I asked him up above to post the links regarding a question about wet cleaning of the sensors. No one was attempting to hijack or anything.
That is exactly why I posted that info in a ew thread. Mike, sorry that your thread got derailed a bit! So back on topic:
I'd like to address a few things you've said in reply to our new friend Saleem, if that's ok? And some things he has said as well.
Blowing photos up for gallery prints will not require 36 megapixels. It's all well and good of course, but not necessary. Where the megapixels really come in handy, is when you want to crop your image, and this is where the D800/800E shines like crazy.
It is also capable of amazing dynamic range. But then again, so is the D4 and the D7000. Most of Nikons newest sensors will show this same quality.
As far as built in HDR goes, this is hardly new and can be found in most cameras built from 2011 and up. But if you're really "into" HDR, then do it properly and learn how to use bracketing. Over the top HDR looks silly IMO, even if there's a niche market for it I suppose. Here's a great example of a well done HDR image.
A neutral density filter was used to slow the shutter speed in order to give the water a more calm effect, and there are 5 bracketed shots which allow room to push and pull shadows and highlights. The foreground is clearer due to the fog over the trees.
This is NOT my shot by the way. It's by a gentleman by the name of Glenn Nagel, who haunts the Nikon Cafe forums. Great guy with a great eye and technique. He received an offer to have this one published in a popular magazine:
Guess I could have shown one of my own, but was too lazy to go in to Lightroom. His was actually in another tab so..
Now, as far as shooting RAW goes for any of this: Also, NOT necessary. Does a RAW file hold more information in it, as Mike has said? Absolutely. But a good portion of all that information is tossed away during the conversion process to jpg anyway!
The real trick is knowing your camera settings well enough, that you nail exposure spot on the first time! It takes practice, but can be done. The thing that's great about RAW is that (as I've implied) if you do mess up the exposure, you're able to recover a lot more of those shadows or highlights vs that of a jpg file, because the jpg is kind of like a developed negative. The important information has already been thrown away, leaving less data to work with.
In the end, it all boils down to light. Without light, there is no photograph. With just the right amount of light hitting the sensor or mirror etc.. your camera will be able to process all of the necessary data in the RGB channels, the highlights, shadows.
Then there's the camera software, color space and profile it takes up. Which ever bit of software you use to process your photos, it is best to use something that is able to use the native camera processing profile. This way, when you edit, you'll be able to see what best represents the camera settings profile. For instance, I use Lightroom for most of my processing.
Lightroom has built in camera profiles for all sort of camera's, and for each of those cameras, the profiles represent each of the in camera settings that the user is able to switch between. These profile settings are adjustable from within your camera's menu system.
As you'll note, I have Camera Standard version 4 selected. That's the base from which I start all of my work. I feel like it produces what is closest to what my eyes see when I'm shooting, and thus makes it easier for me to make any adjustments or if I want, creative changes.
Were I to shoot jpg only, I'd have to make adjustments to certain things, but in the end, would wind up with the same results as what my RAW files give me. Only difference being, I don't always nail exposure, so I stick with RAW. One day, this will change for sure. I guess it also depends upon what you are shooting, as certain types of things are more open to artistic creativity.
I guess that last bit was more for Mike. Saying that RAW is absolutely necessary for such things isn't accurate or true. Whether or not it helps for a beginner is debatable as well. One school of thought is that sure, it helps because there's always room for correction and I guess that's a good thing, right? But the other school says that it makes one a bit co-dependent. Lazy, if you will. It also says that it is a hindrance in that one will not learn proper techniques for exposure, nor how their camera really works in that respect.
For months now, I've been shooting a lot with manual focus lenses. I'd say about 97% of the time. I'll use aperture priority mode for the most part, but like to go full manual when I'm not feeling rushed or when I'm feeling creative. I have yet to be brave enough to switch to shooting jpg only, though. Shooting manual has really been a great experience in that it has made me focus (no pun intended, but it works) on composition, framing, subject matter and exposure.
If one day I realize that I know my camera(s) well enough to shoot jpg because the exposures are perfect for what I had intended, I'll be very happy to ditch RAW and gain room for more files on my CF/SD cards as well as HD's and externals.
Just remember, that HUGE landscape hanging on the wall was created from a jpg file!
Doug
I use Lexar cards by the way.
![:\](/mac_images/images/smilies/Undecided.png "Undecided :\")
