Dslr

[Gord]

once you get your camera if you fancy a little trip somewhere i dont mind fast tracking a bit of learning for you if you want.. will save a lot of bugger ups.

Memory.. you definately get what you pay for as its very easy to get corruption of the files.. especialy during rapid write times. average 10mb for a Jpeg & Raw.. for example with my 16gb card i can get 890 photos which is about the life of the battery also.

If its just Jpeg your looking at about 2000 or so photos, personaly i love to shoot in raw mode as you can ensure that you get the photo you want!

Get on amazon and buy yourself the D90 Digital Field guide... best £10 you will ever spend.. trust me!

Trust you.........................never :o ive had personal dealing with you mate

[TigerFish]

What kind of photgraphy do you envisage yourself doing mostly? That will dictate the lense choice a lot. i.e. if you only ever plan taking lots of portrait shots of the misses/kids, unless you don't like being close to them, you will have no need for a 200mm lense. You are much better off with a 50mm prime lense for instance. Zooms are good and all that, but the widest f-number they can go to limits their use a lot of the time. i.e. A 50mm lense may be a f1.4 or f1.8, where as the zoom lense zoomed to 50mm might be f5.4 (sorry, no idea on the actual specs of the lenses you mention), It will need much more light to get a really good photo. True enough that on auto, the camera will up the film speed to compensate but you loose quality due to the grainyness of the higher film speeds. I do mostly macro work and therefore 95% of the time I am using my 105mm macro lense. I have zooms with macro mode, but they are no match for a dedicated macro lense. There are trade offs with everything really.

I think the Nikon is a good choice. I use a Minolta 5D (before Konica/Minolta sold their outfit to Sony) and I find myself limited with accessories to only expensive brands (Sony or MInolta) most of the time. Nikon and Canon will offer a much wider range of accessories at almost all price ranges.

[TheDon]

which would you rather have tigerfish... a 60mm Macro or a 105mm macro? trying to decide between the two.. mostly for up close mechanical shots non tripod.

The whole cannon & Nikon range do benifit from after market lens and accessory manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron.. which can offer and open up the lens / Flash market range

[Parthiban]

once you get your camera if you fancy a little trip somewhere i dont mind fast tracking a bit of learning for you if you want.. will save a lot of bugger ups.

Memory.. you definately get what you pay for as its very easy to get corruption of the files.. especialy during rapid write times. average 10mb for a Jpeg & Raw.. for example with my 16gb card i can get 890 photos which is about the life of the battery also.

If its just Jpeg your looking at about 2000 or so photos, personaly i love to shoot in raw mode as you can ensure that you get the photo you want!

Get on amazon and buy yourself the D90 Digital Field guide... best £10 you will ever spend.. trust me!

Cheers mate, that sounds awesome and might be something I'll take you up on in the new year :)

I've read that it's better to take pictures raw and then convert to JPEG using software rather than use the camera, is that what you'd say as well?

What kind of photgraphy do you envisage yourself doing mostly? That will dictate the lense choice a lot. i.e. if you only ever plan taking lots of portrait shots of the misses/kids, unless you don't like being close to them, you will have no need for a 200mm lense. You are much better off with a 50mm prime lense for instance. Zooms are good and all that, but the widest f-number they can go to limits their use a lot of the time. i.e. A 50mm lense may be a f1.4 or f1.8, where as the zoom lense zoomed to 50mm might be f5.4 (sorry, no idea on the actual specs of the lenses you mention), It will need much more light to get a really good photo. True enough that on auto, the camera will up the film speed to compensate but you loose quality due to the grainyness of the higher film speeds. I do mostly macro work and therefore 95% of the time I am using my 105mm macro lense. I have zooms with macro mode, but they are no match for a dedicated macro lense. There are trade offs with everything really.

I think the Nikon is a good choice. I use a Minolta 5D (before Konica/Minolta sold their outfit to Sony) and I find myself limited with accessories to only expensive brands (Sony or MInolta) most of the time. Nikon and Canon will offer a much wider range of accessories at almost all price ranges.

Yep it's mainly going to be holiday photos, or family events, weddings, etc - I'm not a pro and won't ever be so you're probably right about the lens.

I didn't know about the Minolta thing, so that's why Sony has suddenly become a force in SLR cameras - it made no sense as they seemingly came from nowhere!

[TigerFish]

which would you rather have tigerfish... a 60mm Macro or a 105mm macro? trying to decide between the two.. mostly for up close mechanical shots non tripod.

For me, I would prefer a 180mm Macro, but they were prohibitively expensive for what I had to spend :( The 105 is great, and allows me a little flexibility on how close to something I have to be. A 60mm would've probably not worked that well for me, but having never used one, that is just speculation.

I've read that it's better to take pictures raw and then convert to JPEG using software rather than use the camera, is that what you'd say as well?

I shoot in Raw, which is much better for what I do. RAW will capture "exactly" what has come through the lense, and you can adjust whitebalance etc afterwards and use your own eye to get the shot truly representative of what you saw. The down side is that you can't just download from the camera and start viewing, post processing can be a bit of a chore. Again, I think it depends on what you are doing. For most shots, the cameras own image processing is pretty good and will satisfy the vast majority. In odd lighting, things can get confused and end up with hues to the picture that look odd or unatural. Sometimes these can be overcome by using the presets of whitebalance for differing lighting, or setting it yourself, but you then need to start thinking about the surroundings when you take the shot, rather than compensating afterwards. Horses for courses, just try it out and see what works best for you. Not sure on the Nikon, but on mine I can have RAW + Jpeg. Means you get less shots on the memory card but gives you the option of using jpegs most of the time, and having the RAW image available if the odd picture needs correcting.

I use a Minolta 5D (before Konica/Minolta sold their outfit to Sony)

I didn't know about the Minolta thing, so that's why Sony has suddenly become a force in SLR cameras - it made no sense as they seemingly came from nowhere!

Yup, they popped up from nowhere. On the plus side, they have added to the range. Unfortunately, I had hoped it would kick start a drop in prices for the accessories but it never happened. for instance, the Sony flashes are just as expensive as the old Minolta badged versions.

[TheDon]

definately shoot in JPEG and raw..

What i do is initaily go through and delete all the jpegs i dont want.. which takes about 20 mins normally, then i change it to list format and order by name.

This will then show you the RAW files that you dont need... get rid of them otherwise you will fill your HD very quickly..

[Jiberjaber]

Parthiban - I have a D90 (have done for a few months now) and it is ace. I have the kit lens and the 70-300 VR plus a 50mm/1.8 fully manual and the Sigma 10-20mm. All great lenses. I tend to have the 70-300 on most of the time as I shoot a lot of remote control models.

I use two 8G SD cards, each hold about 520 shots in full res RAW, dont bother shooting in jpg, it just takes up space and confuses the hell out of you later on when you are on the PC editing! LOL

Have you been to a shop and held one yet? I can fully recommend going to a shop and holding each of the cameras you are considering.... The canon felt too big in my hand but the nikon fitted perfectly :) but this can be a very personal thing, so I highly recommend trying them out.

RGB Tech gave me great service when I bought mine, so worth a look on there :)

http://www.rgb-tech.co.uk/product/1675

Currently 30 quid cheaper than I paid a month or so ago. I have some pictures but not realy got round to working out the best ways to get them on the web. I am still playing so some shots come off great, others are not so good as I thought they may have been. I have also made the odd mistake of forgetting what ISO setting I last left it on and hence forth ruining the next load of shots!

These were taken with the kit lens (18-105VR) :

This was through the kitchen window with an old non-VR 70-300

This was at the flying field just as I was packing up to go home..

A few more from the field, first three with my old non-VR and the latter with the new VR 70-300...

Here's a few videos (720 HD) with the kit lens as well...

http://www.jiberjaber.org.uk/DSC_0799.AVI

http://www.jiberjaber.org.uk/DSC_0796.AVI

The video is a bit of a gimick really as there is no auto focus, so you need to set the appature quite small to avoid DOF issues. Also the way the sensor is read means that fast horizontal panning will result in vertical bending. Not a real bad problem, just something to be aware of.

If you're on facebook, I have a load more on there as well.

http://s409.photobucket.com/albums/pp171/jasonburns37/

[DJ Wozza]

some terrific pics there Jason :)

[Jiberjaber]

Cheers Wozza... I am a fair way off being good though when I look at some peoples but I keep practicing to get there one day! :)

[Tyger]

Yeah some great pics there.

Parthiban: Another +1 for shooting in RAW.

WHEN you get your Mac you can use Aperture to process and catalogue all your pics diredctly in RAW, no need for compression.

http://www.apple.com/aperture/

I love this program and use it all the time

[Jiberjaber]

The Nikon Capture NX2 is equally good as well. There is a 60 day free trial - so worth giving it a go.

[Parthiban]

Some fantastic pics there Jiberjaber, thanks for those, if I can get stuff looking like that without too much trouble I'll be pretty happy :)

Yep I've had a good play with a D90 and feel pretty comfortable with it, never really looked at the Canons at all (although I've read on another forum about people saying they didn't feel comfortable with it).

With that Nikon software, can you convert a whole batch of photos to JPEG in one go or do you have to do them individually? And will this provide better results than the JPEGs the camera will create?

[Jiberjaber]

Some fantastic pics there Jiberjaber, thanks for those, if I can get stuff looking like that without too much trouble I'll be pretty happy :)

Yep I've had a good play with a D90 and feel pretty comfortable with it, never really looked at the Canons at all (although I've read on another forum about people saying they didn't feel comfortable with it).

With that Nikon software, can you convert a whole batch of photos to JPEG in one go or do you have to do them individually? And will this provide better results than the JPEGs the camera will create?

Yes.

When you connect up your camera to the PC, you use Nikon's Transfer programe, this allows you to import the picture and also back up to another location at the same time and a few other fancy things like auto adding IPTC data (your copyright info etc). When the transfer is finished it will launch a programme called View NX (this is configureable). You can batch export to JPG using that and also alter some basic image development settings as well.

You can also use Picasa, but it doesnt seem to read the NEF (Nikons RAW files) properly, so there is a narrow line on the side of each picture of solid colour.

You can also convert RAW to JPG in camera, I never bother but the RAW tools in camera are a mini-photoshop! coupled with the very high res screen, you hardly need a PC if you dont have access to one :)

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwells site for his basic set up, be aware he likes super saturated colour shots, so his settings reflect that, but some of the settings he recommends are pretty good (like setting the picture counter to not reset every time you take your pictures off.)

I think I am up to about 7939 shots taken so far with this camera. Not bad seeing as I bought it about 17 October LOL

[Parthiban]

Yes.

When you connect up your camera to the PC, you use Nikon's Transfer programe, this allows you to import the picture and also back up to another location at the same time and a few other fancy things like auto adding IPTC data (your copyright info etc). When the transfer is finished it will launch a programme called View NX (this is configureable). You can batch export to JPG using that and also alter some basic image development settings as well.

You can also use Picasa, but it doesnt seem to read the NEF (Nikons RAW files) properly, so there is a narrow line on the side of each picture of solid colour.

You can also convert RAW to JPG in camera, I never bother but the RAW tools in camera are a mini-photoshop! coupled with the very high res screen, you hardly need a PC if you dont have access to one :)

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwells site for his basic set up, be aware he likes super saturated colour shots, so his settings reflect that, but some of the settings he recommends are pretty good (like setting the picture counter to not reset every time you take your pictures off.)

I think I am up to about 7939 shots taken so far with this camera. Not bad seeing as I bought it about 17 October LOL

So are there any free programs that can do the batch conversion at a decent quality? Or alternatively how much does the Nikon software actually cost? I discovered today that Microsoft actually has some programs to do with dealing with RAW photos (didn't really actually look into what they can do)........

Also the camera can both take photos as JPEGs, and then also convert RAW files to JPEGs later? I didn't realise the camera can do so much itself........does it do it well? If I'm a seriously amateur photographer will I be happy enough with those results?

I think I'm now going to have to get the camera and play about with all the different options to see which I like best...........can't wait!

[Sagitar]

I know there's a few keen photographers on here so I'm thinking this is a good place as any to ask, I'm thinking of getting a DSLR and have settled on the Nikon D90.

Don't really know a lot about photography, more of a point and shoot kind so far, but I think it will be fun learning how to use a camera properly! Basically is this a decent choice? We have a film Nikon SLR from years ago we were happy with so that's the reason for sticking with the Nikon brand but reviews seem to suggest they still are at the head of the field.

I was thinking originally to get the body only and buy an 18-200mm lens separately, but hadn't realised how damn expensive these lenses are.........the alternative is to buy the D90 kit which comes with an 18-105mm lens - will this be enough for normal use?

Also all the photo stores seem to be trying to push expensive high speed SD cards, does it make a difference?

You might find a wider range of views here Amateur Photographer Forum

[Sagitar]

I have a range of Canon equipment, but I wouldn't push it just because I use it.

I think any of the established stuff is capable of giving excellent results and it is really a question deciding what suits you personally and learning to use it properly.

If there is a camera club near you, it might help to make contact, to talk to members about their kit and maybe get your hands on it.

The AP site has a lot of basic stuff that will help you to decide what you really want and need. My advice is to make haste slowly - it is expensive stuff so you don't want to be back tracking.

Good luck.

[Jiberjaber]

Yes.

When you connect up your camera to the PC, you use Nikon's Transfer programe, this allows you to import the picture and also back up to another location at the same time and a few other fancy things like auto adding IPTC data (your copyright info etc). When the transfer is finished it will launch a programme called View NX (this is configureable). You can batch export to JPG using that and also alter some basic image development settings as well.

You can also use Picasa, but it doesnt seem to read the NEF (Nikons RAW files) properly, so there is a narrow line on the side of each picture of solid colour.

You can also convert RAW to JPG in camera, I never bother but the RAW tools in camera are a mini-photoshop! coupled with the very high res screen, you hardly need a PC if you dont have access to one :)

You might want to take a look at Ken Rockwells site for his basic set up, be aware he likes super saturated colour shots, so his settings reflect that, but some of the settings he recommends are pretty good (like setting the picture counter to not reset every time you take your pictures off.)

I think I am up to about 7939 shots taken so far with this camera. Not bad seeing as I bought it about 17 October LOL

So are there any free programs that can do the batch conversion at a decent quality? Or alternatively how much does the Nikon software actually cost? I discovered today that Microsoft actually has some programs to do with dealing with RAW photos (didn't really actually look into what they can do)........

Also the camera can both take photos as JPEGs, and then also convert RAW files to JPEGs later? I didn't realise the camera can do so much itself........does it do it well? If I'm a seriously amateur photographer will I be happy enough with those results?

I think I'm now going to have to get the camera and play about with all the different options to see which I like best...........can't wait!

The Transfer and ViewNX software are free, they come with the camera or can be downloaded from the Nikon site. You can set the camera to take RAW and JPG (and various combinations of that).

Why not take a look at the manual - though from the sounds of it you are fairly decided :)

ftp://ftp.nikon-euro.com/Manuals/vqUaOfFVeV/D90_en.pdf

Also worth looking here: http://www.dxomark.com/

You can compare cameras (up to three) for IQ etc.

[Parthiban]

I have a range of Canon equipment, but I wouldn't push it just because I use it.

I think any of the established stuff is capable of giving excellent results and it is really a question deciding what suits you personally and learning to use it properly.

If there is a camera club near you, it might help to make contact, to talk to members about their kit and maybe get your hands on it.

The AP site has a lot of basic stuff that will help you to decide what you really want and need. My advice is to make haste slowly - it is expensive stuff so you don't want to be back tracking.

Good luck.

Thanks, I have been reading around on different sites to find relevant info but not posted anywhere else as I didn't want to get into a Canon vs Nikon debate (which seems to be relatively common). I don't know much when it comes to photography, but I always tend to think Nikon for SLR and Canon for compact, although I've read a few too many things regarding reliability issues and other bugs on the Canons which has put me off even more. However, I'm sure pretty much any decent camera I pick up will produce decent results as far as my eyes are concerned :)

The Transfer and ViewNX software are free, they come with the camera or can be downloaded from the Nikon site. You can set the camera to take RAW and JPG (and various combinations of that).

Why not take a look at the manual - though from the sounds of it you are fairly decided :)

ftp://ftp.nikon-euro.com/Manuals/vqUaOfFVeV/D90_en.pdf

Also worth looking here: http://www.dxomark.com/

You can compare cameras (up to three) for IQ etc.

Yep I'm pretty decided, hopefully I'll be picking it up on Monday

I'll have to try each out and see whether I prefer taking the JPEG or converting later. That's a really interesting site btw, I have to say I hadn't expected there to be such a technical difference between the cameras, and I'm now more certain than ever after seeing the D90s performance - it's well up there with proper "pro" cameras which is very impressive for it's price.

[TheDon]

i think your started to get bogged down with the confusion of RAW images.. and i think that for a while that untill you understand why raw images are produced that you stick with just running fine (high res) Jpegs...

Run the camera in auto for a while, get used to using it.. and in the end you will find that RAW images are only good for you if your into doing a lot of post photo prepping and alterations.

Its quite specialised and time consuming... you can loose hours into making a photo how you want it in RAW..

So all i will say for now.. is forget all the programmes, they can come later.. stay away from them if anything!

Just pull out your SD card and shove it into your computer, pull off the files and run them in a standard photo viewer..

My suggestion would be to find photos you like that you have taken, right click on the photo and look at the advanced properties.

This should tell you what aperture your shot was taken with, at what focal length and the exposure time etc.

You will start to learn what settings make for a good photo, i didnt get into my raw images for about the first 9 months of using the camera!

[TheDon]

and there is no point i post converting raw files into JPEGS.. may as well just shoot in JPG Fine + RAW.. its one of your main options on your camera

[Jiberjaber]

If you plan on shooting combo with RAW+JPG, make sure you take a look at the in camera sharpness settings as you may feel after taking the shot and looking at the JPG's they look a little "soft".

Dont bother with AUTO mode unless you just want to use your 500 quid camera as a £100 point and shoot! If you still want the assistance of the camera but also want to learn what it would use, then use P mode. This is basicaly AUTO mode but you can adjust it after the camera has decided what it THINKS it needs to set to get the shot.

In this P mode, you will be able to see the exposure and shutter speed (and also ISO/flash if certain settings are on) within the view finder (or in the live view/info screen on the rear) so it will help in understanding what it takes to get the picture right. This of course depends on the way you intend to take the photo, which is why I emphasise the THINK bit in the camera, the camera does not know your intention is to freeze/blur action of reduce depth of field, it just wants to get a good shot in both AUTO and P mode, I dont know what photography understanding you have at the moment, so not sure if these terms meet anything yet, but sometimes the camera will (in trying to get the shot right) not do what you want it to do, that is why there is the other three modes of M, A and S to allow you to force the camera to do what you want. Just something to keep in mind when you go to take your shots. :)

Here's a good link for explaining stuff...

http://www.berniecode.com/writing/photography/beginners/

Also, might be worth getting this on the Xmas list...

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Exposu...d/dp/0817463003

And of course to (of many) good sites:

http://www.bythom.com/

http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm

[Parthiban]

Some more great info there :)

Probably won't be doing much post editing to be honest (to start with at least), don't really have the time either. My uncle's who's got a D80 also said to use the RAW+JPEG setting to start with and I should be pretty happy with what comes out of it. I'm more keen on getting the best shot at the time of taking it so that's where I'd like to focus my efforts.

I read on another forum that the quality of the JPEG from the camera isn't as good as converting the RAW files after which is why I was asking, but if that's not the case either then I won't bother.

Yep while AUTO might be the chosen mode for the first few days, I'd like to figure out how to use it properly over time (otherwise, yes there's not much point in such a great camera). I really don't have a clue what P mode is but hopefully the instruction manual will explain!

I think I'll also be spending some time with those online guides to get the most out of it, but the big advantage of digital to a certain extent as you can just sit there and teach yourself by fiddling with the settings in different lighting conditions.

Most of all I'd like to learn how to get great shots in low light without using a flash (unless it's absolutely necessary of course)

[Jiberjaber]

The conversion from RAW to JPG on the computer is better than in camera as you have more control.

Fast glass (low appature number) and a tripod and low noise ISO performance are where its at for your night shots but you can get away with the kit lens and others be setting the right exposure.

Take a look at light painting for your night time shots as well, basicaly a decent tourch and a long exposure then you fill in the light you want with the tourch. I dont have any examples, but it can be quite a fun and artistic effect. A mate of mine who is seriously in to urbex uses this a lot as you dont want to disturb the security chaps with the flash going off etc.

You will also nees a decent tripod (Manfrotto are not to bad) you are looking at about 150 or so for a decent one with a ball head. I have a little one which isnt the best but is good for what I use it for.

You may want to turn on the exposure delay option in the advance settings. The D90 doesnt have mirror lock up, so when you press the shutter button, you will be supprised at the noise it makes (compared to say a P&S camera). When it lifts up the mirror to then uncover the sensor, it slaps and causes camera shake, which can lose sharpness on your night shot. It is even more pronounced if you are using a long lens. The long exposure NR built in to the D90 is great but it does take a long time to process in camera, if you do a 20 sec exposure, you end up waiting another 20s for the NR to finish processing!

You will also want some way to trigger the camera without disturbing it. Traditionaly this would be a bulb of some description. You can use the built in timer or you can use the ML-L3 remote control (about a tenner). The good thing about the timer is you can set it to do a number of exposures which comes in handy for bracketing. Theres only three brackets on the D90 unfortunatly, but that's not too bad.

Wind is not your friend for low light photography!

You'll find some good stuff on low light in here:

http://www.28dayslater.co.uk/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=63

[Scarlet Pimpernell]

I went for the Sony Alpha K100 when it was launched over 3 years ago, and it has been superb. If I knew then what I know now I would have gone for a Nikon (D80 or D200) as all mags in any newsagents and books are loaded with "how to's".

I think any of th D seris will be fine, but a good D200 would be just as good ig you can get one.

The senors are interesting. A CMOS (as in the D90 or Sony A700) will capture light very well (and better than CCD) in daylight conditions. In the dark though, you could get some noise as CMOS are prone to picking up too much of that. However, the newer ones have good noise filtering and CMOS is now becoming the norm for anything beyond 14mp.

The higher the MP does not man better pictures - even a good 6mp D70/Canon 350d (rebel XTi in the states) will take exceptional pictures - it's just if you want to use the software to crop and enlarge, then the higher the mp the better.

You really can't go wong with the D90, 80 or a good 70s - even a 2nd hand one to get use to it. All the mags and books are centred on Nikon and Canon, and you can get loads of spares, lenses, flashes etc for next to nothing if you shop aound. Make sure you get a good flash and omnibounce - they are a must!! You'll find that the standard flash on the camera is rubbish, and that without bouncing or filtering the light you'll see shiny foreheads :o at close range and in rooms. But by bouncing the flash you'll get a much more natural softened light. amazon do some great books too!!!

Good luck!!

[Jiberjaber]

I went for the Sony Alpha K100 when it was launched over 3 years ago, and it has been superb. If I knew then what I know now I would have gone for a Nikon (D80 or D200) as all mags in any newsagents and books are loaded with "how to's".

I think any of th D seris will be fine, but a good D200 would be just as good ig you can get one.

The senors are interesting. A CMOS (as in the D90 or Sony A700) will capture light very well (and better than CCD) in daylight conditions. In the dark though, you could get some noise as CMOS are prone to picking up too much of that. However, the newer ones have good noise filtering and CMOS is now becoming the norm for anything beyond 14mp.

The higher the MP does not man better pictures - even a good 6mp D70/Canon 350d (rebel XTi in the states) will take exceptional pictures - it's just if you want to use the software to crop and enlarge, then the higher the mp the better.

You really can't go wong with the D90, 80 or a good 70s - even a 2nd hand one to get use to it. All the mags and books are centred on Nikon and Canon, and you can get loads of spares, lenses, flashes etc for next to nothing if you shop aound. Make sure you get a good flash and omnibounce - they are a must!! You'll find that the standard flash on the camera is rubbish, and that without bouncing or filtering the light you'll see shiny foreheads :o at close range and in rooms. But by bouncing the flash you'll get a much more natural softened light. Amazon do some great books too!!!

Good luck!!