RAW is by far the best way to get the most information onto the image file while taking a picture. JPG mode in most cameras has gotten a lot better tho. I shoot RAW, but that's just my preference.

Personally, the RAW vs. JPEG debate is kind of silly. They both have their advantages and for the most part a jpeg image can be good enough for certain projects. I tend to shoot more JPEG than RAW in some instances, because processing RAW can be a bit more time consuming. It really depends on the shoot. For family events that will only really see Facebook, shooting RAW is overkill. Your results will be the same as shooting jpeg, but with more work. You don't need the extra dynamic range and white balance data if your shot is pretty close to what you want. JPEG has more than enough data for minor tweaks.

For a professional shoot or stuff you want to end up in your portfolio though, it's worth it to shoot RAW because you want as much image data as possible. It's all about time and money management. It would be more expensive to do a re-shoot for fashion for example, whereas it wouldn't really matter much for snapshots of your company picnic.

It's a bit silly to take sides. Some people swear by RAW, others swear by jpeg. Until cameras can handle large, lossless RAW files without breaking a sweat, there will always be a place for a compressed jpeg file. I wouldn't be surprised if something new comes around to replace both in the near future. Lossless data with the ease of jpeg. Just think, we use to think 6 megapixel jpeg files were insanely huge at one point, but technology has allowed for cameras and computers to handle them with ease.

If you know what you want to achieve in regards to color, noise, sharpness, etc, before you shoot, there is no "need" for RAW. For instance, when I shoot a car, I know my white balance is correct, I control the lighting with either my lights, and I can shoot 100 ISO, therefore I only shoot in JPEG. But, last night, I shot a concert in a bar and the lights were dim, unevenly colored, and very unevenly directed. Even using my primes @ ~f/2, I knew I had to crank the ISO up around 2000 to 3200 to shoot handheld, so I shot RAW. This way I can go in later and apply my noise correction and make subtle color balance changes in RAW. If I were to do this in Photoshop with a JPEG (at least with the resources available to me), It'd likely create artifacting and hurt the image quality, which is already less than I wanted due to the high ISO. I'll post some when I finish them.

What he said.
Since I run all of my images through Lightroom, I have the option to adjust anything... or not. But at least I have more options and control available if I decide to do something with the image.

If it's really just snapshots, something that I'm going to share untouched in a small size, or stuff I'll give away to someone who doesn't possess software that can process RAW, or it will need to be viewed on their computer (such as snapping at a friend's picnic), I'll set my camera to RAW + JPEG Small. It doesn't really take that much extra space on the card. They can have the files they need to post on Facebook and just in case there's something good on there, I'll still have a file I can work with.

There was a time when my 6mp 10D was a pretty bad-a$$ camera :rofl2:

Yes and there was a time when my Brownie Bullseye was high tech!! Do they still sell Instamatics? My first serious camera was Minolta SRT 101 and my friend had Nikon Phototomic FTN i believe..

I agree If the camera can make the correct adjustments no need for RAW..There is a program called Noise Ninja that i used to use but when I switched to Windows 8 all that software for Photoshop Elements was useless..

The Deltawing at COTA. Probably compressed thanks to Photobucket.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y29...ps03e4388d.jpg

So I haven't told the wife yet but I bought a new macro lens today ... a Canon 100mm 1:1 with USM AF, the works. I took some pictures at the rose garden after the rain this afternoon.

http://i1313.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4e5f6ad4.jpg

You better pick some of those roses for her when you tell her!!:tup:

Okay, well I told her about this morning. She wasn't too surprised. I've been softening her up for it for a month or so, telling her I was looking at lenses and thinking about buying one pretty soon. We can afford a few luxuries at this point.

My favorite from the ALMS/WEC Friday practice.

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3758/9...67dcde46_b.jpg
1379804853187 by pandahouse, on Flickr

not bad Pint

Well I am looking at the D7100 and a few lenses..I may just go for it,,,i mean you can only die once..

It's a nice looking camera. Pretty equivalent to the canon 60d I'm using except it's a step up in no. of pixels and has a lot more focus points. Fortunately we don't get into that competitive thing at home where if I buy something pricey she goes out and buys herself something too. That can leave you broke.

Just so you know, I believe Nikon is updating the D600 soon. Jumping to a camera with a FX sensor may be worth the wait. They already dropped the price on the D600 and I guarantee it's only going to get cheaper once the D610 or whatever they call it comes out. The D7100 is a great camera, don't get me wrong, but not the one I would choose at the moment. The D7100 is slightly sharper than the D600, but it's only because they removed the AA filter. I believe that's something they will do for the D600 replacement. The only thing I don't like about the D600 is the way the AF points are clustered together in the middle. They used the same AF system as the D7000 on an FX sensor.

Also, I usually go with refurbished gear from Nikon and shop at Cameta.com or B&H if they have it in stock. They're pretty indistinguishable from new and a few hundred dollars cheaper. Cameta Camera has a 1 year warranty included (6 months from Nikon/6 months from Cameta). Not bad if you ask me.

It really depends on your budget. If you're looking to save a few bucks and stick with a DX sensor, even the D7000 is worth looking into. A new one now runs about $900...$700 for a refurbished. That leaves a lot left for some quality lenses. D7100 runs about $1,050 refurbished ($100 less than new). .....while the D600 runs $1,550 refurbished...about $400 more than a brand new D7100.

There isn't a huge difference in image quality between the D7000 and D7100, even with the updated EXPEED 3 processing engine. I've tried both and they're pretty identical to be honest. You need to have each pic side by side @150% magnification to tell them apart. Even then, it's only slightly sharper. You get more megapixels with the D7100, but it doesn't mean much in actual use. 16mp is more than plenty. You get a better AF system with the D7100, but again, that too is only a marginal difference in actual use.

It wasn't worth it for me to upgrade from a D7000. FX or a pro level DX is the logical next step. As always, you usually see more profound results by getting better glass....not always with a better body.

I have the D90 and was thinking of going with the 7100 but was unsure if I would see real difference..Any thoughts on that? And the latest from the rumor mill is that the 7100 is the upgrade on the 600..but who knows.??

Technically speaking, the D7100 is definitely an big upgrade over the D90. It's worth the upgrade as long as you're okay sticking with the DX sensor. You basically get a ton of great features from the pro level body. From the body to the AF sensor, everything is better. Image wise using the same lens though, the results are pretty much the same out of the box. Don't expect huge jumps, it's never that way. What's better over the D90 is all the technical stuff that gets you the shot easier/quicker. The D7000/D7100 feels a bit more solid in your hand. If you already have a few DX lenses you don't want to part with, it's a pretty good choice.

The D600 is basically a full frame sensor version of the D7000/D7100. It's a separate line. The D*000 series goes from consumer to pro-sumer. The D*00 line is more towards professional use with the D600 being the "entry" level professional camera. There are several rumors out there. One being the introduction of the D400 DX format pro camera and an update to the D600 FX format camera. Though few and far between, crop sensors still have a valid argument for pros....though it's likely not the case in the near future.

Photo of my friend's Genesis Coupe

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7356/9...76a97eaf_b.jpg

hey guys i know zero about camera's but my gf wants one for her birthday. the one i was looking at is Canon Rebel XS 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera. opinions?

seeing that one is discontinued so looking at Canon EOS Rebel T3 Digital Camera and 18-55mm IS II Lens.

Nice shot Tracie! You really captured the action in it. What were your specs for the shot?

I used aperture priority mode. 1/60, 5.6

The T3 is decent, if she's not going to be serious about photography then I'd say that's a good one to get her. If she wants to start doing amateur photography like some of us here (cough cough ME) then I might suggest looking at the T3i. If you want to spend the money then upgrade to a better lens. Depends on what she wants to shoot but a prime 35 1.8 lens and a 55-200 lens are both good ones to get.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk 4

Best entry combo, in my opinion, is either of the t2/3/4i's and a 50 1.8 lens. The cameras are plenty good enough for amateur photography and the 50 1.8 will open more doors to better developing camera control. Biggest plus is that these all can be picked up really inexpensive, making future upgrades/expenses easier to swallow!

Oh yeah I forgot for Canons prime is the 50mm instead of the 35mm lol.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk 4

Thanks for the info fellas. She's just wants to be able to take nicer photos. A complete beginner so just want to get something that would be pretty decent and could upgrade lenses in the future.

Choosing between the canon t3i or Nikon d3200 which is the better pick? I think I've narrowed it down to these.

I've got a T3 (not i) for sale with an extra 55-250 IS lens, 2 SD Cards and a LensPen cleaner. ;) All photos I've posted in this thread were taken with it.

If it were for me id be all over it but since it's a gift I'm going to buy new

i prefer canon, either way you go, youll be fine. but go canon.

go canon.

Can't go wrong with either. Both are pretty easy to learn on. At this stage, it doesn't really matter which brand you go with. I'd go with whichever camera you can get the best deal on. Try B&H, Adorama or Cameta Camera. If she really gets into it, she's going to likely upgrade to just about everything.

I personally prefer Nikons.

Lol well I found somewhere I could get identical price on those 2 cameras

If you want to get the technical differences, there are literally hundreds of articles comparing those two cameras...all which will have a marginal advantage to one or the other. If she really wants to be great at photography, she should invest in some classes to figure out what everything does. You can take great pictures with an iPhone if you know what you're doing. If you're wondering what I mean, go to 500px is Photography and search d3200 or T3i.

The good news is that both cameras are easy to learn on. Image wise, you can't tell the difference unless you know what to look for. They both have enough controls to be creative without overwhelming a new photographer with too many buttons.

I personally like the feel and controls on Nikons, so I'd go with the D3200. Just flip a coin. You can't go wrong. By going DSLR over a point and shoot, you've already made the right decision.

Well I just bought the Nikon D7100 ..been thinking about getting rid of my old D90. Finally did it..

One thing I wanted to mention..a while ago some posters put up pics of their work and asked for critiques..

Now I have to tell you that I never considered myself a very good photographer but I did work in an ad agency and I was involved in buying photos and working with photographers so I did learn a lot about critiquing the work....not everything of course but a lot ...and I love to help new people by offering suggestions to them..Consider me like a food critic who cannot boil water and burns the toast at home!

I was thinking that maybe some of the more seasoned shooters...and there are some great ones here..could offer help and suggestions to the younger folks..information on the technical side as well as critiques of their work.

Anyone care to start such a "school" right here?

We're all friends here. Feel free to ask away and post more of your work. No matter how seasoned you are as a photographer, there is always something new to learn. Congrats on the D7100:tup:

Went to the wildflower center earlier this week.

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5484/1...331a8c5b_b.jpg
Untitled by pandahouse, on Flickr

Just my 2 cents on buying a camera: hold it and touch it. See how it feels and fits in your hand. I went Canon instead of Nikon totally based on how it fit my hand. Nikon grip was too small-didn't "feel" like it fit. Canon though-was just right. Both cameras and product lines are nice, fit was final decision maker for me.

Nice shot. You managed to freeze the proboscis. They move it so fast it's hard to do. What was your setup. How'd you get so close? I'm assuming you're using a macro lens.

I cheated and used aperture priority mode with my 55-250mm. 1/640, 5.6, ISO 100.

You are quite a nature photographer! First the lizard and the ant and now this..Very nice..

:iagree: she has quite the knack for it. :tup: