broken camera

[cyberlizard]

my prized posession, minolta a1 camera which I bought when they came out (at the time the top of the range enthusiast camera) has met an untimely end. The joys of two year old children have fixed it so that the lenses no longer align so all i see is wierd stuff.

I spoke to the insurance company and they are planning to replace it with a Nikon D40 (not what i would have chosen but you cannot have everything).

What I want to know is, has anyone used one and if so what did they think? Also I heard photoshop RAW compatability was problematic - any insights.

thanks a lot


Steve

 

[sfs]

my prized posession, minolta a1 camera which I bought when they came out (at the time the top of the range enthusiast camera) has met an untimely end. The joys of two year old children have fixed it so that the lenses no longer align so all i see is wierd stuff.

I spoke to the insurance company and they are planning to replace it with a Nikon D40 (not what i would have chosen but you cannot have everything).

What I want to know is, has anyone used one and if so what did they think? Also I heard photoshop RAW compatability was problematic - any insights.

thanks a lot


Steve

I haven't used a D40 (I have a D70), but by all accounts it is an excellent entry-level DSLR. If you haven't read the dpreview.com review, it's worth taking a look. It's ability to capture high-quality images seems to be top-notch. The biggest compromise in the camera is the lack of a focusing motor, meaning that screw-drive autofocus lenses will not autofocus with it. All new lenses coming out have their own built-in motors, so you're in good shape if you want a newish zoom lens, but if you are interested in some of the classic fixed-focal-length lenses, you're stuck.

 

[cyberlizard]

thanks very much...

new camera has arrived today and i will take some shots when the rain in Britain stops ( if it keeps it up i will start building an ark )

steve

 

[chaz345]

On the RAW compatibility it seems that there were some issues when the camera first came out that have been addressed by subsequent releases of the Adobe Camera Raw plug in.

But having said that, my question would be, why would you want to be shooting RAW as a hobbiest(even an avid one) in the first place? Yes you can, with much practice and learning, get slightly better results with RAW, but IMO the increase in quality is probably not worth the amount of time required. If you are talking about making very large prints, or routinely shoot in situations with very high dynamic range, it can make sense but for most non-pros, the difference in quality that one gets between RAW and the highest quality JPG is imperceptable.

 

[cyberlizard]

i always shot RAW with my A1 to avoid progressive degeneration of Jpegs through editing. I shoot raw and convert to DNG to reduce file size.

for me shooting raw is better as I can tweak to my hearts content in photoshop without fear.

the best thing i ever did for my cameras was to buy a spyder to calibrate my monitor (<$100). Everyone should have one

 

[chaz345]

Progressive JPEG degeneration is probably one of the most misunderstood things out there. It only occurs if you open a JPEG. make changes, save AS A JPEG, close and then re-open that changed file and make more changes and then re-save. If you make some changes and want to print and then make more changes or different ones, simply save as a PSD (photoshop native) file. One or two generations of JPEG saves, especially if done at the highest quality will make no visible difference in image quality.

 

[cyberlizard]

yeah i know that but psd files take up way to much space. I still feel the best thing to do is shoot raw and convert to dng. Reasonably small file sizes, and complete digital image information.