RAW or JPEG? RAW!

Well, I use RAW because I want more freedom while shooting pictures. I really love that I can worry about WB after I take a picture. If it was only because of WB, I would still shooting RAW. What about exposure? You can easily correct exposure in post production without ruining your picture. OK, if you blow your highlights, you can't do much about it. With JPEG you must be very careful in post production, since "post production" is done, when you squeeze shutter release button. There are some geniuses, who will like you to think, that using JPEG is for ones, that know how to use their camera. Rubbish. Next statement is, that using JPEG is like shooting with slides. But with slides you did get better image IQ and selecting right settings is a must. It's not an option. Maybe they will also throw in that you will spend less time in post production with your pictures. Of course you will, since you done that in the field! Oh, really. But let's be honest here. Shooting JPEG does not mean, that you are done with post production. True? But what about those pictures, that are "keepers" and they turn bad, because you choose wrong settings or conditions were changing without you noticing it or simply you didn't have time to change your settings? You could spend a lot of time trying to rescue only one ruined picture. If you could rescue it at all! But, who told you that you will spend a lot of time with editing RAW pictures anyway? You can change WB and/or exposure with only one move for as many pictures as you want! After you done, simply select as many pictures as you wish and click on "batch conversion" and program will export those picture as JPEGs, while you can take your cup of tea. I now I do less editing now, than when I was using JPEG. Why am I so "pro RAW"? I owned KM 5D before and I was shooting exclusively JPEG. I was listening to one of that geniuses, and I was editing like crazy! Don't believe them and don't believe me either! Try it for yourself. Choose one simple but reliable RAW converter and shoot some pictures in RAW and then decide. I didn't mention any details and IQ until now. When you will open those RAW pictures and see all those details, you will realise, what did you throw away with every press of shutter release button on your expensive camera. With how many Megapixels?

Here are some examples. All the pictures were taken with Nikon D80 and Sigma 50-150 f/2,8.
Left pictures are RAW, right ones are JPEG out of the camera, with these settings: WB auto, sharpening +1, tone compensation -1, color mode IIIa, saturation enhanced, HUE adjustment 0. No post editing was done with JPEGs. We are saving time, aren't we?

150mm - ISO400 - f/2,8 - 1/250sec
I could play as much as I like with RAW picture on the left, but I like it this way. It's impossible to correct WB or colours on right one-JPEG. Best way to correct it is to convert it to BW...

What about that purple fringing? Click on picture to see it in full size. Difference is obvious. Needles to say, that left one is RAW. Anybody said sharpness?

Below are 3 sets of pictures, showing difference in details and sharpness. Click on 1:1 crops to view it in full size.
- Set1

Below 1:1 crop. Click to see the difference in sharpness and details.

-Set 2
Below 1:1 crop. Click to see the difference in sharpness and details.

-Set 3

Below 1:1 crop. Click to see the difference in sharpness and details.

Well, it's up to you to decide, but I want to get what I have paid for. Whit JPEG I certainly don't.

Tuscany

Or Toscana. However you want it. What can I say when everything had already been said? To put it short: It's beautiful. Amazing. I could not believe it. I thought that everybody who has been there exaggerate a little bit. But no. It's really that beautiful.
So we (me, my wife and daughter) decided to spent a week of our vacations in Tuscany. But where to go and where to stay? I gamble a little bit and did the search exclusively on net. You know that Google is your friend on Internet, don't you? But, what to do with zillion pages and hits that you get? Nothing. I checked it out randomly and try to find "Tuscany home page". I did and I continue my a search there. I stayed away from "luxury B&B" and "Russian language flag" sites. Do I need to say why? After hour or so I had enough of that. I sent an e-mails to a dozen of farmhouses (agriturismo) and I wait. Not for long. I did eliminate ones that didn't respond the same day. That narrowed my selection to 5 farmhouses. A little more e-mails and I booked my vacations in "Agriturismo La Poggiarella ". It's "strategically" placed in a middle of triangle of this towns: Firenze (Florence), Sienna and Pisa. It's in village Coiano. Excellent. We decide that one day will be for excursions, next day for relaxing by the pool. Oh, what a hard life. We visited Florence, Sienna, San Gimignano, Monteriggioni, Vinci and some beautiful places around farmhouse. Photography? I did some. I didn't went there to photograph Tuscany, although that was my secret wish. I went there on vacations. Big difference. But I did take quite a lot of photos. Some good, most of them average. I brought with me all my photo equipment: Nikon D80,Tokina 20-35 f/2,8, Nikon 50mm f/1,8 and Sigma 100-300 f/4 (not that much, ha). As you can see, I don't have any "travel" lens. Mistake. I would give my left kidney for Nikon AF-S 18-200VR. Or some other 18-200 lens. So, I choose a Tokina as my walk-around lens. I did take some portraits with Nikon 50mm and a few birds pictures with Sigma 100-300. But I could happily left Sigma 100-300 at home. If you are planing to go in Tuscany on vacations, take with you 18-200 lens and enjoy yourself. Which one? Take a pick. If you will go there just to photograph this beautiful country, take all your equipment with you, borrow some and leave your family at home!

Here are some pictures:

Is Nikon FF camera a must have?

Let's get those, who need or want better IQ, brighter and larger viewfinder, less DOF, real wide-end, and own high-end primes and zooms, out of the picture. They are not part of that question. There is a lot of buzz on the net, regarding new Nikon pro camera. Would it be FF or not? Well, what do I care? I don't need one. Really. I don't. I am satisfied with my Nikon D80. Why? Well, for starter, all lens weaknesses are more visible with FF sensor and on my Nikon D80, most of that weaknesses are gone. Am I prepared to pay much more for lens, only to receive same IQ? No, I'm not. Don't tell me, you plan to mount that under 1.000€ standard zoom lens on FF body? Do I really need less DOF while shooting with tele lens? Nope. Or do I need less DOF at all? Sometimes. Maybe we should ask Peter about this. Am I prepared to pay really big bucks to reach that 400m or 500mm at f/4 for a hobby of mine? I am not. I can't, to be more correct. For me, IQ from Sigma 100-300mm f/4 HSM or Nikkor AF-S 300mm f/4 is all I need in crop world. In FF world, what would equal this? That same Nikkor or Sigma with 1,4TC. Or how many mm prime? Oh, that much. Of course you can always crop FF pictures, but would be quite a crop.
What are my wishes? Well, camera with 12-14MP 1,5 crop sensor, with better or at least equal high ISO noise as Nikon D80, improved dynamic range. I really don't need FF camera. Maybe, just maybe 1,3 crop. I believe that would be a nice compromise. Maybe...

Pictures below were taken today at Lj ZOO.

250mm, f/5, ISO 800- no crop

300mm, f/5, ISO 800-no crop

With FF camera tiger will be a lot smaller.

Nikon 50mm f/1,8 as walk around lens?

Yes, I believe it can be. With some limitations of course. Here are some "general" photos with this little gem.

But I do need a wide lens, don't I?