File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hi /p/
Used Nikon D100. ~$300

Should I get?
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
yes
>> Anonymous
no
>> Anonymous
maybe
>> Anonymous
yes and no
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I'm looking for a good bridge camera. I'm a talented amateur looking to go semi pro: weekend work for a small web design company and nature and landscape photography for local sale.

This very nice pic was taken with this model camera. I'm wondering if the resolution, depth and clarity is exceptional, or if i can expect it for most shots.

Halp?
>> Anonymous
>>293826
>>293828
>>293830
/thread
>> Anonyfag of Borneo !bHymOqU5YY
     File :-(, x)
Can you live with having to exit shooting mode to change these settings?

I can't.
>> Anonymous
>>293854
QAUL should always be set at raw, WB at auto, and remember when it took opening the freaking camera to change ISO?
>> Anonymous
>>293833
It depends much more on the lens and how you shoot and post process than the slight differences between camera models in this range.
>> Anonymous
>>293855
>>WB at auto
lolno.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293866
Does not understand RAW.
>> Anonymous
>>293869
spends to much time in post
>> Anonymous
>>293877
has never used a program that can fix WB for 200 images in minutes
>> Anonymous
>>293869
You're right, I completely missed that.
>> Anonymous
OP: no
>> Anonymous
>>293879
293877 can spend his minutes fapping over gear threads instead of dicking around in post
>> Anonymous
>>293855
>QAUL should always be set at raw

RAW QAUL, /P/
>> M?e?e?s?e??? !iZn5BCIpug
     File :-(, x)
Raw Qual /p/
>> Anonymous
>>293869
OP heir. How bad is the save delay in RAW mode?
>> Anonymous
>>293879
Wat program?
>> Anonymous
>>293889
TL;DR it's got a buffer, so you don't need to worry.

>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page10.asp
>> Anonymous
>>293890
Does it matter? Clicking a white spot in Camera Raw takes just a second.

Also, there's no such thing as "spending too much time in post" unless you've got an editor on your back. If the image is worth anyone else's time to look at at all, it's worth your time to process and resize/print it right.
>> Anonymous
>>293895
Oh, I'm OP, not that guy.

I'm curious because I really don't know. I've had bad luck with raws from other cameras; formats not being compatible with PS etc.
>> Anonymous
>>293896
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html?promoid=DRHXB

Pretty much any DSLR will be fine.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293877
Spends too much time dicking around with white balance settings in the field, potentially missing the proverbial Decisive Moment.
>> Anonymous
>>293904
Ice burn.
>> Anonymous
This will lock me into the DX format for the next 5 years.

I don't have any F-Mount lenses right now. Is it more cost effective to go for full frame and buy non-DX lenses, or the other way around?

Are full frame CCDs inherently better?
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293914
>Is it more cost effective to go for full frame and buy non-DX lenses, or the other way around?
Define "cost effective". Getting the DX body is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper than springing for an FX body, and DX lenses are cheaper than FX equivalents.

>Are full frame sensors inherently better?
Define "better". Better image quality, yeah, and less noise at a given ISO. If you really like telephoto, a DX sensor's crop factor gives you a bit more reach, though.
>> Anonymous
>>293916
>Are full frame CCDs inherently better?
No one uses full-frame CCDs anymore since Kodak ProSLR and the original Canon 1Ds.

For current CMOS sensors, per-pixel noise level is roughly inversely proportional to the area of each individual pixel. That means that at the same level of technology, a 10 megapixel Four Thirds sensor is going to be 4 times (2 stops) more noisy than a 10 megapixel full frame sensor, or equally noisy as a 40 megapixel one.

Also, full frame sensors are inherently much more expensive, but the absolute difference is gradually becoming smaller in time.
>> Anonymous
i think i heard someone say everyone will be rocking full frame next year
>> Anonymous
>>293919
>>293917

Ah, hmm. Sounds good then. I thought maybe I could save money by buying an FX body and older/used lenses for film cameras, but maybe not.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293925
You realize you can use older, used lenses designed for film/FX bodies on DX cameras, right?
>> Anonymous
save your money for a D300

full frame, 51 AF points, only 1500$
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293932
D300 is not full frame. Nikon's only FF bodies are the D700 and the D3, both of which are significantly more than $1500.
>> Anonymous
>>293947

ownt and

References:

1. DPReview
>> Anonymous
>>293958

Don't listen to retards like this. They spend more time worrying about gear than their photos and spend hours a day looking at stupid charts and debates online. OP, ask a real photographer you know. From real life and not these internet clowns. One that actually takes good pictures (rather than browse flickr with their pants around their ankles while looking at test shots) and knows that a good photographer is the most important part of getting good photos.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293931
Yeah but isn't using a FF lens with a DX body the same as using a lower aperature DX lens?

>>293932
It's a great camera. I've been looking at the shots from it on Flickr. Pic related.

Add a few lenses and we're talking $2500 tho.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293950
You know, I actually have enough space in my brain to store the knowledge "Nikon's FX camera lineup: D3, D700". It didn't require a trip to dpreview.

(I would have to google to remember the exact model number of the old Kodak full-frame with a Nikon mount, though. DCS Pro 14n or something like that?)
>> Anonymous
cool story bro
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>293959

Oh, that was me, the OP.

I'm asking on /p/ and looking at flickr because I don't know any photographers in real life.

Well I did at one point, and he said the same thing: "it's all about the photographer yadda yadda ya."
He was running around with a $5000 Canon though.

Ultimately there's only so much I can do with my Fuji F10
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293961
>Yeah but isn't using a FF lens with a DX body the same as using a lower aperture DX lens?
No.

Aperture remains the same in terms of light gathering ability. I.e., an f/1.4 lens is an f/1.4 lens in terms of what shutter speed you need for an exposure, regardless of the size of the surface the lens is projecting on. It *does* act like a smaller aperture lens in terms of depth of field, but that's really not that big a deal unless you're seriously into the razor-thin depth of field.
>> Anonymous
>>293968

References:

1. Wikipedia
>> Anonymous
>>293968
I might be for macro work.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>293973
Then the extra DoF of a crop format will help you. But not a lot. 1.5x isn't enough of a crop to really make all that much of a difference.