DSLR not all wonderfull

[Geoff Chandler]

Ok - so I am pretty impressed overall with my DSLR
But it requires more work a lot of the time and that causes grief on holiday with the family
Talking of Holiday - I just got back from one and found about 80% of my photos had a hair in the top of the photo - it would seem the hair is now gone - but even with my 2.5" screen - I only spotted it on one photo
This is one problem with swapping lenses around.
The other problem which I am more concerned about is one that has reared it's head after taking a load of lower lighting photos at a celebration.
Most of my photos were between 800 ISO and 1250 ISO ~ when I came to inspect/edit them I found what appears to be a number of hot pixals. Now I don't know yet if this is duse to the low light and high ISO or alternatively my CCD may be on the blink - I am not sure. When I get some time I will do a series of controlled tests to see if I can glean more.
Has anyone else experienced this??
These spots are about 5 pixals and form a cross in White or red or blue

[TheWengler]

I get a green cross in a lot of my images but once I exit Adobe RAW it's no longer present. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is that it's removed by the preset 25 color noise reduction. I haven't done any tests to see if that's what's getting rid of it though. It always disappears so I don't worry about it.

I have to agree that getting some crap on your sensor at the beginning of a trip and not noticing till the end does suck once you get around to the pp. It's especially bad when stopping down for landscapes. There's no way I could go back to P&S over it though. I barely remember how to hold those things anymore. :D

[Geoff Chandler]

My crosses are 5 pixals - but there is sometimes some spillage as well.
Several white - several red and one or two blue.
These are viewable in any package and have to be cloned out if they
are in a visible spot.
I will sometime carry out a controlled experiment to see if it happens under
all ISO settings and lighting. If it is only high ISO and low lighting I will live with it.
I have never had either of these problems with my first two point and shoot digitals which are both still perfect.
Certainly has put a damper on my love of the DSLR's
However - I have to say that at my friends recent 25th Anniversary party
they had low lighting and I was using high ISO settings and it was nowhere near as grainy as the point an shoots would have been - trouble is i have to manually edit around 200 shots because of the spots!

[cdifoto]

The more you practice, the more second nature it becomes to use it.

Pixelfixer (http://www.pixelfixer.org/) is a free software that will remove hot pixels from RAW files. Hot pixels are just one of the digital caveats...high ISO + a warm sensor = hot pixels. I'm assuming you do already shoot RAW as most dSLRs and P&S digicams will remove the hot pixels during the in-camera JPEG creation process. If you're not shooting RAW, I highly recommend it but that's an entirely different thread.

[Geoff Chandler]

The more you practice, the more second nature it becomes to use it.

Pixelfixer (http://www.pixelfixer.org/) is a free software that will remove hot pixels from RAW files. Hot pixels are just one of the digital caveats...high ISO + a warm sensor = hot pixels. I'm assuming you do already shoot RAW as most dSLRs and P&S digicams will remove the hot pixels during the in-camera JPEG creation process. If you're not shooting RAW, I highly recommend it but that's an entirely different thread.
No I don't shoot RAW - I have done that subject elsewhere I think - but I don't really ever intend to either, prior to DSLR I had far less post processing to do - admitidly I am far more critical now. I really cannot be doing with converting and processing every photo I keep - plus - I have no RAW converter - so it's a complete non starter for me.
But that worries me more - these are medium quality 10mp pictures with lots of possible hot pixals - but it is plausable that it was a 'warm' sensor - a whole evening at High ISO...??
When I can face it I will take another look.
Right now the camera is in it's case!!

[cdifoto]

My 1D II is ugly before hot pixel removal and my 10D ain't much prettier. JPEG shooting kills 'em off though...I would have thought Nikon's NR would do the same in-camera.

There are lots of free RAW converters out there though so not having one of those shouldn't be an excuse. I won't argue your other points because really it's been done before.

Either way, there are also programs available for removing hot pixels from JPEGs.

[Rooz]

i'm beginning to wonder with all the issues Geoff has had with his D80 if maybe he has a dud sensor.

[cdifoto]

I doubt it. 5 hot pixels out of 10 million is nothing to get head up about.

[Geoff Chandler]

Using Jpeg doesn't get rid of them - in fact - as mentioned - that's all I use.
Most of them are pure little crosses one pixal at the top, three accros and one at the bottom, occasionally they spill over a little
Ok - so (hopefully) here's a few examples, sometimes they are pin sharp to the exact 5 pixals - but more often softer like these (obviously croppped and resized, and a touch of compression - but enough to get the idea).
1st one of the band in a very low light situation:
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff217/geof0711/Smalls%20bin/Bits/Hotpixal1.jpg

next - just to the edge - in the curtains - a tighter crop
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff217/geof0711/Smalls%20bin/Bits/Hotpixal2.jpg

Here's someones head and the edge of a microphone stand
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff217/geof0711/Smalls%20bin/Bits/Hotpixal3.jpg

Lastly people at the party, (this one is not so closely cropped)
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff217/geof0711/Smalls%20bin/Bits/Hotpixal4.jpg

Initial re-investigations indicate that it is a high ISO difficult lighting thing.
Pictures taken afterwards - on holiday, with the kids snow skiing - taken through a dark glass viewing window - rendered a few slight white crosses at ISO1600 (invisible unless grossly magnified)
I think I would do best to live with it - chances are if I send the camera away it will come back with other worse problems!!
SO - I do feel a little better about it now

[tim11]

That's strange Geoff. I shoot a lot of high ISO pix and never seen such bright pixels on mine.

[Rooz]

we're both lucky tim, but have seen several posters comment about it.

[Geoff Chandler]

we're both lucky tim, but have seen several posters comment about it.
You are lucky - and yes I have seen other posters as well..
But - I shan't get to distraught about it for now as it's only happening in extreem situations and I shall monitor the situation. Other photos - subsequently taken - are totally fine. I found one other at 1600 ISO not as drastic - but it's as if, when pushed, it sharts to heat up...
Easy to clone out - but annoying when the pic is otherwise OK.
:(

[tim11]

we're both lucky tim, but have seen several posters comment about it.
That makes the problem not so strange at all. Yes I'm glad mine doesn't carry the symptom.

[Ken.]

Damn, those are strange. A dot here and there I can understand but it almost looks like the firmware is mapping a hot spot for easy removal by the software.

For casual shooting I use my Panasonic FZ8. I'm usually not in the mood to carry a big rig for snappy shots.

[Geoff Chandler]

Going off at a slight tangent - I am starting to wonder and have mild doubts about DSLR's generally. There are many issues for and against both Point and shoots and DSLRs so I guess it is to a greater degree a matter of personal choice.
I more or less grew up on film SLR's - so it was a natural and logical progression to get a DSLR. But I have to say there is an awfull lot more work involved in geting a decent shot, a lot of the time, with a DSLR.
Looking back I am finding more shots taken on the DSLR are substandard than the ones taken on my Point and shoots. I get more shots not quite in focus or blurred. Or generally dull looking.
One reason may be, if you are using a telephoto zoom, the distance between the focal plane and the front of the lens is far greater than with most point and shoots - this will magnify or exagerate the movement and so contribute towards a more blurred picture.
On my recent holiday I found many of my shots needed tweaking or editing - yet virtually none of the photos on my wifes point and shoot needed any further attention.
Looking back at the same sort of shots taken in a previous visit to the same place - my kids water sking - I got better and sharper shots on my old Olympus Ultra Zoom!!
Maybe the lenses are not so good or accurate in focusing. I know in better conditions with care and time I get better results from my DSLR.
so - I am kind of wondering if I should save up for a seperate flash - or stop right now and get a decent point and shoot instead.
I know this much - I am planning a short break away just me and my wife. i very much doubt I will bother with the D80 as her cheap P&S does such a reliable job - and is much less hassle.

[Rooz]

I more or less grew up on film SLR's - so it was a natural and logical progression to get a DSLR. But I have to say there is an awfull lot more work involved in geting a decent shot, a lot of the time, with a DSLR.
Looking back I am finding more shots taken on the DSLR are substandard than the ones taken on my Point and shoots. I get more shots not quite in focus or blurred. Or generally dull looking.
One reason may be, if you are using a telephoto zoom, the distance between the focal plane and the front of the lens is far greater than with most point and shoots - this will magnify or exagerate the movement and so contribute towards a more blurred picture.
On my recent holiday I found many of my shots needed tweaking or editing - yet virtually none of the photos on my wifes point and shoot needed any further attention.
Looking back at the same sort of shots taken in a previous visit to the same place - my kids water sking - I got better and sharper shots on my old Olympus Ultra Zoom!!
Maybe the lenses are not so good or accurate in focusing. I know in better conditions with care and time I get better results from my DSLR.
so - I am kind of wondering if I should save up for a seperate flash - or stop right now and get a decent point and shoot instead.
I know this much - I am planning a short break away just me and my wife. i very much doubt I will bother with the D80 as her cheap P&S does such a reliable job - and is much less hassle.

i too shot film for years and then P&S. there are so many things i disagree with in your post i dont know where to start ! lol

dont take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are better off with an advanced P&S mate. they default to vivid, sharp pics str8 out of the box and take alot of the think work out of it. you are right that dslr's require more work, but so did film SLR's...much more so in fact.

i becasme very comfortable with the d80 and in the last month or so have become the same way with the d300. it does require some work, some effort and some familiarity but imo thats only done once and after you get that familiarity then you're done.

right now, i dont miss any shots because of my camera...i miss them cos i'm not good enough...YET.

[Geoff Chandler]

i too shot film for years and then P&S. there are so many things i disagree with in your post i dont know where to start ! lol

dont take this the wrong way, but perhaps you are better off with an advanced P&S mate. they default to vivid, sharp pics str8 out of the box and take alot of the think work out of it. you are right that dslr's require more work, but so did film SLR's...much more so in fact.

i becasme very comfortable with the d80 and in the last month or so have become the same way with the d300. it does require some work, some effort and some familiarity but imo thats only done once and after you get that familiarity then you're done.

right now, I dont miss any shots because of my camera...i miss them cos i'm not good enough...YET.
Nope - I am comfortable with the D80 operations and don't shoot Auto hardly ever. When you get back on the PC however the focus isn't always where it should be - maybe it's my new lenses - my first one seems OK.
Identical (virtually) shots taken on my other two camera and thuis year the D80 show that it was more than a matter of depth of field. Some shots had movement blur - despite fast shutter speeds (1000th being the fastest) - I reckon these fancy zooms are so long the end lens is moving up and down more than it would on a P&S - this also contributes. Then I guess it plain doesn't quite focus right at times - and then there are the exposure issues.
yes - if I take a long time and maybe take a few trial shots - I get better results - but isn't that making a faster camera slower?
Not convinced - and a bit grumpy.Time to put the camera away for a while!!

[Phill D]

Some of the dslr shots you've posted in the past have been brilliant so if you are having second thoughts I'm worried. I have been pretty close to buying a dslr myself recently but haven't jumped yet. We are going on a trip to the US again this summer so finances have become a biger issue and justifying the extra camera expense is more difficult. However, the thought of going to New York & Niagara Falls & buying a dslr afterwards seems a bit daft perhaps. On the other hand the convenience (ie light weight in 80 degrees of heat) & zoom range of my FZ20 & TZ1 plus the pretty decent shots they give means they are probably going to do just fine. What to do....? Your post has given me more to think about now.

[Geoff Chandler]

The FZ 20 will do very well I am sure

[Prospero]

Damn, those are strange. A dot here and there I can understand but it almost looks like the firmware is mapping a hot spot for easy removal by the software.

For casual shooting I use my Panasonic FZ8. I'm usually not in the mood to carry a big rig for snappy shots.

I think the cross is caused by the anti aliassing of the picture. Adjacent pixels are blended together a little bit to make sure edges will look natural.
This is why The 4 pixels directly adjacent to the hot pixel, will also appear a affected (hence the cross-shape).
My camera also has several hot pixels at ISO 800-1600 and ISO 400 if I raise the brightness. The ones in my camera are bright red, and sometimes there is even a thin red line in the picture leading to the pixel.

Geoff, the results you have posted in the photogallery look very good. Perhaps you are a bit too critical about your results? You may miss a couple of shots every now and then, but that is to be expected. The enormous creative possiblities of a DSLR also mean a much larger room for error. Especially when it comes to focussing and depth of field.

The Sigma 70-300 is indeed not the fastest lens to focus. Especially when shooting moving subjects it often just isn't fast enough to track this subject. A Nikon 70-300VR would be much better in this respect. Still, I find that generally the results I get from the Sigma are sharp enough. If you are really dissatisfied of the lens, you could keep it below 200mm, it drops pretty quickly in quality beyond this focal length.

[Geoff Chandler]

Thanks Prospero - that is very encouraging.
We are having a quiet break in the new Forest with our mountain bikes.
I will not take the DSLR on this occasion though. I know the mere presence of it will cause problems.
I need to become more accomodating and pick my times for DSLR
For now it is being put away in a cupboard.
Besides all else - it has become tainted by the hot pixals issue and
also the inconsistancey of two of the lenses. (I should be saving for a decent flash - but no doubt I will get the wrong thing. I really can't decide what would be best)
Only one of my lenses (17 -70) is 100% good - and it doesn't have the range I would like.
The 28 - 200 alternates sharp focus with just off focus (I checked) and the 70 - 300 is very little advantage over the 28 - 200. So I really need to think it all through again...
Tooo bogged down with it all..! - put it away and come back in a few months time!

[raven15]

Sounds like the famous debates between me and my dad about whether my Canon A710IS or his Canon Rebel Xt was better. The three things he could never counter about the A710IS were "it fits in my pocket", "it cost $250", and "I can take sharp pictures at 1/4 second shutter speed". Of course, I could never answer "this one takes better pictures and is faster."

Oh yeah, and it was hard for the Xt to get proper focus compared to the A710. I was the only one in a group of people to get a decent shot of a bobcat (which I have posted a few times) because other point and shoot cameras didn't have the zoom, and the DSLR's refused to autofocus on the bobcat, instead hitting the bushes around it. After examination the A710 also missed focus, but it was almost impossible to tell because of the great depth of field. As a result, I was very careful to choose a DSLR with easy manual focusing, and always keep mine on MF + AF mode.

So in conclusion, there is no compelling reason to go DSLR over P&S. Of course, now that I have a DSLR, I could not have gone back after even single a day of use. But if it weren't for the comparatively small size and cost (well, not cost anymore since I own 4 lenses) of the Olympus E-410, it is quite likely I would still be using a point and shoot.

[Ken.]

I'm not up on D80's but those look like mapped pixels. It could be the hot pixels on the sensor or dust or both. The easiest way to test this out is to shoot a black sheet and see what shows up. At high ISO the sensor is struggling to make an image and the onboard processor will create what essentially it can't figure out. Remember, this isn't film. There's a computer on board doing a bit of post processing.

Personally, I'd shoot RAW at low light. The dynamic range is higher and you can expose for the shadows without blowing out the highlights. Low light does not necessarily mean low contrast. JPEG's tend to be contrastier.

If you'd had issues with RAW processing then you are simply using awkward software. It should be essentially a transparent process to you. I've seen incredibly awkward RAW software not worth the bits that make it up, free or otherwise. Since I use Adobe I can use that as a reference:

Using the inexpensive Elements as an example. When you open a RAW file in Elements the RAW plugin leaps into action first and presents the converted image for adjustment and approval. You can do some fine tuning there. Then it passes the image to the editor for final work as a TIFF or PSD (uncompressed). From there you can save as a JPEG (compressed).

If Elements is not your cup of tea, the Lightroom workflow is even easier. Lightroom will handle the entire importing function and convert the RAW images on the fly. Tweak and export as a final JPEG.

Both of these programs have trial versions, both are less than Photoshop CS3, both will pick off a hot pixel easier than any other software I've ever seen with the healing tool. It's a one click per hot pixel process.

[Visual Reality]

JPEG's tend to be contrastier.
Perhaps, out of the camera. That would be due to in-camera firmware (software) enhancing contrast. Nothing stopping you from doing that in your RAW editor ;)

[Ken.]

Very likely and the JPEG's are very acceptable. I shoot RAW simply because I can't think of a reason not to for most things. Lightroom makes it very easy to work with.

The point was that RAW does not have to be an expensive, tedious process.

[cdifoto]

You don't but a dSLR because you want to be lazy. You buy one for the possibilities. Unfortunately, just buying the body isn't enough. You have to buy lenses that are up to scratch for the tasks at hand - and that means avoiding the bottom end junk. Even a $8000 1Ds Mark III is an overpriced point and shoot when you throw a crap lens on the end of it, stick it on Program mode (they don't have full auto), and set your in-camera processing to dead-skin flat.

Buying a dSLR doesn't automagically make your images awesome. You have to work at it. You have to learn about photography. If you want to be lazy and not know or do anything, stick to a P&S and be happy.

[Geoff Chandler]

Interesting.
I would take that as a stern talking to were it not forover 30 years SLR experience.
Anyway - my first P&S had more adjustment parameters than this D80 has.
Sure you could put it in Auto as well - but I never do.
As for the lenses - well I couldn't agree more.
So - it would seem that the jusmp from P&S to DSLR needs to be financially MUCH more than most of us manage in order to achieve a really big improvement.
(Actually I do still prefer the DSLR - I am just dissapointed things arn't better)

[Rooz]

So - it would seem that the jump from P&S to DSLR needs to be financially MUCH more than most of us manage in order to achieve a really big improvement.

tell that to the guys in this thread http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28957 who are using the "bottom of the barrel" dslr.

[cdifoto]

(Actually I do still prefer the DSLR - I am just dissapointed things arn't better)
They aren't better because you're not taking the initiative to make them better.

[Geoff Chandler]

They aren't better because you're not taking the initiative to make them better.
Please expand - I can only think you mean that I need to spend a lot more money.
I work with manual settings, mostly apperture priority for the sort of stuff I do - but manual or shutter are always there. I mostly select manual white balance - ie Kelvin - except where I want 5200K which the manual setting skips (5000, 5300) so I select Daylight which happens to be 5200 (and yes you can just detect the difference). I compensate according to the lighting, Matrix is not too clever with my camera/lens combo so I use centre weighted large area for default. I constantly watch my shutter speeds and act accordingly. I constantly evaluate the composition of the shot and cross refer it to the settings I am using to be sure they are suitable. I use the few programs I have at home to fine tune photos, but I have to say that I would prefer it if I can get it as close as possible to how I want it 'In camera'
OK - so not taking the initiative could include:
Not having Adobe Photoshop (yet!!)
Not shooting RAW (this has been done to death, I understand completely why people prefer to)
Not purchasing extreemly high quality lenses - purely cos I don't have the spare cash.
At the end of the day - we all have a balancing act to do in life
If my financial priorities dictate that I cannot afford very expensive lenses - and that DSLR is not worth it unless you do - why are the cheaper lenses promoted? Actually - they arn't all that cheap anyway some of the lenses are more expensive than the afor mentioned P&S cameras that produce such good results.

[Geoff Chandler]

tell that to the guys in this thread http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28957 who are using the "bottom of the barrel" dslr.
Somehow - the D40 seems to take nicer looking photos - I have a friend with one and I was so impressed with the quality. Almost seems like the more you spend - the harder it becomes to get a good looking shot!

[Rooz]

in some ways you are actually right Geoff. straight out of the box the d40 does actually take better pics than the d80 or the d300 for that matter. thats really the very appeal of it and the market its aimed towards. its also the reason it has been so very successful and it suits alot of P&S'rs immediately cos it behaves like one.

alot of it has to do with the in-cam processing being sharper and more vivid than the d80 in particular who uses very conservative settings in the view that the user wil customise it or PP it to their liking. personally, i found the d80 very easy to use and very easy to get results straight out of the camera...but that was only after i spent a fair amount of time getting familiar with its little quirks.

re: your other comments,
i dont use photoshop for processing, only NX.
some of the best results i've ever achieved have been thru a $150 lens, (50/1.8) and a 35/f2, ($300).
but yes, i do only shoot raw. you would be proud that i've just started to shoot raw+jpeg and use the jpegs maybe 50% of the time now.:D

then of course there was the infamous lens decision. i still cant work out why the 28-200. i think that was a poor decision. having seen what photos you have posted and seem to enjoy shooting i would have thought the tamron 90mm f2.8 would have been a far better option in so many ways and maybe we wouldnt be having this discussion.

[Geoff Chandler]

Why the 28 - 200?
The 17 - 70 is wonderfull - but often when I am out and about I hit the 70 end and want more. Also if I am at a concert where my Son is playing - the same happens and switching back and forth with the 70 - 300 was not good!!
The 28 - 200 covers those concerts perfectly on it's own.! Also at Centre parcs when they were water skiing it was perfect range for that too. The 70 -300 was very little more and a lot less at the wide when they got closer.
So I will re think - probably sell on the 70 - 300 which is in A1 condition and a good lens. Then I will think again about the 28 -200. I just saw an advert for the Nikon one....? Yes I would love a wide apperture fixed lens - but for my convenience the zoom is so usefull. The 28 - 200 I have is capeable of some very good results, just sometimes it misfocuses. I might even stop using the Auto focus - though the focus ring on that lens is nothing special.
Sorry - long winded lens bit.!!!
For now I am trying a different approach with the D80. I have cranked up the sharpness which helps a little. Also I have selected A for contrast and Saturation. - Too many shots recently have had poor quality contrast or colour, since I did this it seems a whole lot more consistent!!
I will still resist RAW - as I get in enough trouble as it is with the amount of post processing at the computer!!!!

[Prospero]

Have you considered the Nikkor 55-200VR? It is sharp, focusses quickly (due to af-s), has VR and has a some overlap with your 17-70 (so that you will not need to switch all the time). I think this lens will give you much more consistent results than the 28-200.

Another lens you could consider is the Nikkor 24-120. It is a bit shorter than the 28-200, but that can be overcome with cropping. It also has af-s for quick focussing and VR.

Then there's the RAW thing... I know you don't want to shoot RAW, but I still think it could be the sollution to a lot of things you mention here. So I just wanted to say the following:

Nikon has free software called View NX. It can convert all the your RAW files to Jpeg while you can get yourself some coffee (or your beverage of choice). When you come back you can look throught the pictures and for those where the whitebalance is off or the exposure needs tweaking you always have a rawfile to work with. This makes things just so much easier.

Basic tweaking can be done in View NX, but if you need more there are also many free RAW editors like Silkypix (Norm in Fujino uses this and seems to like it, PM him for more info or look in the RAW thread). I don't know what you use for the rest of your editing, but that program may also have some RAW capabilities.

Because tweaking is so much easier with a rawfile, it will not make your workflow longer, and it will actually save you time in the field. You can actually enjoy taking pictures rather than worry about the technicalities. The pressure to get everything right in the field is relieved a little

Just try it, you will like it! And I promise this was the last time I ever tried to convince to shoot RAW ;)

[Rooz]

even try RAW + jpeg. then you have your jpegs but also have the raw file in the cases where you need the extra wiggle room.

[Geoff Chandler]

The Nikon 55 - 200?
Well - I have to admit I have given it more than a passing glance - and may yet return for another. The only problem is the 55 end.
Checking back through the photos that have been taken at the sort of concerts etc where I was switching lenses so much ~ I concluded that I was mostly in the range of 40 - 180 (ish) so 55 just misses it - but only by a bit!!
Also - having gone out for the day with the 28 - 200 and been quite happy - I am not sure 55 would be wide enough without taking along the other lens.
I am always trying to keep it simple if I am out with family as I think they are all heartily sick of me faffing around with the camera.
Yes - I am sure if I were single I would shoot RAW.
As it stands - I grab quiet moments for editing photos and ideally the more I can download to the PC straight off the camera and not tweak - the better.
OK - so if I went out on my own and came back and had time to play - that would be a different story.
So - RAW> ?? maybe some day - I have not conversion program just now. Sometime I hope to get a better sort of Photo shop thingy (CS2 or 3??) But for now I make do with Serif Photo Plus and Dimage Viewer (handy for quick edits and doesn't loose the EXIF) and Arcsoft Photo impression as my main 3.
Still yet to decide about the hot pixals - haven't seen any at lower ISO's - waiting for an opportunity (time) to experiment and test.

[Geoff Chandler]

even try RAW + jpeg. then you have your jpegs but also have the raw file in the cases where you need the extra wiggle room.
Wouldn't that slow the camera down??
Also - you are using up all that memory card space - Only Ok for a day trip.
At the moment I can't convert RAW at all, so I am in a bit of a non starting loop untill I either shoot and then have to buy something - or buy something and go off and shoot.
ALSO - it is the big unknown - it took me a long time to get to grips with photo editing - I am guessing I would have a lot of new learning to do - and I admit I am a bit impatient!! - Way back when I had Corel - I simply gave up in frustration as I couldn't work it.

[Geoff Chandler]

BTW - here's a little test I did the other evening - two virtually identical shots straight off the camera - just resized.
First one taken at 0ve in Matrix metering mode
Second one taken at 0ve in Centre weighted - largest area mode
- this was purely for the experiment purposes.
Photo was taken before dusk but subdued evening lighting.

[Visual Reality]

RAW hasn't added any time to my workflow...in fact, it saves me a lot of time over editing JPEGs.

The difference in the above photo is Matrix tried to expose somewhere in the middle between light and dark, and the center weighting just tried to expose the bottom half of the photo and blow out the sky. What you need here is to expose 2 pictures - one for the ground and one for the sky and combine them. Again though, that gets into post-processing which you seem to be against due to time. That's understandable, but it is required to get good results, just as it was in the days of the darkroom.

[Geoff Chandler]

Much as I enjoy it, I even find it theraputic - I don't want to have to edit my photos - or at least as few as possible.!
Recent set of around 200 I had to edit stacks, and the 25th anniversary celebration I had to edit all of them - recent pics on my wifes point and shoot I think I edited 2!!!
Having said that - I am hopefull with my recent alterations - goes against the grain - but contrast and Saturation have been switched to Auto as and experiment - and I have also cranked up the sharpness and so far the photos are coming out a lot better straight out of the camera!!

[Geoff Chandler]

RAW hasn't added any time to my workflow...in fact, it saves me a lot of time over editing JPEGs.

The difference in the above photo is Matrix tried to expose somewhere in the middle between light and dark, and the center weighting just tried to expose the bottom half of the photo and blow out the sky. What you need here is to expose 2 pictures - one for the ground and one for the sky and combine them. Again though, that gets into post-processing which you seem to be against due to time. That's understandable, but it is required to get good results, just as it was in the days of the darkroom.

To my eye - the Matrix just messed up the whole picture!! It's all over exposed!

[Visual Reality]

Exactly, because it takes the whole scene into consideration and you can't possibly expose both the sky and the ground.

Obviously Matrix doesn't work well here. It would work fine with some -EV though.

[Rooz]

BTW - here's a little test I did the other evening - two virtually identical shots straight off the camera - just resized.
First one taken at 0ve in Matrix metering mode
Second one taken at 0ve in Centre weighted - largest area mode
- this was purely for the experiment purposes.
Photo was taken before dusk but subdued evening lighting.

i think this topic about matrix metering has been widely discussed. the d80 seems to expose for shadows and leans towards overexposure. much the same way as say the xti exposes for highlights and underexposes.

this is not a camera fault, its a characteristic of the metering that you need to be aware of. matrix metering is designed to be sufficient in MOST situations, not ALL situations becasue its based on comprimises and averages. it kind of goes back to our point about needing to come to terms and understand how your camera specifically works to get the best out of it.

this is no different, (in fact much easier), than using old film slr's when trying to photograph a scene with large tonal/ exposure ranges in a single frame. you need to be able to identiy that situation and decide what part of your image you want well exposed and what parts you have to sacrifice due to the limited dynamic range of either the sensor or the film you are using.

[toriaj]

FYI, apparently Silkypix is no longer free. It used to have a paid professional version and a freeware version. I tried to download the free version again when I got my new computer, and it's just a 30-day trial :( I definitely wouldn't recommend it at a similar price to Lightroom or Capture NX. But if you could get it for under $50, it would be worth it.

And I don't know if it's really been mentioned that a P&S, or D40, can get you a nice picture. But the high-end cameras and lenses have the potential to give you an incredible picture.

But bottom line, if you're not interested in the time, effort, and money required for that incredible picture, you won't be satisfied.

I always think of it like buying trucks. A pickup and a semi (18-wheel tractor trailer) can both haul stuff. In fact, the semi can haul more. That doesn't mean it's better for your job :D

[Geoff Chandler]

OK - I will leave the Matrix out of this - I know the problem and I am happy with my solution.
As far as spending is concerned, I already stretched to get a D80, Ok if I were single I would have different priorities. So I guess it is true I am trying to get the best for the money - along with, also, the most convenient and it isn't ideal.
I did a series of tests today on my 3 lenses - not exhaustive by anymeans - but sufficient to get a general idea. The best quality is the 17 - 70, the next is the 70 - 300 - but of course this covers a different range - so as such they are a good pairing. The least sharp overall is the 28 - 200 with a touch less quality around the edges - but at times it is just as sharp and generally impressions are good. It does have a whisker of Purple fringe under very close scrutiny.
Now for the rub - it's also the most convenient of the 3 lenses!!! I can take that lens out for the day and have most things covered.
I think however of the 3 that would be the one to replace. I looked and decided that 55 is not quite a wide enough starting point for a usefull walkaround lens -that puts a blot on the Nikon 55 - 200 which I would seriously consider but I would need to carry the 17 - 70 as well - so it wouldn't work for traveling light!

Edit/Update:
Nevertheless - am now decided I need to exchange that 28 - 200 for something else, after further checking today. It's just not as good as the other two. So, the nikon 55 - 200VR is possibly the best option I can see so far - unless anyone else has any good ideas...?? 28 - 200 was my absolutely ideal range - I would sacrifice a very small amount at either end - but not much

[Phill D]

Geoff, I though that Nikon did an 18-200 VR lense. Wouldn't that be worth a go as it ought to do most occasions? Guess it would depend on how much the IQ has been compromised for the wide range.

[Visual Reality]

But is the 18-200 VR (http://www.beachcamera.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NK18200G) in his price range?

[Geoff Chandler]

I know the Nikon 18 - 200 to be good as my cousins husband has one. It is true that it is very expensive and I couldn't justify just going out and buying one - I would have to save in a special fund!! It does seem a waste however to overlap almost entirely with my Sigma 17 - 70. If I went down this route I should be thinking of selling the Sigma 17 - 70 which I don't want to do.
The Sigma 28 - 200 is possibly a rougue. It is better when manually focused but still not in the same league as the other two lenses I have.
There was a Nikon 28 - 200 but I think all lenses with that range are discontinued. I am not buying one from the USA - the next lens must be tried before purchased.
The 55 - 200 looks good - but the difference between 55 and the 70 of the 70 - 300 is too small so the overlap is not enough. I have mimiked having 55 mm as the limit and don't like it. Checking my photos indicates around 40mm being the highest starting point I would require.
It is all a bit tricky - but no panick as I can wait. Nikon do a nice 24 - 120 - but this has the opposite problem as I need a minimum of about 180mm at the tele end for this alrounder/bridging lens.
So - unless I just double up with either the nikon 18- 135 or 18 - 200, or even the sigma 18 - 200 I have few if any options - the Sigma 50 - 150 is too heavy, too expensive and a touch short for my liking at the tele end.
The most appealing is the Nikon 55 - 200 except for the 55mm end.
You never know - something new may come on the market - or I might find a Nikon 28 - 200 (that would be my perfect solution).
Sorry I am such a pain!!!
As for the camera - I think it's OK - I switch from loving it to feeling a bit jittery after the high ISO hot pixals.

[Joe Fisher]

I was the same as you, but there are so many advantages to shooting RAW. larger file size allows a lot more cropping. If you forget to reset white balance, which I've done several times, you can fix it with one click if you've shot RAW.

Joe Fisher
Kalispell, MT


No I don't shoot RAW - I have done that subject elsewhere I think - but I don't really ever intend to either,\!