«

Are there any camera review sites like dpreview that have sample RAW
photos?

Thanks.

What is it that you're trying to find out? RAW vs. JPG? Whether RAW's
are any good? The RAW output from one camera vs. the RAW output from
another?

Kevin


Tim wrote:
> Are there any camera review sites like dpreview that have sample RAW
> photos?
>
> Thanks.

In article < .com>,
"k-man" <> wrote:

> What is it that you're trying to find out? RAW vs. JPG? Whether RAW's
> are any good? The RAW output from one camera vs. the RAW output from
> another?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> Tim wrote:
> > Are there any camera review sites like dpreview that have sample RAW
> > photos?
> >
> > Thanks.

I'm trying to decide whether to bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital
SLR for my nikon lenses. I've been using film cameras for 20 years. I've
compared dpreview sample jpegs of the sub $1700 SLRs from Canon and
Nikon. I want to stay with Nikon but I wasn't impressed with the D50/D70
prints and those <$900 bodies are most within my budget. I was hoping
that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
that a D50/D70 could produce. If not, I may need to wait for the next
generation of SLRs in that price range.

Tim wrote:
> Are there any camera review sites like dpreview that have sample RAW
> photos?
>
> Thanks.

There is no such thing as a RAW image, RAW files are just image
information from the camera, kinda like undeveloped film. RAW files are
"developed" by programs such as Adobe RAW, Phase One C1, and each
camera manufacturer has their own. What the file looks like has to do
with these programs and the way the photograph was made. Again like
using different developers with B&W film. The programs supplied by the
camera manufacturers (not necessarily with the camera) often use the
same data as the jpegs from the camera as a starting point. The
noncamera based programs can be calibrated for each camera, or you can
start from scratch (not as bad as it sounds). So a file from my Nikon
D200 looks different from Adobe RAW, Nikon Capture, and Pixmantix's Raw
Shooter Essentials, subtle variations. The final image will generally
look very close, but it may take more work in some programs. Hope this
helps

Tom

> I'm trying to decide whether to bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital
> SLR for my nikon lenses. I've been using film cameras for 20 years. I've
> compared dpreview sample jpegs of the sub $1700 SLRs from Canon and
> Nikon. I want to stay with Nikon but I wasn't impressed with the D50/D70
> prints and those <$900 bodies are most within my budget. I was hoping
> that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
> that a D50/D70 could produce. If not, I may need to wait for the next
> generation of SLRs in that price range.

What Nikon Do you have now? Is it autofocus, cause the D70/D50 can only
meter with autofocus lenses, the D200 can use AIS or AI lenses. Did you
download the images from dpreview or just look at them on the web? Also
look at the outside images from Steves Digicams too. To really look at
the images you need to download them and use a calibrated monitor, the
little Adobe utility is fine. Also look at the forums on dpreview and
Fred Miranda's site there you find folks who have really learned to use
these cameras. I often wonder how the reviewers can keep track of the
5+ cameras they are reviewing at any one time. Digital SLR argueably
can out perform film SLRs, mostly it is all up to the photographer.

Tom

> I was hoping
> that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
> that a D50/D70 could produce. If not, I may need to wait for the next
> generation of SLRs in that price range.

JPEGs are very representative of the camera's abilities. You might find
a little more detail in the shadows and highlights of a RAW image, but
in general if you're not happy with the quality of JPEG images you won't
be any happier with RAW images. In many correctly exposed JPEGs, such as
the sample images you'll find on dpreview, there will be little to no
difference between the JPEG version and the RAW version.

--
<a href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a> on the web at
http://www.derekfountain.org/

Try Steves Digicams-
http://www.steves-digicams.com/ click on reviews and select camer
model, select sample pictures from 'select review page

Dav

Tim <> wrote:
>I'm trying to decide whether to bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital
>SLR for my nikon lenses. I've been using film cameras for 20 years. I've

Keep in mind that if you are just getting into digital
photography you may not be set up to properly evaluate images.
A large /calibrated/ monitor is essential (and the average 4-5
year old CRT is simply *not* suitable).

Also necessary is an understanding of the process, which in this
case means knowing that RAW is merely the sensor data, not an
image file. It is somewhat similar to the undeveloped film
you've been using, with the added advantage that you can develop
it multiple times using different software programs.

>compared dpreview sample jpegs of the sub $1700 SLRs from Canon and
>Nikon. I want to stay with Nikon but I wasn't impressed with the D50/D70
>prints and those <$900 bodies are most within my budget. I was hoping
>that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
>that a D50/D70 could produce.

Given the above, it is hard to know if your evaluation was
accurate. It might have been, might not have been. Also, you
might want to "shoot jpeg", which is to let the camera convert
the raw data to jpeg and save only that to the CF card; or you
might be more comfortable letting the camera save the RAW file
and do your own conversion using whatever software you select.
(Sort of how most folks used to use D-76 or Microdol to develop
Tri-X, but I always used Agfa Rodinal... and the results were
*very* different.)

>If not, I may need to wait for the next
>generation of SLRs in that price range.

Consider the Nikon D200. Also you might consider a refurbished
or used model. That is *particularly* true if you have Ais or
other non-AF lenses. The D50/D70 does not accomodate the older
lenses as well as the D200 or the pro models (D1 or D2
variations).

If you are into playing with "gadgets"... and have a shelf full
of old lenses and odd things like bellows, focal extenders,
etc., you will want to skip the D50/D70 models.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article < .com>,
"tomm42" <> wrote:

> > I'm trying to decide whether to bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital
> > SLR for my nikon lenses. I've been using film cameras for 20 years. I've
> > compared dpreview sample jpegs of the sub $1700 SLRs from Canon and
> > Nikon. I want to stay with Nikon but I wasn't impressed with the D50/D70
> > prints and those <$900 bodies are most within my budget. I was hoping
> > that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
> > that a D50/D70 could produce. If not, I may need to wait for the next
> > generation of SLRs in that price range.
>
> What Nikon Do you have now? Is it autofocus, cause the D70/D50 can only
> meter with autofocus lenses, the D200 can use AIS or AI lenses. Did you
> download the images from dpreview or just look at them on the web? Also
> look at the outside images from Steves Digicams too. To really look at
> the images you need to download them and use a calibrated monitor, the
> little Adobe utility is fine. Also look at the forums on dpreview and
> Fred Miranda's site there you find folks who have really learned to use
> these cameras. I often wonder how the reviewers can keep track of the
> 5+ cameras they are reviewing at any one time. Digital SLR argueably
> can out perform film SLRs, mostly it is all up to the photographer.
>
> Tom

I'm mainly still using an 8008 with several zooms and primes, all AF.

When you said that you weren't impressed with the prints, to what
attributes were you referring? Color? Sharpness? Tonal graduation?
Printable size? Maybe you just weren't happy with the samples in
general just because they weren't impressive-enough pictures to begin
with?

Someone mentioned that there's little difference between JPGs and RAW
(after you've converted it to TIF or a less-compressed JPG, etc.).
There is a distinguishable difference.

I think in terms of enlarging, film is still where it's at. But in
terms of quality, digital is right up there with film, particularly if
you shoot with decent-quality lenses -- they make a huge difference.

The D200 is excellent but out of your indicated budget range. I have a
D70s and love it and have gotten some excellent excellent pics from it
(particularly with the 70-200 f/2.8 VR and the 105 f/2.8 macro). But
it's too noisy in low light for me above 400 and has some other
limitations, such as the lenses it can support, the smallish viewfinder
and that I'd just rather have the D200.

I've seen some excellent-to-mint condition used D1X's on eBay for less
than $900. You might want to consider one of those. It doesn't have
as strong a feature set as the D200; but it's a very nice camera.

Kevin



Tim wrote:
> In article < .com>,
> "k-man" <> wrote:
>
> > What is it that you're trying to find out? RAW vs. JPG? Whether RAW's
> > are any good? The RAW output from one camera vs. the RAW output from
> > another?
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > Tim wrote:
> > > Are there any camera review sites like dpreview that have sample RAW
> > > photos?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
>
> I'm trying to decide whether to bite the bullet and buy a Nikon digital
> SLR for my nikon lenses. I've been using film cameras for 20 years. I've
> compared dpreview sample jpegs of the sub $1700 SLRs from Canon and
> Nikon. I want to stay with Nikon but I wasn't impressed with the D50/D70
> prints and those <$900 bodies are most within my budget. I was hoping
> that maybe the jpegs weren't fully representative of the best images
> that a D50/D70 could produce. If not, I may need to wait for the next
> generation of SLRs in that price range.