Gran Alacant and Area Forum

Your wish is my command Graham...

Tokina 10-17mm fisheye
Nikkor 18 - 105mm standard kit lens with VR
Nikkor 55 - 200 medium tele with VR (not impressed with this one - seems a little 'soft' without tweaking in Pshop.

Here's a link to Ken Rockwell's site.

Does a good job of comparing lenses and running through the controls of some popular cameras.

KEN ROCKWELL

The Leica page is to die for...

LEICA

I have just bought an entry level Nikon D60 with Nikkor 18-55mm VR lens (this is the one recommended by Ken Rockwell as exceptionally good).  It was to replace my ancient Minolta X700 35mm SLR whose shutter recently went on strike.  I also think that the pictures are 'soft'.  I was initially disappointed with it.  I thought the lens was poorer than the fixed 50mm one on my old camera.  My wife's small Nikon Coolpix 4500 compact takes much sharper pictures.  However I now realise that the pictures need 'processing' through some photo software.  

I cannot run Photoshop Elements because I have the Ubuntu 8.04 Linux OS.  I am trying to get to grips with 'The Gimp' but the manual and help system is almost no use at all.  I am trying to understand the jargon.  Anyway I have found that using the 'unsharp mask' helps a lot.  When I am back in Spain with nothing much to do I will experiment.  Here are some pictures taken with it (except for the circada and ants which is from my wife's camera).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39178796@N02/

The members of my local camera club say that I should shoot in RAW mode and then manipulate the pictures.  Unfortunately they all use Photoshop so they can't really help with the Gimp.  Does anyone have any thoughts about RAW vs. JPEG (or The Gimp)?

Keith

You know something - I always thought that using jpeg compression was a cardinal sin, but the 2 stage jpeg you get from the Nikon is just great.

I can see hardly any artifacts at reasonable sizes and viewing distances. I have a print of a Harley at A2 on the office wall and there's no visible compression artifacts or jaggies (it was only a 12mb jpg expanding out to 39mb).

Re the sharpness, I up the sharpness in-camera (not sure if you change this on the D60) and 9 times out of ten I can print direct from my camera to our PictBridge canon ix4000 and get very good results...I'm quite picky since I'm a printer by profession.

BTW I had a Minolta SRT303 and a Dynax as well as a X700 - great cameras in my view. And I think you'd have to go a long way to beat the groundbreaking f1.2 50mm Rokkor.

My dislike of jpeg stems from the thousands we get from budding 'designers' who really haven't a clue about the criteria for print, even though we try our best to guide and educate.

We even providing printed guidelines as well as info from our website as to what is required and we still get highly compressed jpegs that clearly have opened and closed many times.

For those who aren't aware, every time you open a jpeg and resave as jpeg you lose a little information until you get blocky 'artifacts' becoming evident.

This is where the jpeg algorithm has to average out similar pixels each time it goes through the open/save routine. Rather like a copy of a copy etc.

Digressing slightly. I am thinking of upgrading from my Canon pwershot A540. I am trying to discover the merits of a digital SLR over a "superzoom". Back in my 35mm days, received wisdom was that fixed lenses were better than zooms but given that most DSLRS have zoom lenses as well, what is the advantage, particularly given the substantial price premium when you add in the cost of a couple of extra lenses?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

Spot on Robin.

I've seen results from the latest generation of compact and  bridge cameras and they ain't half bad.

The latest Fuji sensor for example has the option to combine multiple exposures to create an in HDR and so avoiding burnt out skies, blocked in shadows etc.

In very general terms a fixed focal length lens will optically outperform most zooms, since they (zooms) are very much a compromise - you don't get 'owt for nowt as they say.

Ultimately it's down to the individual to decide whether it's worth the effort to lug about a large body (no inference should be drawn here ) and a couple of extra lenses.

Personally I find it quite therapeutic...I have a stressful occupation (in relative terms) so I tend to lose myself in considering which focal length/aperture or effect I'm seeking to create from a scene as well as being able to just pick up and shoot.

Equally the best kit in the world won't make you a photographer if you haven't the eye for composition and a little attention to detail as well as breaking the rules now and then.

For a prime example of this I've seen a Flickr page where the guy was using a Sony A700 DSL (not cheap) and the resulting pics may as well been taken on a camera-phone...purely objective crit you understand.

Tony...the Powershot G10 received excellent comments in AP

If I were in the market for an entry level DSLR Canon or Nikon would be on my list for sure, you can compare your 540 with many other cameras here...

Comparometer

Note that site works better with Firefox.

A word of warning if you go down the DSLR path you may end up spending bucketloads since, once bitten, the allure of new lenses bites deeply

Let us know how you go on - perhaps open a Flickr account too.