gerard p

<p>http://printlabdigital.cl/home.htm</p>

<p>I did an article on JPG vs. RAW, 8 bit vs. 16 bit and sRGB vs. ProPhoto that might be helpful: http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2010/06/27/jpg-vs-raw-8bits-vs-16bits-srgb-vs-widegamut-rgb-which-to-choose-when-and-why</p>

<p>Joe:<br>

Shooting RAW gives you indisputably better image quality for a whole bunch of reasons, for starters because JPGs are always compressed by the camera, while you can choose between uncompressed or "lossless" compressed RAW. <br /> Just take a look at their respective file sizes to realize how many pixels JPG "throws away". Furthermore, with RAW you can recover lost highlights, open up shadows, adjust exposure (up to ± 4 EV with ACR, ±2 EV with most other programs) change color balance and mode, adjust sharpening and a whole lot of other things that are impossible with JPG. <br /> Also, my suggestion would be to save processed files to TIFF rather than JPG, because every time you open and save a JPG file it throws more pixels away through compression. This is so progressive that after only 3 or 4 times re-saving a JPG file, deterioration <strong>will </strong> become visible to the naked eye.<br /> I disagree with a previous poster that View NX is "not really" a RAW converter, because it is and quite a good one at that, even if the interface - in good Nikon tradition - is really bad.<br /> If you want more advanced conversion options you might indeed want to check out RAW Therapee or Picasa while Elements 7 in combination with the latest ACR plugin (currently 5.5) would also open both your D300 and D40 RAWs.<br>

I've done 2 articles on RAW converters which you might be interested in:<strong><br /> Nikon View:</strong> http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/06/04/let-s-stick-it-to-adobe-3-raw-alternativ<br /> <strong>The "best" RAW converter</strong> : http://blog.gerardprins.com/blog2.php/2009/09/07/raw-converter-acr-phaseone-nikon-compare<br>

Hope this helps,<br /> Gerard</p>

Here we are, a couple of months later... Nikon launched the FF D700 @ $3 K. I haven't bought the D300 and will

not buy the D700 either. FF price will have to come down by another 30% for me. My D40 has produced outstanding

results with all my AF-S and HSM lenses, and after having owned and used (or am still using) D1x, D200 and CP8700

I have come to the conclusion that the D40 is probably the best value for money Nikon have ever given me in a

Digicam. It is close to take 10.000 now, and has long surpassed my D200 which is 12 month older. Why? because

it's light (especially coupled with the kit lens) thus easy to carry, allows me over 600 takes on a very cheap 2

Gb. memory card, and is extremely clean even at high ISO. NUF said

I had a D1x, now own a D200 (a better camera for less than half the price), and just decided for the D40 rather than D40x as my second camera.

 

Why? Because I can get the D40 with 18-55 mm. lens (pretty decent according to most reviewers) for $477 against $562 for the D40x body alone. Because 6 Mp. is good enough for pre press, and more than good enough for web and DTP. I do know very, very few people who own A3 sized printers, or even then print larger than A4 or letter. 6 Mp. is more than plenty for that.

 

I like the idea of a small, compact camera with a light lens, and if I want better optics, I can always stick my AF-S 17-35mm. f/2.8D or HSM 100-300 f/4D Sigma on it. My AF 35-70 f/2.8D Nikkor and 12-24 f/4G Tokina won't autofocus, but everything else is supposed to work just hunky dory.

 

As for the Mp. hype: it's not a hype. Digicams, as most other digital devices, will keep jumping in capacity & capability roughly every 24 months, for more or less the same price.

For me, I'm living a 48 months upgrade cycle, and am waiting for the Nikon DXXX to be full frame, somewhere between 16 & 18 mp. and within the D200 price bracket, for my last & final upgrade from the D200. With that one I will stick till the day I die...

 

As for the Ken Rockwell hype; couldn't agree more that he cannot be taken seriously. Unfortunately, many newbies think he should be.

Yes I've used it! The horizontal/vertical turned out not to be a problem, because I definitely prefer focussing on the ground glass (which I'm looking to replace, because it is very coarse). Incredibly enough, the exposure meter is still very accurate, and the Velvia it turns out is beyond my expectations. Still have not tried B&W, but I will soon.

Again: thank you all for your contributions. The camera is indeed in pristine condition (not a scratch on body or lens) the bellows are in perfect condition and the viewfinder is 20/20. This was clearly a piece of equipment that was rarely used; amazing, considering that Bob confirmed that it dates from 1966.

 

Alec: just in case: with "these" I meant the Linhof, of course, not the Fuji. Regards, Gerard

Hi Alec:

 

Thank you for your reply. I *know* the difference between hor and vert ;). My point was rather, that the proportions of 6x7 are "almost" square. I mean, it's not like 24x36, 4.5x6, or the 9x12 of my Zeiss "folder". I got your point though, especially after realizing that the format is actually 56x72 mm.

Since this may very well be the only Linhof in Chile, and I would never ever buy a piece of equipment like that without "caressing" it first, it may also very well be my only chance to ever own something that beautiful. For the hor/vert reason, I have already decided to get a Fuji GA 645i, which the same dealer also has on sale, and try to get the price down on both.

Since you seem to know some about these, I would love to get some flat film cassettes to go with it. I have no clue if any comercially available ones would fit (the ground glass has a lifting mechanism) or that I must go and hunt for camera specific ones on the net. Thank God, it's comes at least with a Super Rollex...

Thanks very much for you input, I appreciate it.

THx guys for your quick responses.

Alec, I'm not quite sure what you're saying: 6x7 means horizontal square, right? Or wrong? Anyway, it's this or nothing. I don't think there are a lot of Linhof's in Chile (if any)

Dave (forgive my english) I'm not sure what you mean: a (very) good buy???

 

Thanks for your help.

There is no such thing as better in this case. DX lenses project a smaller image circle, which allows Nikon to produce lighter wide® angle lenses with less elements for less money. IMHO they are NOT as good as their "full frame" bretheren. I compared the 12-24 DX to my (heavy weight champion) 17-35 D and what can I tell you...

The main set back of DX lenses, is that you're stuck with the present CCD format. That means, you can't put it on one of your old F(ilm) cameras, and if Nikon ever decide they will give in to all the nagging and come up with a 10.000 dollar full frame that only 1 out of a 100.000 naggers can afford, you can't stick a DX on that one either.

On the bright side: 99,9999% of the people claiming they want a full frame Nikon will NOT buy one in the near future... ;), and IF you can afford a full frame Nikon, you sure as hell can afford to buy the glass that does it justice.

 

BTW: somebody talked about D or ED. Nothing in common. The D (or G) denomination refers to the lens set-up, while the ED refers to the glass used in the lens elements. The two are not related in any way whatsoever.

Hunter:

 

Everyone new to digicams worries about underexposure. However, when you get a bit more familiar with them, you start to appreciate and then love the supposed "underexposure". All DSLR's undersexpose for a reason: to protect highlights. An underexposed sht is easily corrected, but blow highlights are gone forever (255/255/255 equals to NOTHING).

To get a bit more familiarized with this topic, check out luminouslandscape.com on the subjects of exposure and histograms, and for D100 custom curves go to the D100 forum at nikonians.org; there is a special thread on D100 custom curves.

 

PS: check out the D70 before shelling out...

Forget about high ISO's. Period. How often do you use 1600 ISO film?

90% of what I do, is at 125 ISO, the lowest my camera - D1x - allows.

I only go to high(er) ISO when strictly necesary, which is rarely. Rather ask yourself if there is any advantage of the Canon's 50 ISO vs. Nikon's 100, 125 or 200 respectively. My guess: yes.

That's why I have been working with Velvia 50 and Kodachrome 64 for the best part of my life...

I'd say, if the reviews are not bringing it down, get the D70. I'm not sure the build quality is going to be as good as the D100, let alone the D1 series, but I was stunned by the buffer size and the flash sync. I can confirm that the ONLY setback on compressed RAW is writing time, which is why I shoot uncompressed RAW with my D1x, but I'm pretty sure (at least from the specs) that the D70 is faster than mine :(

Also someone said: >>you want a mirror lock-up and then D100 is better than D70<< Hate to disappoint you: the D100 does NOT have mirror lock-up either. That's still reserved for the flagships...

 

Regards and good luck with your (luxury) descision.

If EOS rules, why are you looking at Nikon?

 

Gerard

 

PS 1: NIKON RULES!

PS 2: Looks like you got caught in the rat-race as well. Why bother with an (expensive) 8 Mp. camera for something as down-to-earth as a school project in the first place?

It seems to me that the noise at high ISO is rather irrelevant to most consumers. If you have seen the output of an average photo-store or 1 hour photo, you realize that they don't give two cents for focus, color rendering or DOF either.

If you don't fall in this category you either use them as (very respectable) P&S backup at low ISO or you go for a DSLR (and still would prefer to use it at as low ISO as possible).

Sad part of the story is, of course, that many present Nikon owners are clamouring for the "magical" 10 Mp. Nikon D2X... (even they get caught up in the rat-race).

 

Regards,

Gerard P.

Ever since I worked with the English landscape photographer John

Claridge, I�ve wanted to get my hands on a Linhof. Also, realizing

the limitations of 35mm and digital, I have been toying with the

idea of getting a mid format camera.

Now, I just stumbled upon a Linhof Technika 70 with a Schneider

Symmar Technika f/5.6 100 lens, and a Super Rollex back. The set

includes 5 filters, sunshade, mask, anatomical grip and carrying

bag.

I have not seen it yet, but the dealer claims it is in pristine

condition. They ask the local equivalent of 850 US for it. This

seems a quite reasonable price to me, if the camera is indeed in

good condition and working as it should. What do you think, worth

the investment?