[quote name='mst' timestamp='1283453710' post='2427']
...
The other one is AF frame coverage. Since both cameras use the same AF system, the frame coverage is a lot larger on the D300s.
So, unless you really want or need FX, the D300s is the way to go.
...
-- Markus
[/quote]
The issue in AF frame coverage is a major plus for D300s against D700. But only if you're shooting birds for example. In this type of photography with (fast) moving subjects, cropped sensors with fast AF and longer lenses with crop factor are the way to go (e.g. D300S or 7D). But if this is not the case, you always have the chance to focus + reframe easily and enjoy the wide angle performance and DoF of a FF body.
So, basicly the type of photography must define the body and lenses... This is the golden rule, I believe...
Kind regards,
Serkan
Thank you Wim and Brightcolours. That put things nicely in perspective <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> and should permit me to make a final decision, inasmuch as any decision is really final <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' /> But at least I should be able to start the process of getting up to date on digital photo. I read so much about PP! Do I have to buy special software or does Nikon supply the necessary software? If I have to buy, what do you recommend? I probably (famous last words)will never enlarge anything beyond A3 and a lot of my output will be smaller than A4. But I would like to learn how to get the most out of it of course. That brings me to the next question <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I have a Canon Pixma MP830 that prints up to A4. Is it able to produce nice quality or do I need to get a better printer or do I send away for printing? Thanks again in advance for your help. I must say I find this forum amazing in the way the members are willing to really help. Kind regards, encouraged wolf!
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283679243' post='2498']
Thank you Wim and Brightcolours. That put things nicely in perspective <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> and should permit me to make a final decision, inasmuch as any decision is really final <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> But at least I should be able to start the process of getting up to date on digital photo. I read so much about PP! Do I have to buy special software or does Nikon supply the necessary software? If I have to buy, what do you recommend? I probably (famous last words)will never enlarge anything beyond A3 and a lot of my output will be smaller than A4. But I would like to learn how to get the most out of it of course. That brings me to the next question <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> I have a Canon Pixma MP830 that prints up to A4. Is it able to produce nice quality or do I need to get a better printer or do I send away for printing? Thanks again in advance for your help. I must say I find this forum amazing in the way the members are willing to really help. Kind regards, encouraged wolf!
[/quote]
Software.... That is an expensive issue.
Canon gives you a good complete RAW converter and remote USB control software with its cameras, Nikon expects you to pay for both. Nikon Capture NX 2 costs between 100 and 200 euros (not sure), and can give good results for RAW processing. Not everybody is a fan of that software, though, as it has the last attractive interface and it comparatively very slow.
Apple's Aperture and Adobe's Lightroom (both at version 3) have started to make many friends the last 2 years. They are powerful and fast RAW converters with many extras, and specifically designed to have a fast and intuitive workflow.
Those are a nice starting point, both are very friendly and competitively priced for what they offer.
To get even more advanced in processing, only Photoshop really is a choice. I see Photoshop as an extra, not a replacement for the RAW processor. Even though Photoshop's own RAW processor has improved in big steps the last few years. But photoshop is an expensive piece of software, and it has an intimidatingly steep learning curve.
So... I would suggest to either get Nikon's own Nikon capture 2 NX (I personally would not bother though), or Adobe Lightroom 3 or Aperture 3 (if you have a Mac, for Windows only Lightroom is an option). And make that a start in your RAW processing.
Shooting JPEG also does not exclude PP... but the 8bit per channel does put a bit of a limit to what you can achieve. For JPEG PP Photoshop is best. But I believe that Lightroom also can do quite a lot with JPEGs, and Aperture.
Software and PP wise, it all depends on what you want to do and how much time you have available.
I found that I don't have enough time to process all my images the way I want to, so I tend to be quite selective. In order to get around this I do 2 things, depending on the needs and initial results.
1) I always shoot jpg and Raw, and I have established settings (Picture Styles) for most circumstances that work well for me to generate good enough jpegs for most people if I do have to hand those out or hand them out quickly. Raw gives me the opportunity to make the most of a picture if I want or need to.
2) In case the standardized settings I use aren't adequate enough, which is often the case, e.g., with low light shooting where you can have either very low temperature (read: very red-tinged) pictures, or a mixture of lights which make a mess of any settings, I sort the pictures based on white balance, visually, and process those in batches with DxO Optics, to get adequate results for easy and fast distribution if so required. I find DPP (in my case, I shoot Canon) a little too cumbersome to correct these settings, so I prefer to do that with DxO. It also provides me with the opportunity to do resizing etc on the go as well. Ideal for batch processing.
Now, that's for the bulk. For maximizing the result from a photograph, I use Photoshop, and a few tools, specifically those from Nik Software, as those provide me with a workflow which is similar to what I did in the darkroom when printing. I own their whole bundle, and I can't recommend them enough. The neat thing is that you can process an image as a whole, selectively, or selectively for specific areas with transitions, with plenty of adjustments possible all the way. I use Silver Efex, Color Efex, Viveza, Define and SharpenerPro. Not exactly cheap, but very good, and saves an enormous amount of time. I use Nik on the 16-bit tiff files I create when converting Raw, where I do as little as possible in the conversion - a little bit of curves, exposure adjustment, and black and/or white point adjustments, IOW, anything I would do when developing a film yesteryear by using different films, developers, general exposure, and development times. BTW, Nik works both in Lightroom and in Photoshop.
For certain overal effects I also use TopazLabs tools, which come with presets which generally are a bit overcooked, but you have complete control over them anyway with a plethora of sliders. The advantage over doing the same with PS is that the result is visible immediately, and what takes a single step takes possibly a multiple (50 or even more) with PS by itself. I rarely find myself only using Topaz, it is really always in conjunction with Nik, but Nik I do use by itself a lot, essentially because the things which are to me most important, like burning and dodging and selective sharpening one can really only do with Nik in an easy way (and this generally also takes quite a few steps to do in PS by itself).
For noise suppression I use a variety of tools, DxO, NoiseNinja, Nik, and Topaz, but the latest version of Topaz Denoise (V.5) can't really be beat. I personally think it currently is the best on the market, but then, I haven't tried them all (and do not intend to do so either; just gets too expensive <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />).
BTW, I do regularly print, or rather have printed, larger sizes of prints, so far up to 60 cm X 90 cm max. (even from 8MP images, BTW). It is possible to use a decent A4 photoprinter at home, and the results can look good indeed, but I do find the results from the professional large size printers with 8 to 12 or so separate ink tanks do look better, especially the Canon and Epson large size printers (not wild about HP). Having said that, I also did create acceptable prints from a colour laser printer, but then, I did profile it myself <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />. That was really just a trial <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Before I forget: if you do want to print yourself, and you want to maximalize your output results, you need at least a calibrated monitor, but ideally also calibrated printer profiles for each printer and type of paper you use. If you don't calibrate, you will likely end up wasting a lot of paper, ink, and/or toner <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />, as there is not mecessarily a relation between the image you see on screen and the image from the printer. You could be lucky, in that the standard colour profile for your printer works well, but I wouldn't count on it. And when I have photographs printed, I generally have them printed as null-copies or zero copies, i.e., no adjustments made to the photographs at all, in order to prevent automated contrast, colour, saturation, sharpening and sizing settings to cut in where I don't want it. I prefer to control those myself, and my jpeg-outputs for printing should therefore be printed just as they are.
For monitor calibration and printer profiling I currently use Spyder3Elite and Spyder3Print, although I am experimenting with Color Eyes Display Pro software for monitor calibration, as it seems to give more consistent and better results (and does work with the Spyder3 calibration mouse).
Anyway, HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Mein lieber Gott, that sounds complex <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> !!! I guess I have to start somewhere and that will be to shoot JPEG. I think the Nikon School gives a course on PP in Paris and I have to consider that.
URGENT MESSAGE§§§
I just see an ad on your site by a retailer that calls itself SHOOT MARKET in the UK. They propose to sell the D700 for 1400€ and the EOS 7D for 900€. Have you heard of them anybody? Inquisitive wolf <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283692571' post='2501']
Mein lieber Gott, that sounds complex <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' /> !!! I guess I have to start somewhere and that will be to shoot JPEG. I think the Nikon School gives a course on PP in Paris and I have to consider that.
URGENT MESSAGE§§§
I just see an ad on your site by a retailer that calls itself SHOOT MARKET in the UK. They propose to sell the D700 for 1400€ and the EOS 7D for 900€. Have you heard of them anybody? Inquisitive wolf <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
[/quote]
Do yourself a favour, and shoot both RAW and jpeg, even if you won't be developing any Raws yet (notice the little 3-letter word). I started with jpegs only, and I really wish I had shot both... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
I think you need to look up references on these Shoot Market guys. An ad here doesn't necessarily mean a reliable supplier, and generally speaking, if something sounds too good to be true, it is.
Even at a price of around 1800 € for a D700, the markup is extremely little, and 1400 € therefore is way below cost to a retailer. IOW, something doesn't add up here.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1283693262' post='2502']
Do yourself a favour, and shoot both RAW and jpeg, even if you won't be developing any Raws yet (notice the little 3-letter word). I started with jpegs only, and I really wish I had shot both... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
I think you need to look up references on these Shoot Market guys. An ad here doesn't necessarily mean a reliable supplier, and generally speaking, if something sounds too good to be true, it is.
Even at a price of around 1800 € for a D700, the markup is extremely little, and 1400 € therefore is way below cost to a retailer. IOW, something doesn't add up here.
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I think you are right, but I just wanted to check. Another quick question; I have an old Tamron 28-200 for my EOS 350. What would it do with a 7d? Do you think I could get useable results? Kind regards Economic Wolf
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1283693670' post='2503']
I think you are right, but I just wanted to check. Another quick question; I have an old Tamron 28-200 for my EOS 350. What would it do with a 7d? Do you think I could get useable results? Kind regards Economic Wolf
[/quote]
EOS 300?
On a 7D the 28-200mm Tamron will mainly show its age... being a film era superzoom. I would not expect great results.
Using JPEG or RAW is not all that different. Just that when you need to or want to process a file a lot, RAW gives you more headroom.
RAW just needs to be developed, and then you have an image like a JPEG, where then the biggest difference is in the information steps in each colour channel (R G and <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />... 8 bits in JPEG and 16 bits in developed RAW. Not that all of those 16 bit steps really are worthwhile, as they do not map directly to the way steps are mapped in RAW. But that starts to be WAY too technical.
Plus points for JPEG:
Small file size, you need less harddrive space.
Plus points for RAW:
No information gets lost from capture to JPEG conversion, so you have more to work with in post process.
I never shoot both JPEG and RAW, as that takes away the only plus point JPEG really has (saving space on cards and on computer.
RAW is not so scary, especially when you start with Aperture or Lightroom. Quick conversions are... quickly made.
But, you can also get great results with JPEG, also with post processing. But post processing JPEGs demands more knowledge and knowing your way around the very complex tool that is Photoshop, and so its steep learning curve will pose a problem.
So again, my suggestion... start with lightroom (or aperture) and learn your way into the digital darkroom step by step.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1283695334' post='2504']
EOS 300?
On a 7D the 28-200mm Tamron will mainly show its age... being a film era superzoom. I would not expect great results.
[/quote]
Agreed. It'll work nicely, but don't expect L-quality output <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Quote:Using JPEG or RAW is not all that different. Just that when you need to or want to process a file a lot, RAW gives you more headroom.
RAW just needs to be developed, and then you have an image like a JPEG, where then the biggest difference is in the information steps in each colour channel (R G and <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />... 8 bits in JPEG and 16 bits in developed RAW. Not that all of those 16 bit steps really are worthwhile, as they do not map directly to the way steps are mapped in RAW. But that starts to be WAY too technical.
Plus points for JPEG:
Small file size, you need less harddrive space.
Plus points for RAW:
No information gets lost from capture to JPEG conversion, so you have more to work with in post process.
I never shoot both JPEG and RAW, as that takes away the only plus point JPEG really has (saving space on cards and on computer.
Another plus point is being able to hand out pictures straight away if no processing capacity is present. Space on card and on computer is a non-issue IMO, considering storage space is so cheap these days. Besides, once one gets to the storage space, the idea is to save only the worthwhile shots <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />.
Quote:RAW is not so scary, especially when you start with Aperture or Lightroom. Quick conversions are... quickly made.
But, you can also get great results with JPEG, also with post processing. But post processing JPEGs demands more knowledge and knowing your way around the very complex tool that is Photoshop, and so its steep learning curve will pose a problem.
Also agreed. It si very well possible, but requires extra care and knowledge. And obviously, anything lost beyond the 8 bits of jpeg cannot be recovered anymore.
Quote:So again, my suggestion... start with lightroom (or aperture) and learn your way into the digital darkroom step by step.
That is indeed a fairly cheap option to get into PP, and likely addresses good ways for storing and cataloging stuff too.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
I can also strongly recommend Lightroom (which I personally use) or Aparture (which I have used in the past).
They are both great programs, and for me all I need in the digital darkroom.
At least since version 2 of Lightroom. (with the dodging and burning and other local adjustments).
They are both affordable and good options for your organizational and post processing needs.
And, should you late decide to want to edit your pictures more, that is supported from both programs AND all your stuff is at least organized.
|
