Digital Camera advantages

Ok, now that our usual supplier of film for the camera no longer carries it we need to move to a digital camera.

We are looking at an SLR either from Canon or Nikon.

Our current camera is a Canon Rebel and we have one good telescoping lens for it, so a digital Canon has a +1 for it.

When we get a camera (any camera) we nee to be able to plug it into Ubuntu to import/manage the pictures. That's where the questions come in:

• Is there an advantage of one over the other in compatibility? Prefer Out-of-the-box compatibility significantly because my wife is not technologically orientated and easily frustrated with it.
• If we are shooting RAW (I think that's the best picture mode), what application integrates well with a mangement system such as Picasa, F-Spot or digiKam?
• Do I need specific RAW drivers (I think RAW is different per camera) and how available/good/open are they?
• Any other items of note regarding any camera (good or bad) concerning integrating a camera with Ubuntu linux?

Since it may be a factor, I am looking at the Nikon D60 or Canon EOS D40 though I don't know if the D40 will handle our lens.

I'd rather be armed before going into the camera shop we are going to look at. I seem to come across more people being outspoken for the Nikon than the Canon but that could just be running across more Nikon people than Canon.

Some of the features we're looking at is:

• Quick picture taking (push-button-picture-taken)
• Picture quality (of course)
• Color accuracy
• Low-light handling

Things like doing video or fancy effects are not necessary. Want good, quality pictures and if we want to modify them then we can use the computer (any suggested apps? Gimp or CinePaint?).

Thank you so much for your input!

I have a Nikon D80 myself which works flawless in Ubuntu. It is immediately recognised without any further actions. I installed Dcraw for working with RAW files; this is a standalone app and a plugin for gimp as well. Works perfect first time around. Love my d80 as well, but the last Canon experience I had was on a very old one... Having a good lens already is definitely a plus for going canon

Dragonbite said: Ok, now that our usual supplier of film for the camera no longer carries it we need to move to a digital camera.

We are looking at an SLR either from Canon or Nikon.

Our current camera is a Canon Rebel and we have one good telescoping lens for it, so a digital Canon has a +1 for it.

When we get a camera (any camera) we nee to be able to plug it into Ubuntu to import/manage the pictures. That's where the questions come in:

Shouldn't be all raw camera files on linux are handled through Dave Coffins DCRaw in one form or another - and all raw file formats are effectively reversed engineered - if you get a brand new camera with a new type of raw file - there might be a bit of lead time before it is implemented. but other than that raw files on ubuntu should just work... and I am not aware of tethered shooting working under linux for either camera make.

• Is there an advantage of one over the other in compatibility? Prefer Out-of-the-box compatibility significantly because my wife is not technologically orientated and easily frustrated with it.

Dragonbite said:

• If we are shooting RAW (I think that's the best picture mode), what application integrates well with a mangement system such as Picasa, F-Spot or digiKam?

Digikam handles Raw files out of the box and has reasonable editing capabilities. you only need to move to an editor if you need to do selective editing - Gimp is probably the most practical choice - but doesn't support 16bit per channel images. Krita 2.0 will be out soon and will be worth a look. Other than that there is Photoshop under wine if you have a copy or pixel. Picassa also handles raw files (not sure about fspot)

Dragonbite said:

• Do I need specific RAW drivers (I think RAW is different per camera) and how available/good/open are they?

DCRaw provides raw file support for almost all opensource apps that support raw files. So your results with these should be very similar. I have been very happy with the quality of raw files from canon (5D) and fuji (f810) from DCRaw however my sigma raw files (SD14) leave a lot to be desired... (fortunately sigmas raw software works under wine for me.

Beyond that there are a couple of commercial options Bibble and lightzone.Both quite reasonably priced. +

Dragonbite said:

[[*]Any other items of note regarding any camera (good or bad) concerning integrating a camera with Ubuntu linux?

Since it may be a factor, I am looking at the Nikon D60 or Canon EOS D40 though I don't know if the D40 will handle our lens.

I'd rather be armed before going into the camera shop we are going to look at. I seem to come across more people being outspoken for the Nikon than the Canon but that could just be running across more Nikon people than Canon.

I don't think you are going to find much of an appreciable difference as in after a couple of months of shooting you won't really be getting significantly different results from either camera. Both have every feature you would sanely want in a camera and you are going to find that choices in lense are generally going to make the biggest difference of quality of images.That is what I would be looking at.

Dragonbite said: Some of the features we're looking at is:

well apart from the bit where you have to carry around a big heavy camera and a bunch of lenses both should do fine.

• Quick picture taking (push-button-picture-taken)

Dragonbite said:

I don't think there is any objective data to show that one is significantly better quality than the other in these regards. The best advice I can give - Is to choose a style of photography you want to do - Look for a lense you want to invest in (if its a 3rd party lense then you should be able to look at what other photographers are doing with that camera/lense combo -otherwise choose the closest matching lense in each range) and look at sample pictures to see what results other photographers are getting.

• Picture quality (of course)
• Color accuracy

Dragonbite said: [*]Low-light handling

Low light has traditionally been a Nikon Strong point - not sure if the models you pointed to are significantly different in this regards.

Things like doing video or fancy effects are not necessary. Want good, quality pictures and if we want to modify them then we can use the computer (any suggested apps? Gimp or CinePaint?).

Thank you so much for your input!

I would tend to think that in the field of DSLRs Canon and Nikon are the great allrounders with the other players being a bit more specialised - fuji has it's high dynamic range sensor. Olympus offer very compact dslrs, Sigma offer quality in good lighting conditions. Hasselblad and Mayima offer image quality at a much higher price point (not strictly dslrs).

Thanks for all that information!

One thing that leads me towards Canon is we have a Canon Rebel 35mm and I hear the lenses are compatible with the Canon D40.

It might save a few bucks, but if the quality is missing because it's a mixed-technology (digital/optical) then it may not be worth the savings.

I own a Nikon D700 because I have been a Nikon guy since 1973, just like my father before me and I don't want him to come up...or down...from wherever and pinch my head off.

My process is plug the camera in to the USB slot. f-spot opens and offers to save my photos, jpg's, RAW or whatever. After they are downloaded, I open the RAW file in Ufraw and fix up the white balance and exposure and a few more things. I then save the file with a new name, *wife_fights_g/f.tiff*, for example and open it in GIMP and fix it up for real.

f-spot, Ufraw and GIMP are all available in Synaptic.

I would be shocked if a Canon (sorry, Dad, for uttering a curseword) didn't work just as smoothly.

I own two Nikon digital SLR cameras.

An older Nikon D50, and a relatively new Nikon D80. Over the last year I have been building a business (which will hopefully become my sole income over the next year or two) as a wedding portrait photographer. You've gotten some super responses already, but I'll add a few more details.

1. There's no such thing as "mixed optical/digital". All cameras are optical. Period. What you're talking about is mixed FILM/digital.

There is no quality loss using lenses which were originally designed for a film camera on a digital, and no loss of features provided that the lens is a recent enough model that it has the correct mount, electronics, and focusing mechanism.

However, lens technology has grown by leaps and bounds in recent decades, and some kit lenses today have higher quality optics than the pro lenses of 15 years ago. So, a film lens is fine, but old lenses suck regardless of their intended use. (There are exceptions of course, like the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 which has been around for ever and still takes beautiful photographs)

Also, unless

1. Before I say this one, let me admit that every camera I have ever owned has been a Nikon, and I am highly brand loyal. That being said, I would advise AGAINST a Canon dSLR. The reason for this, is that for years now, Canon has focused on increasing the resolution of their image sensors to the exclusion of all other factors that affect image quality.

The fact of the matter is that pro quality 35mm film breaks grain at roughly the same degree of enlargement as a 6mp digital camera. Having a 20MP dSLR is a joke, with no real world application. I forces you to spend idiotic amounts of money on HUGE memory cards, and makes working with the images increasingly difficult. Plus, you just end up down sizing them to print anything but a poster anyway.

For several years, Canon really took the whole pro-market. But, in the last year or two, photographers have finally figured out that they neither want or need 20MP and larger sensors, and have started moving to Nikon for their superior optical quality and low light performace. (The latest line, including the D90, D300, D700 and D3 have better low light performance than any dSLR ever made before now)

1. Regardless of whether you get a canon or a Nikon, you probably will not want to re-use your old lenses anyway. Here's why:

The image sensor in a digital SLR (unless you buy a $2-4k studio model) is much smaller than a frame of 35mm film. What this means, is that you will get a smaller field of view. Nikon is the easiest to figure out, because it's a crop factor of 1.5 (I think canon is 1.6 or 1.7)

In terms of depth of field and all of the other things that are affected by focal length, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens regardless of what format you're using it on. However, in terms of a field of view, a 50mm lens on a Nikon dSLR, will look like it was taken with a 75mm lens. So, your normal lens just became a portrait telephoto.

So, let's take a popular kit lens. The 28-80 was a popular lens length for a walk-a-round lens on several film cameras. It get's you from a nice wide angle, to a portrait telephoto.

But, on a dSLR, it would have the same field of view as if you were using a 42-120. That's a pretty awkward focal length for a walk-a-round lens. 42 isn't really wide angle at all, and 120 is a nice improvement on the telephoto end, but not long enough to replace longer glass.

On a Nikon dSLR, you would need an 18-55 to get the same range as a 28-80 on 35mm film. (my primary lens for wedding is a 17-50)

So, in short, buy a nikon, and buy new glass.

Oh, and if you're serious about working with raw files, buy a copy of bibble pro from www.bibblelabs.com

Worth every penny, and linux native!

VeeDubb said: I own two Nikon digital SLR cameras.

1. Before I say this one, let me admit that every camera I have ever owned has been a Nikon, and I am highly brand loyal. That being said, I would advise AGAINST a Canon dSLR. The reason for this, is that for years now, Canon has focused on increasing the resolution of their image sensors to the exclusion of all other factors that affect image quality.

The fact of the matter is that pro quality 35mm film breaks grain at roughly the same degree of enlargement as a 6mp digital camera. Having a 20MP dSLR is a joke, with no real world application.

This is absolutely not true. the 6 megapixel claim is approximate and only vs 35mm film you are forgetting the world of Medium Format and Large format cameras - all of which have uses that 35mm was never sufficient for. High end digital medium format does over 30 mega pixels and generally lack in camera AA filters which makes their effective resolution higher still - a 20mp dslr is getting their but not in the same ballpark yet.

Secondly Canon haven't been concerntrating on Megapixels at the exclusion of everything else - that is just nonsense. dynamic range has been improved, low light performance has improved (nikon probably still has the edge here). There are a lot of non obvious quality improvements in full frame sensors. The only manufacturers I see doing anything radically different in terms of sensor design are Fuji, Sigma and to a lesser extent Kodak.

You are right though in suggesting that the megapixel value is a poor indicator of sensor quality - there are a *lot* of other factors involved.

VeeDubb said: I forces you to spend idiotic amounts of money on HUGE memory cards, and makes working with the images increasingly difficult.

Well I have a camera that does 14 megapixel files (4.7 x 3) and I can still get about 300 shots to a 4GB card so I imagine that a 4GB card would hold about 200 shots for a 20mp camera - Which to my mind is quite a reasonable amount for an outing. The most of have ever done in a shoot is about 400 (I have 1 4GB and 2 2GB cards). larger files do take more time to process though but not rediculously more. The camera in question is a 10.1 mp camera so this point really is moot.

VeeDubb said: Plus, you just end up down sizing them to print anything but a poster anyway. Unless you want to crop into the image anyways.

VeeDubb said: For several years, Canon really took the whole pro-market. But, in the last year or two, photographers have finally figured out that they neither want or need 20MP and larger sensors, and have started moving to Nikon for their superior optical quality and low light performace. (The latest line, including the D90, D300, D700 and D3 have better low light performance than any dSLR ever made before now) agreed Nikon do do good lowlight stuff but the other assertions really don't hold water - Both Canon and Nikon have excellent lenses to choose from - you need to look at which specific focal lengths you require and compare the quality of those lenses. Both Nikon and Canon do Full Frame sensors and have reasonably high megapixel counts but neither of the cameras being looked at those cameras.

VeeDubb said: 3. Regardless of whether you get a canon or a Nikon, you probably will not want to re-use your old lenses anyway. well that depends what the focal range of the lense is doesn't it. though generally speaking I would avoid the kit lenses and go the pro lenses or if you can't afford that - good 3rd party lenses. Lenses really make the camera.

*sigh* I can't believe I am actually defending Canon and I am certainly not saying don't buy the nikon. Just some of the assertions put forward in this post really annoyed me.

Dragonbite said: ... good, quality pictures and if we want to modify them then we can use the computer (any suggested apps? Gimp or CinePaint?).

Everyone else seems to be covering the Camera side so I'll jump in with this one and recommend GIMP over cinepaint. First things first: check this list to see if your camera is supported by dcraw. If it is, good, if not, then perhaps Bibble Pro?

Why Gimp?

Technically speaking, Cinepaint is superior. GIMP is only 8 bit, (this is less than your camera's RAW format), which is to say it'll work with 256 shades of every colour, and it lacks the ability to work in some colour spaces (LAB, CYMK, etc,). ... the point is: 8 bit is fine. If you're just printing from your home printer you don't need any more colour spaces than RGB.

• Cinepaint's not in the repo's, so you'd be compiling.
• Gimp's just easier to use.
• It has great documentation.

If we are shooting RAW (I think that's the best picture mode), what application integrates well with a mangement system such as Picasa, F-Spot or digiKam?

F-Spot has some basic retouching tools (Crop, Red Eye, etc,) and it will import your RAW files if they are supported by dcraw.

Lastly, there's a nice videopodcast about Photographic postprocessing/retouching with GIMP, which covers importing from you're camera with UFRaw, and how to use Curves to achieve a nice contrast and brightness and to Sharpen correctly, et al.

If you're just starting with digital postprocessing, I recommend this order: Selections (Part One) Drawing Tools Selecions (Part Two) Curves Tool UFraw Clear the Sky Sharpening with USM Colours/Colors Noise Dodge/Burn Tool Repairing Jpegs with RAW data Converting to B/W Removing people using two images

Edit: I had a look, and both the Nikon D60 and Canon EOS D40 are supported by dcraw.

Wow, there is a lot of great information here! Thank you ALL for your info!

kayosiii said:

*sigh* I can't believe I am actually defending Canon and I am certainly not saying don't buy the nikon. Just some of the assertions put forward in this post really annoyed me.

Lol. At least I admitted right up front that a lot of what I had to say was based on brand loyalty, and I'm a long time Nikon user.

I would like to shoot down 3 of your counter points.

1. Medium format: I didn't bring up medium format because the poster wasn't talking about replacing a medium format camera. They were talking about replacing 35mm format. Period. Any discussion of medium format is moot. It's a whole different beast. If he said "I want to get rid of my medium format camera and replace it with a digital" I would have said, get a Nikon D3, D700 or one of the super-hi-res canon full frames.

1. Quote about 6MP being equivalent to film: I know it's only referring to 35mm, because that's what the OP is replacing, and OBVIOUSLY it's only approximate. It would vary depending on the particular brand and line of 35mm film, as well as the particular brand/model of image sensor. The point remains that if 35mm film breaks grain at "approximately" the same degree of enlargement as a 6mp digital image, then there's no value in a 20-30mp dSLR as a 35mm film replacement.

I shoot weddings, for which I am paid as much as $2500 depending on the wedding, with a 10.2MP digital camera, and a 6.1MP back-up camera. I have never had a client complain that the images were not high enough resolution.

1. "Unless you want to crop": I only have one thing to say here - learn to compose your shot right the first time. I know that sounds harsh, but it's fair. WAY too many digital photographers these days use high resolution digital cameras as a crutch, allowing them to never properly learn their craft because they can just "fix it in post." Those are the photographers that give people like me a bad name.

VeeDubb said: Having a 20MP dSLR is a joke, with no real world application.

Having the extra resolution at hand comes in handy working with HDR images that have multiple real world uses. Just because you do not have a use for something does not make it a "joke with no real world application" it just means that you do not have a use for it.

While I may have "slightly" overstated the lack of use found in a 20MP+ camera, HDR has nothing to do with this conversation at all.

HDR means "*High Dynamic Range.*" It refers to the processes of merging bracketed exposures into a single image with a dynamic range that is larger than would normally be possible.

(Dynamic range refers to range of exposure in the image. i.e. it's impossible to take a picture from inside a darkened room, looking out a sunny window, and have both the room and window properly exposed. You could accomplish the image by taking two shots from the same perspective. One that is exposed for the wall, and one that is exposed for the bright sunny scene outside, and merging the images together)

The resolution of your image is absolutely irrelevant to HDR.

There are only two reasons to have a super-hi-res camera. (not counting unusual, commercial and scientific applications)

1. You plan on making extremely large prints which will be viewed from a very close distance. (Many billboards are not high enough resolution to use as desktop wallpaper, but they look smooth and sharp because they are viewed at a distance)

1. You are a rotten photographer, and you need the extra resolution so you can stink at composition and fix it later.

And for the record, using a 20MP image to make "normal" sized prints can actually cause a lot of really ugly visual artifacts if it's not downsized carefully for printing.

I'm currently using my husband's Nikon digital cam with eight megapixels. It has an amazing way of capturing lifelike images what with its high resolution. Can't blame him for being so addicted to it:)http://www.digitalcamerabargainbycsay.com/

VeeDubb said:

1. Medium format: I didn't bring up medium format because the poster wasn't talking about replacing a medium format camera. They were talking about replacing 35mm format. Period.

What you said was that there was no real world application for a 20MP DSLR... Which simply is not true. It sits somewhere between 35mm film replacement and a digital medium format replacement. Whether that is useful to you or not depends on the type of photography you are doing - but believe me it does have real world applications. (also I don't remember the original poster specifying what they were shooting)

VeeDubb said: Any discussion of medium format is moot. It's a whole different beast. If he said "I want to get rid of my medium format camera and replace it with a digital" I would have said, get a Nikon D3, D700 or one of the super-hi-res canon full frames.

A much better answer would be to get a digital back for your medium format camera - most medium format camera systems have interchangeable backs so you can shoot both film and digital with the same camera. A 20mp digital medium format will still outresolve a 20mp DSLR due to factors other than number of pixels captured. If you can't afford a digital back then look at the offerings you suggested.

VeeDubb said: The point remains that if 35mm film breaks grain at "approximately" the same degree of enlargement as a 6mp digital image, then there's no value in a 20-30mp dSLR as a 35mm film replacement.

Again this depends on the type of photography you are doing.

VeeDubb said: I shoot weddings, for which I am paid as much as $2500 depending on the wedding, with a 10.2MP digital camera, and a 6.1MP back-up camera. I have never had a client complain that the images were not high enough resolution.

Hmmm I am starting to wonder why every wedding photographer I meet assumes that every DSLR user has the same requirements as they do. (I will give that this seems to be one of the most common forms of professional photography). I can't imagine needing to do wedding portraits at anything above 16"x24". On the other hand in Landscape and Architectural photography for example it is not uncommon to need to do large format very detailed images. I agree with you that megapixel value is not the be all and end all but you go too far.

VeeDubb said:

1. "Unless you want to crop": I only have one thing to say here - learn to compose your shot right the first time. I know that sounds harsh, but it's fair. WAY too many digital photographers these days use high resolution digital cameras as a crutch, allowing them to never properly learn their craft because they can just "fix it in post." Those are the photographers that give people like me a bad name.

I agree with your assertion that you should learn to compose in camera but again you go too far. There are lots of situations where it simply is physically impossible to compose a shot as you would like to. the subject could simply be beyond the range of your furthest telephoto(happens a lot with wildlife photography), you could have a suboptimal lense on and will miss the shot if you change lenses (I shoot mainly with primes so this can happen a bit), you can't physically get to the right place to compose the shot the way you want to(this happens to me a lot when photographing concerts), there is not enough available light to use the lense effectively at the desired focal range(also happens a lot when doing event photography), or finally you want only to print a detail from an existing shot.

I shoot with a 4.7 mp camera in terms of pixels in the final image so cropping can hurt me a lot.

First of all, I really have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see somebody who shoots with a 4.7MP camera defending 20-30MP cameras.

Also, I can certainly imagine how even mild cropping could be an issue for you.

As for digital backs for medium format and all the rest, again, the OP wasn't asking about medium format, so that's still irrelevant. It's nice to hear that there are better solutions for medium format photographers, but as I'm not one, and neither is the OP, I figure we ought to let that one go.

As for what "every wedding photographer" thinks, the reason is that VERY few wedding photographers, and I've talked to MANY, do exclusively wedding photography. First of all, the vast majority of them do portraiture as well, and most of them have some other area of photography they do for their own benefits.

I do most of my "personal" photography doing macro work and landscapes, and the wedding photographer who I normally hire as my second shooter spends most of her free time doing wildlife photography. Particularly birds.

In short, wedding photographers think that what they need should cover everyone because if you get just 2 or 3 wedding photographers in a room, you've got most all types of photography covered.

I will admit that I have probably gone too far in speaking against ultra-hi resolution digitals, but the fact remains that most people do NOT need one.

Furthermore, I firmly believe that I am in the right when I say that most people, in terms of their skills and the quality of their photography, suffer greatly by trying to use 20+ megapixel cameras.

As I have said, a 30MP image cannot be printed at 4x6 without dramatic downsizing, and this can create some really ugly visual artifacts if not done correctly.

It is also undeniable that many people use these cameras as a crutch, allowing them to "suck at composition" as I have already put it.

To the person who mentioned using their husband's 8MP camera, that's great. I use a 10.2MP as my primary camera. Having a somewhat higher resolution than film is great. It provides a little more flexibility, and let's you get those shots that just wouldn't be quite possible with film, etc.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those kind of cameras, or that there's no value in exceeding 6MP. But there are diminishing returns, and eventually a negative feedback cycle from increasing resolution. We could debate all day where the breaking point is, but IMPO (In My Professional Opinion) Canon has gone way the heck above that point.

Which, to drag this monster of an OT back on point, is why my original recommendation was that they avoid the high-end canon line, because they have focused too heavily on increasing resolution, and the current Nikon line has some of the best low-light performance we've ever seen, which is undeniably FAR more important for those who are new to the world of dSLR's, because they most likely don't have the collections of high quality fast lenses that a pro would have.

I have to go with kayosiii here.

First of all, why are you starting a utterly pointless Canon vs. Nikon fight? The original poster is talkig about 10 MP camera and now you are already dragging the mythical 30 MP Canons through the mud? Why? What point do that serve but starting a completely pointless flamewar? (Which thankfully no-one has bit on yet) Yes. 30MP picture, if resized sloppily (as every other picture), is going to suffer but who the rightminded amateur will spend good (most) size of 10000€ for a camera body, shoothing just for fun? Pros, however, know how to use their tools. Hence: Pointless conversation.

That said. Canon 5D mkII has done leaps and bounds for the low light performance and I would say that it is par with it's "relatives" from the Nikon side on that matter, basically it goes down to which noise do you like more. Canon guys tend to favour Canon noise and vice versa for Nicon, it's basically just down to preference.

What comes to megapixels. Lets remember that the original poster is talking about 40D which is, 10.1MP camera. However, I would gladly take megapixels since I enjoy shooting primes and there are times that the proper composition is _impossible_ with them, no matter how many times you scream "Learn to compose". If the building is there, it's not going to budge just for you. Primes are also great way for new camera owners, just for 100€ you can get the excellent (for it's price) Canon 50mm f1.8. Throw 300€ more and you can get the f1.4 50mm USM glass, which rivals even the mighty L. And I'm rather sure that there is something similiar for Nikon also. Such primes also happen to shine in low light conditions. So, I personally would gladly take the megapixels just for primes. Not to mention that, again, no matter how much you scream, even the pro of the pros miss shots or have to do hasty composites every now and then, which could be fixed later on. IF the MP's are there.

And then there are people like me who enjoy the countless hours spent in the dark with Photoshop, figuring out the ways of making the picture even better. Specially in these situations the MP's can play to your favour. You need to understand that today the composition, focal length, aperture etc. is not the only art, nowdays the digital people can bring their handiwork to the table too.

In the end, personally. I would say that body wise, the both cameras are more or less the same, unless the other fits YOUR (not to some other random) hand better. Where is goes down to however, are the lenses. Both offer good lenses but other might have cheaper/better lenses for YOUR shooting purposes, and THAT should be the one to dictate the choice. Body is after all, only a fraction of the cost of a good camera, lens is what makes the difference; in price and quality.

Software wise, I can heartily recommend RAW Therapee; I'm personally currently trying it out on Linux workflow. It's not open source but it's free anyways. Basically it does everything else except batch processing (which is a bummer) (and kitchen sink); white balance etc, noise reductions, hightlight recovery, nice sharpening tools, distortion-, CA- and vignetting correction, it crops and resizes with suprisingly good quality. At the moment I'm rather pleased with, which I can't really say about GIMP and it's resizing algorigthms. :/ (which was the turning point for me on the hunt for new software ;)

Peace.

-M

crappish said: First of all, why are you starting a utterly pointless Canon vs. Nikon fight?

The short answer is that I'm not.

The long answer is that the OP ASKED for opinions on whether he should go with canon or nikon.

My response was that he should lean towards nikon, with the reasoning that nikon has spent more of their R&D on increasing image quality and low-light performance, and canon has focused more of their R&D on increasing resolution.

The debate which ensued, was in no way related to canon vs. nikon, but reasonable resolution vs. unreasonable resolution as a side topic.

The fact of the matter is that the image quality from canon has suffered as a result of their focus on increasing MP's, and the current line-up from nikon has the best low light performance of any digital SLRs ever made, excluding digital backs for medium format, which I admittedly know almost nothing about.

And for the record, while much of what I've said was ADMITTEDLY based on brand loyalty, the above statement is well established fact. Just pick up a copy of "Popular Photography" and see for yourself. Canon usually wins in resolution, regardless of whether it's an entry level or pro camera, and sometimes wins in terms of bells and whistles, but the current lineup from nikon, including the D60, D90, D300, D700 and D3 all SIGNIFICANTLY outperform their direct competitors in terms of image quality and low light performance.

And for the record, if you're using a "kit lens" and not a professional quality lens, "low light" includes everything but shooting outside or using a flash.

On another completely unrelated note, I have tried raw therapee, and I was disappointed with it. It's not bad, and I think with some more work it could be great. But, I just really felt that it wasn't mature enough. If you haven't tried Bibble Pro from www.bibblelabs.com, you really should go download the demo. I know it's not FOSS, but it's really worth the money, and it's batch system is incredibly flexible.

VeeDubb said: First of all, I really have to say that I'm a bit surprised to see somebody who shoots with a 4.7MP camera defending 20-30MP cameras.

Also, I can certainly imagine how even mild cropping could be an issue for you.

Well the camera I use is a bit odd - It shoots 4.7 mp files but takes three samples per pixel. so you end up with the same sized raw files as a 14mp camera but with the same number of pixels as a 4.7 mp camera (worst of both worlds in that respect).... The effective resolution is somewhere in between. compares quite well to the 12mp canon 5D (original) not quite as much detail but a lot cheaper... Basically MP value doesn't necessarily equal the amount of data captured... One of the most popular ways of doing this is to shoot a diagram that has converging lines under controled conditions and measure where on the diagram in the photo the lines can be seen distinctly from each other. the most common diagram is monochrome but this doesn't tell the whole story since most camera's pick up more details in some colours than others. The camera I use has a lot less variation in this respect.

you touched on point of diminishing returns with regards to mp value and digital photography - and here I agree with you - one of the main factors has to with sensor noise - as photosites get packed into the sensor closer together the amount of electrical noise between the photosites increases. Most compact start hitting a point of diminishing returns around the 6-8 mp range -you are simply going to see little or no gains in detail captured above that due to increased noise or by having increased noise removal obliterate the fine detail in your images. For Aps C size sensors this limit is conciderably higher and for full frame higher again. it can also be that the size of prints you are going to want to make really won't be advantaged particularly by more pixels in your image. also keep in mind though that most raw images are interpolated by design and in some cases you may want to reduce the size of the image to deal with this (eg photo containing mostly saturated blues and reds) reducing an image to a quarter of its original size will effectively remove this interpolation.

anyways I think between us we have given a fairly accurate picture now of where the markets at :)

kayosiii said: anyways I think between us we have given a fairly accurate picture now of where the markets at :)

LoL.

I think this thread should be stickied, just because the drivers of a huge off-topic debate actually arrived at an agreeable middle ground, rather than comparing each other to Hitler.

We deserve an award. ;)

Hi everyone..

Wow...what a lot of excellent information. I've been looking for a digital camera that will work "out of the box" with Ubuntu, since my little cheap DXG-380 is not even readable by F-Spot. Yeah, I know...cheap off-brand cameras are a joke...but I got that little piece of noob technology as a gift. Not wanting to insult the giver behind his back, since he's a best buddy of mine, but I need a better camera.

Which is why I took particular interest in this specific thread.

VeeDubb had some interesting things to say, I thought, since my dad's 35mm is a Nikon as well (though photos are more of a hobby thing for him), and so did the people who were Canon users.

I particularly like shooting landscapes, gardens and animals, and sometimes people.

"Nature photos" to sum it all up in one phrase, are truly my favorite things, though. I'd photograph outer space objects, since that's my real passion, but Hubble's got that covered. ;-) So I'm thinking, which camera will be good for long-range nature shots and will still be compatible with Ubuntu?

I am looking for a camera that will also take good macros/closeups, for the purpose of shooting images of stuff I'm selling, either on eBay or my own website(s).

I'm not at the level of getting all sorts of fancy lenses, in regards to both skill and finances, but I hope to get to that level over the next few years.

I definitely want something that will work with F-Spot, since that's the software I'm most familiar with...and I definitely want something that's larger than 4 MP! I think 8 or 10 MP should do the trick nicely, since I'm not to the level where I would really need 20+ MP. That's a bit overblown for my current still-a-noobie status...and my desire is to learn to really get shot composition down pat.

Got any recommendations?

BB, Kat ^.^

I am going to repeat what I said before - you will want to invest in one good lense when you buy the camera (or as soon after as you can handle).

I own three lenses (two I bought with the camera) and the general purpose one almost never gets used (it is of reasonable quality - but the macro I have is so much sharper).

I use the Sigma SD14 (which should be selling very cheaply by now) which is quite good for the style of shot you are looking to do. It is by no means the perfect all round camera but It does produce stunning results once mastered. (I can show you some of my work if that helps)

Olympus apparently has some of the best landscape lenses and the Fuji S5pro could be worth a look at to if you plan to be shooting high contrast landscapes.

Other than that there are the usual Canon / Nikon choices.

You are probably going to want to end up with 4 lenses. A walk around lense, a Wide lense for landscapes, a telephoto for wildlife and a macro for closeups... The last 3 can either be prime or zoom lenses. Primes will give you better quality but be less flexible. A specific lens I can recommend is the Sigma 70mm macro on non full-frame cameras it doubles as a really nice portrait lense (also great focal range for taking shots at gigs) and has excellent optical characteristics.

Perhaps you can clear up a misconception for me. I was under the impression that one only changed lenses with an old school 35mm film camera, and that with digital, one really didn't need to do that sort of thing because digital cameras seem to have a LOT of bells and whistles that film cameras don't.

If digital is all that and a bag of computer chips (as the popular "revolution" seems to project), why the need to change lenses?

Very Confused, Kat ^.^

The closest thing to an all purpose lens, in Nikon, is 18-200mm. That means it will zoom from sort of wide to sort of telephoto. It only costs about $600, maybe more than your camera body!

Your entry level DSLR will probably come with a kit lens, perhaps an 18-70mm zoom. It will be perfectly fine for most purposes; snapping the kids at Disney, friends at your Super Bowl party, very credible landscapes, etc. However, sooner or later, you may want to snap the elk at Yellowstone and want a longer lens, so the elk aren't just a black dot on the picture; a 70-300mm, perhaps. Then it will be time to change lenses.

If your interests run to macro, or itsy-bitsy things, you might wish for a better macro lens. Time to change lenses again.

Then you need a camera bag to carry all that gear, better hiking shoes, a stronger back, etc. It seems like it never ends!

Don't take me wrong, you can shoot super photographs with your kit lens for a lifetime. However, if you decide to spread your wings some day, your DSLR has the ability, if you decide to use it, to mount bigger...or smaller wings.

I'm right with you; I wish Nikon made a 10-1000mm that sold for $400 and had a macro setting that focused to 1:1 and weighed about 12 ounces. I'd love to never change either.

[Note to the hardcore lurking here: I think we can safely assume the OP is not going to *start* with a D700, D3 or D3x or equivalent. Let's just stick to DX for now.]

Because all cameras (except pin hole camera's) have lenses... that is just the way they work. Every lense that is made is some sort of compromise between weight, price, quality and flexibility... The best quality lenses aren't the most flexible and are expensive to manufacture and usually quite bulky. The more zoom a lens has generally the more compromises have to be made on quality...

When you buy a compact digital that compromise is chosen for you when you buy the camera... usually you get something that is quite flexible and of Adequate quality. Often the lens can be the determining factor of how much detail the camera can capture (moreso than the number of photosites on the sensor). Digital trickery can go so far but it can't make a photo that was taken with an ordinary lens look like it was taken with a fantastic lens.

With a digital SLR... you have the choice to choose between several compromises of quality, cost, weight and flexibility... Most serious DSLR users end up spending a lot more money on lenses than they do the body. (and usually end up being tied to the same brand of camera for this reason)... I do the majority of my photography with a good Prime (non-zoom) lens and the difference in quality between that and a general purpose lense is very noticable.