Norman, first of all, you should decide, how quality photos would you like to have. You have 2 options:
1. Digital camera . Pros: small weight and dimensions, built-in lens can have a range zoom, video. Contras: Low image quality, high noise at any ISO over 100-200, no control over depth of field, low focusing speed and accuracy... Almost all of modern digicams do not have RAW.

2. DSLR - a camera with interchangeable lens. Pros: high dynamic range, high focusing speed, high image quality even at ISO up to 800-1600, control over depth of field (bokke), very good optical viewfinder... Contras: weight, quality lens can be expensive, no video, some models do not have "live view" - image can be seen on the screen after it has been shot, not during.

If you have enough will I would recommend you buying DSLR.

norman wrote:

Although I have been trying to use Gimp for quite some time to enhance digital photographs it is only recently that I have begun to realise how powerful a piece of software it really is. Photography has been a hobby of mine for over 50 years but it is only in the last week or so that my 'digital darkroom' has started to flourish. This is very much due to a video course I am following on www.meetthegimp.org which, in my opinion, is a great place to start for the amateur photographer.

One of the things which has emerged is the importance of producing photographs in RAW in order to get as much information as possible for processing. For me, this means finding and purchasing another camera and I wonder if anybody could suggest a good starting point for me to find what I need. I have tried Google but have not found the sort of information I think I need. I have just two criteria, the camera must be light and easy to handle (a bit shaky due to age and arthritis) and shoot in RAW. All suggestions gratefully received.

Norman

norman wrote:
> For me, this means finding and purchasing another camera and > I wonder if anybody could suggest a good starting point for me to find > what I need.

My rule is, if I haven't the time to research which is the best product, I just buy the PC Pro recommendation. In this case, it was the Nikon D80. I'm not a gadget kinda guy, but the D80 is a beautiful thing.

J

Hi Norman,

One of the things which has emerged is the importance of producing photographs in RAW in order to get as much information as possible for processing. For me, this means finding and purchasing another camera and I wonder if anybody could suggest a good starting point for me to find what I need. I have tried Google but have not found the sort of information I think I need. I have just two criteria, the camera must be light and easy to handle (a bit shaky due to age and arthritis) and shoot in RAW. All suggestions gratefully received.

I started photography with Minolta DiMAGE 7i, that is "DSLR" with electronic view finder. It is good camera and still working since 2003, but it's ability shoot is quite bad I was never able to correctly process RAW files from it (using dcraw+gimp). So I was using TIFF option. Several examples of photos:
http://semik.deviantart.com/art/Night-Prague-IV-4649603 http://semik.deviantart.com/art/Night-Prague-IX-5022001 http://semik.deviantart.com/art/Night-Prague-V-4846779 http://semik.deviantart.com/art/Night-Prague-X-5025376 Good thing on EVF is live histogram, warning before slow shutter speed. Bad thing is deep of field and resolution of EVF - it is hard to use polarizing filter. Not on sky, but on ground, leafs - on those objects its hard to see efect.

Now I'm using Nikon D70 for 2 years and I'm very satisfied with it. It's big enought to fit in my hands, Canon 300D or even 350D is too small for me, Canon 5D was fitting excellent in my hands but it is heavy and was quite expensive. Two years back was Nikon D70 + 18-70mm lenses best choice for me. Camera and lenses weight about 1200g, that is in my option better than light cameras like that Minolta which is about 400g. I'm able to hold longer exposure times with Nikon. You should visit some shop and try to hold and use some cameras there, another option is to try some local photographs and try to play with their equipment.

Shooting in RAW is just same as into JPEG on Nikon, saving to memory card is done in background, but because of bigger size of file camera's buffer is able to hold only 2-3 images and after that you have to wait.

Gimp have limitation on 8bit per color channel, that is shame because cameras are usualy producing 12bit. Other software like Adobe Photohoshop is able to work in 16bit, but that adds another expences to your hobby.

I'm using Gimp with combination of ufraw-gimp plugin. That plugin duplicate some Gimp's features like Curves and Levels to overcome Gimp's 8bit limitation. I usually do exposure and white balance corrections in ufraw-gimp and rest of work I finish in Gimp itself.

You can check prety long list of ufraw supported cameras: http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Cameras.html and see ufraw user interface:
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Guide.html

If you are interested you can see some my photos from D70 online: http://www.tomasek.cz/foto_vylety/Beskydy2005/index.html http://www.tomasek.cz/foto_vylety/Jizerky/Vodopady_na_Cernem_potoce/index.html texts are only in Czech.

I'm very satisfied with Nikon D70 as camera and I'm more than happy from existence of Gimp which is in combination with ufraw excellent tool for processing my amateur photos. For me is essential that this combination works perfectly on Linux.

One warning at end: Beware of dust in DSLR! This year I was on holidays on desert in Slowinsky park in Poland and in final I ended with scratches on my CCD sensor which need to be replaced, cost were about 3000CZK and almost one month without camera. It is quite big disappointment to me. In photo-service I was discussing this problem and they say that only camera they didn't had there for sensor cleaning are Olympus - they are using sort of electrostatic cleaning. But Oly is using crop factor 2 and 4:3 format, I do not like both features, I hope Nikon will come with some solution of this problem soon.

Best regards

Jan Tomasek wrote:

Shooting in RAW is just same as into JPEG on Nikon, saving to memory card is done in background, but because of bigger size of file camera's buffer is able to hold only 2-3 images and after that you have to wait.

Just to clarify that: the similarity is in the file saving, otherwise saving to RAW still saves more info, right?

It's just, I haven't got Gimp to do RAW yet (but I will, now you've pointed out the plugin below). I won't bother if there's no difference in the file quality.

Gimp have limitation on 8bit per color channel, that is shame because cameras are usualy producing 12bit. Other software like Adobe Photohoshop is able to work in 16bit, but that adds another expences to your hobby.

I'm sure I read there is a professional version of The Gimp which provides more bits. I don't know how that compares price-wise with Photoshop.

Those pics are very nice, Jan :-)

Cheers J

John Allsopp wrote:

Jan Tomasek wrote:

Shooting in RAW is just same as into JPEG on Nikon, saving to memory card is done in background, but because of bigger size of file camera's buffer is able to hold only 2-3 images and after that you have to wait.

Just to clarify that: the similarity is in the file saving, otherwise saving to RAW still saves more info, right?

RAWs have more bytes per pixel, no WB is applied, nor sharpening or excessive noise reduction. PC RAW->image algorithm is much more complicated and quality than the one from any camera. You camn easily apply some exposure compensation after shooting... This list can be prolongated.

It's just, I haven't got Gimp to do RAW yet (but I will, now you've pointed out the plugin below). I won't bother if there's no difference in the file quality.

Gimp have limitation on 8bit per color channel, that is shame because cameras are usualy producing 12bit. Other software like Adobe Photohoshop is able to work in 16bit, but that adds another expences to your hobby.

I'm sure I read there is a professional version of The Gimp which provides more bits. I don't know how that compares price-wise with Photoshop.

Those pics are very nice, Jan :-)

Cheers

UFRaw (ufraw.sf.net) handles RAWs with no posterization (it has more than 8 bits internally). Upcoming GIMP 2.4 has only 8 bits, 2.6 is planned to have 16 or even more.

Alexander Rabtchevich writes:

1. Digital camera . ...
2. DSLR - ...

I'd say there's quite a lot of camera's in between.

I'm still quite happy with my Sony DSC-V1 which has all the things a (semi-)professional photographer requires (even a flash mount shoe) without being a DSLR.

-- Johan

norman wrote:
>> > For me, this means finding and purchasing another camera and >> > I wonder if anybody could suggest a good starting point for me to find
>> > what I need.
>>
>> My rule is, if I haven't the time to research which is the best product,
>> I just buy the PC Pro recommendation. In this case, it was the Nikon >> D80. I'm not a gadget kinda guy, but the D80 is a beautiful thing. >
> Thank you for your suggestion I must have a look at the photo magazines. >
> Norman

Well, the reason I like PC Pro (UK, no idea if it's available elsewhere) is it goes "buy this", and I don't have to think. If I wanted to make a decision by reading the photo magazines, I'd have to understand everything and make proper decisions. Plus those magazines often have the feeling of everything's positive, so this lens is great, oh and so's this one, this one's fantastic, but this one will blow you away. How do you choose? Time's money, and sometimes I have to be efficient and or quick, in those situations I often delegate to PC Pro.

I think part of my relief at having the complexity taken away, sometimes, is I deal with complexity all day, so it's not a pleasure for me to delve into the specs. I imagine if you have a job that doesn't tax your head too much and are a hobby photographer, then delving into the specs would be a pleasure.

Anyway, PC Pro's current recommendations are:

Digital SLR: Sony DSLR-A100 or Nikon D80 in second place

Digital Compact: Canon Digital Ixus 900 Ti or Sony Cyber-shot DSC-W35

Must admit, I bought their compact recommendation of the time a few months ago, the Canon Digital Ixus 65 and was disappointed. I think the exposure washes out colours, there's a dark patch on the screen. Not sure there's a RAW format mode anyway on that.

J

On Thursday 13 September 2007 17:58:02 norman wrote:

This is very much due to a video course I am following on www.meetthegimp.org which, in my opinion, is a great place to start for the amateur photographer.

Hello from sunny Tullah, Tasmania, where dialup is the peak of modern Internet connectivity. Videos are not a real option here, but OTOH there is plenty to point a camera at. Here are some grotty throwaway shots from a Fuji camera:

http://tullah.fit2.bur.st/

I've heard good things said about the Canon 40D (a DSLR) by people who actually use the suckers for a living. Still ghasp dollars an item, but fairly good value for the ghasp. It's like a cut-down version of the 5D, which is an excellent little gadget.

Cheers; Leon

Johan Vromans wrote:

1. Digital camera . ...
2. DSLR - ...

I'd say there's quite a lot of camera's in between.

I'm still quite happy with my Sony DSC-V1 which has all the things a (semi-)professional photographer requires (even a flash mount shoe) without being a DSLR.

I would not agree :). There have been a prosumer class, but now it is dying. DSLRs killed it due to higher image quality and more profits for a manufacture due to interchangeable lens.

Pro compacts for amateurs? Can you remember CURRENT compact cameras with RAW? Minolta is not in the market. There are no Sony compacts with RAW. I can recall Canon G9 - not so small and with awful image (12MP on a small sensor) from any strict POV. Nikon? No. Ricoh Caplio G100 - they put too much MP on a small matrix too plus it costs way too much. That is the whole list. Dot.

There are 3 upcoming semi-pro DSLRs. To set in turn of cost: Sony Alpha 700 (1400 USD), Canon 40D (1500+ USD), Nikon D300 (1800+ USD). Note, these are semi-pro cameras and can be used for professional photography.

Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:

I've heard good things said about the Canon 40D (a DSLR) by people who actually use the suckers for a living. Still ghasp dollars an item, but fairly good value for the ghasp. It's like a cut-down version of the 5D, which is an excellent little gadget.

On Thursday 13 September 2007 20:25:33 you wrote:

To set in turn of cost: Sony Alpha 700 (1400 USD), Canon 40D (1500+ USD), Nikon D300 (1800+ USD).

Thaks for that nice, simple list.

I got good value out of a Sony DSC-F707 until the day I ran it over with my 2t van.

Several of the pro photographers I know have longed for a Canon 5D but not been able to afford one; they all seem to think well of the 40D, after studying it, "Not perfect, but close enough," sort of thing. (-:

Cheers; Leon

Note, these prises are without lens. The cheapest kit lens cost about 100$ shipped with the camera. Nikon's one is more expensive due to more quality. Sony provides 3 kit zooms: 100$ 17-70, new 16-105 and Zeiss 16-80 (set in turn both of price and quality). Nikon and Canon have several kits too.

Canon 5D main advantage is full frame. It is not cropped. So in features it is weaker than 30D or 40D, but image quality is higher.

Leon Brooks GIMP wrote:

On Thursday 13 September 2007 20:25:33 you wrote:

To set in turn of cost: Sony Alpha 700 (1400 USD), Canon 40D (1500+ USD), Nikon D300 (1800+ USD).

Thaks for that nice, simple list.

I got good value out of a Sony DSC-F707 until the day I ran it over with my 2t van.

Several of the pro photographers I know have longed for a Canon 5D but not been able to afford one; they all seem to think well of the 40D, after studying it, "Not perfect, but close enough," sort of thing. (-:

Cheers; Leon

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:

[...]

Canon 5D main advantage is full frame. It is not cropped. So in features it is weaker than 30D or 40D, but image quality is higher.

Did you do a comparison of 5D vs. 40D?

There is a review http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml which states
""...the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D"
(I don't have either of them ...;-)

Arnd

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007, John Allsopp wrote:

Jan Tomasek wrote:

Shooting in RAW is just same as into JPEG on Nikon, saving to memory card is done in background, but because of bigger size of file camera's buffer is able to hold only 2-3 images and after that you have to wait.

Just to clarify that: the similarity is in the file saving, otherwise saving to RAW still saves more info, right?

It's just, I haven't got Gimp to do RAW yet (but I will, now you've pointed out the plugin below). I won't bother if there's no difference in the file quality.

Gimp have limitation on 8bit per color channel, that is shame because cameras are usualy producing 12bit. Other software like Adobe Photohoshop is able to work in 16bit, but that adds another expences to your hobby.

I'm sure I read there is a professional version of The Gimp which provides more bits. I don't know how that compares price-wise with Photoshop.

You might want to have a look at digiKam http://www.digikam.org/
(also open source).
It does 16 Bit (and a lot of other nice stuff;-).

Arnd

Norman, there are several possibilities for you. First, you can stick to 50 mm prime and use it most of the time. It is light, very qualitative and fast (F1.4) or 1.7. Second, you can buy light slow zoom such as 18-200 (26-300 in 35 mm equivalent) and use it all of the time. It provides less quality but has a very large focus distance range. Or you can use any of the kits like 17-70... Note, to obtain normal focus distances you should multiply them by camera crop factor -1.5 for Sony, Pentax, Nikon and 1.6 for Canon.

norman wrote:

Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the past I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a Russian camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon with 28mm and 135mm lenses which unfortunately were stolen. My Arthritic problems were just starting so I moved to an Olympus compact camera with built in zoom and have staggered from then into the digital era. In my earlier years I had a dark room which eventually I had to give up and now I see my computer taking over the functions of a dark room.

So you see, I am not a newcomer to photography and I am well aware of the problems with dust etc especially with SLR cameras. As I said in my original posting I need ease of handling and RAW. Changing lenses is not so easy when one hand is holding a walking cane even standing for any length of time is a problem. Carrying equipment is not comfortable and I do like to wander on my own when out for a shoot.

Norman

So you see, I am not a newcomer to photography and I am well aware of the problems with dust etc especially with SLR cameras. As I said in my original posting I need ease of handling and RAW. Changing lenses is not so easy when one hand is holding a walking cane even standing for any length of time is a problem.

In that respect I think the Nikon D80 lens changeover is a hassle .. the button's not easy and I've a tamron lens that doesn't have the dot so I have to work it out every time. I've big hands and I think the whole thing's finicky: things like manual exposure settings, the wheel doesn't feel very ergonomic, and white balance setting's a faff too. From that pov I wouldn't recommend buying one unless you've tried it in the shop first.

J

You sure discovered a nice little subculture on the Gimp mailing list, Norman. Here are some of my thoughts.

In my opinion, if you are just interested in getting a raw image out of the camera, buy a low-end DSLR and spend as much as you can afford on glass. I have a Canon 350d and a 1d Mk IIn. IQ is similar, just more features and durability with the 1d - better autofocus, spot metering, etc.

As for net resources, The best all-around net community for photography, in my opinion, is photo.net You can get lots of good advice, and some bad advice, in the forums there. You probably won't even have to post a question, just comb the archives. If you want very detailed, highly technical reviews of equipment, you'll find those at dpreviews.com. The links you will find on those two sites will lead you anywhere you need to go.

On an unrelated, amusing note, I've been receiving so much bulk email from Sven Neumann lately that my spam filter tagged it. I set it straight. I would view that as a compliment if I were you, Sven. Thanks for all you do.

Hello Norman,

I will be adding my opinion to the growing pool. The Canon G9 was already suggested earlier and it might well be a good solution for you. It is a light compact camera, produces RAW and has a hotshoe if you want to use a flash. In addition it has image stabilization, which might be helpful in your situation. Read for example
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-assignment-on-vacation.html for a review of the preceeding model, the G7, and http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/09/new-canon-powershot-g9-makes-my-g7-feel.html for a list of changes.

Best wishes, Christoph

Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the

past

I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a

Russian

camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon

with

28mm and 135mm lenses which unfortunately were stolen. My Arthritic problems were just starting so I moved to an Olympus compact camera

with

built in zoom and have staggered from then into the digital era. In

my

earlier years I had a dark room which eventually I had to give up and now I see my computer taking over the functions of a dark room.

So you see, I am not a newcomer to photography and I am well aware of the problems with dust etc especially with SLR cameras. As I said in

my

original posting I need ease of handling and RAW. Changing lenses is

not

so easy when one hand is holding a walking cane even standing for any length of time is a problem. Carrying equipment is not comfortable

and I

do like to wander on my own when out for a shoot.

Norman

Depending on which focal area is of your interest, there are more interesting suggestions - all of the "bridge" type, witch means "bigger compacts".
My suggestion is (being an Olympus fan) the Olympus SP-560 UZ. It has a 27 - 486 (35 mm equivalent) lens, 8Mp and saves in RAW. Besides that it has an CCD-based image stabilization system. And of course full manual exposure control.

mvh Mogens Jæger

John Allsopp wrote:

I'm sure I read there is a professional version of The Gimp which provides more bits. I don't know how that compares price-wise with Photoshop.

You might be thinking of Cinepaint which was based on an early version of GIMP. It handles up to 32-bits per channel and is available for free. Cinepaint is focused on use by people in the film industry.

On Thursday 13 September 2007 06:13:52 Mogens Jæger wrote:

Thank you all for the interesting comments and information. In the

past

I was a great fan of the SLR and I had several starting with a

Russian

camera, 'Zenit', which I still have and finishing up with a Nikon

with

28mm and 135mm lenses which unfortunately were stolen. My Arthritic problems were just starting so I moved to an Olympus compact camera

with

built in zoom and have staggered from then into the digital era. In

my

earlier years I had a dark room which eventually I had to give up and now I see my computer taking over the functions of a dark room.

So you see, I am not a newcomer to photography and I am well aware of the problems with dust etc especially with SLR cameras. As I said in

my

original posting I need ease of handling and RAW. Changing lenses is

not

so easy when one hand is holding a walking cane even standing for any length of time is a problem. Carrying equipment is not comfortable

and I

do like to wander on my own when out for a shoot.

Norman

Depending on which focal area is of your interest, there are more interesting suggestions - all of the "bridge" type, witch means "bigger compacts".
My suggestion is (being an Olympus fan) the Olympus SP-560 UZ. It has a 27 - 486 (35 mm equivalent) lens, 8Mp and saves in RAW. Besides that it has an CCD-based image stabilization system. And of course full manual exposure control.

Just add a couple of points:

1. If you do decide to buy a DSLR which IMHO is the only sound choice if you do want to produce high quality images, then it is really important to carefully consider what lenses you really need.

2. My personal choice for professional use is the Canon 5D (I have two bodies) which has a full frame chip rather then the reduced chip sizes of the "consumer" DSLR. Inevitably, as cost of producing full frame chips drop they will become available on "consumer range" camera. This means that any lenses you buy which cannot be used on full frame will be useless when you upgrade to full frame. (e.g the "S" lenses on the canon range will not be a good long term investment. Most phtographers change their bodies far more frequently than lenses. Over a lifetime a photographer will spend much more on lenses than camera bodies.

3. If you do want to produce projected images then gimp will serve you well because digital projectors have very low resolution (most run at 1024x768). For such images you do not need a high resolution camera. HOWEVER if you want to produce large high quality prints then unfortunatelyt gimp does not cut the mustard. The current lack of supprt for 16bit per channel means it is far below the industry standard. (Photoshop CS3 now has support that extends well beyond 16bit per channel).and for that reason I most other other professionals use photoshop much as we would like to be able to use gimp.

Another gimp problem is the learning curve -- it does not have an interface that makes it an easy step to move from photoshop to gimp.

Anyway you makes your choice from waht suits you