Camera discussion ex 60009 thread

Lossless compression is akin to .zip compression - the algorithm used stores the information required to recreate the original perfectly. Think what happens when you zip a document.

 

Scarily we were talking about the merits of the D800 at Llangollen the day my Canon 5D mkII suffered a terminal failure of the motherboard (not entirely unknown I understand).
Given that I already wanted to replace some lenses a complete refresh of the whole kit seemed justified so I canvassed a few other Nikon users as well and the D800 looked to be the best option on the market at the time.
I'm certainly pleased with it and won't be rushing to replace it with the latest D850, I fully expect it to be good for at least 5 years and hopefully a lot more and I don't see any major gain from a 45Mp image against 36Mp in the D800.
As processing software improves it is possible to get more out of existing images so that's why I'd stress to never edit the original, always create a copy.

As for compression that's already been answered ; but in more depth all computer files are basically a string of bytes from start to end, invariably some consecutive bytes or strings of bytes will be identical and compression will replace those (pixels in a digital image) with a marker - the byte(s) - and the number of repetitions to save space which is basically how a .zip or .tif etc is handled ; compression of Jpegs however identifies similar bytes (pixels) and while doing the same thing derives an average value which is why on being uncompressed it is impossible to recreate the original exactly.

 

There are retailers with discounts on some good high end kit if look around. I have an ex-display Nikon D5 at just £4000 with a shutter count of less than 50. I was thinking of keeping it for myself but it's a bit too high end for my photography skills. Ive just got a D750 that I just getting to grips with but seems to be excellent so far.

 

The D750 fits between the D610 and D810 or now the D850 and as far as I can see loses little over the latter. I did read that a lot of pros use them as second camera bodies.

 

I would add that TIFF files are generally uncompressed - unless a compression algorithm is specified at file-save time and in some cases, JPEG compression can be specified.

PNG files are lossless and are very space-efficient.

 

While I agree with pretty much everything that has been written, the discussion has mostly centred around cameras in the £1000+ category.

I've been shooting with a D610 and D3200 (sub £300, entry level) for several years now and the budget camera is very close to the equal of it's bigger brother, so it's perfectly possible to achieve quality images on a budget.

The D610 has about a stop advantage in terms of high iso performance, but it loses around a stop in depth of field, so in real world situations I tend to shoot the D610 at ISO400 and f8, while the D3200 will be shot at ISO200 and f5.6, and the resulting images look very similar in terms of pixel level and overall quality.

The D610 does offer some advantages - the high iso improvement opens up more low light opportunities, when you're happy to sacrifice some depth of field and it has a higher frame rate for those of us who favour "machine gunning" over trying to nail the composition / rods position in a single shot. The D610 also offers 14 bit raw files (although I believe these are always compressed), while the D3200 is limited to 12 bit (also compressed). This makes a *slight* difference to dynamic range / shadow detail, but you've really got to be pushing the limits in order to (perhaps) see it.

I truly believe that if you can't get a decent image out of any DSLR produced in the last 5(ish) years from any of the main manufacturers, then it likely isn't the camera that's at fault. It's either an issue with technique, or unrealistic expectations of what's achievable.

So, my message is, if you're not achieving the results you'd like and you have a relatively recent DSLR, work on your capture and post-processing techniques, rather than thinking that buying a new / better camera is the answer.

 

Yes, so another web reference :- https://www.scantips.com/basics09.html on image formats.
For myself I don't compress tiff but I do have a mirrored pair of external 4Tb drives; storage, it's said, is cheap but I'm sure whoever said it never tried getting a Project Manager to pay for more .

 

I can't disagree with any of that ; the frustrating issue with some of the cameras talked about above is that the cost is based very much on all the bells and whistles the manufacturers insist we need. My favourite 35mm camera from years ago was my Pentax Spotmatic F, the only variables being shutter speed, aperture and the film speed which interacted with the match needle meter, nothing I had later was better until autofocus came along. It's counter intuitive to have a higher end camera and then mostly set it to manual but that is what many people do. If only manufacturers would deliver a 'lite' version of some of these cameras !

 

As you have indicated, a high end camera comes into its own at high ISO and the fact that the dynamic range will be so much better. All the extra pixels give the flexibility to be able to crop like mad. My wife has a D3200 and picture taken on a sunny day are almost indistinguishable from mine but in difficult conditions the limitations become fairly clear. The inferior quality when viewed in close up or printed to a large size is mor to do with the kit lens that most lower spec cameras come supplied with than the camera itself.

 

The best thing Nikon could develop now in my view would be mirrorless full frame DSLR akin to the latest Sony A7r mk3 and A9 but able to use the F mount lenses. The Df is very decent but still bulky albeit much smaller than the D4 its based on.

 

I love mine!

Though I'm still getting used to what it can do, its a quantum leap from the D7000 & I always promised myself that one day I'd go full frame - I had the choice 750 or 810, but I couldn't justify the extra cost or MP, so the 750 won the day!

 

As always, lens choice is at least as important as the camera body. I started out in digital with the original 18-55 kit and it was very poor towards the longer end - I believe the latest AF-P version is much better. There are some good reasonably priced options for the consumer DX bodies and the 35mm f1.8 is a must, while both the 18-105 and 18-140 are well regarded, as are the 16-85 / 16-80, although they are moving up a price bracket.

I don't really see the limitations you suggest though, if I've a comparable lens (i.e. D3200 + 35mm f1.8 vs. D610 + 50mm f1.8). Comparing the D3200 with kit zoom to D610 with a pro-level zoom really wouldn't be a fair comparison. However, my D3200 with the 16-85 compares very favourably to the D610 and 24-70 f2.8 in all but the very worst conditions.

 

Interesting thread, and quite useful to anyone in the market for a new camera. Say I had a budget of £2k, £3k or £4k to get a new DSLR and a lens within that budget. What would people recommend (based on current RRP's)? Or to be more precise, if you had that budget yourself, what would you get?

 

I suppose railway and also landscape photographers would be perfectly happy with the "lite" model, while the likes of nature photographers will generally appreciate the fast focus tracking and exposure modes that come with the high end gear.

I think that Nikon's df was an attempt at "lite", but they didn't really get the ergonomics right and the low pixel count was never going to appeal to the landscapers, who are potentially the biggest market for such a camera. It's surprising among all the models available that there isn't one that seems to target this market directly.

 

Having had my camera stolen during an assault in May his year, I was forced to make this choice. Without hesitation I replaced it "like for like" by buying a Nikon D610 + Nikon 24-120 f4 plus UV filter at a cost of £2700:00. This kit covers over 90% of my needs (around 7,000 images per year) with the occasional change to my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 (bought i 2004) and sometimes my Nikon 28-300 f3.5/5.6 (bought 2011) in bright sunshine. The value of the replacement kit is that it is light and easily transportable when travelling abroad and you really don't want to bother changing lenses.

 

The Canon faithful will say the 5D Mk.IV or if money is not really an object, the 1D X.
The Nikon guys will sing the praise of their favourites, as will Sony devotees. In the end it's down to personal choice.

 

I'll stick with me Brownie 127

 

That post will probably open up the Canon/Nikon debate but I think they are all like cars, there isn't a bad one. I have seen some stunning results from the little Fuji mirrorless cameras and they have to advantage of weighing a fraction of what I carry around. On technical quality Nikon have the edge I think but we don't know what Canon have got coming on line. For your sort of money I would say a D750 and the 24/70 lens. But that would take you to near the top end of that budget. A good quality used 70/200 f2.8 could then follow, I say use Daily because the new version with some sort of special glass is silly money. I can't really understand that as the last lens I bought, the 200/800 has the Nikon granite like build quality but was only around £1000. The Canon boys will certainly have their own ideas

 

Colour film processed by Gratispool perchance ?