[imitchellg5]

If you're not going to be doing any editing, there isn't much of a reason to shoot in RAW and use all that extra space that RAW requires. But if you plan on doing any post-production at all, you'll want to be shooting in RAW.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Makes sense. I generally do some basic edits on anything I shoot (crop/colour/contrast/etc) so I doubt it'll be an issue for me.

[dura_ace]

No one has said one word on lens about f stop.

You can buy a great body with a full frame sensor with a 100% viewfinder which wont be cheap.

But if the glass you use isn't first class, then you'll not see the results expected. It's pretty simple, the lower the f stop, the more detail the camera will gather in lower light situations. If you like taking pictures of your girl at the lake at dusk and would like the close up to show definition of her hair, dont buy a cheaper f 5+ stop lens. You'll need a f1.8 to 2.6 lens. And what do you think a doubler does for you..nada. Unfortunately many cheaper lenses are foisted of on an unknowing (under educated) public. Its like the rather poor marketing done by many..you do not want to make your decision based on an opinion from a geek-squad guy at Best Buy; as they may have read reviews; but thats a poor substitute for having used an SLR to make 50000+ pictures; a point aptly made earlier.

My adage is by nice or buy twice. I've been waiting for a minimum 16 MP, as that the size format required to have a dslr which matches the color space of a film camera. And I'd like for my dslr to do movies too, leaves a pretty narrow field to get a minimal high end qualify rig to use with the macs. Since I've got final cut studio hd, it'd be great to use it for movies of mom and the kids.

One camera to point out the SONY alpha900 can use those older automatic lens that are on eBay cheaper than their 1800 usd cousins of equivalent f-stop; google that and you'll know your north of 2 large with just a body. and no movies. I guess I'd close by saying the best choice is what a careful review of your ideal specs, what quality you'll be happy with and how much you can afford.

And then Nikon pulls a killer move and introduces a D800 with 36 MP; so me I'm willing to wait and see the reviews, but between Nikon/Canon abd the alpha 900 theres a new high end dslr lurking for me.

Lets wait for a 8 MP iPhone 4...only if you dont want Ansel Adams quality prints is all I'll say. All this technology and cheaper Chinese built equipment has dumbed down the overall call for high quality first. Oh well we lost JBL to the same process, I guess I'm a dying breed as I'd rather have less but higher end.

[subego]

Originally Posted by dura_ace 

Lets wait for a 8 MP iPhone 4...only if you dont want Ansel Adams quality prints is all I'll say. All this technology and cheaper Chinese built equipment has dumbed down the overall call for high quality first. Oh well we lost JBL to the same process, I guess I'm a dying breed as I'd rather have less but higher end.

I think the equation isn't Ansel Adams vs. not Ansel Adams, it's getting a shot because it's in your pocket vs. getting nothing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Quick question for some of you - one big criticism about the GF2 (from dpreview for example) is poor JPEG performance; it's noted that RAW should really be used instead. Why is this such a drawback? I was under the impression that RAW is a better format to shoot in, anyway, and allowed much better processing results. Is there a reason to prefer hi-res JPEG over RAW?

Thanks,
greg

As was mentioned, space is the big reason.

If the camera is specifically called out as having bad JPEGs, then definitely shoot RAW.

The RAW file has more information than can be shown on a 24-bit display. You (or an algorithm) have to decide which subset of data to use.

From what you're saying, it sounds like the algorithm in the camera is crappy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah, every review points out that the jpeg quality isn't very good for cameras in that class, or even for the previous or subsequent iterations of that camera. Like I said, I didn't think it was a deal-breaker considering the price I paid.

[subego]

As someone who always shoots RAW, this would essentially be a non-problem for me.

OTOH, that price savongs may level out with the need to purchase larger SD cards.

What size cards do you have?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

16 gig...IIRC the pic size with RAW and max settings was around 14 megs.

[subego]

Let's see... carry the four...

About 1,100 pics.

Shoot RAW, my man.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by dura_ace 

...You'll need a f1.8 to 2.6 lens...

Have you looked at how much sub-f/2.8 lenses cost or weigh these days? I'd stick with something around f/4.0 or lower although I wouldn't say an f/5.6 lens is any worse. I think the camera and lens need to be considered as a unit as certain/most cameras much better with a fast lens (due to having more cross-type sensors and other factors). The lens is the most important factor as most cameras (except Canon and Sigma) use the Sony CCD so focus on good lenses. I couldn't afford fast zoom lenses so I bought a few fixed aperture lenses in the ranges I need (e.g. f/2.8 100mm macro, f/1.8 50mm, and an f/2.8 28mm). Now I want to reach further but I'll probably settle for non-fixed zoom (f/4-f5.6 70-300mm zoom). The lens helps make great photos but it's more on the photographer so long as the equipment isn't crap. I've seen fantastic pin-hole camera photos using a shoebox and large-format film.

Originally Posted by dura_ace 

...And what do you think a doubler does for you..nada...

Yup, but if you get an f/4.0 lens you could sneak a 1.4 expander and not be too bad.

Originally Posted by dura_ace 

...only if you dont want Ansel Adams quality prints is all I'll say...

We all want Ansel Adams quality but that's not really attainable...hence his aura...and Ansel used large format ground glass...good luck attaining that quality with a consumer level DSLR, for that you'll need some serious resolution, skill, patience, location, lighting, etc. Or stitch some photos together.