Support NeoGAF

[ScientificNinja]

I may just do that then, and wait until I can afford a lens (particularly one with image stabilization). I have my pocket cam for auto focus shots anyway.

only issue I have with getting a Nikon is I want a camera with built-in image stabilization, not one that requires the lens have it....


Does this look like a good deal for a D60? It doesn't have a refurbished quality rating like others listed on the site (E, E+, E- etc).
http://www.adorama.com/INKD60R.html?searchinfo=d60 body&item_no=1

I don't think Nikon has any body with built-in stablization, but there are definitely other brands that do. I tested an Olympus E-520 a few months ago and it definitely had built-in stablization in the body.

That said, I've always tried to avoid using image stablization where ever I can simply because (and it's possibly because I'm doing it wrong) it messes with my exposure.

I also don't see the point of image stablization for focal lengths of less than 60mm - either the subject is moving way too much (and the proper solution should be faster glass) or you're just not holding your camera right.

 

[Grimlock]

Canon & Nikon keep their IS for their SLRs in their lenses. Fuji, which bases their cameras off of Nikon designs, follow suit. Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung, and Sony do the in-body IS. Admittedly, the lens-based IS does do a better job than the in-body versions, but it also makes the lens more expensive (since the IS motors have to be built into each lens), and limits IS to that particular lens. IS is pretty useful if you have twitchy hands like me (I have tendonitis, I type a bunch, and I play games. I'm surprised my hands haven't fallen off yet.) or in low-light situations, especially when you're trying to avoid raising ISO due to grain.

As far as that Siggy lens is concerned, I'm pretty sure it's an older (and cheap) design that relied on the camera having a screw drive for auto-focus. That should especially be the case since it was on a film camera. The F-mount lenses that have built-in AF motors are designated AF-S and AF-I.

Personally, I'd suggest getting the Nikon D-80 if you're set on going with Nikon inexpensively. It's more camera than the D-60 is (the D-60's only real edges are it's smaller size and it's slightly-higher pixel count), you wouldn't have to fret over what F-mount lenses you can use and you can find it for close to the price of the D-60. While the D-90 does have the live-view and increased sensitivity that neither the D-60 nor D-80 has, it is more expensive than either one.

 

[Rentahamster]

New products from PocketWizard.

http://pocketwizard.wordpress.com/2...d-flextt5-announced-at-wppi-press-conference/

Now with TTL!

Seems like RadioPoppers got some new competition going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=831L0RvFd2Y

 

[demon]

Couple questions:

what are people's thoughts on the Olympus E-420? It doesn't appear to produce the very best quality images among its class, but I'm really attracted to its size. With a small lens I could probably easily fit it into my coat pocket.

On that note, I was at a camera shop today and held a D60 for the first time, and I was surprised at how compact even it seemed. What would be a good small lens (pancake lens?) and are they generally expensive?

 

[nitewulf]

the 25mm f/1.8 olympus pancake + the e420 = pocket dslr. but the lens isnt VERY good. its 250 bucks i believe. is size very important for you? because then scrap the slr route and go rangefinder. buy an old voigtlander rangefinder and a 50mm prime lens. do it classic style.

 

[so_awes]

Couple questions:

what are people's thoughts on the Olympus E-420? It doesn't appear to produce the very best quality images among its class, but I'm really attracted to its size. With a small lens I could probably easily fit it into my coat pocket.

On that note, I was at a camera shop today and held a D60 for the first time, and I was surprised at how compact even it seemed. What would be a good small lens (pancake lens?) and are they generally expensive?

nikon doesn't have any pancake lens, i'm pretty sure they don't.

if you want something smaller than the E-420, i suggest you look at the Panasonic G1. the E-420's format is a 4/3 format, while the G1 is a Micro 4/3 format. you can learn more at the link.

and there are a lot adapters for the G1 to use other lenses from Leica and Canon.

http://leolaksi.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/leica-noctilux-50mm-f1-on-panasonic-lumix-g1/
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/leica-lens-to-p.html

 

[nitewulf]

these are out already? putting a noktilux prime on a micro 4/3rds body is like defeating the purpose...but ok.

demon, i'd say the 420 could be a decent backup/2nd slr. just go for the entry canon or nikon IMO. size isnt that big of a deal once you start shooting. i used to think the same but now im used to the 40D which is gigantic compared to these cameras.

 

[rampur]

which one should i get?

Used 5D with about 5000 pictures taken for $1,250.00
or new D300 for $1,300.00

 

[giga]

On that note, I was at a camera shop today and held a D60 for the first time, and I was surprised at how compact even it seemed. What would be a good small lens (pancake lens?) and are they generally expensive?

skip micro 4/3. can't stand their viewfinders. (low end bodies at least)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0902/09020901nikon35mm1p8.asp

2.75inches length.

which one should i get?

Used 5D with about 5000 pictures taken for $1,250.00
or new D300 for $1,300.00

what do you shoot?

landscapes, low light = 5d.
everything else = d300.

 

[nitewulf]

i'd go for the D300 on that one, i love the 5D but D300 has too many advanced functions at that price.

 

[fart]

which one should i get?

Used 5D with about 5000 pictures taken for $1,250.00
or new D300 for $1,300.00

if you're set on full frame for the lenses (d300 has more dynamic range and is only down about 2/3 stop on noise), watch out for a cheaper 5D (i've seen good samples go for 1k recently).

if you need high speed (framerate or AF), go for a used D300. watch for people dumping their D300s for D700s; you should be able to find one for ~1100

nikon pancake: nikkor 45/2.8P or voigtlander 40/2 ultron SL II, both MF. a series E 35mm or 50/1.8 is also mighty small on the D40/60 series (manual focus and exposure). the smallest AF nikon kit in a month will be the 35/1.8 and a D40/60 series.

don't bother buying SLR gear that isn't canikon, and if you're interested in M43, wait for olympus announcements at PMA

 

[Rentahamster]

Welp, Ritz Camera files for bankruptcy protection.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=ajH_4din7HNU&refer=us

That sucks.

 

[Memles]

Okay, so, I'm pretty sure that I'm going to be jumping into the SLR pool at some point in the near future - my current camera (Canon S2 IS) is off for repairs, and while it's under warranty and might come back "fixed" I'm still interested in upgrading to something else in time for an April trip to California. I like my S2 IS for the situations I usually take pictures in, but it's pretty bulky for a day-to-day travel camera and not quite up to snuff for taking more professional-like photographs. And since the usual situations in which I take pictures (group events, candid events, etc.) are going to be disappearing and changing in the next little while, I'm looking for something that might better suit my needs.

I guess the basic question I have is whether or not my money is better spent buying a lower-level camera (See: XSi/D60) and purchasing an extra lens or two or advancing to a higher-level camera (See: D90). I know it's a vague question, but I figure there's some people in here who were "New to SLR" once and might be able to share their own experience and whether they were left wanting more camera or left wanting more lenses when the time came to start shooting.

 

[nitewulf]

lenses are the most important part. all the cameras have similar functions...mainly you'll be adjusting shutter speeds and aperture sizes. the differences of the bodies come in focusing speeds, focusing accuracy, build quality, image processing and intelligence.

i'd say get the cheapest affordable body but the best lenses within the price range.

 

[fart]

lenses are the most important part. all the cameras have similar functions...mainly you'll be adjusting shutter speeds and aperture sizes. the differences of the bodies come in focusing speeds, focusing accuracy, build quality, image processing and intelligence.

i'd say get the cheapest affordable body but the best lenses within the price range.

this used to be a reliable adage in the film days, but it's no longer strictly true. cameras these days differ heavily by sensor. film shooters used to obsess over film, and not the bodies so much since they were just light tight boxes. now, unfortunately, your body specs your film as well.

however, the good news is that for a given sensor, image quality is more or less the same across all models using that sensor. even better, the lower end models using that sensor are almost always the last released, and hence have the most refined implementation of the sensor (the japanese signals guys are insanely good at what they do). this means that as long as you're careful you can still ignore the whiz bang AF systems and magnesium castings of the higher end bodies if you won't need them. basically, pick your sensor based on your photographic goals, figure out how many bells and whistles you need (re: AF, weather sealing, VF size, etc.) and then buy the cheapest body with your sensor and whistles.

unfortunately with nikon right now this means that if you want the oh-so-sweet 12MP CMOS, your best choice is still only the d90 (although there are soft rumors that a smaller body will be out next week).

imo the biggest issue is actually defining "best" for lenses. is, eg the nikon 17-55/2.8 a better lens than the 18-55/3.5-5.6 vr? there are some specific metrisc for which it clearly is: lower-light without a tripod, DOF control, distortion, goes slightly wider, much more durable. by other important metrics it falls somewhat flat though: eg, it's 3-4 times the size and weight and 10x the cost. however, we were just obsessing over image quality; by that metric it's completely unclear. at f8-f11 (close down smaller than that and diffraction will actually kill you on small sensor slrs), you would be hard pressed to distinguish between the two (it helps that the 18-55 has astonishingly good performance), and the vr on the 18-55 may actually get you a sharper shot if you're handheld with both in good light.

i'm not sure if i have a clear thesis here. the whole deal requires a fair amount of thought though about how/when/etc. you're going to use the tools you get, and optimization can proceed from there.

 

[Memles]

I guess I asked the question because of this particular deal right now: $900 Canadian for an XSi with Kit Lens and the 55-250mm Telephoto. It's the cheapest I've seen this particular pairing, it gives me the SLR functions while giving me some more zoom at the same time, and the combination feels like the most cost-effective for the purpose of my upcoming use of the camera.

http://accessories.dell.com/sna/pro...l.aspx?c=ca&l=en&s=dhs&cs=cadhs1&sku=A1741135

I would hold off for more announcements and more sale prices if I wasn't planning a trip to California for about a month from now - as it stands, grabbing that lens for $230 (Canadian, mind you) seems like a pretty solid deal. I just want to make sure I'm not in some way handicapping myself for the future.

 

[fart]

i have no idea what prices look like in canada, but in the US you can basically get that same kit (2 zoom 18 to 200+ + small body canikon) for the mid 500s (USD).

also if i were going canon i'd actually want an XS over an XSi

 

[Memles]

i have no idea what prices look like in canada, but in the US you can basically get that same kit (2 zoom 18 to 200+ + small body canikon) for the mid 500s (USD).

also if i were going canon i'd actually want an XS over an XSi

Explain the latter - I'm curious.

And no big shock on the former, such is life North of the Border.

 

[fart]

the xs and xsi sensors really are indistinguishable, and both have live view and seem to be otherwise in feature parity. xs is smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

canon vs nikon: afaik the nikon kit lenses are optically superior to the canons.

 

[BlueTsunami]

If you got a Canon or a Nikon, the 17-55 f/2.8 lenses are a must buy if your trying to get a nearly all in one lens. Shit, I'd forgo getting the kits lens on some of these bodies and just getting one of those.

I agree though that once you stop the lens down to a smaller aperture, it wouldn't really make a difference (as far as IQ). If you figure you'll be using your camera during the day as a travel lens, then just get the cheaper zoom.

A good setup would be a slow zoom and a fast wide prime for night/indoor shots.

 

[radios shipping overview]

The only real reason (imo) to look at the more expensive bodies in the same sensor format is lens compatibility. You will see the least amount of metered, AF lens compatibility in the D40/D60, yet those bodies can mount Nikon F-mount lenses from any era. D80/D90 gives you standard AF capability. D200/D300 lets you use and meter with AI-S manual focus lenses. And the D2 range gives you metering with the ancient non-AI mount lenses.

This is a big hangup for me with the smaller bodies because I prefer primes and enjoy manual focus. Of course, with the new 35mm f/1.8 AF-S, this is all much less of an issue for new buyers than it was a year ago.

 

[fart]

in poor light the 17-55s still won't be enough. if you want to shoot in dim light, get a prime for walkaround and a tripod for night shots.

there are more lens compatibility issues with the nikon bodies (although the viewfinder issues are universal), but i don't think they're a huge deal, honestly. the major difference is that nikon's manual focus lenses were really really good (so there's actually some benefit to being able to meter with them), while canon's weren't all that great. the AF motor issue with nikons isn't all that much of an issue now that: almost all 3rd parties worth looking at have motored their lenses, there are tons of high quality cheap motored nikon zooms, and there is a prime at every reasonable focal with a motor, with more actually coming this year.

i'm not just saying this either, two years ago it was terrible.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I really wish Canon or Nikon would just go all out with the Viewfinders (at a reasonable price). Give me 100% coverage and the ability to accurately judge DoF. I guess I would classify myself as a photographer that can sit back and look at a single subject for a few minutes and mess with the focus (manually) to get a feel for the scene and what I want in focus.

Its one of the reasons I've been eying a Pentax DSLR or maybe jump into a price reduced 5D.

 

[fart]

is chimping really so wrong?

 

[Benjamin_MFF]

I remember being asked a couple of years ago weather I wanted a DSLR or a video camera. Since I am a media major and my focus was film, I went with a video camera. Since then I have been looking at dslr cameras. I'm planning on getting a Canon of some sorts. I just want to start with an inexpensive body and work on finding the right lenses. This thread is very good.

 

[BlueTsunami]

is chimping really so wrong?

It isn't and I do it a lot. But my Rebel 350D viewfinder feels like a hurdle when I'm trying to take a picture of something. A dark tunnel where I'm completely reliant on the AF. Though, I guess I'm working off one of the worst VF offerings and also it being an entry level DSLR (2 years ago).

 

[artredis1980]

hey, could someone find me a really affordable Canon 50mm EF 1.8?

 

[Rentahamster]

is chimping really so wrong?

Nope. I do it all the time.

 

[Rentahamster]

hey, could someone find me a really affordable Canon 50mm EF 1.8?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00007E7JU/?tag=neogaf0e-20

85 bucks.

Amazon is your friend.

 

[captive]

I had actually never known this thread existed, was pointed to it it after posting in another camera recommendation thread.

I'm getting an Olympus E 510 for my birthday with the 14-45mm f3.5 kits lens and the 40-150mm f4.0 lens, for $550.
Alos ordered the Zuiko 50mm f2.0 macro lens.
I decided on the 510 because my brother has a 410 and already has the 70-300mm f4.0 lens and kit lens.
I figured no point in us having cameras that use different lenses.

I'm pretty familiar with photography terms and all that stuff, I used to develop my own film and pictures.

Just had a couple of questions
From what I read apparently Olympus isnt very popular around here?
What kind of settings and lenses are best for indoor sporting events like baseball and football?
What are the benefits of Raw over jpeg? Everything i read implied that there werent many.

Anyway cant wait to till my camera gets here and start shooting.

 

[mrkgoo]

I had actually never known this thread existed, was pointed to it it after posting in another camera recommendation thread.

I'm getting an Olympus E 510 for my birthday with the 14-45mm f3.5 kits lens and the 40-150mm f4.0 lens, for $550.
Alos ordered the Zuiko 50mm f2.0 macro lens.
I decided on the 510 because my brother has a 410 and already has the 70-300mm f4.0 lens and kit lens.
I figured no point in us having cameras that use different lenses.

I'm pretty familiar with photography terms and all that stuff, I used to develop my own film and pictures.

Just had a couple of questions
From what I read apparently Olympus isnt very popular around here?
What kind of settings and lenses are best for indoor sporting events like baseball and football?
What are the benefits of Raw over jpeg? Everything i read implied that there werent many.

Anyway cant wait to till my camera gets here and start shooting.

I think RAw has been dealt with. Olympus - yeah, I don't know much about their system apart form the nice compact SLRs they make.

Indoor sports? You want something with reach, and a really wide aperture. For this, I guess primes are ideal. Like 200mm f/2.8 (or the zoom versions), 135mm f/2, or the 85mm f/1.8. I suggest going with something cheap, like the 50mmf/1.8, which isn't great for sports due to the lack of reach (again this is dependent on where you will be), but it will help you get familiar with the use of fast primes.

edit: These are all common focal lengths for Canon dSLRs, I'm not sure what lenses are good for olympus.

 

[nitewulf]

in poor light the 17-55s still won't be enough. if you want to shoot in dim light, get a prime for walkaround and a tripod for night shots.

correct to a point. the build quality, confidence and overall picture quality is a lot better. i have limited experience with the nikkor, admittedly. and use the canon as a all rounder. you never really stop down that much anyway, why would you? f/4, f/5.6 is a lot sharper than comprable kit lenses. overall clarity of the images are just eye popping. the canon ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 also is an IS lens, its a beast. kit lenses dont really compare well to these lenses once you get out the their comfort zones.

 

[mrkgoo]

correct to a point. the build quality, confidence and overall picture quality is a lot better. i have limited experience with the nikkor, admittedly. and use the canon as a all rounder. you never really stop down that much anyway, why would you? f/4, f/5.6 is a lot sharper than comprable kit lenses. overall clarity of the images are just eye popping. the canon ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 also is an IS lens, its a beast. kit lenses dont really compare well to these lenses once you get out the their comfort zones.

It is indeed a beast. It is my main weapon of choice. There is no other lens that cad do what it does - standard range, wide aperture, and IS, with optical quality throughout.

As always, I am the limitation to my gear.

 

[nitewulf]

What kind of settings and lenses are best for indoor sporting events like baseball and football?
What are the benefits of Raw over jpeg? Everything i read implied that there werent many.

Anyway cant wait to till my camera gets here and start shooting.

for indoor sports, you need long, fast lenses. believe it or not, your 50mm f/2.0 might work well...IIRC, the olypus 4/3rds are 2x multiplier, so the 50mm will effectively be a 100mm f/2.0 lens.

 

[fart]

correct to a point. the build quality, confidence and overall picture quality is a lot better. i have limited experience with the nikkor, admittedly. and use the canon as a all rounder. you never really stop down that much anyway, why would you? f/4, f/5.6 is a lot sharper than comprable kit lenses. overall clarity of the images are just eye popping. the canon ef-s 17-55 f/2.8 also is an IS lens, its a beast. kit lenses dont really compare well to these lenses once you get out the their comfort zones.

this is a nikon/canon specific thing.

to elaborate on the nikon-land mid-range zoom status, we have quite a few options with varying strengths and weaknesses (of course, the one thing we don't have is a 17-55 2.8 IS)

17-55 2.8 constant
16-85 3.5 variable vr2 (multi-axis VR)
18-55 3.5 variable vr
18-105 3.5 variable vr
18-200 3.5 variable vr2

... and older models
18-70 3.5-4.5
18-135 3.5 variable

phew! (note vr = is)

the really tricky thing here is that the the 16-85 and to a lesser extent the 18-105 actually match or exceed the performance of our 17-55 at the same aperture. and it's not because the 17-55 is low performance (although it's slightly inferior to the canon besides the IS), but because the newest variable aperture zooms are ridiculously high performance.

besides those two, the smallest range 18-55 kit zoom also outperforms the 17-55 at small apertures because of field curvature on the 17-55.

anyway, so this isn't true in nikon-land. the 16-85 @ 24mm outperforms the 17-55 @ 24mm f4 and f5.6 (it should actually be comparable to the 17-55 2.8 IS canon there).

 

[mrkgoo]

It isn't and I do it a lot. But my Rebel 350D viewfinder feels like a hurdle when I'm trying to take a picture of something. A dark tunnel where I'm completely reliant on the AF. Though, I guess I'm working off one of the worst VF offerings and also it being an entry level DSLR (2 years ago).

I didn't notice too much difference going to a 40D. That is, until I went back to my 350D....

 

[XMonkey]

The 40D is a breath of fresh air for your eye if you're used to a 300D like I'm still stuck using

 

[fart]

true. i went out with a friend who had a 400d a few months ago and i tried out his vf (vs my d80 with loupe). it very much felt like going from 'meh' to 'omg dark tunnel so lost'

 

[Annoying Old Party Man]

Guys, just bought an LX3, haven't shot anything in years and even back then i was pretty amateurish.

Where do i go (besides outside, to take some pics ), any good guides so i can start taking advantage of the camera's qualities?

 

[chaostrophy]

Does anyone here shoot on film? The Nikon F4 seems like an amazing deal right now, given all their features and that they can be found used in excellent condition for $350-400. I'm tempted to buy one along with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D lens.

 

[Dazzla]

Guys, just bought an LX3, haven't shot anything in years and even back then i was pretty amateurish.

Where do i go (besides outside, to take some pics ), any good guides so i can start taking advantage of the camera's qualities?

I'll be interested to see how you get on with it, looking to pick one up in the next fortnight.

Not sure of any gudes for that camera per se, but because of the amount of control the camera offers any DSLR guide should be quite relevant in terms of aperture / shutter speed / manual control / photography basics etc.

 

[chaostrophy]

Not sure of any gudes for that camera per se, but because of the amount of control the camera offers any DSLR guide should be quite relevant in terms of aperture / shutter speed / manual control / photography basics etc.

Pretty much, with a couple of caveats given that it's a compact camera with a compact sensor. The main effect of this is that depth of field will be a lot wider. In most cases, you can shoot with the lens wide open and still have everything in focus. What's tricky is getting the reduced DoF/bokeh effect. From my experience the best way to get it is to set the zoom to maximum (even though this causes max aperture to be reduced from f/2.0 to f/2.8) and get as close to your subject as possible.

I set noise reduction to -2 for all the film modes that I use. This preserves detail, and the noise isn't bad at all up to about ISO 400.

If you like B&W photography at all, the LX3's Dynamic B&W mode is awesome.

Try shooting without the flash. The LX3 is much better at this than most compact cameras because of the fast lens, image stabilization that lets you use slower shutter speeds, and the good sensor performance at higher-than-base ISOs.

 

[LuCkymoON]

New products from PocketWizard.

http://pocketwizard.wordpress.com/2...d-flextt5-announced-at-wppi-press-conference/

Now with TTL!

Seems like RadioPoppers got some new competition going.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=831L0RvFd2Y

Are these wireless triggers universal, or do they only make them for Canon/Nikon cameras??

 

[Dazzla]

Pretty much, with a couple of caveats given that it's a compact camera with a compact sensor. The main effect of this is that depth of field will be a lot wider. In most cases, you can shoot with the lens wide open and still have everything in focus. What's tricky is getting the reduced DoF/bokeh effect. From my experience the best way to get it is to set the zoom to maximum (even though this causes max aperture to be reduced from f/2.0 to f/2.8) and get as close to your subject as possible.

I set noise reduction to -2 for all the film modes that I use. This preserves detail, and the noise isn't bad at all up to about ISO 400.

If you like B&W photography at all, the LX3's Dynamic B&W mode is awesome.

Try shooting without the flash. The LX3 is much better at this than most compact cameras because of the fast lens, image stabilization that lets you use slower shutter speeds, and the good sensor performance at higher-than-base ISOs.

Cheers for the tips, I'm actually looking forward to trying out the dynamic B&W mode, the shots I've seen have been fantastic. Do you shoot in RAW with it?

 

[captive]

I think RAw has been dealt with. Olympus - yeah, I don't know much about their system apart form the nice compact SLRs they make.

Indoor sports? You want something with reach, and a really wide aperture. For this, I guess primes are ideal. Like 200mm f/2.8 (or the zoom versions), 135mm f/2, or the 85mm f/1.8. I suggest going with something cheap, like the 50mmf/1.8, which isn't great for sports due to the lack of reach (again this is dependent on where you will be), but it will help you get familiar with the use of fast primes.

edit: These are all common focal lengths for Canon dSLRs, I'm not sure what lenses are good for olympus.

for indoor sports, you need long, fast lenses. believe it or not, your 50mm f/2.0 might work well...IIRC, the olypus 4/3rds are 2x multiplier, so the 50mm will effectively be a 100mm f/2.0 lens.

Cool thanks guys.

I dont think the 4/3rds lenses actually work like that. They kind of misadvertise, they say 50mm = of a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera. I think it actually means is the same equivalent field of view as a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera.

Does anyone here shoot on film? The Nikon F4 seems like an amazing deal right now, given all their features and that they can be found used in excellent condition for $350-400. I'm tempted to buy one along with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D lens.

I used to, but now i dont have any means of developing my own film which was really fun. Plus the cost associated with all that.
I have an old Nikon X-700 with a couple of lenses. I like it, its a pretty good camera.


Anyway my E510 got here today, battery is charging, cant wait to start using it.

 

[chaostrophy]

Do you shoot in RAW with it?

Nope, JPEG only. I'm sure I'll try RAW eventually, but right now I'm just getting back into photography after a long absence from the hobby, so I have a lot of more basic things about digital imaging and processing to learn, and lots of composition and technique stuff to relearn before I worry about spending a lot of time extracting that last bit of quality from my images. My last camera was a 1970s manual Nikkormat that I shot in black and white only since I did my own developing and printing, and never learned how to do that in color.

 

[fart]

i think i said this elsewhere, but if not, i didn't find raw worth using on the lx3 (unless you want to process with silkypix). the distortion correction applied by acr is not as good or as complete as the in-cam (= silkypix)

 

[Lucky Forward]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/daves-download/2009/03/05/olympus-12-megapixels-is-enough.html

Olympus: 12 Megapixels is Enough
March 05, 2009 07:40 PM ET | David LaGesse

I've noted how camera makers were moving beyond megapixels. I recently looked at five cameras with features that will help sell us new snapshooters.

Turns out that Olympus thinks 12 megapixels is enough for even high-end consumer cams, the digital SLRs that are increasingly popular. At least that's what a company exec told Stephen Shankland for his Underexposed column:

Olympus has declared an end to the megapixel race.

"Twelve megapixels is, I think, enough for covering most applications most customers need," said Akira Watanabe, manager of Olympus Imaging's SLR planning department, in an interview here at the Photo Marketing Association (PMA). "We have no intention to compete in the megapixel wars for E-System," Olympus' line of SLR cameras, he said.

Instead, Olympus will focus on other characteristics such as dynamic range, color reproduction, and a better ISO range for low-light shooting, he said.

It's going to be a tough time for camera makers, who already saw sales dropping before the recession. Most consumers don't understand things like ISO and dynamic range. But makers are trying to market those features in compacts, as well.

Numbers, like megapixels, are so much easier to sell.

 

[mrkgoo]

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/daves-download/2009/03/05/olympus-12-megapixels-is-enough.html

*dances*

This is great news. Of course, this is marketing speak for, "We can't make any higher." It's a way of pulling the competitors down. It's just that increased sensor resolution was developed at the cost of noise and other actually useful features.

But it's true - hopefully the general public will see that. The megapixel war was stupid. I was totally satisfied with 6-8 on a crop sensor (perhaps 5 max on a p&s).

 

[bggrthnjsus]

*dances*

This is great news. Of course, this is marketing speak for, "We can't make any higher." It's a way of pulling the competitors down. It's just that increased sensor resolution was developed at the cost of noise and other actually useful features.

But it's true - hopefully the general public will see that. The megapixel war was stupid. I was totally satisfied with 6-8 on a crop sensor (perhaps 5 max on a p&s).

i agree that focusing on megapixels is stupid, and am glad that people will focus on things that will help photographers take better pictures, but a higher resolution also means better printing ability...which i suppose is becoming less and less meaningful, but i think people with slrs might be more likely to think about the possibility of printing their images.