Is the Nikon D750 Ok for a beginner?

[q.g._de_bakker]

The evidence that is lacking is not about how the lens performs in the corners, but that is was designed as FX lens with poor corners because it is supposed to be used on DX cameras. I know - as you do - quite a few other FX lenses that based on that 'evidence' would qualify as designed for DX. ;-)<br><br>The important thing for Michele is that it makes perfect sense to use this lens unless personal experience would demonstrate it just can't be and must be replaced by something else.

[Andrew Garrard]

Ah, apologies for the confusion QG. Yes, the "designed

for DX" is entirely speculation by myself and others. No

evidence beyond a result that would make sense given

the circumstances - but correlation is not (always)

causation.

 

 

In that case, as you say, we have consensus. Good luck,

Michele!

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>Andrew:I used my 70-200mm as well as 80-200mm variants before that mainly for travel photography, thus a lot of portraits but also landscape and architecture, though certainly not infrequently with shorter focal lengths and in situations where the famous corner softnessat 200mm did not rear its ugly -and overly dramaticized- head. Also I sometimes combined it with a 1,4 TC thus excluding the corners, with good results though I vaguely remember getting some flak from wise guys on this web site for that. To me flare was the main issue.<br>

I keep the lens for its versatility and excellent optical quality with no focal breathing. Ah yes, and it is the somewhat uncommon grey version that Nikon made long ago.</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I would buy a D7200 now, which is a fine camera.</p>

<p>Then, in not so many years, buy a D900 or D950. (Just a guess where numbers are going.)</p>

<p>Things change so fast in the DSLR business, that if you wait a little longer for the FX camera, you will likely get an even better one. At that point, you will really be ready to use the extra abilities. </p>

<p>Personally, I have a D200, which is a fine camera from not so many years ago. I have been thinking about the D700 or D750, but they are expensive, and I don't really need one now. </p>

<p>Otherwise, why not a D800 or D810? I haven't seen much discussion about that.</p>

<p>There is also the Df.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>I would buy a D7200 now, which is a fine camera.</blockquote>

 

<p>The issue is, as discussed, that Michele currently has a pretty good lens range for an FX camera, but her 28-70 isn't all that wide on a DX camera, so we'd be talking about lens upgrades as well - which may or may not be a good idea anyway, but since I agree with the "suck it and see" philosophy, let's not reopen that. :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>Personally, I have a D200, which is a fine camera from not so many years ago. I have been thinking about the D700 or D750, but they are expensive, and I don't really need one now.</blockquote>

 

<p>The D700 is relatively cheap (compared with the D750) - but also outdated technology (and actually lower resolution than the DCS-14n!) While I had one for a long time, unless I actively wanted to use it with a grip as a cheap(er) D3, I'd not suggest one to a new photographer, especially one with aspirations towards nature (which suggests some pixel density for reach). Don't get me wrong, the D700 is a lovely camera, but I wouldn't get one if I could afford a D750 - or D800.</p>

 

<blockquote>Otherwise, why not a D800 or D810? I haven't seen much discussion about that.</blockquote>

 

<p>The D800 is a great camera, but heavier than the D750 (though slightly lighter than a D700) and even more demanding on lenses - and we've already discussed that the (limited) imperfections of those lenses will show up on a D750; they'll be worse (at the pixel level) on the D800. I had a D800e for a long time, and it would help with the "more reach from a small lens" problem (because it has higher pixel density than the D750), but I'd have thought that, without experience indicating a desire to do huge prints or a lot of digital zooming in, a D800 would be more likely to be a compromise than the D750. More resolution, but slightly worse in low light, worse autofocus, worse live view, slower, heavier, no flip-out screen... I always asserted that the Eos 5D3 was a better general-use camera than a D800 (even though I had the D800), and the D750 is a lot more like the 5D3 than the D800 is.<br />

<br />

The D810 is a D800 with most of the weaknesses improved (faster, better autofocus, quieter...) but it's a lot more money. Lovely camera, I have one (and don't want a D750), but unless you actually <i>wanted</i> 36MP images and prefer the D300-style handling, coming new to it and already complaining about the weight of an 80-200, I'd recommend the D750 to most people. If you want a D810, you'd probably know it. But Michele should absolutely try them both in a store.</p>

 

<blockquote>There is also the Df.</blockquote>

 

<p>Um. Yes, Michele should also look at the Df. But probably also beware that the sensor is relatively low resolution, the autofocus is equivalent to the D610's, it's quite pricey, and it has handling that you have to know you want. If you grew up street shooting with an F3, the Df is quite probably a lovely camera to use. If you shoot with the camera to your eye most of the time, I'm much less convinced compared with cheaper alternatives. But that doesn't mean Michele's individual preferences might not make it the perfect camera for her. I just doubt it will be. :-)</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>This is embarrassing. I don't know what a DF is! But I am pretty convinced that I want the D750. I have read such good things about it and many of you seem to like it as well. I can keep my lenses and be happy using my camera until I replace them with other lenses as I learn what I am looking for. Being it's a hobby for me and not a profession, I feel I can tolerate the less than perfect aspects of them until I learn more. I know the D750 is costly, and will do a lot of things I don't understand but through all of the posts I've read on this thread, I now feel I will be able to grow into it. It's another 2.5 weeks until the sale takes place, so I have time to go back and forth a few more times :) but I really think that camera will be one I can use for a very long time. My personality is one that I am willing to spend a little more up front, then will stick with it until it no longer fits my needs. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michele: I envy you. I spend more up front, then second-guess myself indefinitely. :-) (Don't, a D750 is a fine camera, and don't let us put you off your lenses either.)<br />

<br />

For your education, a Df is a full-frame camera like the D750 and the DCS-14n, but with manual dials on top for ISO, exposure compensation and shutter speed, in addition to the two dials that other high-end Nikon DSLRs have (although the front one is turned sideways). It's smallish, slightly lighter than a D750, and basically styled to look a bit like one of Nikon's older film cameras (like the F3). <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-df">dpreview</a> covers it reasonably well. It's got no video support, autofocus from the low-end D610, and it's a bit slower than the D750. The Df is the only DSLR that will work properly with very old Nikon lenses that haven't been adapted (by "very old", we're talking, to an approximation, pre-80s); I'm still not that impressed with how they're supported, and since it doesn't sound like you have a huge selection of ancient glass you probably don't care! The sensor is the one from the professional D4 camera - it's very good in low light, but doesn't capture as many pixels or have as much dynamic range (ability to recover shadows and highlights in software) at lower ISO settings as the D750 (or D810) does. The going rate for a Df in the US seems to be about $2750, compared with ~$2000 for a D750 and ~$3000 for a D810.<br />

<br />

If you want the sensor and don't want to pay up for a D4 (or have the weight of one), it's a good camera - just not <i>that</i> much better than a D750 even at its strongest. The real reason to have one is if it suits your style of shooting: the mechanical controls are great if you like to set the camera as you need and raise it to your eye only at the last minute, which is a subtle approach common in street shooting - to do this with most DSLRs, you're peering at a small LCD and fiddling with controls that are only convenient if you're holding the camera by its grip. There are a good number who have stuck to film cameras (or cameras like the Leica range or Fuji X100 series) who like to shoot like this, who will find the Df more appealing than most alternatives. If you shoot by keeping your eye to the finder and your hand on the grip (waiting for "the perfect moment"), which is common for wildlife and sports, the Df and cameras with similar controls are often slower, because they'll involve taking your hand away from the rest position to turn the dials. There's a reason that the Df's control scheme is the exception and that most cameras don't work that way - but by all means look at one and make up your own mind. I just doubt it's the best fit for the style of photography you expressed as your interests. And bear in mind that the flip screen on the D750 helps for some of the cases where people might have been using a Df for subtlety.<br />

<br />

There was a <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00cTUA">thread of doom</a> (you thought <i>this</i> one was long) about the Df and its handling a while ago. It ended when Shun - reasonably - told be to stop trying to understand the Df and to just buy one (and return it if I didn't like it). I've since tried one in some stores, I think I understand where it works (and where it doesn't), and I've still not felt the need to save up for one. But YMMV, and there's no such thing as a perfect camera for all types of shooting.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>This is embarrassing. I don't know what a DF is!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No worries. I seriously doubt that the Df would be suitable for you: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-df-review/</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The discussion that keeps repeating on itself.<br>Now even a DF is suggested? Good safe though, Shun.<br>Get the D750, Michele. Do anything of the rest suggested here, and you will be selling and buying for quite a while before you get at close to what you can get by simply getting that D750 (and you will have have spent a good deal more too).

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Q.G.: Agreed that we shouldn't be second-guessing. But if people (like Glen) are making alternative suggestions, which aren't entirely unreasonable, I think it's only fair to explain why some of us are dismissing them. Otherwise Michele would only be wondering whether our advice had considered all the options.</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>I don't know if this is appropriate here on this thread but all of you have been so helpful. I just wanted to find out what you guys use for memory cards? I noticed the ones being sold at my upcoming camera sale had poor customer reviews. Again, hate wasting good money on something that could give me problems.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For memory cards, I would stick with SanDisk or Lexar, although a couple other brands are also good. If you are serious about your photography, since the D750 (and D7100, D7200 ...) has dual memory cards, I would always use two cards in the "backup" mode such that each image file is written onto both cards, to guard against the occasional memory card failure. In my experience, memory card failures are rare.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that memory cards are easy to counterfeit. I would get them from reliable sources such as Adorama, B&H, etc. I wouldn't buy memory cards from "no name" stores on eBay, for example.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

I use another 'strategy', recording both JPGs and NEFs of every shot, storing the JPGs on the SD card, the NEFs on the CF card (i wish i had two SD slots...) twice the size of the SD card.<br>Perhaps not as safe as Shun's 'backup' mode, since if one card fails i only have either JPGs or NEFs. But i find having JPGs available without having to go through RAW conversion quite useful. (And we can always change the storage routine as and when we wish, so just try what works best for you.)

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I do the same as Q.G. (nice to agree for once!) - my CF card is slightly faster, so it gets the RAW files, which are bigger. I'm more likely to need the JPEGs on short notice (otherwise I'd be processing raw), and there are more SD card readers out there - especially on laptops - which make that easy. At a wedding, I back up everything to both cards, although that's made me run out of buffer.<br />

<br />

I usually use a fast SanDisk SD card (Extreme PRO, 95MB/s) and a Lexar Professional UDMA 7 CF card, which are about as fast as you could drive a D800 - and because the D800 locks up when you take live view images until it's done recording, I wanted fast cards; it doesn't matter so much with most other cameras. I have some Kingston CF cards as well, that were cheap, but they're much slower so I tend to use them only when the fast cards are full. Not that CF card advice is terribly useful if you're getting a D750. :-) As for SD cards, I have a Samsung one somewhere, which I think worked fine, but I don't think I've speed tested it. I also have an Eye-Fi SD card that can transmit images directly over wifi, which is a neat trick if you're shooting and have a computer near you (but aren't tethered, and aren't shooting so much it's quicker to stick the card in a reader). It's substantially slower than the other cards, though, so you have to want that functionality. The SanDisk SD card is conveniently also fast enough to record uncompressed HD video (and possibly also compressed UHD), which may turn out handy when I get some decent video equipment.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I found the Lexar card readers work properly. I've been through lots of more portable or cheaper card readers that don't. I've never used the camera to copy images off the card.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps!</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Andrew, you make it appear as if we never agree. I think it would be more accurate, wouldn't you agree, that we agree most of the time.<br>I also never use the camere to tranfer images, always stick the cards into a small laptop computer and its card readers. Frees up the camera to continue filling up another pair of cards. And it avoids dreadful things that happen to separate things that are connected to each other through a bit of rope/wire.<br>I use 64 GB (CF) cards for the NEFs and 32 GB cards (SD) for the JPGs. Big enough, even in a 36 MP camera with lossless compressed NEFs and "large" JPGs.

[michele_anderson2]

<p>I'm feeling a little confused. (Sorry!) I have only heard of JPEG's and RAW, not NEF's or CF cards. I hope when I take classes that more of this is explained to me. I know I'll need to purchase something before I get into a class though. I was reading an online camera forum the other day, and someone made a joke about people who always shoot in JPEG. I guess I didn't understand the joke, which shows how little I know. I know that RAW format is a higher quality file, but are they for information only (not printable)? I guess I don't understand why people shoot both. I know that putting two copies of every photo I take would probably take up a lot of space on my computer. Maybe that isn't a valid concern? Also, if I have 2 SD slots in the D750, wouldn't I get two SD cards? Or is it better to get one SD card and one CF card? Again, I apologize for my ignorance. Think of me like a 2nd grader when it comes to a lot of these things! :)</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

NEF is Nikon's version of a RAW file.<br>Every manufacturer thinks it a good idea to come up with their very own, incompatible version of a 'raw' file. They do that to make our lives a bit more miserable.<br><br>RAW formats, being proprietary formats, need some software to convert them into something most other software (include simple file viewers as provided by your computer's OS) can actually read and use. Some shared format, such as JPG.<br>JPGs are quite usable. Not a joke (people who think so are a joke themselves). But within certain limitations. Not bad at all. A camera will convert the raw data it produces into some formatted file format, and besides their proprietary raw format, JPG is a common option. It being the camera's software that is doing the conversion, i.e. a firmware program that can make use of all of the manufacturer's knowledge of what the raw data contain, the conversion usually is good. Cameras often offer some control over the conversion too, offer prefered settings we can chose from. But a NEF file will indeed contain more image information that a JPG can hold, and doing the conversion later, with us having a choice in many steps of the conversion, we can get more out of the NEF than what the simple program in the camera provides (including the option to convert the NEF to another format than JPG.) And to be able to do something useful with the images we produce, we have to (as in: must) convert the raw file into something else. TIFF is a popular format too, but not as widely supported as JPG.<br>The big problem with JPGs is that the compression method used to reduce the file size loses image information and can produce ugly artefacts. So it is important to find the right balance (and we do get a choice in this) between file size and compression ratio on the one hand and image quality on the other, i.e. do not compress a JPG more than necessary (and at the highest quality setting there is no loss).<br><br>Yes indeed: storing two copies of every photo (whether a NEF plus a JPG, or - as a backup - two copies of either, or both) will take up disk space. But disks are cheaper than that trip around the world you took, bringing home those photos. And having a quick preview JPG next to a raw NEF for the final version has its benefits too.<br><br>CF, or Compact Flash, cards are BIG (despite that "compact") memory cards that used to be the top notch thing, but now are beyond the end of their natural life span, and should have disappeared a while ago already. But Nikon still puts CF card slots in some of their latest cameras.<br><br>The D750 has indeed two SD card slots, does not use CF cards. I wish i had that in the D800e or D810...

[steve_smith50]

The. D750 is a fine camera. It will take some time to learn how to use it, which can be a fun process.

 

Because of the size of the files, you may want to get a 16 GB card for slot 1 for shooting RAW (NEF). The second slot can be overflow or

backup, I use it for JPEGs as backup, I put in a card with half the capacity of the slot 1 card and with similar write speed. 16GB in slot 1, 8

GB in slot 2. If you plan to shoot many photos before downloading, a 32 GB card in slot 1 may be wise.

[michele_anderson2]

<p>Steve, I am curious why you wouldn't put a large capacity card in both slots?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>In these days I rarely use 16G cards. Most of my cards are 64G or 32G, and I am planning to get 1 or 2 128G cards. With dual cards, the concerns about card failure thus losing a lot of images on a large card is all but gone. IMO, the biggest risk is physically misplacing or losing a card, thus losing all images without a chance to recover them. A large-capacity card inside the camera minimizes the chance of losing a card and also minimizes the chance of running out of card space during a shoot.</p>

[michele_anderson2]

<p>The card that Andrew mentioned...<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/824149-REG/SanDisk_SDSDXPA_064G_A75_Extreme_Pro_64GB_SDHC_SDXC.html" data-selenium="itemName">SanDisk 64GB Extreme Pro UHS-I SDXC U3 Memory Card (Class 10)</a>, was pointed out in an article I read last night as a recommended card for my camera. I was thinking of ordering 2 from B+H since my camera store doesn't seem to carry them. When I read Steve's comment I became a little concerned that putting in 2 very large cards may effect the performance of the camera in some way. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Sorry for any confusion, Michele - I mentioned the CF card as well mostly to indicate that I trust Lexar as a brand. Obviously CF cards aren't worth looking at unless you decide on something other than a D750. I imagine you must have a CF card or two from your DCS-14n, but since new and fast cards are fairly cheap, I doubt this would influence your camera choice!</p>

<p>To elaborate a bit on Q.G.'s commentary on JPEGs, JPEG files (as produced by Nikon cameras and 99.9% of everything else) use a "lossy" scheme to trade file size for image quality - it throws away image detail in order to make the file smaller. The aim is to have the smallest file size possible while still not having objectionable artifacts in the image. If you peer very closely at the pixels of a JPEG file, you may see some "blocks" or "ringing" around edges; at a normal size, unless the image has been compressed a lot so the image is tiny, it should look fine. JPEG is deliberately designed with the behaviour of the human visual system in mind, and therefore the detail that JPEG throws away first is the kind that's very hard to see. Because it's so good at doing this, most images you see on-line or which you would share are compressed with JPEG. (There are a few schemes now that are incrementally better, but JPEG is supported so universally that it's generally not worth the effort of using anything else.)</p>

<p>Raw files (of which NEF is Nikon's particular version) attempt to store all the information captured by the camera's sensor. There are a few options buried in the camera. "14-bit" means record the maximum range of colours (16384 shades each of red, green and blue). "12-bit" only stores 8192 shades of each - but is correspondingly slightly smaller. JPEG, by comparison, stores only 256 shades of each colour (kind of). However, because of noise (like the hiss on an old radio if you turn the volume up), the finest detail is not always captured; this gets worse as you turn the ISO up on the camera (like turning the volume up on a radio <em>a lot</em>). Because there's more detail in them, 14-bit files are bigger than 12-bit ones. Separately from 12- or 14-bit, you can store the raw file "uncompressed", "lossless compressed" or "lossy compressed". "Uncompressed" just stores a big file of pixel data - this has the biggest files, but if you do have a problem with a file, chances are it'll only affect part of an image. "Lossless compressed" makes the file smaller, but keeps all the original information - the file size will vary according to how much detail (or noise) is in the image; the main disadvantage is that because bits of the file depend on earlier bits, a corrupt file is likely to lose more of the image. "Lossy compressed" throws away hard-to-see information, as JPEG does, to produce the smallest file - but retains more data. For what it's worth, I usually use 14-bit (for the most detail possible) lossless compression (because file corruption is rare). Others make different trade-offs.</p>

<p>The eye struggles to see more than 256 shades of each colour - it can see a bit more in some smooth tones (which is why a sky can sometimes look banded), but less elsewhere. The main reason to capture more than this by using raw is to allow you to modify the file after you've captured it: details that is "invisible to the eye" as the camera produces the JPEG file may be much more visible if you're manipulating the image. For example, I've shot a family wedding under bright sunlight in Bali. I didn't have the opportunity to use a reflector or fill flash, so I had to recover the dark shadow detail in software. In the original JPEG image, the groom's suit and even the shadowed side of the faces were almost black, and the bride's dress almost blown-out white. Using the raw file, I could recover detail everywhere. I'm also useless at white balance (what thing in the scene should "look white"). I usually let the camera guess (auto white balance), but I know that when I'm processing the raw file, I can easily pick something in the scene that should be grey, and let everything else change accordingly. You can do this in the camera and have correctly rendered JPEGs, but it slows down my shooting to do so, and it's generally less accurate. Raw files also give you more ability to remove noise in the final image. This is why I shoot raw files unless there's a good reason not to: it gives me more ability to fix an image which had problems in the camera. What is "a good reason not to"? I've been known to go JPEG only when shooting dancing in low light: the low light means the images are noisy and there's not much detail beyond what the JPEGs are capturing, and the smaller size of JPEG files means I can shoot a lot more of them on one card. For any single image, I'd still go with raw. To share the final image with anyone, I'd still convert it to a (high quality) JPEG file after I'd finished editing.</p>

<p>The other benefit to JPEGs in the camera is that you can choose (roughly) how much they'll be compressed and how large an image you want to capture - this is especially useful when you know you're only going to be putting a small image on the web, and don't want to take up space with a large version. Because raw captures every pixel from the sensor, the only way to reduce the size of the result is to use the cropping features in the camera. (The D810 also has a "small raw" mode, but it's not really raw - it has more in common with a very detailed JPEG.)</p>

<p>As mentioned, most of the time I record raw to one card and JPEG to the other. That means I have a high quality copy in one place and an easy-to-read version (because everything supports JPEG and I don't need the computer I run my photo editing on) in the other, should either card fail. Because JPEGs are small(er), it also means I have to change that card less often. I generally store the JPEGs in full resolution and largest file (highest quality), because storage is cheap, but I'd use other settings for specific reasons. When I absolutely couldn't afford to have a corrupted file, I shot raw to both cards.</p>

<p>Why one format to each card? I'm hoping - although I've not timed it - that the camera can write to both cards in parallel. If the JPEG and the raw get written at the same time, the camera should be less likely to "fill up". There's a buffer in the camera between when it takes photos and writes to storage - it's reasonably large, but if you take a lot of shots in a hurry the camera will have to wait until images have been written to the card before there's room. This is almost never a problem with a fast card, but I've filled the buffer on my D810 when trying to write to the Eye-Fi card, which is slower than my others. Other than the time it takes to transfer files to a computer (and future-proofing for high quality video - the Nikon cameras won't stress most cards in video writing, but other cameras can), the main reason to have a fast card is so you can avoid the buffer filling up - and also to make it faster to review the images in the camera.</p>

<p>Speaking of which, I don't know the extent to which this is still true, but with some Nikons I've seen behaviour where larger cards take longer for the camera to process. This doesn't really affect writing, but something about the file system meant that reviewing images in the camera was slower. I've not tried this with recent cameras or cards, so please take it with a pinch of salt, but I've seen others suggest avoiding 64GB and larger cards for that reason. Since I don't own any 64GB cards, I can't comment; can anyone else advise whether this is a current problem? This would be my main hesitation about answering Michele's question about large cards affecting performance (but it would be that the cards were large, not that there were two of them).</p>

<p>Of course, the other reason is that if you have a problem with the card (either with it getting corrupted, sitting on it or just losing it) you lose more images the more was in one place - all your eggs in one basket. However, Shun makes a valid point that a card left in a camera is pretty safe, and the counter-argument is that if all your eggs are in one basket, you're less likely to drop any while changing baskets! Up until recently, I mostly used 16GB cards; I've now switched to a couple of fast 32GB cards. This is partly because the prices have dropped massively since I first bought my D800, so a bigger card is less expensive. There's usually a "sweet point" - up to some value, it's cheaper to get a larger card than several smaller ones; above that point it's cheaper to buy multiple cards. (When I last looked, a 32GB card was cheaper than two 16GB cards, but also less than half the price of a 64GB card. This may have changed by now.)</p>

<p>Barring anyone confirming my worries about large cards and speed (and it's not the actual ability to transfer data - I think it was to do with the file system tables for a large card), I'd get the 64GB SanDisk you're looking at and have a clear conscience. If you're at all worried, just get twice as many 32GB ones, hopefully not for much more money. Even with high resolution cameras and if you decide to shoot raw, you'll still get hundreds of images on a card that size. Unless you plan on going a long time between copying the images off the camera, you have to be trying hard to fill them up on a casual shoot. (Oh, and don't forget to format the cards in the camera after you've downloaded them - a lot of compatibility problems seem to come from formatting on a computer or a temporarily corrupted card.)</p>

<p>I hope that essay was useful. :-) Good luck.</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

About the number of cards to get: two are two too few. You need four. Two in the camera, two in reserve for when the two in the camera get near full and need to be emptied. Transferring files from a 32 GB or 64 GB card to a computer takes some time.<br><br>When card two is used to store copies of what is stored on card one, they should be the same size. If you store NEF on one, JPG on the other you can safe quite a bit of money (and memory cards are much too expensive) by getting smaller cards for the JPGs. Average JPGs being less than half the size of average NEFs, a card for JPGs half the size of the card for NEFs will do nicely.

[michele_anderson2]

<p>All of your feedback regarding the SD cards has been very helpful! And yes Andrew, I have had experience with a CF card with my current camera, just didn't know it until now. :) When I got the camera, it came with the card. As I mentioned initially, I've only used this camera in the most simple ways. The more I read, the more I realize how much I have to learn. I like the idea of shooting JPEGs+RAW on separate cards. I worry a bit about filling up my computer, but I would probably only keep the RAW files of my favorite images and throw out the ones that I will never do anything with. I might also store them to a back up hard drive. When I take my photography classes, I will also have to take some photoshop classes because I have even less knowledge about that! I have been looking at a lot of images online where they are touched up in photoshop, and they look amazing. I don't imagine that most people keep photos untouched these days. I'm a little intimidated that taking a nice photo has gotten so complicated. </p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

Just so it is clear: when recording NEFs/raw, you will always be 'touching' photos before you can use them. You just have to run 'raw' files through some software, and decide what to do with them, how to turn them into something usable. (That's why recording JPGs in parallel is a good idea. They don't require that you sit down at a computer and spend - a lot of - time tweaking things before you have something to show and use.)<br>You can of course leave it up to the raw conversion software, use default settings. But that defeats the advantage of recording NEF/raw.<br>So yes, you will have to acquire some knowledge about image processing. But photography being a visual medium, it's not that hard. You just tweak things until they look right.