Nikon D50 good buy right now? Former P&Ser, noob dSLRer :-)

[carbonmotion]

I love my D40 and 18-200VR lens...

18-200VR is why I went Nikon instead of Canon.

the image stabilzation is of marginal use on the Pentax, this i know from a real user's experience. that's why i disregarded it in my decision. other then that, feature for feature, D40 is about where the pentax is at... and nikon makes better glass. although the d40 is missing the top lcd panel, i dont think its that big of a deal. since i have small hands, big cameras feel awkward to me, so im partial to the D40, which fits like a glove. however, if you have big hands, you should look in to the d50 or some such. anyways, whatever you pick , it should be good.

 

[compuwar]

larger size print quality and display on large moniters or cropping.... all areas where image quality matters.

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*. Some of the built-in exposure and color space stuff is identifiable, but it's really all in the JPEG engine.

For cropping, size matters more than IQ, since you're pretty-much just enlarging more- for instance I see more detail at 16x20 in some of my D2x prints than I do at 8x10 because there's lots more information there, and it's not obvious until you go big. But the difference between the D200 and the D2x isn't really noticeable even side-by-side, let alone looking at the images serially. A 6MP high-speed crop from my D2x isn't really distinguishable from a D70 shot.

Walk around a fine art photo gallery and tell me honestly you can distinguish what camera made what image.

My customers can't tell at 8x10 if my images were made with an old FinePix S2Pro, a D200 or a D2x.

 

[carbonmotion]

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*. Some of the built-in exposure and color space stuff is identifiable, but it's really all in the JPEG engine.

For cropping, size matters more than IQ, since you're pretty-much just enlarging more- for instance I see more detail at 16x20 in some of my D2x prints than I do at 8x10 because there's lots more information there, and it's not obvious until you go big. But the difference between the D200 and the D2x isn't really noticeable even side-by-side, let alone looking at the images serially. A 6MP high-speed crop from my D2x isn't really distinguishable from a D70 shot.

Walk around a fine art photo gallery and tell me honestly you can distinguish what camera made what image.

My customers can't tell at 8x10 if my images were made with an old FinePix S2Pro, a D200 or a D2x.

how come i can tell the quality difference at 100% form a D40 and a D50?
when editing on a powerbook + 20 inch ACD

 

[compuwar]

how come i can tell the quality difference at 100% form a D40 and a D50?
when editing on a powerbook + 20 inch ACD

Most likely you either have an exposure or focus issue with one body, though pixel peeping generally doesn't show things you'll see in a print until you get up past 8x10, and then you have to be looking well inside the correct viewing distance for whatever sized print it is.

 

[carbonmotion]

Most likely you either have an exposure or focus issue with one body, though pixel peeping generally doesn't show things you'll see in a print until you get up past 8x10, and then you have to be looking well inside the correct viewing distance for whatever sized print it is.

they are test shots from dp review and other resources

 

[compuwar]

they are test shots from dp review and other resources

You're basing image quality off of a Web-based JPEG from a 3rd party? DPReview doesn't even use the same parts of the image when showing 100% crops from each camera, they shoot mostly in JPEG, and there's an obvious lighting issue with the D50 NC/PP/JPEG test that pretty-much invalidates a direct comparison. The resolution test charts don't even look the same, and in the comparison shots they used a completely different lens. Under those conditions, there's no way you can compare image quality with any idea of getting a valid result.

In the direct comparison, there's either a focus issue or a sharpening issue- it looks to me more like a focus problem- though again it's a JPEG, which isn't the way to compare the sensors, especially since you've got the same manufacturer, so RAF file processing is likely to be as equal as it every can be.

 

[carbonmotion]

You're basing image quality off of a Web-based JPEG from a 3rd party? DPReview doesn't even use the same parts of the image when showing 100% crops from each camera, they shoot mostly in JPEG, and there's an obvious lighting issue with the D50 NC/PP/JPEG test that pretty-much invalidates a direct comparison. The resolution test charts don't even look the same, and in the comparison shots they used a completely different lens. Under those conditions, there's no way you can compare image quality with any idea of getting a valid result.

In the direct comparison, there's either a focus issue or a sharpening issue- it looks to me more like a focus problem- though again it's a JPEG, which isn't the way to compare the sensors, especially since you've got the same manufacturer, so RAF file processing is likely to be as equal as it every can be.

Well I work with a D200 at my company, we have two D80s and D200. I feel like D40's output is sharper than D50. dpreview pointed it out as well. now this could be real or imagined, but everyone else i know has noticed it too. so d50 does not produce the same quality of image as d40, it produces a slightly lower quality.

I'm sure you can see a difference between these two images, clearly Nikon has developed its image processing engine since the D50. Image detail is better with no artifacts (there are some on the D50 image) which indicates improved demosaicing, edge and texture detail are also improved as a consequence, the overall result being an iamge which looks more natural yet crisp and detailed. --dpreview

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp

with that said, everyone who has a d50 is very devoted to their body... so it must be doing something right. i just think the d40 is a bit more crisp, but that won't really count for much unless i'm printing 13 inches x 16 inches

on the downside you can put really decent cheap glass on the d50 like the Nikon 70-300mm f/4-5.6G, but then again the Nikon 70-300mm AF-S VR does have much better quality. The d40's 2.5inch lcd is much better at reviewing pictures in the field than the 2 inch lcd on the d 50, you can see so much more. In the end though, it really comes down to how the camera feels in your hands as the image quality is basically close enough. i have small woman size hands, which is really sucky because i'm pretty in to tennis , but then again i suppose those slender long fingers help make me a good piano player and a even better sweat shop worker. So, it refreshing for me to find a camera that i can actually wrap my hands around.

 

[Abstract]

Well I work with a D200 at my company, we have two D80s and D200. I feel like D40's output is sharper than D50. dpreview pointed it out as well. now this could be real or imagined, but everyone else i know has noticed it too. so d50 does not produce the same quality of image as d40, it produces a slightly lower quality.

You're splitting hairs.

You can tell by looking at a 100% crop? Big deal. You wouldn't notice in a print. C'mon man, lets see those resolution charts! We'll have a big party while viewing them.

Funny thing is that I bet you I can hold a D50 or D80 more still than I can hold a D40. The D40 is too small for most hands. I have medium sized hands, and I really don't think I can go smaller than the D50. I think slightly larger would be better for me, actually. Anyway, the camera that I'll be able to hold most comfortably will probably end up with sharper photos, if you really want to get picky.

Pixel peeping sucks. Photography is about photos, not stupid tests. I'm sure I can produce sharper photos with a D50 than I can with a D40 simply because I don't like holding the D40. I may as well be holding a Canon 400D (bleh!).

Monitor resolution isn't high enough to show the differences, and I'd bet even at 11x14 you'd be hard-pressed to say which camera produced which photo for pretty much the entire crop of 6MP bodies *if the images were all profiled*.

Yeah, seriously.

 

[compuwar]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40/page22.asp

Artifacts are for JPEGs, default sharpening is for JPEGs - I can post-process better files from RAFs than the JPEG engine in any camera will give- almost anyone can. Even if they changed the AA filter, I'd bet real money I could get equivalent images out of two good samples of each body.

Don't believe the hype.

For instance:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD50/Samples/Quality/DSC_0131-raw-pp.jpg

Doesn't have the bad focus/sharpness issues, even though it has incredibly bad lighting on the watch. This is simply put a very bad comparison by DPReview, they didn't do anything close to an apples-to-apples comparison. It happens, nobody's perfect. But if you care about IQ, you're shooting raw, where most of the DPR stuff doesn't apply anyway.

 

[carbonmotion]

Artifacts are for JPEGs, default sharpening is for JPEGs - I can post-process better files from RAFs than the JPEG engine in any camera will give- almost anyone can. Even if they changed the AA filter, I'd bet real money I could get equivalent images out of two good samples of each body.

Don't believe the hype.

For instance:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonD50/Samples/Quality/DSC_0131-raw-pp.jpg

Doesn't have the bad focus/sharpness issues, even though it has incredibly bad lighting on the watch. This is simply put a very bad comparison by DPReview, they didn't do anything close to an apples-to-apples comparison. It happens, nobody's perfect. But if you care about IQ, you're shooting raw,
where most of the DPR stuff doesn't apply anyway.

well you may be right, but at any rate, the D40 still has a larger lcd, more accurate in the back so you can use it to tell if you've mussed up shoots. alternatively, the D50 is compatible with more cheap lenses. You might say lcds don't matter and I might say I'm never getting more than one more lens. so, lets just leave it at personal preferences. I still think the D40 gives you a richer, out of camera result.

 

[Clix Pix]

I still think the D40 gives you a richer, out of camera result.

A lot of that would be due to the default settings, which with .jpg can produce somewhat more saturated images that really "pop" and which need little post-processing. For the target audience, that is exactly what is desired. For those who like to tweak and twiddle with their images it is always possible to readjust the settings to their liking, more akin to the D200 or other camera settings. I'd be willing to bet that not too many users of the D40 shoot that camera in RAW anyway.

 

[carbonmotion]

A lot of that would be due to the default settings, which with .jpg can produce somewhat more saturated images that really "pop" and which need little post-processing. For the target audience, that is exactly what is desired. For those who like to tweak and twiddle with their images it is always possible to readjust the settings to their liking, more akin to the D200 or other camera settings. I'd be willing to bet that not too many users of the D40 shoot that camera in RAW anyway.

shooting in raw is not realistic for some tasks. besides, im not sure if i buy the argument that the d50 is somehow a better camera than the d40.. i think give or take their about the same, although the d40 cames in a ahead with the lcd and size for me ....though for a non nikon noob with lots of lens, the d50 is probably more economical.

 

[compuwar]

shooting in raw is not realistic for some tasks. besides, im not sure if i buy the argument that the d50 is somehow a better camera than the d40.. i think give or take their about the same, although the d40 cames in a ahead with the lcd and size for me ....though for a non nikon noob with lots of lens, the d50 is probably more economical.

I can't think of a good reason not to shoot raw if you're properly equipped, though I occasionally find it advantageous to shoot raw+jpeg when I'm not properly equipped.

A big advantage to the Nikon system is that there's an incredible number of good AF-D lenses out there, so you can get say a 300mm/f4 EDIF for less than $700- an incredible deal on pro-quality glass. If you're in the "it's just a big P&S" category then that doesn't matter to you and the D40's a good choice, if you're in the "I'd like to take this further" crowd, then the D50 allows you to keep the body investment longer while still retaining autofocus for the cheap gems in the used market. Now you have to purchase a more expensive body for that option, with the D50 you were getting an incredible deal on backwards compatibility back through AF-D. But as I said, it's pretty moot image-wise until you start getting lenses where a lighter body is a disadvantage.

I'm perfectly happy with my 2x, but I realize that it's not a camera for everyone- the great thing is that the market is still big enough that we can all get bodies we're happy with.

 

[carbonmotion]

I can't think of a good reason not to shoot raw if you're properly equipped, though I occasionally find it advantageous to shoot raw+jpeg when I'm not properly equipped.

A big advantage to the Nikon system is that there's an incredible number of good AF-D lenses out there, so you can get say a
T for less than $700- an incredible deal on pro-quality glass. If you're in the "it's just a big P&S" category then that doesn't matter to you and the D40's a good choice, if you're in the "I'd like to take this further" crowd, then the D50 allows you to keep the body investment longer while still retaining autofocus for the cheap gems in the used market. Now you have to purchase a more expensive body for that option, with the D50 you were getting an incredible deal on backwards compatibility back through AF-D. But as I said, it's pretty moot image-wise until you start getting lenses where a lighter body is a disadvantage.

I'm perfectly happy with my 2x, but I realize that it's not a camera for everyone- the great thing is that the market is still big enough that we can all get bodies we're happy with.

I mean I don't consider myself a professional by any means, but for my work, we have a 15-200 mm AF-S VR and a 70-300 mm AF-S VR both are great glass and can be had for 700 bucks or less. The glass you've mentioned is a great work horse from the 80ties, but it is a little soft in my opinion and in 2000 Nikon made a AF-S version of it with improved optics. As someone who's just entering the slr photography scene, the only lens i'll probably purchase to complement my D40 is either the 15-200 mm AF-S VR or a 70-300 mm AF-S VR ... probably the former. I don't see a need for a amature photographer to need more. I do regret not being able to buy the Nikkor 70-300 mm G as it's a perfectly good lens for 100 bucks. however, my friend said the optics was really soft and the auto focus was lacking at the max end of the telephoto.

For my personal purpose, I'd probably never go pass the Nikkor 15-200mm AF-S VR as the one other lens I prefer.

Additionally, to address the issue of JPG vs RAW... do you realize that RAW is 5 MB/ pc? while JPG is 3 MB? You can shoot alot more with JPG and for shots which depend on sequence, JPG doesn't overflow the digital camera's buffer like RAW. Some shots you need RAW because you know you're gonna run it through adobe light room later, other shoots you just want to let it go straight through iphoto. I mean if you're taking 4gb worth of photographs, there's no way you're gonna have time to tweak every single one.

Further more, one of the only ways i know when I've messed up a shot is via the LCD review, so that's piece of equipment is crucial to me.

 

[compuwar]

The glass you've mentioned is a great work horse from the 80ties, but it is a little soft in my opinion and in 2000 Nikon made a AF-S version of it with improved optics. As someone who's just

While the AF-S version is optically superior wide open, I've yet to see a noticeably soft photo from the original. My sample certainly produces photos almost as sharp as my 400mm f/2.8 AFS-II, and certainly sharper than anything I've seen from the current crop of consumer-level zooms. At f/4 you can peep some softness if you really, really try, but it's gone as soon as you're not shooting wide open.

For someone on a budget who isn't shooting motorsports, the non-AFS version is a total bargain. To me it's sharper than the 70-300@300mm.

Thom Hogan says this about the new version:

Let me report the good news first. Everything that was wonderful about the old 300mm f/4 seems to remain. I can't see any tangible visual difference between pictures shot with the old and the new version--it's as if Nikon took the optics out of my old lens and installed it in a new body (with a couple of minor changes, that's essentially what they did). Being able to focus to 5 feet (1.45m) is a big performance plus, in my opinion.

Additionally, to address the issue of JPG vs RAW... do you realize that RAW is 5 MB/ pc? while JPG is 3 MB? You can shoot alot more with JPG and for shots which depend on sequence, JPG doesn't overflow the digital camera's buffer like RAW. Some shots you need RAW because you know you're gonna run it through adobe light room later, other shoots you just want to let it go straight through iphoto. I mean if you're taking 4gb worth of photographs, there's no way you're gonna have time to tweak every single one.

My photos are considerably larger than 5M each, it doesn't bother me much though, as I tend to be properly equipped CF-card-wise. While I typically take more than 4G of images every time I shoot, they're twice the size of yours, so we probably end up with close to the same total number of frames.

If you need high speed regularly, neither the D40 nor the D50 is the right tool for the job.

If I'm shooting for a client, I'll definitely tweak every image I'm giving them, no matter how many there are unless they're something like insurance photos. If I'm shooting fine art, then I'll definitely tweak every image I'm going to offer for sale. If I'm shooting something where I don't need the best image possible from each shot, then I'll tweak one and batch the rest based on those settings. For mixed lighting, I don't see how anyone can afford to shoot JPEG unless they're just playing P&S.

Further more, one of the only ways i know when I've messed up a shot is via the LCD review, so that's piece of equipment is crucial to me.

I rarely chimp images, unless I really want to look at a histogram to see if I've lost the highlights.

 

[Abstract]

^^You put way too much emphasis on the LCD. The best pro cameras have a smaller LCD than the one on the D40.

For you, the D40 might be good because apparently, you have very small hands, and you judge the quality of photos from a 2.5" LCD. For people who shoot with a DSLR and want to learn about photography, I think they'll soon realize that what they see on the tiny LCD means nothing, regardless of whether they increased it to 3" one day or not. Just give me a histogram to judge exposure. I'll judge sharpness after uploading to my computer, although I can easy do so just by previewing and cropping as much as I can from each photo. It doesn't really help me whether the screen is 2" or 2.5". The only thing better about the D40's LCD is the viewing angle. The viewing angle of the D50's LCD is very narrow and things seem to shift if you're not careful about how you hold it.


On the other hand, I don't know how you can live without the top display to view settings. Most photographers

 

[carbonmotion]

^^You put way too much emphasis on the LCD. The best pro cameras have a smaller LCD than the one on the D40.

For you, the D40 might be good because apparently, you have very small hands, and you judge the quality of photos from a 2.5" LCD. For people who shoot with a DSLR and want to learn about photography, I think they'll soon realize that what they see on the tiny LCD means nothing, regardless of whether they increased it to 3" one day or not. Just give me a histogram to judge exposure. I'll judge sharpness after uploading to my computer, although I can easy do so just by previewing and cropping as much as I can from each photo. It doesn't really help me whether the screen is 2" or 2.5". The only thing better about the D40's LCD is the viewing angle. The viewing angle of the D50's LCD is very narrow and things seem to shift if you're not careful about how you hold it.


On the other hand, I don't know how you can live without the top display to view settings. Most photographers

that's fantastic, i understand everyone wants to justify their purchase. I'm simply saying the D50 isn't for me. All the reasons you've mentioned, I don't see. I use the LCD to see if the shoot i took is blurry or not, to check the quality of the colors and to see if I've blow the highlights. Additionally, the LCD on the D40 is very bright and accurate and that's important.

Waiting to upload the picture to the computer is way too late , its already after the shoot.

Can we stop with these fan boy arguments? Just because you bought it doesn't mean it's the best. I mean the D50 has its advantages, but it certainly has its faults as well, the D40 is more optimized for those who're starting out in photography. That's why I always recommend the D40 over the D50 for beginners and the D80 or D200 for the more advanced users. Notice how I never say professionals? That's because Nikon is more for hobbists, the majority of the people who make the big bucks making a living off of their camera likes sports photographers, use full frame Canons.

Like most people starting out in photography, we just want a easy time taking great pictures with a camera that cushions things for its users. We expect our pictures will be displayed in large print in our apartments, but probably not an art gallery. That's why its called a hobby.

the 2 inch LCD on the D50 is rather low rez, in fact it has the same resolution as the 1.8 inch lcd on my Canon and I have trouble telling my shots from that. I mean while histograms can tell you some stuff, its not gonna tell you everything. You have to review the photo.

The top lcd is a loss, but the trade off in size is well worth it. The D40 fits my hands perfectly. The portability along makes it worth its price. So in conclusion, smaller, takes better jpgs, battery lasts longer... boom. sold. great beginner cam.

 

[compuwar]

That's why I always recommend the D40 over the D50 for beginners and the D80 or D200 for the more advanced

Frankly, you don't appear to have the experience to give a good recommendation, and your evaluation criteria are mostly questionable other than those which come down to ergonomics, which aren't general criteria.

users. Notice how I never say professionals? That's because Nikon is more for hobbists, the majority of the people who make the big bucks making a living off of their camera likes sports photographers, use full frame Canons.

Ah, the old Microsoft argument! Most people using computers are running Windows, so we should all go recommend that, right? I mean most professional computer users run it, it has to be the best! While Canon certainly has the lion's share of the pro market, that doesn't make Nikon's professional offerings any less good. Fortunately, despite your lack of recommendation, Nikon seems to be selling quite a few D2x and D2h series bodies. We should let them know next quarter's sales figures might dip since you're not going to recommend Nikons to all the professionals you influence.

Full frame is sooooo important to all those newspaper photographers too, I mean newsprint, those huge^H erm, small images, they'll really need.. oh wait maybe not. Oh well, there's the magazines, oh wait, um, there's the backdrops for TV, oh wait, nope. While the landscape guys have a fair full-frame argument, sports shooters?

 

[carbonmotion]

If I'm shooting for a client, I'll definitely tweak every image I'm giving them, no matter how many there are unless they're something like insurance photos. If I'm shooting fine art, then I'll definitely tweak every image I'm going to offer for sale. If I'm shooting something where I don't need the best image possible from each shot, then I'll tweak one and batch the rest based on those settings. For mixed lighting, I don't see how anyone can afford to shoot JPEG unless they're just playing P&S.



I rarely chimp images, unless I really want to look at a histogram to see if I've lost the highlights.

It seems you make some kind of a living taking photos. Well, I do not. I have a friend who's a freelance photo journalist who says that if I'm just starting out for a hobby the best thing to do is not to get trapped in the cult of photographers and their cult of photographer's elitism. I mean you're just taking a picture for personal pleasure, why get all uppity about it, trying to justify one way as better than another? Do you really have to look at histogram over review on the LCD? Do you really have to post proccess every shot? Do you really have to shoot in RAW over JPG? In all those , you can if yo want to, but it doesn't make or break you as a photographer and it certainly doesn't make or break your end results.

Yes I do admit that if you're a pro or intend to emulate a pro, that's what you should do. but the majority of people who're looking at D40 and D50 anyways aren't in that category. Hell, most people who own D200s probably aren't in that category. Most people who actually earn a living shooting news or sports photographs are using at the very minimum a D 2x or Canon 5D.

 

[carbonmotion]

So, basically you own a D50 and can't stand the fact that its being replaced by the D40. So you have to convince everyone that your purchase is the best purchase because you're a pro. A pro who uses a D50 at that. Good job. An I'm no qualified because I'm a hobbiest and as well all know hobbist's opinion < pro's opinion. Well mr. pro, hobbists have hobbist needs, we want a camera that takes good pictures and lets us be happy. Most of us are gonna own 1.5 lenses so this compatibility issue isn't a big deal. We care more about ease of use and what feels better instead of what's "proper" or more "leet"

The reason why I got a D40 is because my semi-pro friends who own D50s and D200s recommended me to get a D40. In their opinion, its much more of a hobbist camera than a D50. Their opinion actually sounded rational while yours just sounds like you can't stand the thought of someone preferring a different camera over yours.

To the OP: go to the camera store and pic the one that feels better to you.. It's not gonna make that big of a difference if you pick a D40 or D50 or a Rebel XT in the end. Just pick one that will make you think will make you happy. The end.

 

[compuwar]

It seems you make some kind of a living taking photos. Well, I do not. I have a friend who's a freelance photo journalist who says that if I'm just starting out for a hobby the best thing to do is not to get trapped in the cult of photographers and their cult of photographer's elitism. I mean you're just taking a picture for personal pleasure, why get all uppity about it, trying to justify one way as better than another?

For someone who touts image quality as something that's important as a differentiator, you're sure into throwing away the way to get the best possible image quality out of your camera.

Look- if you're just playing P&S, then no- it really doesn't matter, but then your comments on image quality don't really matter either because you're not going to get the best image quality out of JPEG mode.

Me- I like craftsmanship. Even when I shoot for the pure pleasure of it, I want to make the best image I can because I'm shooting to do photography, not to record who was at a party.

If you shoot JPEG, you *can't* white balance after the fact properly, and changes to exposure and edits and re-saves all lose quality. You also can't get the maximum dynamic range out of JPEG.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

While some of my income comes from photography, not all of it does, but that doesn't matter, I want to achieve the best results possible. For what I sell, I'm way pickier than my customers, but then I feel it should be that way.

Do you really have to look at histogram over review on the LCD? Do you really have to post proccess every shot? Do you really have to shoot in RAW over JPG? In all those , you can if yo want to, but it doesn't make or break you as a photographer and it certainly doesn't make or break your end results.

Actually, in a mixed lighting environment it sure will make or break the end result.

Yes I do admit that if you're a pro or intend to emulate a pro, that's what you should do. but the majority of people who're looking at D40 and D50 anyways aren't in that category. Hell, most people who own D200s probably aren't in that category. Most people who actually earn a living shooting news or sports photographs are using at the very minimum a D 2x or Canon 5D.

Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70.

 

[carbonmotion]

For someone who touts image quality as something that's important as a differentiator, you're sure into throwing away the way to get the best possible image quality out of your camera.

Look- if you're just playing P&S, then no- it really doesn't matter, but then your comments on image quality don't really matter either because you're not going to get the best image quality out of JPEG mode.

Me- I like craftsmanship. Even when I shoot for the pure pleasure of it, I want to make the best image I can because I'm shooting to do photography, not to record who was at a party.

If you shoot JPEG, you *can't* white balance after the fact properly, and changes to exposure and edits and re-saves all lose quality. You also can't get the maximum dynamic range out of JPEG.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

While some of my income comes from photography, not all of it does, but that doesn't matter, I want to achieve the best results possible. For what I sell, I'm way pickier than my customers, but then I feel it should be that way.



Actually, in a mixed lighting environment it sure will make or break the end result.




Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70.

As a hobbyist you shoot in raw for your essential shots, shoot in jpg for the rest to maxmize your memory. Or for that matter shoot in whatever you feel is best. Why not shoot in JPG, if it look sweet out of the camera rather than RAW, then going in to your camera and balancing and tweaking it to make it look like the jpg?

Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70. -- are you trying to tell me that professional sports photographers shoot with XTis and D70s or D80s? That's absurd. I know that to be false because in those boys clubs, a 5D is practically required to not get laughed out. D70 and D80s are not pro cameras, they're high end hobbyist cameras.

 

[compuwar]

So, basically you own a D50 and can't stand the fact that its being replaced by the D40. So you have to convince

Um no- I suppose you don't actually read what's posted in this thread. I listed the cameras I've owned and what I currently own in this thread. I own a D2x.

everyone that your purchase is the best purchase because you're a pro. A pro who uses a D50 at that. Good job. An I'm no qualified because I'm a

You really should learn to read and comprehend before spouting off. I've actually not said much against the D40 (other than perhaps the body size with larger lenses.) You know what though, you just showed even more ignorance with that statement *and* you fell right into camera elitism. I could sell just as many photos with a D50 or a D40 as I do with my D2x, because in the end *I* make a heck of a lot more difference than any of the current crop of 6MP camera bodies (hmmm, sound familiar- that's right, while you and your case of semi-pro friends were trying to justify your D40 I was saying how it really didnt matter.)

hobbiest and as well all know hobbist's opinion < pro's opinion. Well mr. pro, hobbists have hobbist needs, we want a camera that takes good pictures and lets us be happy. Most of us are gonna own 1.5 lenses so this compatibility issue isn't a big deal. We care more about ease of use and what feels better instead of what's "proper" or more "leet"

No, I said you don't seem to be qualified based upon your criteria, statements about cameras you've apparently judged as inferior based upon JPEG samples on the Web, and what seems to be a general lack of in-depth knowledge on the subject.

The reason why I got a D40 is because my semi-pro friends who own D50s and D200s recommended me to get a D40. In their opinion, its much more of a hobbist camera than a D50. Their opinion actually sounded rational while yours just sounds like you can't stand the thought of someone preferring a different camera over yours.

Yeah, that's why I've been recommending everyone get a D2x. I mean, every post of mine justfies how much I like the LCD and how it fits in my hands, right?

 

[compuwar]

As a hobbyist you shoot in raw for your essential shots, shoot in jpg for the rest to maxmize your memory. Or for that matter shoot in whatever you feel is best. Why not shoot in JPG, if it look sweet out of the camera rather than RAW, then going in to your camera and balancing and tweaking it to make it look like the jpg?

Read the link. Re-read the post. *IF* you care about image quality it's all in there, *IF* you don't, then there's no need.

Actually, these days most people shooting sports are probably stringers with a Digital Rebel or D70. -- are you trying to tell me that professional sports photographers shoot with XTis and D70s or D80s? That's absurd. I know that to be false because in those boys clubs, a 5D is practically required to not get laughed out. D70 and D80s are not pro cameras, they're high end hobbyist cameras.

Most as in "the biggest number" are probably stringers covering high school sports for local newspapers. There you go with that elitism again. There are more newspapers than any other media. Newsprint doesn't need ultra-high resolution images. There are more high schools than college or professional teams, therefore there are likely to be more sports shooters shooting HS games part-time than professional sports photographers (at least in the US market, I have no idea how the European market works, but I spent 8.5 years working for a large mostly-American media conglomerate.)

Edit: Apologies, you did say "earn a living," which implies full-time employment, in which case they're likely using paper-supplied bodies, and since Canon gives sweet deals to the media, that almost certainly means pro bodies, though not necessarily full-frame.

 

[chriscorbin]

Great Choice

I am an event photographer and the only camera i use is a d50
its cheap and light, but i reccomend a larger SD card around 2Gb ive tried several and brand really doesnt seem to matter
overall a good choice