Professional Web Applications Themes

news Nikon Digital Cameras - Photography

read this : (in french) http://www.photim.net/nci/discu.php3?code=20050124201041malexandre...

Sponsored Links
  1. #1

    Default news Nikon Digital Cameras

    read this : (in french)

    http://www.photim.net/nci/discu.php3?code=20050124201041malexandre


    Sponsored Links
    SG210 Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    SG210 wrote:
     

    Any specs on these new Nikons?


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras


    "SG210" <fr> wrote in message
    news:41f56a26$0$18281$free.fr... 
    He is claiming a Nikon D80 (retouched D2H), a D90 and a D200. The D200 I
    can't see what it was the D200 was. I am only expecting a D200, the D70
    replacement is probably next year. Nikon hasn't changed their models as
    often as Canon.



    Darrell Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    If anything it looks like the D80 will offer a TIFF image. Can't they
    accomplish that with a firmware upgrade in the D70?


    "Darrell" <dev/null> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    > He is claiming a Nikon D80 (retouched D2H), a D90 and a D200. The D200 I
    > can't see what it was the D200 was. I am only expecting a D200, the D70
    > replacement is probably next year. Nikon hasn't changed their models as
    > often as Canon.
    >
    >
    >[/ref]


    Sheldon Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Why bother with a TIFF image RAW is better!

    "Sheldon" <net> wrote in message
    news:com... 


    Darrell Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Darrell wrote:
     

    ?

    RAW is just unprocessed camera format image information. As an image file it is
    not very useful before conversion. The conversion from RAW to TIFF requires the
    right software of course, but the resulting TIFF file contains all of the
    information and is interchangeable. If you sent me a RAW file from your camera,
    I wouldn't be able to use it in any case.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Raw is 12 bit on my cam, TIFF and JPEG is 8 bit. RAW is better

    "Alan Browne" <ca> wrote in message
    news:ct5ko2$oo4$gazeta.pl... 
    >
    > ?
    >
    > RAW is just unprocessed camera format image information. As an image file[/ref]
    it is 
    requires the 
    camera, 


    Darrell Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:22:59 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    A RAW file allows you to make non destructive alterations in the
    conversion process that can't be done with a tiff where since such
    attributes have already been applied in the conversion they'ld have to
    be undone. A RAW file is more compact than a tiff and doesn't require
    in camera processing. Since you can't edit and save back a RAW file
    it can be used as proof of copyright. I'm not sure why anyone would
    send you a RAW file from their camera but if they did you could
    process it with a number of third part applications including PSCS,
    Elements 3 and PSP9 and as well as several available dedicated RAW
    converters.

    Ron.

    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario
    com
    Ron Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Darrell wrote: 

    1) If your RAW converter doesn't generate TIIF at 16 bits if required, there is
    something wrong with the RAW converter.

    2) RAW is not a universal format, it is unique to each manuf.

    3) After various things like brighness, contrast, color balance, etc. are
    adjusted, working at 16 bits/color is no longer of much value for display or
    printing. Archiving, it is worth it as you may do further mods in the future.

    Cheers,
    Alan.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Ron Lacey wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > A RAW file allows you to make non destructive alterations in the
    > conversion process that can't be done with a tiff where since such
    > attributes have already been applied in the conversion they'ld have to
    > be undone. A RAW file is more compact than a tiff and doesn't require
    > in camera processing. Since you can't edit and save back a RAW file
    > it can be used as proof of copyright. I'm not sure why anyone would
    > send you a RAW file from their camera but if they did you could
    > process it with a number of third part applications including PSCS,
    > Elements 3 and PSP9 and as well as several available dedicated RAW[/ref]

    The RAW file's only benefit it its 'originality' and at that, the benefit is far
    overn.

    RAW is not an interchange format as TIFF is. No service bureau or magazine
    wants RAW, they want TIFF. So you have to make the conversion and have a master
    of that image in TIFF, processed lightly or heavilly as you see fit.

    Once converted to TIFF, there is no reason to bother with RAW, other than to
    archive it as the 'most' original file and for copyright reasons as you
    mentioned. At that, it would be most sensible to archive in TIFF for the
    future. TIFF has a much wider user and applications base than all the
    individual RAW formats combined.

    I will not be surprised if "RAW" disappears completely in favour of a universal
    standard for still photography sometime in the next couple years. Adobe's DNG
    initiative is one such standard up for adoption.

    Compact? At $0.40 for a blank DVD I don't think anyone should care for how
    compact RAW is v. TIFF.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:30:09 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     

    In your opinion I guess. Again the ability to nondestructively adjust
    white balance is a major advantage, it allows a photographer to rely
    on auto white balance confident it can be overriden later.
     

    Obviously you convert it before sending it duh.
     

    Yes of course, I always archive my RAW and full sized conversions duh
    again.
     

    Adobe/s DNG is a RAW format and requires conversion just like CRW and
    NEF. It doesn't appear to be gathering much support from camera
    makers nonetheless.
     

    I wasn't referring to archiving but rather in camera media. CF cards
    are still a little more that 40 cents a shot. As well none of the
    Canon SLRs will save to tiff, RAW is the only uncompressed option for
    Canon users.


    Ron Lacey
    Murillo Ontario
    com
    Ron Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Ron Lacey wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > In your opinion I guess. Again the ability to nondestructively adjust
    > white balance is a major advantage, it allows a photographer to rely
    > on auto white balance confident it can be overriden later.[/ref]

    Since, as you say below, you archive the RAW, you can always come back to it.
     


     
    >
    >
    > Adobe/s DNG is a RAW format and requires conversion just like CRW and
    > NEF. It doesn't appear to be gathering much support from camera
    > makers nonetheless.[/ref]

    The point being that it would be _one_ standard for all. Adoption of such a
    standard (whether Adobes or another) takes a couple years to get adopted.
     
    >
    >
    > I wasn't referring to archiving but rather in camera media. CF cards
    > are still a little more that 40 cents a shot. As well none of the
    > Canon SLRs will save to tiff, RAW is the only uncompressed option for
    > Canon users.[/ref]

    Duh yourself. The flash memory can be reused after you transfer to PC. Per
    your numbers, price per shot is 1 cent after 40 times around. ... etc.


    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    In article <ct68ak$8cb$gazeta.pl>,
    Alan Browne <ca> wrote: [/ref]

    [ ... ]
     
    >>
    >>
    >> I wasn't referring to archiving but rather in camera media. CF cards
    >> are still a little more that 40 cents a shot. As well none of the
    >> Canon SLRs will save to tiff, RAW is the only uncompressed option for
    >> Canon users.[/ref]
    >
    >Duh yourself. The flash memory can be reused after you transfer to PC. Per
    >your numbers, price per shot is 1 cent after 40 times around. ... etc.[/ref]

    However, the cost of sufficient CF card storage for an extended
    shooting run away from the computer can be significant. I was at a
    cousin's wedding earlier this year. Between the trip up (during fall
    foliage), the actual wedding, a celebration the next day, and the trip
    back (more foliage, rock outcrops, and geometric forms of various
    bridges, I shot enough to *fill* a 1 GB CF card at medium/fine setting
    (while the camera preducted 522 shots, it actually held 706 shots before
    I had to switch to the spare CF card. My total shot count was closer
    to 1000.

    IIRC, the camera predicts 87 shots when shooting in RAW, and (of
    course) fewer with RAW+BASIC which would at least allow me to examine my
    results with the camera's display. I can't do that with pure RAW,
    thanks to the design of the camera firmware. (Perhaps that would be
    something to add in a future revision of the firmware, or in a "hacked"
    version which has been recently discussed.

    I suspect that the camera's prediction in the case of RAW is
    more accurate, with less variability in a lossless compression as
    compared with the lossy compression of JPEG.

    This would mean 11.49 CF cards, at around $250.00 each (for the
    1 GB size and the speed which I use). That is $3000.00 -- three times
    the cost of the D70 body when I got it.

    And I don't carry along a computer on a trip like this. A
    laptop capable of burning DVD-ROMs is yet another expensive thing to
    watch over during the trip.

    Yes -- I would have liked to have the RAW format to work with
    for a few of the shots, but was not willing to pay the price to allow
    that while shooting at my normal rate when presented with such
    opportunities.

    So -- the size of RAW *is* an important factor under certain
    conditions to some users. I will use it when I am close enough to home
    so I can download the images to a computer which I trust, but not when
    on a long trip. (Unless someone is willing to supply me with the extra
    ten CF cards, or the money to acquire them. :-)

    Enjoy,
    DoN.

    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    On 25 Jan 2005 in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, DoN. Nichols wrote:
     
    <snip> 

    It also predicts 87 for raw + basic (Lexar 1GB 4x card). I recently ran
    off 100 pictures in that mode, and had about 1/3 of the card left.

    --
    Joe Makowiec
    http://makowiec.org/
    Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
    Joe Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Darrell <dev/null> wrote: 

    RAW is linear. JPEG is logarithmic. Eyes are logarithmic, btw.

    RAW may be better if you want to twiddle with your images
    extensively, JPEG may be better if you make hundreds of images/week
    and have a non-related job.

    Both serve different needs, to proclaim one as universally better
    is akin to claiming coins being better than bank notes for being
    heavier.

    -Wolfgang

    PS: Your email address is completely broken.
    Wolfgang Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    DoN. Nichols <com> wrote:
     

    cardreader+hard drive (or burner) combos exist.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:57:07 -0500, Alan Browne
    <ca> wrote:
     
    >
    >Duh yourself. The flash memory can be reused after you transfer to PC. Per
    >your numbers, price per shot is 1 cent after 40 times around. ... etc.[/ref]

    Get with the program, that's not the point. If I'm on hike with my
    backpack, bodies, lenses, tripod and misc gear I don't want to be
    loaded down with my laptop too so I prefer to get the most out of the
    available CF cards.

    com
    http://ronsfotos.com
    http:/ronstoons.com
    http://ronanddave.com
    Ron Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    DoN. Nichols wrote: 
     

    So you should be shooting film on these trips?
    Or shooting fewer, but more useable, photos?
    Do some chimping and delete the less useable images?
    Get a used laptop ($500-$1000) to store images at lunchtime and the end of the day?

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    Ron Lacey wrote:
     
    >>
    >>Duh yourself. The flash memory can be reused after you transfer to PC. Per
    >>your numbers, price per shot is 1 cent after 40 times around. ... etc.[/ref]
    >
    >
    > Get with the program, that's not the point. If I'm on hike with my
    > backpack, bodies, lenses, tripod and misc gear I don't want to be
    > loaded down with my laptop too so I prefer to get the most out of the
    > available CF cards.[/ref]

    In my program I actually spend some time taking images. Even at RAW, I doubt I
    could fill a 1GB card in a day ... or 2. I suppose at a party or a wedding (as
    a guest) I could do more than that snapshooting, but then the images wouldn't
    need more than "fine" level storage.

    As to carrying stuff on a hike, one body is more than enough and CF cards take
    little weight and volume. Less than film.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
    Alan Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: news Nikon Digital Cameras

    In article <ct8b7i$g66$gazeta.pl>,
    Alan Browne <ca> wrote: 

    As a very rough approximation, 1GB on a 6-8MP DSLR should give
    around the same number of RAW images as a couple of rolls of film.

    Back in the days of film it was by no means uncommon to shoot a
    roll of film in a day. I'd say that 0.5GB - 1GB of raw images
    in a single day is all too easy to accomplish. Heck, I've shot
    well over 1GB of JPG images in a single weekend.

    John Guest

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. new digital cameras
    By Not in forum Photography
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: October 20th, 11:15 PM
  2. Digital Cameras and Accessories
    By Sam in forum Photography
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 24th, 09:15 AM
  3. New digital cameras?
    By Kyle Peterson in forum Adobe Photoshop 7, CS, CS2 & CS3
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: August 12th, 06:13 PM
  4. Cost of Digital Cameras
    By Simon in forum Photography
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: July 25th, 04:03 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139