Digital Camera

I will give my thoughts. But I should say first that I am a Nikon person, so these comments will reflect that. I am not saying Nikon is better than Canon. I simply have always used Nikon.

I had this same issue a year or so ago. I did not want to spend as much as an SLR required, but I wanted something better than a small compact. So I decided to get the Coolpix 8800 which gave me RAW support and a 10X optical zoom.

And now, 1 year later, that camera is sitting on my desk gathering dust and I use a Nikon D80 with the 18-200 VR zoom. The 8800 was simply too slow to recycle and too noisy at ISOs over 200. This limited the ability to use it to the point that I stopped using it.

Now, I have a small Coolpix 5400 that I carry everywhere (just in case I need a snapshot) and I carry the D80 when out looking for pictures.

I would suggest that the intermediate Advanced cameras are for a special breed (my wife enjoyed it to some degree) but they simply do not replace an SLR. I would go for the new D40 kit (available in a couple weeks) which fits under your budget.

Just my thoughts, but I was not happy with the Advanced Point and Shoot 8800. In fact, I will sell it to you for a good price!

Chris

This guy sounds like a bit of a crackpot. I don't think shooting film instead of RAW is a very insightful approach.

Get a camera which shoots RAW. They all shoot JPG as well, which means you can decide what you want in different situations.

I took the fact that he wanted good shots from a few
hundred yards of the vatican to interpret "lightning"
as "flash"

lol, I didn't think about that...

What about halo of light around the Vatican too!

I see that several people have recommended D70/70s and D80. I didn't because it blows the budget.

So Did we (collective) answer the original question???

What about the Nikon D70?? I know a friend that has
it and she just loves it??

Thanks

Since Nikon does not sell D70 any more, you would have to pick D80 to get the similar features. I think D50 comes close.

If you can pickup a good second hand D70 with the kit lens 18-70, it might fit your need and budget. Also, there is a relatively inexpensive 70-300 zoom in the Nikkor lineup. Mind you, it is not all that fast (aperture) and is not the best optics but is quite good for what it is. This should meet your objectives.

Just be careful with early D70 if you decide to look for a second hand unit. They had BLOD - blinking light of death, or something like it. It was taken care of via Nikon recall but it only happened to early serial numbers and not consistent as to when it happens. Make sure that it is not the first year build or it has been repaired by Nikon.

Later D70 and D70s do not suffer from this problem. I know, because I had one that needed to be repaired....

Cheers

MBP Mac OS X (10.4.8) Boot Camp/XP Pro

Lack of Raw is not necessarily a deal breaker.

Here is a professional who considers it a waste:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Easy enough: Rockwell is wrong. I was saying much the same thing 3 years ago when shooting a D100, but Rockwell's commentary is dated 2006; today way wrong! Cameras, cards, workflows, Aperture have evolved.

RAW provides far more image data in addition to far superior post process adjustment of things like white balance and shadow detail. Note that hard disks as well as CF card capacities now are cheap enough and fast enough (I use two 8 GB 40 MB/sec Sandisk Extreme IV cards) that one can readily cope with the extra mass storage needs of RAW files.

Lack of RAW is a deal breaker!

Also, do not buy a used older-tech D70. Buy a D40/D50/D80 and always shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG.

-Allen Wicks

Not to start a war, but if it is OK for photographers to shoot with a Holga, I see no reason to think that shooting in JPEG is wrong just a different stylistic choice.

Rockwell works really hard to get things as he likes them upfront, so no additional tweaking is necessary.

LOL. That guy is a moron.

I will say that it's not automatically true that RAW is better than JPEG in every case. If you have a shot which has relatively low dynamic range (say, 5 stops or less) then JPEG can do just fine... assuming you get the exposure right, or nearly right.

RAW, though, DOES have better dynamic range. So you can do things in Aperture like shadows and highlights on a shot with 7 stops of range, where you deliberately underexposed to hold detail in the highlights. And you can do it without excessive noise. Now, you could use an ND grad to "get it right" in the camera, or you could take the same photo twice exposed 2 stops apart and merge in Photoshop. But RAW does have more latitude; there's just no debate on this... it takes about 30 seconds to verify. Underexpose a shot by 3 stops and push it by 3... once with RAW and once with JPEG. Look at which gives you a better result. Then, later, overexpose by 2 stops and do the same test... .seeing which gives better highlight recovery. No contest.

Not to start a war, but if it is OK for photographers
to shoot with a Holga, I see no reason to think that
shooting in JPEG is wrong just a different
stylistic choice.

Rockwell works really hard to get things as he likes
them upfront, so no additional tweaking is necessary.

Lets not start....

From technical perspective, the advantage of raw is that you process the data outside of the camera. So if you don't like the software that process the sensor image in your camera, you have other options. A good example is the two cameras marketed, one by Panasonic and other by Leica, with different software. Matsushita makes both camera and lens and are identical - internally - with only packaging differences, and software that process the data that the sensor captures. The same image taken by both camera (with exact same settings) will show different jpeg results; whereas, if you looked at the raw data, then they are the same.

So raw file processed in Aperture will use different algorithms than Adobe Camera Raw, or any other raw processor available. The reason DNG does not fly with many manufactures is that they hold processing the sensor data proprietary so that one is compelled to buy Canon or Nikon or Leica or brand x. Don't forget that this industry came from optic-centric perspective, and each lens has its own characteristics in terms of color and sharpness (along with other stuff). So they treat their raw processing in the same mentality.

That said, Ken Rockwell and others that just shoot jpeg must be happy with the result they are getting. All the technical argument is mute when one is happy with the image that comes right out of the camera. Why bother messing with all the raw editing and tweeking. Clearly a different perspective than someone spending time fussing with raw file to get the image to look just right after the fact.

Frankly, I don't think there is a right answer or wrong answer to this argument. A "deal-breaker" for one may not be worth considering for another. It just depends on what is important to the decision maker.

Oh yes, there is this argument that if one has fully baked jpeg file and want to improve the image, it cannot be done as well as a raw file with new software and capabilities that are yet to be released in the future. Who is to say that there won't be a reverse processor in the future. If one knows the sensor characteristics and jpeg final color value, it is not that hard to reverse engineer the original value and recreate raw data equivalent....

MBP Mac OS X (10.4.8) Boot Camp/XP Pro

Not to start a war, but if it is OK for photographers
to shoot with a Holga, I see no reason to think that
shooting in JPEG is wrong just a different
stylistic choice.

Rockwell works really hard to get things as he likes
them upfront, so no additional tweaking is necessary.

...I see no reason to think that
shooting in JPEG is wrong just a different
stylistic choice.

Rockwell works really hard to get things as he likes
them upfront, so no additional tweaking is necessary.

I did not say shooting in JPEG was "wrong," in fact I still do it if I shoot my old D100 that has a limited image buffer. And this discussion is not about whether or not to ever shoot JPEG per se; it is about whether or not in December 2006 someone buying a digital camera should choose a camera that does not include RAW capture as an option.

What I said was Rockwell is wrong! I don't have time now to pick apart his article, but a few statements:

"...Raw takes too long: too long to record to the card..."
My Nikon is capable of 20 frames in 4 seconds, full 12+ megapixel RAW images. Even an entry level Nikon shoots the first 4 frames JPEG or RAW at about 2 fps; beyond the first 4 frames RAW is a bit slower, so for large maximum speed batches a switch to JPEG is appropriate.

"Many people who shoot raw, which I consider to be a big waste of time, don't realize that white balance can be adjusted in Photoshop even from JPGs. No, Photoshop doesn't yet have a "dummies" panel actually marked with common white balance monikers, but skilled photographers have always been able to do it. I prefer using the "Set White Point" and "Set Neutral Gray" eyedroppers in the Levels command"

Many adjustments - of which white balance is one - can be much better made to RAW images than to JPEGs. Just try it in Aperture. RAW provides far more image data to operate on!

Congratulation, the D70s is a good camera.

Also: Can someone direct me to a good large angle
lenses that will fit on top of it??

Nikon's 12-24mm lens is a spectacular pro quality lens specifically made to optimize on Nikon DSLRs like yours. No other lens should be under consideration for wide angle except perhaps the 10.5 mm fisheye which is also excellent but quite specialized. I own them both.

Avoid third party lenses and camera flash units no matter what a value they may seem to be. Modern Nikon/Canon DSLR photography electronically involves all (camera/lens/flash) parts of the camera system and each brand is very proprietary. Third party vendors can not predict what future changes will be, so that allegedly well-reviewed third party lens one buys today may not facilitate all capabilities of your next Nikon camera body or of your next Nikon camera flash unit.

-Allen Wicks

Since you have decided on DSLR, the best advice I can give you is to spend your money on good lenses and not cheap ones. While there are plenty of people who argue for just as good, if not better 3rd party lens than Nikon's Nikkors, it is true that money spent on better glass will serve you well for years. Whereas, the digital body is a disposable item (this is why I have a problem spending ~$5k for M8 body, even though I have couple Leica lenses for film M body), just like computers are after couple of years.

If you go to Nikon dedicated forums, you'll find plenty of people that are quite satisfied with 3rd party lens. In fact I am close to buying one of the manual focus Zeiss lens for my Nikon, now that they make F-mount for Nikon. Just know what you're getting into and compare.

Also, prime lenses are lighter and faster, generally speaking but one has to carry more of them. Faster zooms will cost you more than the D70s in all likelihood. For that matter faster primes will too, regardless of maker.

Stay with known brand (e.g., Nikkor, Sigma, Zeiss) and chances are that you'll be happy with what you get.

Cheers,

you'll find
plenty of people that are quite satisfied with 3rd
party lens. In fact I am close to buying one of the
manual focus Zeiss lens for my Nikon, now that they
make F-mount for Nikon.

All such folks are ignorant. Not stupid, not uninformed, but ignorant. Third party lenses are fine for (legacy) film cameras or (sometimes) for DSLR today; but for the life of a lens, third party purchases are absurd if one intends to move forward with tech improvements.

Of course anyone may choose not to move forward, ignore tech evolution. That is OK, and there are many film-preferential photogs who are making that choice. However, given that this is a digicam thread, choosing third party hardware is IMO a wrong decision.

-Allen Wicks

I am fascinated by this reply. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, but I am wondering exactly what you have in mind.

Are you saying that if Nikon adds feature X to their cameras next year, Nikon lenses bought 4 years ago will support feature X because Nikon knew they were going to do it 4 years ago and designed it into all their lenses way way in advance? (how did they test it?)

I can buy that for perhaps a year window, but I have a hard time believing ANY company can see that far into the future on a fast changing field like digital photography.