|
Forum: Pentax K-01
01-05-2013, 07:33 AM
|
| |
My opinion-the camera that felt good in your hand , with a cheap lens, will work better for you than a camera that you don't like, with a great lens.
Besides, you can find other lenses.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
01-06-2013, 04:07 PM
|
| |
I fear I may be banned for this, but here goes.
Shooting raw, in my experience and opinion, is a lot of hooey. JPG losses are exaggerated to the point of myth if you use max quality in camera and editing software. The idea that you will need to use the "greater bit depth" to somehow magically make a bad exposure good (which implies, of course, that you are incapable of making a good exposure) is one that wastes the time of photographers worldwide.
Do not take anyone's word for this, mine included. I spent HOURS comparing the "losses" in JPG files to raw and TIFF, making 500 edit/save cycles, pixel-peeping all the while. The difference? Nothing.
Exposure compensation? Assuming you have an occasional missed exposure-and you try to fix it in post-processing by hitting auto-level or curves-that may cause you an issue regardless of file type, but there are better ways. One, of course, is to not miss the exposure in the first place. We seldom did in the match-needle metering days, why should it be so hard to get it now?
I see SO many articles on editing where the photographer spend a lot of time with esoteric editing workflows to end up with something that looks so...well, so much like the starting point, with subtle differences-not improvements- that no one else will notice.
If you enjoy the process, I think that is great. But if you think your CAMERA is taking a lot of time to WRITE a raw file, imagine how long it will take you to process it-all to end up with something that looks like the JPG you could have had in seconds.
|
