anders_andersson2

<p>All this talk about post-processing... It should not be needed to get decent pictures. To get stunning pictures - yes, but for decent pictures it is overkill in my opinion. My guess is that the original poster has settings in the camera that are not good.<br>

Kingsley, it may be really helpful if you post at least one picture with the EXIF data (data that is embedded in most pictures with the camera settings).</p>

<p>Insurance is a foolproof way of losing money. You pay for a limited possibility to get paid part of what you lost under some limited circumstances. The insurance companies make money, and you are sure to lose money in the long run.<br>

The only time insurance makes sense is if it is a matter of something you absolutely need and an amount you would not be able to pay from your savings.<br>

House insurance? Yes, I would not be able to buy a new one, if my house burnt down, and I need somewhere to live, so insurance makes sense. Car insurance? Yes, if I am involved in an accident, I cannot exclude that the damage will be so big that I cannot pay for it myself.<br>

However, for camera gear a) I could survive without it if it got stolen, b) I could pay to replace it with my savings. There is absolutely no reason why I would ever get any dedicated camera insurance.<br>

The only reason I can see to insure your camera gear is if you depend on it, for example if you are a professional photographer, and you are too poor to replace it if you lost it.<br>

Otherwise, just live with the risk and save your money.</p>

<p>My guess is that it is more important what you do than what country you go to. If you have travelled around in the US or Canada for years without being robbed, that <em>probably</em> means that you already take the right precautions, and you will be fine in other countries as well.<br>

I spent a few days in Guangzhou a few years ago, and only after I left, I learnt that the city had some sort of reputation of being a crime capital of China. I had had no problems whatsoever. When I left Palermo by train after a visit, a native of the city warned me that people were murdered there all the time. I had seen no crimes at all. However, I had admittedly seen some parts of the city where I would not necessarily show a top end DSLR if I could avoid it, especially at night.<br>

I have been witness to a few crimes in different countries, but they have often been against "repeat victims", i.e. people who are absent minded or careless, and, unfortunately, look vulnerable.<br>

You are of course never 100% safe, even if you are constantly alert, but the risk is much, much smaller.</p>

<p>It is not only an age thing. I am old enough to have had enthusiastic photographer class mates in the seventies, but I did not want to touch cameras myself. I was happy to help them find subjects, but the whole process was too bulky for me, developing films and actually storing the physical films and photos somewhere after the photos were taken. I did quite a lot of travelling, but I had the idea that it was more important to spend time experiencing the travel than to record it on film. I made one exception during a sixth month tour in Africa, when I actually carried a camera, but once the pictures were developed after the trip I never touched it again.<br>

I did not get into photography for real until the end of the nineties when Konica started selling their Q-M100, which I was happy with at the time.</p>

<p>Would it be cheating to use Photoshop's content aware deletion to get rid of the flare?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Raw Developer hasn’t chocked on any DNG’s I’ve feed it yet.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How many dozens of camera makers have you tried? You clearly have not tried DNG from a Sigma DP1 before RAW Developer 1.8.2, when support was introduced.<br>

Check http://mac.softpedia.com/progChangelog/RAW-Developer-Changelog-13369.html to see all the dedicated development they have had to make to support different variants of DNG.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The more options the better but going back to my Kodak experience, there is no real insurance that a converter we can operate today, with today’s OS will operate tomorrow unless you also archive a computer and OS that will run the converter.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure you fully got my point. I'm not interested in the number of options available to me. I am interested in the fact that the formats already are documented/cracked so well that a number of software makers have been able to use the information.<br>

The code is there. It is available for anyone to see. When it is written in c++, that means that anyone with knowledge of that language can convert it to any other language. Even in one hundred years' time or a thousand. You do not need any specific computer or compiler, provided you have the skill and patience to convert the code to an existing environment.<br>

Check for example http://ufraw.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufraw/ufraw/dcraw.cc?revision=1.235&view=markup to see some source code for the interpretation of raw files from hundreds of cameras.<br>

This information will not be lost. Ever.<br>

I admit that it is not a trivial task. I could never do it myself, for example. And the interpretations ufraw/dcraw make are usually much worse than the current commercial software, like Adobe, Aperture, View NX, Capture NX, and so on.<br>

However, the problems and the complexity to interpret DNG are not negligible either, as can be seen from Apple's failure to fully support the format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>How many people who archive any form of RAW data also archive a copy of the converter software along with it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Barry, your arguments fit the theory. However, in practice there are several free and/or open source programs that can read the "proprietary" RAW files of most major cameras. You have Picasa, FastStone, IrfanView, Xnview, and UFRaw, just to mention a few. In addition Mac OS X has built in support for more than a hundred different proprietary RAW files. The formats are hardly a secret.<br>

Further, the "well documented" DNG format comes in different variants that sometimes cannot be read. Apple's Aperture, just to take one example, used to choke on DNG files converted to "Linear Image" and for some DNG files from specific cameras or lenses (sic!). I do not know if these problems are fixed, but I would not bet on it.<br>

It is not certain that all DNG files from today will be readable in a hundred or even fifty years' from now. They are not even universally readable today.<br>

It is not impossible that all current NEF files will be readable in a hundred years time, as there already is open source code that can read it.<br>

What will happen is uncertain, and only future can tell. I suggest we all convene here again in a hundred years' time to settle the case.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote></blockquote>

<p>"The proponents of dng suggest you keep your original raw when converting to dng."</p>

<blockquote></blockquote>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>They do? Which proponents would that be (all, some, you have some stats?).</blockquote>

<p>For example the book "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS5" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe.<br>

It says that Bruce archives one copy of each image as DNG-with-raw-embedded to long term storage while using a smaller compressed DNG as working file.<br>

Jeff archives a copy of the original RAW and uses a DNG version as working file.</p>

<p>It sounds like a hardware problem to me. A graphics card may be faulty.<br>

By all means, try the profile solutions first, as that should be fairly easy and cheap to check out, but if you have the computer dealer nearby, I would book an appointment with them.<br>

There may also be some software available to check faulty graphics cards, but I do not know of any myself.</p>

<p>Clearly one can overdo the fixation on gear. Sometimes it does not matter. Sometimes a cheap camera/lens can produce better results than expensive ones.<br>

However, there are pictures you simply cannot take, unless you spend a lot on gear. They do not charge you several thousands of dollars for high end gear just because people think it is fun to pay that much. High end stuff serves a purpose.<br>

Those of us with limited wallets adapt our photography to what we can afford, and those who are good can do stunning things with cheap gear - however, they cannot take all the pictures one can take with high end gear.<br>

I'm sure Yehudi Menuhin could have played wonderfully on a toy violin, but he could not have played Sibelius violin concerto.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Buy the cheapest Canon or Nikon DSLR you can possibly find. Spend the rest of the money on good lenses."<br>

This was really good advice before digital when the only role (roll) of the camera body was to hold the lens at the right distance, and keep the film flat. Now, it's just living in the past to say this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny. I actually thought it was the other way round. I of course admit that my post was meant provocative, but to me it is not a statement of the past, but of the future.<br>

A few years ago, when one could still buy cameras like the Nikon D50, D40X or D60, the difference with a high end camera was huge, as far as I understand.<br>

However, if I read the reviews right, the low end D3100 has about as good sensor as the former mid end D300, perhaps better. One can of course go much better with the FX bodies today, but then the prices also get prohibitive for many of us.<br>

I think I stick to my provocative statement, at least in a modified form: For many of us, we get much more bang for the bucks if we buy expensive lenses and cheap bodies than the other way round. For those who need really high resolution or extreme low light performance, they need to invest in expensive bodies.<br>

And thinking long term, it is likely that you still have the same lenses you have today in five years' time. It is much less likely that you have the same body, as a low end camera of 2015 is likely to have a sensor that surpasses the sensor of a high end camera in 2010.</p>

<p>Buy the cheapest Canon or Nikon DSLR you can possibly find. Spend the rest of the money on good lenses.</p>

<p>Perhaps I am missing something here, but I would definitely have guessed that the picture on the right was the DSLR. Is it not sharper even at this resolution?<br>

What really surprised me at first was the shallow depth of field of the point and shoot, but the fuzzy background seems to be a milky window, which (unfortunately) is in focus for both cameras. With the DSLR you could have used a lens with a real shallow depth of field, but you probably could not on the point and shoot.<br>

I do not want to debunk the usefulness of point and shoot cameras. There are situations where they are excellent - occasionally even surpassing the DSLR. For example, they may happen to get the right settings automatically in a particular situation, where I just fail to find the right mix on my DSLR. Besides, the HDR feature of the iPhone 4 has helped me a few times, where my DSLR did not manage to capture the full range.<br>

I carry a Canon S90 with me, almost always, in my trouser pocket. I occasionally drag around a Nikon D5000. I take much more pictures with the D5000, as there are more situations where I know I can get a good shot.</p>

<p>One picture in one of the thousands of truck stations in the world is hardly significant, but the tendency is probably there. More and more people get access to better and better cameras, and taking more and more pictures, more and more people are bound to occasionally succeed and (more importantly) be able to identify a good picture.<br>

Nevertheless, there should always be a market for the skilled photographer, who is able to take non-trivial pictures.<br>

If I go somewhere with a friend who is a P- or Auto-shooter, s/he is likely to succeed with more standard shots than me, as I am fiddling with manual or aperture modes on my camera. However, when it comes to shots in particular situations, light conditions and shots where a precise depth of field is needed, I am more likely to make it work.<br>

Likewise, a professional photographer who fully masters artificial lights, off-camera flashes, iTTL and so on, is bound to create some excellent photos, that I, poor amateur, have no hope of ever achieving.</p>

<p>I have hardly ever used film, but is it not a completely different kind of system?<br>

For example, with a digital camera, you may have the habit of taking 500 pictures on one occasion, and then discard 490 of them. That would be very expensive with film.<br>

My understanding is that film still gets a satisfactory (or even superior) result in some situations, but if you fully use the potential of a DSLR, there is no way you can reproduce all of its goodies with a film camera.</p>

<p>My experience is that, even as a completely unpaid hobby photographer, my pictures get better with more expensive equipment. I for long thought my own incompetence was the only big hurdle to make perfect pictures, but my D300 allows me to take better pictures than I did with my D50, and my expensive lenses usually give better pictures than the cheap ones.<br>

The fast way to improve picture quality is to buy more expensive equipment. It would be more satisfactory, more long term to instead improve my skills, but it also takes more time, and time is more expensive than money for many people.<br>

Personally, I try to balance it, and improve my skills as well. Luckily, I think it is fun so it is no waste of time. Besides it is much better for my wallet if I improve my brain rather than my gear.</p>

<p>I hope I do not come across as a troll here, but I would not spend much money on repairing a 20D.<br>

I'm usually a Nikonian, but I borrowed an EOS 20D a few months ago, just to get some Canon feel. The 20D felt very old, and even though many of the pictures were really good, there were some strange cases of bad chromatic aberration and lack of sharpness. DPP does not even give me access to the function to correct CA for that camera's RAW files. (I refuse to believe it was the lens that was the main problem. It was a 135mm which, as far as I understand, is supposed to be excellent.) I have a feeling that modern cameras have much better systems to correct that kind of problems.<br>

Get me right. I liked the overall Canon feel. I'm looking forward to borrow some more modern Canon DSLR. But the 20D body had this overall "I'm past history" flair.<br>

People who cannot afford to buy a newer camera can certainly live fine with a 20D. However, those who can afford something newer will probably be very happy with the change.</p>

<p>If you change gear, you are bound to miss some of the features of what you had. Even if you buy a D3, you will miss the small body of the D90, and if you buy a 17-55/2.8 lens, you will miss the flexible zoom of the 18-200.<br>

In the end you will be tempted to buy what you had before the theft in addition to what you bought for the insurance money. The by far cheapest option is to buy what you had before. If you are happy with it, there is not much reason to change. Except that it is more fun. :-)</p>

<p>I also would like a fast wide prime. However, the 50mm 1.4 I have is good enough for the pictures I take. Or perhaps... I choose to take pictures for which 50mm is ok.<br>

My biggest limitation is not Nikon's hardware, but my own incompetence. If I were to choose between new dream hardware or better personal skills, I would definitely choose better skills. Bach wrote his music without any music software and Shakespeare wrote his plays without MS Word. I would rather have the skills of Shakespeare than the latest version of MS Word.</p>

<p>I have plenty of zooms of different kinds, but most of the time I just use a Nikon D5000 with a 50 mm 1.4 prime. If I had to sell all lenses but one, that would be the one to keep. Small. Light. Powerful. Fast. Wow!</p>

<p>I second the advice: try it first. There may be small things you use all the time with your Nikon, which the Canon cameras simply do not have in the way you want it. I would not trust that you easily can get used to a Canon, if you currently use a Nikon.<br>

I'm a Nikonian myself, and recently borrowed some Canon gear for a long weekend - an old EOS 20D with a number of lenses. I loved it. However, there were things I use on my Nikon cameras that I could not figure out on the 20D. The result of the exercise is not that I want to switch, but that I have an urge to go both ways - buy a Canon in addition to the Nikons, and some Canon lenses, and carry both C and N around, and get exhausted from the weight, and.... In the end, I stay with Nikon, which I feel more at home with, and where I have my current glass investment.</p>

<p>If money is a concern, I would advice the D90. The D300 is marvellous - hold it once and you will not let go (well, I did not anyhow). However, for practical purposes, image quality and 95% of all situations most hobby photographers get in to , the D90 should do fine.<br>

I have a D300 and a D5000, and very often I grab the D5000 instead of the D300 when I go for a walk. Situations when I feel I need to use the D300: Shooting fast moving things like birds - the D300 has a little more fps. Also when I use lenses that the D5000 cannot take. And then the autofocus of the D300 is visibly better, so for hazy landscapes the D300 works better.</p>

<p>Scott,<br>

Some? Yes. Much? No.<br>

Mag</p>

<p>Wikipedia, for what it is worth, claims the sensor may be part of the problem in purple fringing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic_aberration#Photography and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_fringing .<br>

That fits my experience with Nikon cameras. I had it quite a lot with a D40X but hardly ever with a D300 using exactly the same lens.<br>

With a Canon 20D and a 135mm f/2.0 Canon lens I managed to get chromatic aberration with two colours at the same time. I assume newer Canon cameras would not have that problem. See samples here: http://photophindings.blogspot.com/2009/04/chromatic-aberration.html</p>