That lot will certainly keep me out of trouble for a while.
TT

[innuendo]

RE the posts on the ND grad filter effects available in CS4 Adobe Camera Raw, the same tool is in Adobe Lightroom, which also uses ACR. It is a very useful feature. For a tutorial on it have a look here:
Workshops-On-Demand (http://www.workshopsondemand.com/ps_lightroom/lr2_p02/)

It is about three minutes into the tutorial.
I think the entire set of Lightroom tutorials are very worthwhile. If you were going to download the 30 day trial of Lightroom I would highly recommend looking at the tutorials before starting the 30 day clock ticking.
I attended a day seminar put on by JuliAnne Kost on Photoshop and she is simply excellent.

[green granite]

I must admit to liking lightroom, trouble is the last time i tried installing it into W 7 it screwed up the desk top icons, must try it with RC1 and see what happens.

That's a useful site innuendo thanks for posting it :ok:

[Loose rivets]

Now that I've got some good glass and a spiffing flashgun, do I upgrade the camera?

Mine's a D50, and the 18 - 200 lens does seem to work quite well with it, but there's a bloke with a D200 for sale on Craig's listy thing, and I'm rather tempted. At a little over half the cost of a D90, it really seems to be a step forward. However, it doesn't seem to have the same 'Auto for Dummies' setting that the cheaper ones have.

$650 is the asking price for the body. There is a battery/grip with it as well. The thing is that the 90 seems to be getting rave reviews, and it has video and LCD sighting option. Quite a leap forward.

What think you?

[Bushfiva]

I think you'd do way better with the D90 than the D200, which is now 2 or 2.5 generations behind depending on how you squint. They all have "auto for dummies", but if that's your criterion I wonder why you're considering leaving the D50, which is also a fine camera.

I see the D3000 has a "Guide" mode that "provides in-camera assistance for making camera settings and utilizing professional techniques"

[Loose rivets]

I think it will be worth waiting for the D90. I mentioned your post to my wife, and she likes you - a lot. "we don't need to be spending money on non-essentials right now."

How do you explain to a mere woman, that a nifty camera is an essential?

[Helol]

To be honest, I think the raw vs jpeg argument will contine until the end of time, a bit like the Mac vs PC. I suppose it depends what you want to do with your images. One thing to bear in mind, if you do shoot in raw, make sure you have a lot of space to keep those files. Having said that, there is no substitute for a well taken photograph. Prepare, know your subject, and know your camera.

I do a bit of bird photography, specialising in a particular bird of prey. I shoot in the highest quality jpeg; I also sell my work, and provide images for publishing, and no comment (thus far!) has been made about the image being in jpeg format.

My one piece of advice would be to purchase the best quality lens you can afford. You won't regret it.

[green granite]

A rough guide to Raw v JPEG but as Helol says it will run and run

When to use Raw

You need to post process the image
The white balance cannot be properly set with the camera
The scene contains high contrast
The image will be enlarged beyond the camera sensor's resolution
You can't decide whether to use Raw or JPEG
You are using infra-red filters

When to use JPEG.

All the Raw files won't fit in your memory card
You don't want to post process the image
You want to print the photos right away before you get to use a computer

[bnt]

Some of those "problems" in the previous post are not necessarily problems at all, and can be viewed as opportunities for creative control of the final image. For example: is there really one "proper" white balance, and why should you be tied to whatever the camera (or photographer) decides at the time?

Analogy: if you make a print from a negative, you can fine-tune the image at that point, while going straight to JPEG can be compared to a Polaroid print: one shot, live with the results. I could put in another way: with digital media, you can easily throw away information, but once it's gone, you can not get it back.

Remember, JPEG uses lossy compression - it throws some information away. I'd reverse that advise: only use JPEG when you can't post-process, or really don't want to. :cool:

[Jofm5]

One more reason to shoot JPG is the number of frames per second is higher - this is probably due to the time it takes to write the frames and the buffer space available.

[Bushfiva]

On most cameras you can shoot in RAW & JPG at the same time, which is useful when many of your shots are snapshots, but some aren't, and the camera's useless at making its own jpgs (and I'm looking at you, Ricoh GX200).

[Helol]

I know a professional wildlife photographer who does very well thank you very much, and he shoots in jpeg. On the other hand, another photographer shoots in raw. Horses for courses...

My personal opinion, is that (and I'll probably get shot down for this!), it is better to have taken a good photograph to start off with, needing just a little touching up (i.e. unsharp - especially with Canon, and possible levels), than to have taken a crap photo and spend endless hours on the computer trying to make it look good.

As someone mentioned, fps is quite important, more so if shooting action images with a fast moving subject (birds, F1, etc). However, I suppose if you are taking a shot of a castle or what have you, then fps isn't high on the priority list.

[Tupperware Pilot]

I shoot in RAW, then convert in Photoshop........only time i would shoot in JPEG would be when i need a fast multi shoot. I use a Nikon D300, and find my best lens for ground to air stuff is the 70-300 vr.
Photos: Canadair CL-600-2B16 Challenger 601-3R Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled-(Hanger-8)/Canadair-CL-600-2B16-Challenger/1573364/L/)

BUt i use a 55-200 vr for air-to-air work.

Photos: De Havilland DH-82A Tiger Moth II Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/De-Havilland-DH-82A/1564767/L/)
Cheers

[green granite]

Nice pictures TP, the only reason for I can think of for not shooting raw is either using the auto modes which don't allow you to save in RAW on the Canon, or if you're limited for space on the storage medium.

[green granite]

I make no apologies for posting this I think it's a brilliant piece of animated cad, and absolutely fascinating, you'll see it's relevance when you watch it. :ok:

YouTube - UC Berkeley E128 Final Project - Canon 10D DSLR v2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw)

[daved123]

Brilliant GG, think I'll have to retire my can of WD40 now...
DaveD

[Loose rivets]

Oh. :( So that puts paid to my plans for repairing my camera.



I rebuilt a badly damaged Sony Broadcast quality camera once. It had been dropped from 20' onto concrete. It was nowhere near as complicated as that.

[Ancient Observer]

Wow! great url. thanks.
That reminds me why I stopped mucking about with car engines. All this 'lectric clevery isn't there to make the cars go better - it's there to stop home engine builds and anything other than basic maintenance.
I suspect that all consumer electronics is designed to be complex so if a tiny bit goes wrong, you chuck it out and buy new.

I'm not sure why this came out of UCB - it's the sort of thing they do in the back streets of Calcutta.

.............now, where's the menu on this bl**dy Olympus?...........

[green granite]

Any one fancy a long focal length lens? :E

Canon 5200mm F14 SLR DSLR Lens on eBay (end time 09-Dec-09 09:57:17 GMT) (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-5200mm-F14-SLR-DSLR-Lens_W0QQitemZ180438980987)

[Loose rivets]

As mentioned, there's a bloke that has a second-hand, but almost unused D90 for sale. Body, batts, charger, etc., I have the lens.


He checks out, and has advertised the unit for some months. I'm just wondering if any Ppruners have heard any bad issues with this model. So many good reports came out when it was new that it became a logical upgrade, but there has been time for horror stories to be written.

Remember, I'm taking a great chance buying anything right now, cos the stars are aligned so that almost everything I touch explodes, but there's no time at my age to wait for a year or two for an improvement. :uhoh:

[Bushfiva]

D90's a fine camera. If I remember, you already have a Nikon body and reasonably good lenses. I'm not sure the D90 will necessarily make your photos better. Again, if I remember, didn't you buy then sell an SB800 when the SB400 would have been a better match? But anyway, the D90's a very good camera with no real vices. Better dynamic range than many of its competitors, at any price, when it was released. In terms of "can it guide me to a better photo", you might want to look at the D3000.

[Loose rivets]

didn't you buy then sell an SB800


Half right . . . I didn't sell it.:}


My wife thinks I've taken leave of my senses. I've become very good at thinking of reasons for buying things, but not so hot with the use or disposal of same. It's called ski-ing. Spending the kid's inheritance.

This was taken with the D50, and an 18 - 70 67mm 4.5 DX lens. It's a pity we can't put the full package on our photos, this one really has a depth to it at 1920 res.

I've just looked, and the focus is not represented here.

You can almost feel the polish on the marble with a picture that hasn't been 'though the bucket'. was 750k - reduced to 195ish.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v703/walnaze/OoopNorth125.jpg


Cavendish tomb at Cartmel.

[bugsmashergirl]

The D90 is a great camera I used to use one, but have recently made the switch to dare I say it Canon!

I sometimes wish I hadnt made the switch as the D90 is a great body.

The two big things for me with the D90 are excellent viewfinder and great resolution screen ok the Canon is great as well but there is just something about the D90 plus the buttons and ergonimcs for me were great (Im a female though and have small hands) so if you have bigger hands you might not find other bodies a problem

Linda

[Loose rivets]

Just got back from the vendor. Unit looks good, virtually like new. Seems to work and fed into my laptop okay. The trouble is that he has no documentation for it.

I came back with nothing but the serial number.

I explained my concerns were twofold. As a resident alien, I have a lot to lose if I don't 'do due diligence'. Also, Nikon won't register it for warranty without a bill of sale. It may even have been registered by someone. The owner of the shop died, and the vendor lost what little paperwork he had during a house move.

Now, here's a thing. My first Samsung had been registered to someone else before it was delivered to me. It took me about 10 mins to find that out. Nikon don't seem to be so helpful. I spent ages trying to find out about my 18 - 200 lens, which cost exactly the same as the price of this D90 $650. I was able to get a bill of sale for that, but never had any response to my registration - except for a slew of e-mails advertising new Nikon kit. :ugh: It seems that it would be easier to get in touch with the dead.

Anyone know a way to actually speak with Nikon?

[Bushfiva]

1-800-Nikon-UX for tech support on all Nikon products, 8 a.m. - 2 a.m. Eastern. If by docs you mean manuals, they're all available on-line as non-printable PDFs if you don't register, and as printable if you do register. Printed manuals can also be purchased.

[Loose rivets]

No sadly, I mean proof of purchase. Nothing. All the goodies seemed to be there, but not that piece of paper.

Seems a real nice guy, but as I told him, I can't take ownership of anything without receipts. It's surprising how many people become parted from their receipts, so I would have thought Nikon would have had some sort of procedure to cover that.

It seems that I can't even purchase a Mack Extended deal without this paperwork.

Pity, it looked near to mint condition.

800 Nikon UX Just another line to the Dom Rep I would guess. Tried tech just now to see if they would be more helpful. Nope. No way they are going to check out a given serial number. I didn't want the owner's personal details, just whether it had been registered. How hard is that?

I went on to say that if someone dies, and there's a lot of stock to dispose of, the people doing it don't care about serial numbers, or cameras, or even Nikon, in all their godly importance. They just want the kit out. Surely, that shouldn't mean it's all rendered valueless.

Well, that's what I said . . . but it was more for my release than a serious suggestion.

Hang on a moment . . . just got to :ugh: :ugh: That's better.

[Aerouk]

I've been using a Nikon D40X for the last year and a half. It's been great fun using it and it's travelled all over the world with me.

I've currently got the Nikon 18-55 lens and a Sigma 70-300 lens (which has been sent off to Sigma for repair) but I'm really struggling to get other lenses for the camera that offer the AF features and don't cost a fortune. Can anyone recommend any lens/accessories that are must haves?

I understand that the camera is a lightweight/beginners DSLR, have I maybe just out grown the camera?

[green granite]

Why do you feel you need other lenses?

[Loose rivets]

I'd been told that the D40 'doesn't support' the same lenses as the main range. Is this true?

[Bushfiva]

D40 won't autofocus with (very) old lenses. For Nikkor, that means a non-AF-S lens.

[Aerouk]

I would just like to try more things, like wide angle photography etc.

[Bushfiva]

If you want a wide angle zoom, your choices are are bit limited on the D40 if you want autofocus. Off the top of my head, the Sigma 10-20 is the only non-Nikon wide angle zoom lens that will autofocus on the D40. If you're happy with manual focus, Tokina and Tamron also work.

I have the Nikkor 12-24 and like it. It's pricey, though. The Tokina 11-16 has its fans but it would be manual focus on your camera. That's probably not much of a problem at wide angles, though.

If you want a lot of bang for your buck, and you want to mess around, look at the Lensbaby web site.

[Cheerio]

I wonder if you can advise? I am finding that the quality of readily available 35mm C41 processing and printing is getting so increasingly and consistently rubbish, that using decent kit is a waste of time, you might as well be using a Lomo.
The camera is available, the film is available, but the quality of cost effective developing and printing is going to be the thing that finally drives refuseniks like me away. Its a conspiracy!

Maybe its time that I considered dipping my toe into digital.
But is there such a thing as a digital replacement for the quality 35mm compact? Contax T3, Nikon 35Ti etc?

I really would like the following spec.

Can bung in readily available disposable batteries in emergency, and not be tied to a future obsolescent sliver of custom lithium.

Must have a viewfinder. A bulky battery guzzling screen I can live without, but I guess you can't halt 'progress'. Still, I want a viewfinder.

A fixed focus lens of 'Sonnar' type quality, and built to last.

Basically I would like a digital version - same size, same cost, same functionality, same build and optical quality as a Contax T3 or similar.


Do you think these will ever re-appear? I know that Canon have the G10 and Olympus have the PEN, amongst others, but they all fall short somehow. Maybe the next T3 or 35Ti is just round the corner. Things seem to be moving that way.

Failing that, does anyone have any good 35mm process and printing recommendations? Anyone still do it the good old-fashioned way instead of some oik roughly digitising your negatives?

[green granite]

Digital camera wise, think about a second hand Canon 350D or 400D, plenty available on E-Bay.

As for film processing just Google "film processing labs" and take your pick, I know it means sending your films away by post but it's probably the best way nowadays.

[PPRuNe Towers]

Camera? I don't know of anything that ticks all your requirement boxes regarding batteries or quality or viewfinder.

Everyone is different, has different needs but at least we can offer a shortlist. You've already mentioned the Oly Pen. I'd offer the Panasonic GF1 with the superb 20mm 'pancake' lens but there's no viable viewfinder to suit you at base level. Both cameras suffer too much shutter lag for my tastes and are, in my view, desperately overpriced considering how much they are leaving out compared to a DSLR.

Other than stepping up to the modern digital Leica range there's no obvious choice without compromises at the moment. It may be you have requirements that suit a halfway house/medium term/interim route to digital. There are interesting offerings from Ricoh, Samsung and a couple of others to consider but the large sensor, high quality compact market is still very immature and it's interesting that in the quality, small sensor world Canon is actually dropping megapixels in the search for better quality.

As to C41 I've got to point you away from PPRuNe. Try a site like Talk Photography which is UK based and has an entire forum devoted to traditional film. There are valuable threads running right now regarding processing.

Film & Conventional - Talk Photography (http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56)

Rob

[IO540]

I really would like the following spec.

Can bung in readily available disposable batteries in emergency, and not be tied to a future obsolescent sliver of custom lithium.

Must have a viewfinder. A bulky battery guzzling screen I can live without, but I guess you can't halt 'progress'. Still, I want a viewfinder.

Not a compact but the Pentax K100D and K200D (I have the 200) use AA batteries, have a viewfinder, and are excellent DSLRs.

I don't think there are any compacts around today that use AA or AAA batteries. A real shame because the lithium (non-rechargeable) ones last nearly for ever and are very light.

Arguably the best picture quality compact is the Canon S90. I bought one for my GF and am astonished at the quality. Not as good as my K200D but quite scarily close, in any half decent lightning conditions.

[west lakes]

Try something like the Fuji S1500, compact zoom.
Runs on 4 AA batteries, I recently went from an earlier version (S5700) to a DSLR.

[El Grifo]

Just to chuck in my tuppence worth regarding RAW vs. Jpg.

Earned my crust as a snapper without break since 1980.

Zenith E to Canon 1Ds. Quite a journey.

I resisted raw for all of the usual reasons, until the photography manager from one of my major clients enlightened me a few years back.

Not shooting raw, is akin working with one eye closed and one hand tied behind your back.

Why overspend on flashy equipment and shoot using only a percentage of its potential ?

Added to which, the "megapixel capacity" of existing kit is already in excess of what most pros need.
My clients admit to discarding around 60% of ther information when editing images for publication.

300 dpi is industry print standard. A4 front cover is generally max size.

Work it out.

[Loose rivets]

I'm trying to, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying to use RAW, and at the same time, that the camera is already giving far more than is needed for the end result.

One is nevertheless intrigued as to the answer.

[green granite]

You seem to be saying to use RAW, and at the same time, that the camera is already giving far more than is needed for the end result.

The point is that if you use RAW you store the max possible info in the picture you have just taken, when you process it you may not need it to produce what you need,but, the only thing wasted is a bit of memory on the flash card. If after a few weeks you, or your client/wife/girlfriend/etc, decide they want a poster size image from it you can do it.

[Bushfiva]

RAW gives you access to the image the camera took. With the right tools, you can then manipulate that image: correcting chromatic abberation, correcting lens distortion (e.g. via DxO), sharpening, and even changing the apparent exposure. All changes are lossless and reversible.

With JPEG, first you're dealing with something the camera created, using the camera's algorithms. For example, the camera's idea of how much sharpening should be applied, the camera's built-in dynamic range shaping, color gamut and so on. Some cameras do a good job, others get it hopelessly wrong: e.g. the Ricoh GX200 takes great pics but makes terrible jpegs. Finally, the image from the camera has already been lossily compressed, and each time you manipulate the image a little more quality will be lost. Only a few tools can even rotate a jpeg without more loss. Even Q=100 gives about 2.5:1 lossy compression. Interestingly, near Q=100 as compression artifacts increase, saving a file multiple times reduces its quality yet increases its size dramatically.

So if you ever think your tools can do a better job of making a jpeg than the camera's built-in algorithms, you're usually right. That's why RAW (or DNG) is important: access to what the sensor saw, rather than what the camera thinks you want to see.

Most cameras, of course, can shoot both at the same time, so you get a jpeg to look at and send people, and a RAW file to archive (on the assumption you're not going to edit every photo you ever shoot).

[IO540]

A lot of cameras can sheet (and store) both raw and jpeg concurrently.

According to a pro I know, the name of the game today is to edit from raw but in a manner which always retains the original file as a base layer. I don't know what tools he uses though...

The difference between raw and jpeg becomes smaller as one goes more upmarket, and as the lighting conditions get better. A lot of the time, with a decent DSLR, the difference is virtually invisible in the end image. But there is always a big difference if you are doing substantial image adjustments. In aviation, these are not uncommon, to e.g. take out haze which sometimes needs a lot of work.

[PPRuNe Towers]

I shoot RAW .

It's unmessed with. It becomes the modern version of a transparency. It can seem a boring thing compared to the tweaked up jpegs created in camera but only if I shot time critical stuff like sports for web and newspapers would it be different.

I shoot raw to get me the maximum exposure range the sensor can record for me to use as I want. That range is still far, far less than the human eye can see but it gives me more choices within those limitations. That's with what I shoot though - most people simply couldn't be arsed any more than they'd build their own PC.

I don't want or need more megapixels given present sensor sizes and technology unless I'm significantly stepping up from my normal maximum 18x12 or A3+ print size. I'm also hitting the lens quality being the limiting factor at that print size - prime lenses or pro zooms become a must for critical work.

But then again, how many prints a year do you take to that size? I do it a lot - at just over a UK pound a print these days it would be rude not to:ok:

RAW is about preserving as much quality as possible and accepting that post processing is inherent to your workflow. It suits me, it's how I've always worked from film days. My hand made cibachrome prints from 30 years ago still look stunning. The stuff I sent to Bonusprint like everyone else just looks faded and old. It's about what you want from photographs and how much effort you'll put in. Most people are very happy with their jpegs and either don't know or don't care that their camera is capable of much more.

It's always been that way whatever the technology. Same with film, video, hi fi.

Rob

[El Grifo]

There you go loose rivets, the guys answered your question in a correct and concise manner.

The real (although marginal difference) shows up, not when you get your 8x10back from bonus print, but when the Summer 2010 first edition from Thomas Cook or the like, with your shot on the front cover, plonks onto your desk, rapidly (less so in the last 18 months) followed by a cheque :ok:

[Loose rivets]

That must be a nice feeling.


I'll try a few RAW shots tomorrow. That's if the British type weather goes away. I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.

I understand the concepts of 'noise' from the array. The bigger the cells, the less noise...as a rule, but I'm still a tad worried about being back in the 6.1 Mp world. But as mentioned, I put a pic on the 1920 X 1080 screen, and it looked fantastic. First time I'd seen the old D50 put to a real test.

My son has just been given a Sony Alpha 350.:( He wanted the tilt-able screen), but I was (silently) appalled at their idea of a 18-70 kit lens. It weighed about a quarter of my lens, and was nothing like the 67mm - same zoom ratio - glass that I got for $250 on Craigslist. A lot of the time, my smaller lens does everything I need, and am tempted to sell my 18-200 VR that I'd waited for, for so long.

However, my son has 14 days to return it, and I want to influence him...but so often, parents just shouldn't keep putting their proverbial oars in.;)

[innuendo]

I took a series of shots of the Golden temple in Kyoto without realising that I had left the camera on manual exposure after using my flash. By the time I found out what I had done I could not go back and reshoot.
They were horribly overexposed but they were in raw.
The ability I had to recover something like a decent image would have been impossible from a compressed jpeg file. The data available from the raw file saved my hide. The adjusted image was remarkably good for a salvaged photo.

I take everything in raw and do all my work in Adobe Lightroom and CS3 if needed. (Aperture is a good alternative on the Mac platform).
The capability of either program on your computer has a lot more potential than the computer in the camera.
Raw is essentially the equivalent of an original negative that you can develop as many times as you like.

Rivets:

I have the Photoshop Elements 2.0 that came with the camera, and will be interested to see just what I can produce.

I seriously doubt that Elements 2 will do much with raw files from a recent camera.
Raw files are generally specific to the camera manufacturer and Elements 2 is Stone Age in the scheme of things and will likely not recognise any recent raw file.
If you want to have a look at processing raw, download the 30 day trial of Elements and experiment with raw using that.
Raw is mostly proprietary from camera manufacturers which is why they provide their own software to process their raw files.
Adobe's Elements will process most manufacturers raw files but if your camera is recent then you will need a recent version of their program.
Have a look at their 30 day trials, or even better look for tutorials on their software first and go through those before starting the clock going on the trial period.

[Loose rivets]

Got me interested. I'll look at the one that came with the camera and a few others.

By total coincidence, this appeared in the PC world e-mail today.

Haven't read them yet, but it's got two links to previous blogs which might help beginners like me.

Using Your Camera's RAW Mode - PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/187938/using_your_cameras_raw_mode.html?tk=nl_wbx_h_crawl2)

[Loose rivets]

Thank you Dave Johnson PC World,,,NOT.

If you have Vista or Windows 7 and download Windows Live Photo Gallery, it's even better. When you open Windows Live Photo Gallery and it notices you have RAW photos in the Pictures folder, it automatically recommends that you install the appropriate file decoder, which allows Windows to treat the photo like any other file.




I finally downloaded the Windows Live Photo Gallery. Directions from that link above.

I had a couple of .NEF files, (RAW) 5mb each, to try out.

I un-ticked most of the dross that I didn't need and started the download. CAREFULLY only selecting that program.

I got just about everything that MS has ever produced to do with sending photos to grannies, but absolutely nothing but the most cumbersome, unwieldy, counter-intuitive pile of cr@p, that has ever got past my vetting of this machine.

It defines Bloat-ware, in its sheer hugeness in achieving nothing. Great OS, shame about the ad-ons.

All this, and I still can't get to see the RAW files. :ugh:

[Loose rivets]

Finally loaded the Nikon add on. One hundred megs of crappola, and a diddy program that simply lets me Prieview the RAW files when in NEF form.

I have a shrewd idea that MS use that to sneak some of their stuff in. I now have to set about sneaking it out again.:*

I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files, but when simply Previewing, the zoom before pixelating, is nothing special, so I can't really understand what all the software is for.

[IO540]

Finally loaded the Nikon add on. One hundred megs of crappola

Yeah, this seems common.

I bought my GF a Canon S90 and the only software Canon supply for RAW to 'other' conversion is a few hundred MB's worth of stuff one doesn't need.

Similar with my Pentax K200D.

There are converters which support many formats but most of them are not free, and some are quite pricey. However, I found a thing called Faststone Image Viewer (http://www.faststone.org/) which seems to work well; it's a bit like ACDSEE in that one can use it to view one's photo albums.

Not sure if Photoshop Elements can read any RAW formats. I have Photoshop 7 which certainly can't. However, the biggest problem with ex-camera jpeg is the amount of compression; if one converts RAW to Jpeg (highest possible quality) then the result is very good - although the filesize is probably 50% of the Raw size, whereas the more compressed ex-camera Jpeg is probably 25% of the Raw size. If cameras allowed control over the degree of Jpeg compression, there would be a lot less need for Raw.

[Bushfiva]

Photoshop 7 is a 7 or 8-year-old product. You can't expect it to work with RAW files for cameras which post-date it, unless you use a third-party plug-in.

Most cameras support various jpeg qualities. Your K200D, for example, has 3 I seem to remember. The Canon S90 has just two. The problem with jpeg in general (apart from no way of preventing lossy compression) is that in most cameras it's an 8-bit color depth, while the RAW file can be up to 14 bits. One example of what this means in practice: the jpeg can show blown highlights (i.e. bright areas unrecoverable by post-processing) that may not exist in the RAW file. Most cameras only offer one or two color spaces: sRGB and Adobe RGB. So you're losing gamut that is available at the sensor, especially with sRGB. A comparison might be, if you only shoot jpeg, it's like getting prints without the negatives: it's a lot harder to fix stuff.

jpeg is effectively a viewing format. You really want the original data to be in a better format.

[green granite]

Lightroom and PS CS4 handle most of the raw formats. Irfanview will handle .RAW

[innuendo]

Rivets,

I've taken on board that I have to acquire an appropriate program to do much with these files

These links are to the 30 day free trials to Adobe's Photoshop Lightroom and Photoshop Elements.
They are among the best available for working with raw files and also do a LOT more.
Like any very comprehensive program it can take a bit of study to appreciate just how much they can do.
Personally, I found that looking at some of the tutorials available was far better than feeling my way about, I would have missed a lot with that approach. I would really suggest this route while exploring the programs.
Google will find tutorials but I would recommend those by JuliAnne Kost for Lightroom. She is an Adobe staffer and I can say from attending one of her presentations that she is excellent.

PSE has two options to edit photos. There is a semi automated option where you adjust each photo by means of a series of sliders which are in the best order for each adjustment, you are sort of lead through the process, EG the Sharpening slider is the last in the order which is generally when it is best applied.
There is also a more basic set of adjustments that assumes you are a more accomplished user of the Photoshop tools. Probably more capable but with a steeper learning curve.
Lightroom also has excellent organizational capabilities for your image library.

Getting the best out of raw files will take a bit of understanding of the process otherwise perhaps the various picture styles that your camera offers for jpegs may yield better results.


https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop%5Flightroom

Download Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0.0 Free Trial - Powerful yet easy-to-use photo editing software for print, e-mail, and the Web - Softpedia (http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Editors/Adobe-Photoshop-Elements.shtml)

[Loose rivets]

By the most extraordinary chance, I was clearing out a folder called "Old drive backup." It was on a HD that failed.

There I noticed Nikon, and sure enough, there was the original soft that came with my aging D50. Having resolved to do a Restore, anyway, I loaded it with the other offerings.

It was just more of the same. Did little but let me preview NEF pictures. Anyway, my curiosity is spiked...or whatever the word is, and I'm resolved to get some RAW pictures that are worth the effort. Trouble is, down here in deepest Texas, there is little to photograph - if you don't like cactus or possums. Back home, especially in the Lake District, there was the temptation to photograph everything, because it was so beautiful compared to here. Yes, One is homesick.

[Loose rivets]

Really a simple question of Am I doing something wrong, or making a totally wrong assumption about RAW data?

By a stroke of luck, I find that I've got Elements 7 bundled with a tablet. It required something from Adobe to be loaded before I could install it, but then it was away.

The program itself looks very professional on the 1920 res screen, but the NEF files are still very mediocre from my old D50.

Am I expecting too much, and just what should one get from the FIRST images of a RAW (NEF) file? ie before it's been worked on.


Looking at 'Actual Pixels' the auto-zoom is almost exactly the same between a 500k jpeg file and a 5mb RAW file. :confused: I'd assumed that I'd be able to zoom in much further before pixellation.

My son's new Sony, with a kit 18-70 lens was to my chagrin, rather better than my setup with its much vaunted 18-200 72mm lens. He has two and a half times the pixel-count, so I guess where RAW is concerned, it will always provide that ratio more data. But I just can't understand what my RAW's 4.5mb of extra data is supposed to be doing if I can't zoom in further.

[Bushfiva]

The NEF data and the jpeg data are the same image dimensions. So, they "pixellate" at the same point when you zoom in. Depending on your camera settings, the jpeg may be sharper and the colors punchier than the NEF, too. So in your case, the first-look NEF quality should appear to be roughly the same or maybe a little worse than the jpeg.

In Elements working on the NEF data, you can basically apply the same corrections the camera applied to the jpeg, but using more powerful tools and tailoring the changes to each individual image. So you should end up with a result that is somewhere between the same and way better than the jpeg the camera created. TYpically, you might correct the following either manually or semi-automatically: chromatic aberration (color fringeing), vignetting, softness (i.e. sharpening the image), adjusting color, anamorphosis, keystoning, remove ISO noise (that's a tradeoff with sharpness), dust removal, highlight recovery, etc etc.

RAW doesn't automagically give you a better result, it gives you the opportunity to get a better result.

[Loose rivets]

Thanks very much for that. Things are becoming clearer. :hmm: Did I really say that?

Certainly, watching my son correct the colour temp of his test shots, was very impressive. He just seems to intuitively know how to drive applications as they come out of the box. Sadly, after teaching and working on papers, I don't like to press him to spend more time in front of the screen.

I guess that if I'm to make use of this new kit and in particular this program, I'll need to put the time in. Jet Blast stress therapy will have to be put on hold.

[innuendo]

Hello again Rivets,
Bushfiva's post is an excellent explanation.
Perhaps in addition it might help if a very general understanding of what your camera does in producing a jpeg will help in deciding if you want to take your photos in RAW.

Your camera takes images in RAW to start with, it is the data file that the sensor generates. It is the onboard processor in the camera produces the jpeg. Some, (not all) of the parameters that it will apply are white balance, exposure, black and white point, contrast, saturation, sharpening and noise reduction.
In addition you can select picture styles for things like portrait, Landscape, neutral and faithful colours and B & W to list just some of them.

Another function that a jpeg conversion does is to reduce the file size of the image.
As a very basic explanation of how this works, (the only kind I understand:ok:), say you have a photo where the top half is a clear blue sky of fairly uniform colour. The jpeg engine looks at it and says, there is no need for all the pixels in the file to produce that blue sky in the finished image, every third or fourth pixel can be discarded and still produce the same visual effect. This sort of thing goes on throughout the image resulting in a smaller file which has various benefits.
An example of the size reduction is a jpeg from my Canon 40D which often is around 3-4 MB while a RAW file is around 10MB. The size varies depending on how detailed the image is. The more detail, leaves, trees EG, the less opportunity for discarding data.

So back to RAW. Instead of the in camera processor deciding what sort of parameters to apply and how much data to throw out, (and it cannot be retrieved), with programs such as Adobe PSE/CS4, Light Room, Apple's Aperture, all these parameters are in your hands to adjust as you prefer.

In addition, with these programs one of the most valuable features is that the original RAW file is preserved. The adjustments that you apply in Light Room and Aperture etc., do not alter the original file. All the adjustments are attached to the original in a Sidecar file. When you view the image on screen it has those adjustments applied so what you see is what you have produced but they are not permanently applied. The original file is not changed.
It is your digital negative so to speak, you can always go back to the original state and start from scratch again.

Not so with the camera produced jpeg, It is what it is. Of course it can also be edited just that there is a lot less data to produce what you are looking for.

A small warning about processing jpegs. If you work on a jpeg and save the changes in jpeg file format, the jpeg compression does its thing and compresses the file again. Do this too many times and your file can become compressed to the point that it will start to show compression artifacts. A fancy term for pixellation or blockiness.

Having said all this there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the cameras jpeg settings. Todays cameras can produce excellent images and the range of picture styles work very well for those who do not want to put in the time and effort, (and the learning curve) to post process their photos from RAW.

[Bushfiva]

You may like Welcome to dxomark.com (beta), a free resource dedicated to RAW-based camera image quality (http://www.dxomark.com/). The database only considers sensor RAW image performance, and doesn't consider ergonomics, features, price and so on.

[Loose rivets]

Thanks again gentlemen for the work you've put into this thread.

In addition, with these programs one of the most valuable features is that the original RAW file is preserved.

I didn't realize that. I haven't saved any of my experimenting, so don't know yet if it will do that with the bundled offering. I'll look tomorrow.



A small warning about processing jpegs. If you work on a jpeg and save the changes in jpeg file format, the jpeg compression does its thing and compresses the file again.

I hadn't given this much thought. I have to say that I'd rather formed the opinion that once the jpeg was created, that was all the 'damage' done. I'll try repeated editing to one and see what happens.

I'll look at the site above tomorrow. One thing that is coming to light is the need to be very disciplined about not hanging onto poor shots. 1 gig files tend to creep up on one.

What is the best way to convey 5mb files to friends and family? e-attatchments are very limited in size. Also, is there a site that will host large files so that one can send a link to high def pictures?

Talking of which, what's happened to PhotoBucket? Went back to it recently, and just about everything had changed. Why? :ugh: If it aint broke, and all that.

[green granite]

One worthwhile exercise is to shoot using the RAW plus JPEG setting with the scene type selector set to the subject type. Putting them both up side by side in Elements you can see the difference and you can play with the adjustments in the RAW image initially to reproduce the JPEG corrections, this will give you a better understanding of the way the camera works and also the way the program on your PC works.

[Bushfiva]

I'd reduce the emailed version of the file by rescaling/or reducing quality. If you reckon most screens are around 1280 x 1024, then there's no need to send anything larger than that. You should be able to get most files down to 300kB or so with no noticeable drop in quality. If someone does notice, then you send a big file :-)

[Loose rivets]

I noticed PhotoResizer wouldn't take RAW in any form. I suppose it would totally defeat the purpose if it did.

I'm not sure what my Yahoo e's limit is. But I'd just wondered how one did it, without a real need to do it right now. But later it would be nice to be able to host, send and receive for the new screen size of 1920 X 1080. No rush.

I usually aim for about 200k. for pprune. They seem to fit quite well. Too big and I take away the IMGs. Then it (the link) just fits! I have no idea how.

[Bushfiva]

One easy way is to right-click on the NEF image, select "send to", "email recipient", then a box will pop up asking you what resolution you want to send, and guesstimate the size of the file(s) you have selected. After that, your default email application opens with the jpeg files already attached to a blank email. The NEFs are unchanged.

In XP, I had to add the NEF thumbnail update, but it seems Windows 7 knows all about NEF.

[Loose rivets]

I'll try sending a large jpg to myself and see just how big a file it will accept. I know there's a limit, but I can't find it stated.



To make W7 simply review NEF, I had to download (From Nikon) S-NEFCDC-190WF-ALLIN.exe It requires a reboot, and from then on it treats NEF like any other picture.

W7 offered to find the link for me as I tried to access the file - which was thumbnailed as a blank sheet.

[Dave Clarke Fife]

Having read a lot about RAW images on the digital photography thread I thought I'd give it a try. Problem is, as well as being a bit rubbish at the moment, is that my Picasa download/album file won't open up my images. I've done a bit of reading on t'interweb and the pages I've looked at say that Picasa is no good for RAW, so the Q is, have I lost my images or can I open them in another way and transfer them to Picasa?? Up to now all my pictures have been taken as JPEG's and downloading has been no problem. As you can see I've still got a lot to learn and would appreciate your learned counsel

(I don't have any other photo application on my 'puter)

Thanks in advance

[green granite]

If you download irfanview (it's free) it will open .RAW files you can then convert them to whatever you want.

IrfanView - Official Homepage - one of the most popular viewers worldwide (http://www.irfanview.com/)

[Tosh McCaber]

I have had a Kodak V570 compact camera now for over three years. Liked it so much, I bought a second one for my wife. For my purposes, one of the best cameras around at the time. Very small and pocketable, superb 23mm ultra wide angle lens- great all round performance- I use it as much, if not more than my camcorder for movie clips-fantastic low light movie performance. I could go on about the good points.

The downsides. Over the past 18 months, the main rear joystick control on my camera has loosened to a stage where it is almost inoperable. The second longer distance lens on my wife’s camera has just stopped working. Presumably, Kodak must be aware of these faults, because, shortly after I purchased them, they told me that they no longer offer a repair service on the camera- only a part replacement for a different model Kodak reconditioned camera, which does not come anywhere close to the specs on my V570.

So, after my preamble- I’m now looking for a good reliable replacement for the camera, with similar specs- ie wide angle lens, good still and video performance, reasonably priced, and compact.

Are there any suggestions out there?

[Dave Clarke Fife]

Worked a treat............many thanks GG

[Genghis the Engineer]

I've been using a Kodak Z650 for some time, and am still very happy with it - does everything you're describing except possibly the wide angle lens (personally I tend to use telephoto more), just about fits in a jacket pocket, and operates readily one-handed.

A quick web search suggests that the nearest equivalent on the market now would be the Kodak Z915, at about £110-£130, with 10x zoom and 10 Mpix, plus basically the same workings.

G

[Bushfiva]

Since you like 24mm, that's going to make finding a camera a lot easier. I've owned the Ricoh GX100 & GX200, but they're long in the tooth now. Lumix FX6 is 25mm and cheap. Casio Exilim EX-H10, H15 and FH100 are all 24-240mm. Sony W380, WX1 are bright f2.4 lenses.Canon 10S, 930S but I've not used them. The lightest by far would be the Sony W380, I think. Lumix LX3 is brightest at f2??

I'm sure there's other 24mm cameras out there, but I bet I've named nearly half of them. You should be sure to play with a Casio Exilim, preferably the Exilim FH100, whatever you end up buying in the end. Model numbers may be different in your part of the world.

You might also want to consider whether an optical viewfinder is important to you.

[seacue]

I'd want an optical viewfinder, since an LCD display washes out on our many bright days.

As far as I can find, the only small cameras with an optical finder sold today are from Canon, at least in the USA.

[Genghis the Engineer]

I'd want an optical viewfinder, since an LCD display washes out on our many bright days.

As far as I can find, the only small cameras with an optical finder sold today are from Canon, at least in the USA.


The Kodak models I mentioned have (or at-least, a small buried screen pretending to be an optical viewfinder, which works well in bright sunlight.)

G