Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 28, 2008, 10:25 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6
Default

Thanks for your time John your answers were very helpful. I'll check out the website tomorrow for further explanation of the RAW format and I'll researchthe software you've mentioned to get a feelfor their complexity.

Larry
larrythill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2008, 4:07 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
rjseeney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Taylor Mill, Kentucky
Posts: 2,398
Default

Quote:
Remember 18-200 sounds great, but on the camera it will still act at around a 26 to 28-300mm in 35mm settings(I believe I'm right on this, correct me RJ if I'm not. I still haven't figured out all the pros and cons of the DX lenses myself.) Your not getting anything wider than your 28-105 for your money really. Also your not getting any real speed with the lens to help you in the lower light situations. Also you have something that will go farther as well.
THis statement isn't quite right. You are correct in saying the equivalent focal length of the 18-200 is 26-300 (it's actually 27-300, but what's 1mm). You also have to apply the multiplier to to the non dx lens, so it's apparent focal lenght on a DX camera is 42-157.5, a significantly narrower field of view. In addition, although there are problems with distortion, the 18-200 is as good a superzoom there is, and is optically better than the 28-105 on a digital body. True speed isn't better, but VR makes up for that with stationery subjects.

In terms of RAW vs JPEG, it's a matter of choice. You do get more exposure latitude with RAW, giving you a bit more flexibility if you miss the exposure. But I guarentee you'll never be able to tell whether a well exposed photo was shot in RAW or JPEG when printed or even viewed on the computer after conversion. Whether I shoot in RAW or JPEG depends on my situation. If I'm shooting sports, I'll typically shoot JPEG. The camera is a bit faster, and I can usually nail exposure easily. I'd rather save the processing time. I only shoot RAW if I'm shooting once in a lifetime situations (weddings, events, some landscapes), and I generall shoot a RAW with it. All in all, I rarely have to use the RAW. It's a all about what you're comfortable with.
rjseeney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29, 2008, 7:31 AM   #13
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6
Default

RJ, Thanks for the follow-up concerning the clarification on the 18-200 mm and the RAW vs JPEG. I've definitely got a lot to research today. There seems to be a whole new learningcurve jumping from film media to digital. Thanks again toyou and Johnin helping me sort through some of this!
larrythill is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:55 PM.