On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote: > I should do that. I end up just buying big cards and shooting JPEG + > RAW. And just to encourage the hyperbole, do folks really think that > JPEGS out of the K5 are really no better than the JPEGS out of a P&S?
That depends. If you left the K5 at home because it was too big and got the shot with a P&S that you had with, the P&S JPEGs would be better. If I'm photographing blues dancers, in a dark room, without using a flash, I could probably get better jpegs with the K-5 than I could using RAW with most P&S. > I ask because I have the infamous friend looking at a camera right > now. She actually does care about image quality (mostly sharpness) > but hates to carry the K10D she bought a few years ago. She ends up > using a Nikon compact. I've been letting her sample the results from > my m43 cameras. One reason I aim her at Olympus is that they seem to > have really good JPEG engines since she will never do use RAW. For me, just about every decision I make about my photography stems from my caring about my photos. Therefore I shoot with a K-5 because that gives me the best quality that I can afford. I shoot in RAW, and run every photo through lightroom because I want to at least slightly tweak just about every "keeper" that I take. There are a lot of snapshots that go up onto facebook with no more than color correction and a slight exposure tweak. Oops, can't do that in camera. I also shoot in RAW because I'm often pushing the envelope of the camera's performance and Lightroom on my desktop computer can do a lot better job massaging the file than a little JPEG engine in my camera, and LR3 does a much better job that LR2 did last year, or LR did a year before that. This means that photos that I particularly like, but which were too noisy back then, are photos that I can go back and reprocess, to make even better: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/4331502051/ I firmly believe that a good photographer can get good, even great, shots with any camera, that the camera limits what shots you can get, rather than the quality of the art. If the shot that you want to take is exceptionally clear, under challenging light, JPEGs won't do it. As to your friend, all she really needs is "good enough for her", what probably matters more than image quality is the user experience. It sounds like she'd be happier with decent shots from a camera that is easy for her to use, than great shots with a camera that takes a bit more work, or is more awkward to carry around. -- Larry Colen [email protected] sent from i4est -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
