OT 8mg digi cameras

Well I have a 1.4 50mm nikon, and its about as good as it gets. I never use it though. That 18 200 VRII lense is amazing! Its almost a permenant fitment now.

And if someone is not a good photographer, it doesn't matter how good the camera is, they'll be wasting their money buying a top of the range one. More than a good camera is needed to take good photographs. Mike.

Too true! And... Rather than buying an expensive camera the money could be better spent on travel to interesting places with a point and shoot!

Better still if you are a good photographer AND you travel, AND you have a good flexible fast camera...

Talking of RAW files, my little P&S Fuji E550 has the ability to save to RAW. I'd never used it before last week as I had no way of processing them, but I'd downloaded this Adobe Lightroom, and the difference in quality between the JPEG and the RAW file is frightening!

Photoshops raw thingy is a bit basic but works ish. And fixes hot pixels automatically. Nikon capture is exellent but only works on nikons and automatically corrects cromatic aberations so well its unreal. Bibble Pro is by far the best at noise reduction (includes noise ninja) and is equally good if not the best at the rest. And tthe one I use now. It also can fix hot pixels (you choose) but is less good with chromatic aberation control as its all manual. The rest of the best are all a bit of a muchness.

I'm tempted by the Panasonic can't remember the name of, or one of the Fuji all in one SLR that's not an SLR. The thing is, you can buy an entire sealed camera with a 30-300mm ish lense for the same price as you'd get the 300mm lense for an SLR. And probably get IS chucked in too if you spend a bit more.

You are the bloke from the camera shop who claims to use 50ASA slide film and never uses a tripod and I claim my five pounds.

You can buy SLR cameras that have non-interchangable lenses.

A the 30-300mm lens built into the camera will be utter s*it compared to the 300mm SLR lens for the same price though. The 30-300 built in lens will need the Image Stabilisation because it probably won't be able to get as good aperture values in low light.

I used to use 25 and 50 ISO a lot. Rarely handheld.

I have some great slides taken on Kodachrome 25, I never used a tripod.

FFS all you need to do is to learn how to hold the camera and operate the shutter release.

It got updated this week, now it works correctly with Sony ARW, which pleases me no end.

You need bibble pro you do!

Yeah, looks pretty good, does that. I think that Lightroom maybe an InDesign / Xpress type battle.

Either way, Lightroom is free for the moment, and I'm still using Photoshop 7 and using a point & shoot camera, so I don't think there's any worries of me missing out on any greater quality from Bibble Pro!

Actually the extra noise you get with a point and shoot is a great example of what the embedded noise ninja is good at fixing! I could give you a workaround for the buying part...

One the the great films. Along with the Kodac Portra 160 for prints tended to be my stock of films.

Mostly used slide film as I used to have a slide scanner. I still haven't gone digital SLR (but haven't used my SLR for over two years)

For those interested, some pics from my LX1 here

Indeed, the photographs I took in the Sahara are stunning for the sharpness of the image.

It depends on the camera. On the LX, nothing below 1/15th of a second. But my dad's old Leica I could get decent pictures at 1/8th.

So you're saying it depends on the lens. Great big lump of glass with a big aperture is going to give you more leeway on the exposure. Roughly 1/f number then?