I once heard from a you tube guru that it is a waste of money to purchase a higher end camera such as a D500 or D7500 if you are only shooting in JPEG. Comparing purchasing a corvette and only drive 25 mph.
Any thoughts?
I once heard from a you tube guru that it is a waste of money to purchase a higher end camera such as a D500 or D7500 if you are only shooting in JPEG. Comparing purchasing a corvette and only drive 25 mph.
Any thoughts?
… Comparing purchasing a corvette and only drive 25 mph.
In my book, buying a Corvette and/or drive it at any speed
is not a good idea.
All Nikon's flag ship bodies were design mainly with jpg
shooters in mind first: the sports shooters — that is why
it is so important for Nikon to release it for the next olym-
pics, in Japan.
My fasters single digit camera goes up to 11 fps and this
is faster than what I really need in any kind of shooting in
my operation but local sports.
True is that, even for sports, the local press will grant me
until the next day for delivery but the Olympics syndicated
shooters are transferring their files (jpgs) straight from the
tracks and fields… and elsewhere.
Definitely not true. The PJ-s seldom, if ever, use raw.
That said, shooting raw opens up more possibilities for optimizing the DR of your capture and lessens the risk of jpeg artefacts if you need to save several times in post.
Wish i was good enough to only shoot jpeg
No body is good enough to shoot jpg unless under controlled
light… and has to published immediately.
I once heard from a you tube guru that it is a waste of money to purchase a higher end camera such as a D500 or D7500 if you are only shooting in JPEG. Comparing purchasing a corvette and only drive 25 mph.
Any thoughts?
Sounds like a You-Tube non-Guru who doesn't know what they are talking about. As Merco_61 said, most of the PJs (photo-journalists) I know shoot in JPEG. When I read that comment, I thought back to a blog entry I did back in the summer of 2014. The pro I was shooting with normally shoots only JPEG on the D3S that they were using at the time.
There are many factors other than what file format you use that determine the gear that would be best for the individual photographer. Back then, I was shooting with two D600 bodies and had a D7000 as a backup. They were the best option for what I was shooting that I could afford at the time. And I occasionally did shoot JPEG only. I got everything I could out of those bodies until I eventually replaced them with two used D4 bodies and a D500 body.
Thank you for your responses.
About me, I was into film photography for a number of years. Dropped out, and upon returning in the last few years, the digital world had emerged. I currently own a d3300 and do like the camera. There are challenges at times regarding accurate focusing which I know will probably improve with an upper end body with increased focusing points. Or would it improve? I tend to use single point.
Quality of images are acceptable, but not high quality with the kit lenses that I use along with a Tamron 18-200. Until I make a commitment to better glass, the D7500 body which I would love to own, would probably not make a difference with or without shooting raw.
I am able to improve my images with post processing as it relates to JPEG. For me that is fine for now.
Oh, by the way, the internet "guru" with the shooting JPEG with high end cameras was the "angry photographer, who I know does not win any popularity contests.
Shooting 14-Bit raw is "kind of like" getting a negative, and gives flexibility in post processing. You can bring out details with exposures off by ~3 Stops. More chance to save an image. I think of JPEGS as similar to shooting slide-film, you better get the exposure correct. If you do- they tend to be ready to show. I like having the latitude with my cameras that give 14-bit images, and then use Lightroom to "just export to JPEG" for 90%. But for those I want to work with, am glad to have that option. For cameras with 12-bit raw images, I tend to shoot JPEG. These are my older u43 cameras.
Oh, by the way, the internet "guru" with the shooting JPEG with high end cameras was the "angry photographer, who I know does not win any popularity contests.
There are a couple of too loud mouths out on the web for sure.
There are a couple of too loud mouths out on the web for sure.
But I thought everything you hear on the Internet was true.
But I thought everything you hear on the Internet was true.
There are many other loud mouths out there too!
… like politicians, some one with something to sell,
preachers of all kinds and those making more mo-
ney with social media than their own trade.
totally not true. if only JPG. did what he said would not get better speed and other things like better frame rate per second or better low light shooting in dark. i think only said if on budget or new to shoot. to its your choice to shot just JPG alone. i shoot both. since when looking at raw files threw window photo does not like to read at time. also makes easier to pick the files you want. then go to raw files and take ones want to keep and delete rest. i only keep my keepers in JPG and RAW. also by having JPG with RAW. i can do share with JPG for quick post then full edit.