[Cav]

Firstly thanks to everyone who replied in the Welcome forum. You'll already know that I don't own a DSLR yet, and that I'm researching them prior to getting one this year (sometime).

I'll be asking a lot of semi-retarded questions, starting with...

(The reason I ask is that I've read several reviews outlying a greater need for Shop with Nikon, particularly with the D70).

Do you have to work harder on your RAW images when taken with a Nikon than with a Canon, and does this hold true with the D200?

Thanks in advance!

[Dave]

I had the Canon 300D & now the Nikon D70 & find no difference really in RAW processing. The quality of the shot taken by the photographer will have a much larger impact on the end result

As for D200, never touched but have heard others state it is less forgiving then D70 in terms of Lenses & photographic skills. As with any hi end kit.....rubbish in rubbish out......you can just see the rubbish easier However if you get it right then results should be stunning Do a search o D200 on this forum & you'll find someone who just upgraded from D70 to one, so could answer your question in more detail.

[Cav]

Cheers Dave,

It is just that reviewers tend to lean towards the D70s having great "potential" image quality, after processing. With Canon there is no potential mentioned, nor processing.

[SammyC]

Well I get the impression that the Canons get exposure and WB correct most of the time so maybe that's what they're on about.

I have no experience on Nikon stuff so can't comment. Anyway, if you're shooting in RAW it matters less as you have more flexibility.

But as Dave said, you still need to take a decent shot to begin with.

[Steve]

A RAW image is just that, RAW. No matter which of the cameras you buy from that list above the raw files will still need work to get the best from them. Note that the level of work has to be measured against something for it to mean anything. What is more work, compared to what? Take the Nikon/Canon example and it could quite simply mean that to get the same amount of sharpness out of an equally well photographed RAW file, that you may have to slide one slider slightly more to the right when processing than you would on the other, it may need more “adjustment” but is that any more work in real terms?

A great deal of this post processing is personal taste though, and the best advice would be not to worry about that side of it for now and look at the cameras for what they are, how they work, their controls and how they feel in YOUR hands. Imagine buying the “best” but it feel terrible in your hands and you don’t quite like the way the menu system works, that is far more likely to affect the quality output that a slight difference in processing parameters during the RAW file conversions. This is far more important as all the models you have mentioned are very capable of producing stunning shots.

Also consider that there are many RAW file processing software packages, they are more likely to affect the way you process the files and the time it will take you than any difference in the output of cameras at this level.

Hope that helps a little

[Arkady]

As Steve says - images differ depending on the camera you use. Identical shots taken on a canon and a Nikon will appear different when viewed due to the camera's software.
I borrowed a colleague's Canon in Iraq last month and shot a few frames off. They looked very washed-out to my eye compared to the Nikon I use.
Mine looked over-saturated to him.

It comes down to what you're used to, I guess.

[Steep]

Of course the first idea to get out of your head is that RAW is an image, it's not. It's the RAW data from which you make an image, it's because it's not an image that you can do so much with it before converting it.

Might sound pedantic but it's important (I think)

[Venomator]

Being one of those just upgraded to a D200 I have to say I notice absolutely no difference in the processing elements between the two (D70s) - mine are all rubbish all of the time whatever the kit !

[Matty]

Originally Posted by Venomator

- mine are all rubbish all of the time whatever the kit !

hell yes i know what you mean, i took reasonable pictures with my S5000, but sucked ass really badly with the 300d, now i just suck...

[Arkady]

The difference between the Nikon D1, D1x and D2x are mostly to do with image quality and colour rendition. The D2x renders colours pretty much as I remember Fuji Reala neg film used to - slightly warm, but delicious to play with.

Looking back, I've found that some of the best images I took was as a 14 year-old, using an old Pentax Spotmatic.
I think I had more fun too.
Now I'm just too jaded to be bothered to try anything new.

Find me a muse someone!

[Venomator]

Originally Posted by Arkady

Looking back, I've found that some of the best images I took was as a 14 year-old, using an old Pentax Spotmatic.
I think I had more fun too.
Now I'm just too jaded to be bothered to try anything new.

Find me a muse someone!

Don't know about a muse but ... I may have a Spotmatic in the loft if you want to revert to your childhood daze !?!

[Chez]

I have just upgraded from a D70 to a D200 and I have found that most of my shots look punchier and colours look better straight out of the camera..

That said, I have been using custom WB a lot more with the D200, which may explain it...

[mfwild13]

Originally Posted by Arkady

Find me a muse someone!

EDIT: Sorry thought you said mouse LOL

[Gandhi]

Originally Posted by Arkady

Find me a muse someone!

I would suggest you come to Bath and hang out with all the pretentious arty types we have hanging around here


'There's just so much, like, history and atmos about the place. man'





But you'd probably end up killing them

[ASH]

You can find some shots here from the 5D and the D200.
Warning large files.

http://www.potatobear.com/ND200/D200F.htm

[Steve]

Originally Posted by ASH

You can find some shots