NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Camera Talk => Topic started by: KenP on May 21, 2017, 22:35:18
-
If this line of questioning is in the wrong forum, please move accordingly. To qualify…I am just starting t play with a camera(s) again after a 25 year hiatus. I never used a digital camera until now. I know almost nothing about post less what I have read online.
My question has mostly to do with choosing a format and why? Is it size of sensor, field of view, depth of field or angle of view? Where does it matter and why? Is it the final print? The ability to crop? Resolution? All of the above?
When I did play around with film, I only used 135 format. Essentially one tool in the tool box with different films to go with it. Now there seems to be many types of "tools" to choose from in camera and formats. There does not seem to be a one size fits all. Perhaps there never was though I never used medium or large format in film.
This question is just part of my own education and inquisitiveness. I am not looking for why one is "better" than the other. Just under what various circumstances you would choose to own multiple formats or choose to just use one format.
Ken
-
Ken,
If you shoot people and like to blow out the background with soft blur you'll want FX. If you are fine with manual focus I'll recommend a 105/2.5 AI or 105/2.8 AIS Mcro.
If you shoot wildlife you get more "reach" with DX. You'll also get more DoF for close-up and macro with DX.
CX, maybe a pocket camera.
If you can own both FX and DX that's great. If only one I recommend FX.
That's my 2 cents,
Dave Hartman
-
FX: Moderately large to largest (and heaviest) cameras, widest wide angles available, highest resolution available.
DX: Somewhat smaller to much smaller cameras, limited choice of wide angle lenses, superzoom 18mm-200mm-type "do it all" lenses available for DX.
CX: Tiny cameras, very small lenses, may be discontinued soon. Easy to carry, but image quality may suffer in low light shooting.
-
The image quality differences between FX and DX associated with sensor size are minor. In particular, there is no difference between DX and FX in background blur; there are tiny differences in depth of field in some circumstances but unless your requirements are highly specialised you can get any depth of field you want with either. The only exception is that if you do a lot of photography in very low light FX may be a better choice - but both DX and FX will allow you to get excellent pictures in far less light than you could with film.
There are some differences in AF, notably in the fraction of the viewfinder covered by AF points, so if you use tracking AF a lot DX may be the better choice. However, if you are comparing the digital options to film-era memories the difference between 5 AF points on the F100 and 51 on the D7200 is far bigger than the difference between the spread of 51 points on the D7200 and 51 on the D750.
Lens choice is the real issue, IMO. If you want wide angle primes (other than fisheyes), FX is the only choice. Even if you don't mind a zoom, DX offers limited wide-angle options and the FX options are better and/or cheaper if you want wider than 24mm equivalent. Conversely, if you use long focal lengths a lot DX is the better choice unless your pockets are deep.
CX is over-priced, and Nikon seems to have lost interest in it, but if rock-bottom size and weight is a very high priority, and you want good tracking AF, and you can find a good deal, it is an option to consider.
-
If your subject headline "CX DX FX" does not rule out other brands than Nikon then as for DX (being equal to APS-C format) the Fuji-X system is a compact alternative that offers a wide choice of lenses - including some great wide angle lenses and also wide zooms.
The Fujifilm X mirrorless cameras are more compact but you then have to decide if the electronic viewfinder (and/or optical rangefinder style in X-Pro) is right for you. As for the size of the lenses they probably match Nikon DX.
As for printing - I still (happily) print my old Nikon D40 6mp images in A4 and A3 - even cropped a bit. The 16mp images from my Fuji looks great printed in A3.
-
Your question can easily turn into a very technical discussion like in another thread here on Equivalence.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html)
So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.
-
In particular, there is no difference between DX and FX in background blur; there are tiny differences in depth of field in some circumstances but unless your requirements are highly specialised you can get any depth of field you want with either.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4166/34819773245_5a08e57e9f_o.jpg)
I'm going to bed...
Dave Hartman
-
So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.
This advice seems good to me.
Dave
-
I think I am beginning to understand the particular use of formats. My question has more to do with why you would choose one format over the other for a particular use or purpose. The ultimate "out of focus areas" and lower light capability would seem to favor FX.
The smaller sensor formats seem to favor "reach" and depth of field.
I suppose you can get away with any format for any use with compromises. The talent and experience here on NG seem to do quite well with just about anything that can record an image.
Just to clarify, I am not looking for a camera or advice as to which format to buy. This was just an inquiry on subject matter I am not well acquainted with to date.
I did start to read the "equivalence" thread but it soon got beyond the scope or simplicity I was looking for.
Thank you.
-
Ken, I think you start to see the picture on different sensor sizes.
And I now saw in another post that you already purchased V1´s, fun little camera´s I know from personal experience.
I use my Nikon 1 (now J5) mainly for portability and (candid) street photography. My DX camera is multifunctional but I use it a lot for nature photography (birds, macro's) and my FF camera (Sony A7) is mainly used with "old" MF lenses (Nikkor & Contax Zeiss) and I especially enjoy it to play with DOF.
Enjoy your discovery into digital photography !
-
Arend,
I do have a V1 and a D2h just recently purchased. Both pretty well obsolete in the digital era and much maligned for apparently not making the "expectation" grades of the time.
I suspect at some point I will acquire a more "modern" camera or perhaps even an FX variant. However, after perusing the "obsolete camera" thread and looking at the wonderful images presented, I am not sure I would "need" to…..
I have a lot to learn and if I can produce anything close to some of the work here, I will be just fine with whatever I have as a tool.
Ken
-
I suspect at some point I will acquire a more "modern" camera or perhaps even an FX variant. However, after perusing the "obsolete camera" thread and looking at the wonderful images presented, I am not sure I would "need" to…..
Ken
Take care not to be mislead by images seen on the web. They are not really representative of what this equipment is capable of. Back when Nikon released the CoolPix 990, a 3.3MP camera, an image from that model was used to cover a highway billboard, and it looked great, from the proper viewing distance.
-
Hi Carl,
I am sure you are quite right. On the other hand, I am not a professional or making money with photographs. I do not know where the "upper limit" of resolution is or if it even exists. Rod Laver (tennis great) could likely beat most anyone with a broom stick. I am sure that any talented photographer can make great printable images with most any camera. I am certainly not one of them.
Ken
-
The D700 is the camera I should have bought when I bought a D300s. I'd have plenty of use for a D500. The D500 is finally the replacement for the D300s. What I wanted when I bought my D800 was a replacement for the D700 with the D4s, 16MP image sensor.
One has to work with what they have or what they can afford. I have a D800 and D300s. That's not too bad.
Dave
-
I use a set of FX primes on a D600 FX camera, so I get 20mm the same field of view with my 20mm lens as in the film days. For Tele I use a 300mm prime. If I need more resolution from that lens I use it on my D500 offering a field of view similar to a 450mm lens in the film days.
If you use a lesser lens that does not resolve the 21 Megapixels in the crop format you do not win anything this way. But as I understand many of the current Nikkors max out at 50 Megapixels FX some even above that, so I do not really care.
I just got a 75cm x 50cm print from the lab. Taken handhold with the D500 and the current 1.8/20mm. The resolution is absolutely stunning.
PS: on the D500 the AF system is significantly better than on any earlier Nikon camera. It is the same as on the D5 but with an 85% coverage of the frame. Highly recommended camera!!!
-
Hi Carl,
I am sure you are quite right. On the other hand, I am not a professional or making money with photographs. I do not know where the "upper limit" of resolution is or if it even exists. Rod Laver (tennis great) could likely beat most anyone with a broom stick. I am sure that any talented photographer can make great printable images with most any camera. I am certainly not one of them.
Ken
My point, Ken, was that you should not rely solely on images seen on the web to determine what gear to buy.
-
Carl, your point is taken and a valid one as well. My choice had more to do with cost and local availability. I figure I am better off trying to learn digital and post production with smaller files. I tend to gravitate toward telephoto shots and my kids sports in particular. The idea of a D500 or D7200 is perhaps in my future. For now….the D2h and V1 with a few lenses was less than $350. It will be a good introduction and provide some time to work on a skill set of sorts.
Ken
-
Ken, my personal choice of the format of digital cameras is different from that of film cameras.
I'm not as particular about the sensor size. I just like 20mm, 50mm and 300mm primes (or their equivalents). Currently the FX is the only format that can offer all three genuine lenses. Yes, Fuji offers a 20mm (more precisely 21mm) equivalent, but I'm not really a big fan of those glossy black lenses that appeal their luxury.
-
Thanks Akira. Lens selection as previously mentioned by Les Olson is also a significant determining factor. I have never experimented much with anything wider than a 50. I do have that equivalent in the CX format and think it will be used quite a lot. I also have a 10mm that I am not sure I will ever use. For the D2h, I have a DX 50-135 F2.8 and a FX 180 F2.8.
Ken
-
How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8 (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f1.4-and-1x-105mm-f2-and-1x-135mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.
Dave Hartman
-
For me, between the three format it comes down to lens choice. There is very little choice for CX and relatively little choice for DX, although if you rely mostly on zooms you can get covered with wide-angle, normal, and tele-zooms on CX and DX as well. For FX, there is a vast choice of lenses from old to new.
Including other formats than the three mentioned, there is also a lot of lenses to choose from in micro 4/3, and Fuji has a small, but very reasonable line-up. If size and weight is high on the list of priorities, those two systems should be considered as well.
-
How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8 (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f1.4-and-1x-105mm-f2-and-1x-135mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.
Dave Hartman
I have added a Hasselblad 150mm f/4 Sonnar and a Rolleiflex 80mm f/2.8 to your graph (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-0.54x-150mm-f4-and-0.54x-80mm-f2.8-and-1x-135mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-1x-105mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-105mm-f1.4-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.41-and-1.5x-50mm-f1.4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject). Both are "worse" than nearly everything else. I guess they can't have been used for some of the best portraits ever made after all.
The 85mm at f/1.8 on DX, the 135mm at f/2.8, the 105mm at f/2.5 are all very close - exactly superimposed in the case of the first two. The 80mm Rolleiflex at f/2.8 is a little below and to the right, but close enough. The 105mm at f/1.4 on DX is about the same distance from the 105mm at f/1.4 on FX. So, any blur you can produce on FX can be reproduced, near enough as makes no difference (maximum difference less than 1% of image width), on DX or 6 x 6. (Differences are larger way over on the right, at very long subject-to-background distances, but all that is needed photographically is blur large enough to obscure the outlines of objects, and more contributes no additional pictorial effect).
Sure, your perspective with a 105mm lens on FX will not be the same as Irving Penn's and Richard Avedon's and David Bailey's when they used an 80mm Rolleiflex for portraits. You don't have to feel inferior for that reason. You go ahead and use the framing and perspective you like. So will I, of course, and mine won't be the same as yours either. So what?
Even the difference between the 105mm at f/1.4 on FX and the rest is only 1.5m more distance between the subject and the background, or 1m for the 85mm at f/1.4 on DX and a shade less than 1m for the 105mm at f/1.4 on DX (is there are a law that says people who own DX cameras can't buy f/1.4 lenses, or lenses longer than 85mm?). Why is moving the subject a step or two further away from the background a problem?
-
Why is moving the subject a step or two further away from the background a problem?
When you change the distance from the subject to the lens you change the perspective.
http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2-and-0.64x-180mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-0.64x-150mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1x-105mm-f4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f2-and-0.64x-180mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-0.64x-150mm-f4-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1x-105mm-f4-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-0.64x-80mm-f2.8-and-1x-50mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-0.64x-80mm-f2.8-and-1x-50mm-f1.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
The slower Hasselblad lenses do well against the 105/2.5 and 105/2.8 because the larger format uses longer lenses to achieve the same perspective. The same is seen with the 80/2.8 v. 50/1.8.
Dave
-
When you change the distance from the subject to the lens you change the perspective.
The slower Hasselblad lenses do well against the 105/2.5 and 105/2.8 because the larger format uses longer lenses to achieve the same perspective. The same is seen with the 80/2.8 v. 50/1.8.
I think we can be confident that Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and David Bailey did not waste time asking themselves how to achieve the perspective of 105mm on FX with that lens. Why should I?
The fact is that you can make outstanding portraits - or anything else - with a whole range of perspectives. There is nothing magic about any one perspective.
The problem is your inability to see past the FX-normative assumption. It is the same as with gender and sexuality: progress cannot be made by people who cannot stop treating one of the options as "normal" or "the standard" and the alternatives as more or less deviant.
-
Larger format, longer lenses for the same perspective and framing, more background blurring. This isn't about Irving Penn, Richard Avedon and David Bailey and arguments about them is loose logic. A list of famous photographers has nothing to do with the way optics work. You forgot to mention Yousuf Karsh and many others.
Dave
-
You don't have to feel inferior for that reason.
The problem is your inability to see past the FX-normative assumption. It is the same as with gender and sexuality: progress cannot be made by people who cannot stop treating one of the options as "normal" or "the standard" and the alternatives as more or less deviant.
This is personal and has nothing to do with me. Again it's loose logic.
Dave
I'm sure this isn't helping Ken so I'm finished with this exchange.
-
How Much Blur: 105/1.4 v. 105/2.0 v. 135/2.8 v. 85/1.8 v. 105/2.5 v. 105/2.8 v. 70/2.8 (http://asklens.com/howmuchblur/#compare-1x-105mm-f1.4-and-1x-105mm-f2-and-1x-135mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-85mm-f1.8-and-1x-105mm-f2.5-and-1x-105mm-f2.8-and-1.5x-70mm-f2.8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject)
OK, the 105/1.4 is a fantasy lens for most of us but the others are obtainable. Note that the 135/2.8 (FX) and 85/1.8 (DX) come with flatter perspective than the 105(s) on FX and the 70 on DX.
Dave Hartman
The 1.4/105E is one of the reasons I wait for the 850 body. I hope to achieve never seen before resolution. Not that I need that kind of resolution for any particular purpose. It is just nice to have. We figure out uses for it.
I feel with good light and glass I can take a head to toe portrait today that doubles as an iris scan....
-
I'm sure this isn't helping Ken [...].
One of the things Ken said was that you could use any camera for any purpose if you were willing to accept some compromises. The point is that "adapt" is a better word than compromise, and in the case of DX and FX, even where the adaptation needed is greatest - ie, portraits - it is frequently over-stated and is in fact very minor: asking a portrait subject to take a step away from the background, eg.
Of course we all know that "for the same framing, perspective and output size you need one stop larger aperture to get the same DoF with DX as with FX". There are two problems with this. The important one is that if you don't want to copy photographs - whether your own or others' - the same framing and perspective is not just irrelevant, it is exactly what you do not want. The other problem is that people keep talking about how DX has to be enlarged 10 times to make an 8 x 10 print while FX only has to be enlarged seven times - as if digital files were like film negatives. They aren't: high pixel-count cameras allow output resolution to be the same, and optimal, over a very wide range of print sizes, so that a photographer can print larger to change DoF, or crop to change framing without compromising output resolution.
-
An illustration that 'DoF' is a subjective illusion, not a physical and tangible entity. People should ponder the ramifications instead of building theories.
As long as the photographer learns the gear and what it can or cannot be relied upon to do, any format is OK. In the end that is what counts.
-
Your question can easily turn into a very technical discussion like in another thread here on Equivalence.
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html (http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,5905.0.html)
So I will just offer you very practical advice.
I use camera's with all 3 sensor sizes but in your case coming from 135 film I would suggest you look at an FX camera first as lens focal length will behave the same way as you were used to in the film days.
An affordable and good option to start and try would be a secondhand Nikon D700. You could then also use old Nikkors in case you have those in your possession.
I vouch for this as well. You can figure out more about your personal preferences down the road while making images with a very capable high quality machine.
-
From my own relatively unscientific point of view, I'd say it depends a bit on what lenses you already have, and what you find most important, where you're goinge, and a bit on budget. I like the idea of easier cheaper access to wide angles on FX, but DX is cheaper to start with, and I like the size of DX cameras better. My first digital SLR, a D3200, is very nice for traveling, compact and capable, and its cheap lenses perform decently. My current one, a D7100, is still fairly compact and provides fine images for my taste.
In theory, at least, FX will give you better low light performance, but newer DX cameras have become so good that this may not be a factor in ordinary use, even though the relative advantage will always be there.
Since one of my favorite photo occupations is chasing bugs, I find the DX format nice, allowing pseudo-macro shots with relatively longer lenses (and yes, I know it's just cropping, not really "reach," but on a high-pixel DX sensor it stands in for reach rather nicely). A cheap D3200 with a cheap 55-300 telephoto can nearly fill the frame with a butterfly from four feet away.
One of the greatest drawbacks, I think, to the DX format is the small viewfinder image, especially in the lower end cameras. The D7100 and its ilk are pretty good, but the D3x00 and D5x00 are pretty much stinkers when it comes to manual focusing, unless you use a magnifying eyepiece, and though live view helps, it is often very inconvenient. If you do macros, or use manual focusing lenses a lot, it would be a good idea to try various models to see what viewfinders are acceptable. The cheesy viewfinder is one of the main reasons I forsook the D3200.
If you expect to travel a lot, a smaller camera is very nice to have. I've been all over the world with a D3200, and just got back from Africa with the D7100, and they're easy to pack and easy to carry. The lenses are relatively smaller and lighter too usually. Though part of me would have loved a Dx for this, the smaller DX cameras also have the advantage of being less of a disaster to lose or break. I bought the D3200 initially partly because I figured if it dropped in the ocean or got stolen or eaten by wild animals, it would not be quite the same sort of disaster.
-
KenP, one suggestion I have is to simply push your boundaries a little and stick that 10/2.8 on the camera, and go out with nothing else, and see what you can do with it. Then do the same with your 18.5. Or, if you feel more comfortable with the 18.5 out of the gate, just use that for a while, but then make yourself use the wide angle exclusively for half a day and see what happens. The two lenses serve quite different purposes, and in CX you rarely get a chance to exploit depth of field subject isolation with the 10, so it becomes more of an exercise in seeing what you can do to manipulate the subject with perspective and composition, while subject isolation becomes more of a thing with the 18.5. Based on 30 years of personal experience.....I really would push that idea of trying to make yourself use a particular lens for a day or two, and then switch, and really try to immerse yourself and see what you can do with that.
The other trick is to get as close to your subject as possible, no matter what lens. If I literally find myself being forced to take a step back or significantly alter framing in order to fit everything, I know I've done something right.
If you're doing any street photography I'd add a third suggestion...using the wide-angle sometimes makes you less noticeable than the standard, as you can immerse yourself in a crowd.
And one final suggestion, for the sake of controlling depth of field, use the camera in A mode--in CX cameras you don't have to worry much about running out of shutter speeds--and experiment, particularly with the 18.5, in leaving the aperture set to f1.8, and then what happens as you stop down. It's a subtler effect than with FX/35mm cameras but it's definitely a tool.
-
Daniel, thank you for your thoughtful reply. Part of my quandary is figuring a strategy to learn again. Since this endeavor is strictly a hobby for when time allows, I am having some difficulty coming up with a good methodology. Thus the reason I picked up a cheap antiquated Nikon D2h. The most opportunity I get with a camera is my kids sports when I can get there. The V1 and the two primes are not going to help on the soccer and lacrosse fields. Yes digital is ideal to learn photography but.....pointing and shooting without a "plan" or knowledge necessary to produce a desired result. These days and with the current technology it seems most anyone can buy a modern camera, point, shoot and get lucky. I would like to take my photography far beyond that level. Just figuring out how to do so with some sort of daily practice I have yet to come up with. I then need to learn what to do with the pictures once taken. How to process and evaluate a decent capture. I do have Nikon NXD and View NX2 but have yet to mess with either.
Ken
-
Ken,
One of the major pitfalls of a dSLR is all the possible settings. When you pick up a Nikon F of F2 with a standard prism there is nothing to set except shutter speed, aperture and focus. With a Nikon F3 or FE2 if you don't use the exposure compensation dial the you add Aperture Preferred or Manual exposure modes and ISO. With a modern dSLR there are many more options.
To deal with the D2H experiment, find the options you need or want and then stick with then. This way you can pick up your camera and it will be in a known state. The last thing you want is unexpected behavior from your camera when an opportunity is there for a second or less.
I'll recommend setting your D2H to AF-ON only focus and AF-C or continuous focus. You can then press to focus and release to lock. If a second later you need the camera to track a moving subject you press and hold the AF-ON button and the camera will track your subject. There are no controls to set or and no menu diving. The change happens at the speed of your reflexes.
Anyway experiment when getting results is less important. Learn the settings you want and need. Change them as infrequently as possible. Always set the camera back to your defaults before putting it away.
Hope this helps,
Dave Hartman
-
David,
Do I shoot raw or jpeg fine? Same question for my V1. The V1 seems to have many more in camera adjustments such as Neutral, Standard, BW and so on. The last camera I remember using was a Nikon FM. The only adjustments made were shutter speed and aperture. That was in another lifetime.
Ken
-
Ken,
I suggest shooting NEF + JPG fine and large with the D2H. I'd shoot kind of neutal or a little flat in contrast and saturation. I'd use moderate sharpening. All of this is baked into a JPG but with an NEF you can change your mind. In particular the white balance in a JPG is pretty much what you are stuck with. The D2H wasn't nearly as good as modern dSLR(s) in WB so being able to change the WB in post is very important.
Anyway I recommend NEF + JPG to start with.
Best,
Dave
---
The V1 has Pictures Controls which are groups of setting. It's a more modern system. I think PC(s) can be used in CNX-D with the D2H. I'll check when I get home.
-
With regard to Raw versus JPG, my preference has always been for Raw alone. This is simply because the programs I use (including the Nikon ones you mention having) use the JPG settings of the camera as the default anyway. So when you read a Raw file, you see the JPG on the screen, but you get the option of modifying it in a reversible way (e.g. try monochrome, don't like it, or try a stop under or over, switch back and no loss), but when ready to save, you just save as a JPG. Having a JPG file is not really much of a benefit here. I don't do a lot of post processing, and no doubt my pictures suffer from my laziness, so others may well have a different perspective, but most of what I do when I do anything at all is pretty basic resizing and a bit of cropping and the like, and for that a save is required anyway, so there's little up side to starting with a JPG.
There are a lot of options on a digital SLR, but you don't really have to use them all. Once you settle on a few things you can leave them alone and basically go back to the choices you're familiar with. I think perhaps the nicest feature of digital cameras is the ability to change ISO with a switch. I used to routinely carry a couple of film SLR's around, so I could switch between 100 and 400 ISO, and a reasonably clean high ISO was a dream. Now when it gets dark I twiddle a dial.
-
I also use RAW only. But the problem of the RAW-only mode is that you cannot check the focus at 100% size. If you don't save a JPEG file in addition to RAW, the camera uses the JPEG file embedded in the RAW (NEF) file which is too small (2MP, if I remember correctly) to be magnified to 100%, and its image quality is terrible.
You can see this terrible JPEG easily by removing all the cards from the camera. The camera is automatically switched to the demo mode and you can only see the embedded JPEG when you review the image.
So, I set the camera to RAW+Basic JPEG mode and set the JPEG size to L(arge). The JPEG file is only used for the 100% magnification to check the focus and the blur both on the camera and in the computer.
-
Card space is much less expensive these days than it was in the past, so why not record both RAW(NEF) and JPG at its maximum resolution and minimum compression?
Yes it does takes longer to write both files to the card, but in many instances if the light and white balance is OK, the JPG will suffice without having to process the RAW file. That said the RAW file is invaluable when these conditions are not good.
This is how I operate - YMMV.
-
I also use RAW only. But the problem of the RAW-only mode is that you cannot check the focus at 100% size. If you don't save a JPEG file in addition to RAW, the camera uses the JPEG file embedded in the RAW (NEF) file which is too small (2MP, if I remember correctly) to be magnified to 100%, and its image quality is terrible.
You can see this terrible JPEG easily by removing all the cards from the camera. The camera is automatically switched to the demo mode and you can only see the embedded JPEG when you review the image.
So, I set the camera to RAW+Basic JPEG mode and set the JPEG size to L(arge). The JPEG file is only used for the 100% magnification to check the focus and the blur both on the camera and in the computer.
Akira: So, you are saying that if we do NOT have the RAW+FINE JPG, we review a lousy version of the image. Did not know that. I will switch. Please confirm that what I just reiterated is the fact that you are sharing, please.
-
Akira: So, you are saying that if we do NOT have the RAW+FINE JPG, we review a lousy version of the image. Did not know that. I will switch. Please confirm that what I just reiterated is the fact that you are sharing, please.
Michael and all, I'm sorry. I took it granted that the JPEG embedded into NEF and the JPEG yielded in the demo mode were the same. I just confirmed I was wrong. :-[
I switched my D750 to RAW only mode, and the review image could be magnified to 100% correctly. The demo mode gave the image whose size is much smaller.
Sorry to confuse you!
Then I wonder how and where the image file is yielded for the demo mode? At least I noticed that the image file transferred to the smartphone using "Wireless Mobile Utility" app is as lousy as the one viewed in the demo mode. So, it is not the same one as that embedded into NEF?
Sorry to be off-topic. If necessary, I would start a new thread for this particular topic.
-
And please switch off the "demo" mode. How many disasters of people taking 1000 pictures and then realize there was no card in the camera. Nikon should set this option OFF as default.
-
And please switch off the "demo" mode. How many disasters of people taking 1000 pictures and then realize there was no card in the camera. Nikon should set this option OFF as default.
Christian, you can simply make sure that the demo mode is switched offswitch off (by setting Slot empty release lock to "LOCK"). When you set up the camera, as you know...
-
David,
Do I shoot raw or jpeg fine? Same question for my V1. The V1 seems to have many more in camera adjustments such as Neutral, Standard, BW and so on. The last camera I remember using was a Nikon FM. The only adjustments made were shutter speed and aperture. That was in another lifetime.
Ken
Shooting jpegs is akin to sending your film off to be developed and printed. Shooting raw is akin to you developing the film and printing the results yourself. That is a bit simplistic, but close enough to reality.
-
Shooting jpegs is akin to sending your film off to be developed and printed. Shooting raw is akin to you developing the film and printing the results yourself. That is a bit simplistic, but close enough to reality.
I would modify that somewhat, because some software uses the JPG information when it opens the Raw file anyway, so you don't have to develop and print yourself. You can treat it as sending your film off but keeping the negatives.
-
I would modify that somewhat, because some software uses the JPG information when it opens the Raw file anyway, so you don't have to develop and print yourself. You can treat it as sending your film off but keeping the negatives.
Actually I was trying to reflect the additional control over the finished image that shooting raw gives. Not that I will win any awards for my less than stellar use of words to convey that point. Shooting jpegs just leaves so much on the table.....
-
And please switch off the "demo" mode. How many disasters of people taking 1000 pictures and then realize there was no card in the camera. Nikon should set this option OFF as default.
Is that mode really good for anything to the camera owner? I've never been bitten by it as by luck I noticed this "feature" early when setting up my D2H.
Dave Hartman
-
Is that mode really good for anything to the camera owner? I've never been bitten by it as by luck I noticed this "feature" early when setting up my D2H.
Dave Hartman
As far as I can see the mode is useless except for a display in a store, but owing to the likelihood that store personnel will not want to set menus and that customers want to try things and might assume a camera that does not work is broken, they set it that way by default. There really ought to be a warning tag on the camera, or a big note in the instructions telling you to turn it off when you buy the camera.
-
How far should a maker go in anticipating the inevitable user errors? The warning in red "No Card" isn't sufficient on its own? The '-E-' symbol instead of an estimate of available number of files to be stored on the card isn't sufficient enough?
My opinion is that they have done just about enough to warn the user. If the users ignore all messages and soldier on, let it be on their own risk. Otherwise perhaps the shutter should be locked if there is no card? which of course is actually the default option, so some user communication with the menu system has to occur in order to make any picture, the card(s) being present or not.
-
How far should a maker go in anticipating the inevitable user errors? The warning in red "No Card" isn't sufficient on its own? The '-E-' symbol instead of an estimate of available number of files to be stored on the card isn't sufficient enough?
My opinion is that they have done just about enough to warn the user. If the users ignore all messages and soldier on, let it be on their own risk. Otherwise perhaps the shutter should be locked if there is no card? which of course is actually the default option, so some user communication with the menu system has to occur in order to make any picture, the card(s) being present or not.
My sentiments, exactly. And I'll add, there is something akin to a technological "nanny culture" afoot guiding consumer expectations. I'm not suggesting even the most benign "beep", "chirp" or flashing light is a bad idea. (I pity they who forgot to remove lens caps, load or advance film, on holiday, during the antediluvian film age. I recall with a certain survivors guilt the "hundreds" of exposures I made on a single roll of 620 film as a mere lad. ;D) However those who aspire to be photographers should give thought to learning how to use the equipment at their disposal. Even now, I frequently reach for a trophy Nikon F or D100 just to remind myself how far I've yet to go despite equipment upgrades and a plethora of "factory defaults" and user settings to keep me busy -- less I actually take a photograph.
-
How far should a maker go in anticipating the inevitable user errors? The warning in red "No Card" isn't sufficient on its own? The '-E-' symbol instead of an estimate of available number of files to be stored on the card isn't sufficient enough?
My opinion is that they have done just about enough to warn the user...
I seldom look at those warning as I can shoot about 800 NEF(s) on two cards in my D800. If I shot more on a single shoot I'd learn fast.
Custom Setting f11, Slot empty release lock: default OFF on my D800 and I'm quite certain on my D300s also. I think the least Nikon should do is make the default locked.
Dave
On second thought the "-E-" symbol would probably catch my eye. A pattern recognition thing.
---
OK, I tried the Demo thing and there is a red square on the upper left of the LCD that says "Demo" so if you are a chimp you're OK. If you are any of the other old world great apes you're screwed.