Classic British Flight Sim

Olympus E400 or the E410, both are very capable bits of kit. Used to work in a camera shop and liked these an awful lot, couldn't really find many faults with them.

Have a look at the Nikon D40X as well, also a nice camera and around the same size and price.

But if you like the Olympus, then I would say it would be a good choice, as its a very nice camera, well featured, not too big and quite fast.

Bear in mind when talking focal lengths that what the lens says will be different from what you get, it most cases there is a "crop factor" to consider, so a 20mm lens will be more like a 28mm lens.

With Olympus it doubles, so for example a 12mm lens (Great for Landscapes) will work out as a 24mm (Just as capable).

As for the RAW Vs Jpeg Issue, I work as a Professional Photographer and NEVER use RAW, as there's no point. If you shoot everything in raw you'll spend hours processing them for a tiny bit more detail and slightly more control. Jpeg Fine will be more than enough for most purposes, use RAW only if the camera is struggling to get the shot right first time.

10 Million Pixels is more than enough, the lens makes the most difference, and the Olympus Zuiko Lens are as sharp as a pin.

Hope this adds onto what the others have said and helps a little.

Vulcan_to_the_sky! wrote:As for the RAW Vs Jpeg Issue, I work as a Professional Photographer and NEVER use RAW, as there's no point. If you shoot everything in raw you'll spend hours processing them for a tiny bit more detail and slightly more control. Jpeg Fine will be more than enough for most purposes, use RAW only if the camera is struggling to get the shot right first time.
.

Bear in mind also that (while it is a matter of choice) JPEG is a lossy format. Every time you copy the file (to edit for instance) you will lose some detail (VERY small amounts and NOT noticeable initially) but it happens.

With my Canon, a Full size 8MP JPEG comes in at around 4.5 megabytes. A RAW file contains almost double that amount of data. This is data that is simply deleted by the camera because JPEGs are compressed, (in other words kiss goodbye to highlights and dynamic range) - RAWS are not. This data is put there for a reason! As software improves it absolutely astounding what can be pulled from images that even two years ago seemed flat.

Without wanting to sound argumentative, I would NEVER shoot anything of value in JPEG. Having said that, as I mentioned earlier, these cameras WILL produce astounding (And perfectly useable) images in JPEG. In ideal conditions, a processed RAW image (Which ends up as a JPEG!!) will not look overly different to a JPEG straight off camera - that is most certainly true. But outwith perfect conditions, the level of control enabled by using RAW is simply staggering. I am a VERY lazy person, and I can say without question that if I did not believe in RAW and could demonstrate to myself the difference, I would not be using it!
I have recently upgraded my photo editing software, and I can say hand on heart that images I truly believed were 'average' are able to be brought to life. There is simply not enough information in comparable JPEGS to do anything with them.
There is a learning curve to this as well. Once one is conversant with their equipment, you are able to know what it's limits are, and how much you can push them - like anything else in life!

Of course, it is not essential to fire off RAWs immediately (You can record in both RAW+JPEG on some cameras and use the JPEGS while keeping the RAWs as your archive).

Ah.. RAW format

I think I must be a little more idle than you Jim as I CBA with the learning curve.. my choice though and nowt to do with the theory ;-)

What I WILL say though is that there's no doubting the quality of Zuiko lenses. Excellent glass and superior (IMHO) to what you'll get as standard with either Canon or Nikon To pick up on what has been said about RAW format.. you really will (should you decide to go down that path) have to get good software in order to see any benefit. One of my staff recently bought a Nikon D80 and the software that came with it was (TBH) really poor. The amount of latitude offered for RAW format was negligable although there was another disc included but this required registration.. AND PAYMENT :o He is fortunate in that is has a 'full bore' version of Photoshop and can do what he wants with the correct plugin. This said.. he had many shots taken on a trip to Nepal printed A3 size, framed and displayed in the pub for sale (AND he sold a few too)!! ALL were originally taken in jpeg on a Panasonic ;-)

ATB

DaveB :tab:

i think forthbridge has some good food for thought... it's what you want out of your picture taking.
I had to work many hours in front of the computer editing the photos , not to mention buying adobe photoshop (a very expensive bit of software)
I used cannon for years and bought the first digital slr they sold to the general consumer
the D30 I had a few of he L series lens and other add ons .. about 12 grand worth
but after a while it became a big pain in the ass..... not to mention dealing with people who just have to touch !
not to mention a few lurking sleezy bastards I knew were up to no good,,, trying to find a chance to steal my shite.

anyways I've sold most of it off and shoot with a Kodak Z812 , it's as competent as any in it's class ......
it does a nice job of capturing a good image
.... plus I can shoot Hi Def Video up to 1080 x 720 with the twist of a knob, PLUS it's one of only a few that
allows zooming while recording while keeping the sound.
pretty sexy if you ask me........ and all for 249.00 us
and the Jpeg thing ..no biggy just make a duplicate of your pics you really like to show off and put the original away.
or save it as a tiff file.

ATB in your choice ,
keep it fun

Joe

here's one I took with it recently of Dick Cole , co pilot of James Dolittle (that'd be the WWll Dolittle raiders )
and this file has been knocked down a bunch



and this

HI Again all,

Everyone making some very pertinant points on this - I hope it's not too off putting to the original poster!! ;-)

To be honest, as with everything, the money you spend on software DOES matter - but it does not need to be Photoshop....

A friend of mine who has vast experience with imaging and has processed everything from 35mm to medium format slides, is now using digital.

His software of choice for processing is Serif Photoplus - which produces images of publication quality - and this is a guy who has had books and calendars published. Not someone to accept second best. Serif software is capable, cheap (or free!) and is not 'bloated'.

The biggest hit to the RAW market came when Adobe bought out Pixmantec, who produced an excellent freeware RAW converter, and a reasonable upgrade. Adobe bought it, upped the price and tinkered with it and basically ruined it!

There is a learning curve, without doubt, with RAW, but to be honest, there are very few images that I spend more than about 90 seconds on when editing - if that. The trick is to be selective. There is no point in processing every shot one takes until you actually need it. One thing with digital is that it can make you trigger happy compared to film.

Just to fan the RAW debate, I filled one 512mb card at Fairford with JPEGS, and a 1Gig card with RAW shots. I am happy with the JPEGS (In fact JPEG IS probably better for some of the shots - it is hard to get much information out of a blue sky with one or two clouds) - BUT for storage I converted all these shots to TIFF for backup - so it actually took me longer to 'deal' with them than the RAW files which are still mostly unprocessed - only as I need them. I look at the embedded JPEGS to decide what to use.

Of course, everyone is different, and no one is wrong either. In an ideal world, I'd say do what makes YOU happy. If anyone can genuinely say they are happy with their shots, then that is fine - the shots are for them in any case! If possible, shoot in JPEG+RAW - that way you have the best of both worlds - and you are future proofed. You have a JPEG to work with, and a RAW file to backup for the future. That way when software which is even better and more affordable than now arrives (which it will) - you have something to work with.

There are some great deals on memory cards out there, so storage is cheap. An extra £20 or £30 (or less!!) quid and you can safely fire off JPEG+RAW and that is all it will cost you in the first instance.

On the other hand, if you are a person who only gets prints, and does not keep negatives from film, then there is little point shooting in RAW only - JPEG will suffice - but - do remember the compression, and always use a 'lossless' compression technique to store and backup.

Thanks for the good points and comments! Well this Saturday were going off to peterborugh to look there, we will find somewhere that i can try hands on the cameras of the price range and choose from there on. Thanks guys for the handy tips and comments! CHEERS

Some responses to other's comments:

On a Nikon D70 (probably othe Nikons), the RAW+JPG option where it saves both, just gives low quality JPG that are ok for previews.

The free version of the Pixmantec software Rawshooter Essentials (the payware version became Adobe's Lightroom) is still available (eg http://www.download.com/RawShooter-Esse ... 18796.html ).

The effect of the sensor size compared to a 35mm film camera means that lenses are effectively 1.5 times the magnification that you would get from a 35mm film camera. So as someone already said, not only does the 20mm lens behave like a 28mm film lens, but the 300mm telephoto behaves like a 450mm film lens (about 9 x magnification).

And if you can afford it definitely get a larger lens than the typical standard lens. That's the point of an SLR - interchangeable lens. Although I keep my 120-300mm zoom on most of the time - ready for action!

Finally don't forget to budget for some memory cards. 10Mpixel shots are going to rapidly fill those.

Don't forget tho that the olympus uses the 'four thirds system' on it's sensor. It is smaller than either Nikon or Canon sensors, and the crop factor means that focal length is virtually doubled compared to 35mm.
Canon is around 1.6, Nikon 1.5.

In practical terms however, to be perfectly honest, unless you have a collection of glass from a film SLR and are 'going digital' this means nothing - you will simply get used to what you have - if that makes sense!

In practical terms however, to be perfectly honest, unless you have a collection of glass from a film SLR and are 'going digital' this means nothing - you will simply get used to what you have - if that makes sense!

I agree, but if coming from glass & film SLR, it helps to understand that you don't need to go and buy a 450mm lens to get the effect of the 450mm lens of the old days - and that probably makes no more sense!

Hence my 450mm SLR lens from film days is a little extreme in the digital world, but nice to have just in case.

Ian

ianhind wrote: I agree, but if coming from glass & film SLR, it helps to understand that you don't need to go and buy a 450mm lens to get the effect of the 450mm lens of the old days - and that probably makes no more sense!

Hence my 450mm SLR lens from film days is a little extreme in the digital world, but nice to have just in case.

Ian

Good point Ian - I admit that slipped by me!!

Anyone think it would be a good idea to start a 'Camera' thread/sticky and perhaps post up some shots with details such as camera model/lens/focal length??

There are some amazing shots on the net, but of course a lot are taken on VERY expensive kit, so perhaps a few shots from more modest equipment may help some people looking to upgrade? Or maybe there's not enough interest generally??