[ampere]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

My comment about NX-D vs NX2 was an add-on ramble.

I am on LR5, but I still use DPP to export TIFF. Was just wondering why not camera RAW. Yes 810 should be good.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by ampere

Basic question on Adobe Camera Raw:

How does it stand against the native RAW process tools from Camera guys (Canon, Nikon etc)?

Both are pretty good, but different. I was talking to Nikon tech team yesterday in a workshop, few comments:

1. Nikon works very closely with Adobe to ensure RAW is processed properly. For example, an upcoming Body + few firmwares for existing bodies will introduce "LED" white balance setting. They are trying to get the same setting in LR so that images with such settings do not show up with "Custom" in LR.

2. Adobe would not read "extended metadata". E.g. if picture Control was set to "Vivid", image will show up with vivid colors in Nikon/Canon tools by default. But LR will show the image with Flat colors. Noise Reduction / Sharpening also show similar behavior. I.e. LR will start with Flat, Nikon tools will start with the settings that were used for that picture.

3. Nikon team themselves use Photoshop most of the time. They get new bodies / firmwares few months in advance and carry those those around in assignments to provide QA feedback to product teams. Feedback on RAW processing is very crucial.

Of course, user can change these to whatever values after that. But this might influence overall workflow since with Nikon tools, image will look quite similar to what it looks like in Camera's LCD.

I think situation would be similar with Canon.

Example of the same image with NX-D (Nikon tool) and LR:

NX-D:



Lightroom:

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Both are pretty good, but different. I was talking to Nikon tech team yesterday in a workshop, few comments:

1. Nikon works very closely with Adobe to ensure RAW is processed properly. For example, an upcoming Body + few firmwares for existing bodies will introduce "LED" white balance setting. They are trying to get the same setting in LR so that images with such settings do not show up with "Custom" in LR.

This is true for most manufacturers. However, at Adobe end, Canon and Nikon new models get priority in ACR. Now Sony also gets the top priority. Fuji etc., are supported later

2. Adobe would not read "extended metadata". E.g. if picture Control was set to "Vivid", image will show up with vivid colors in Nikon/Canon tools by default. But LR will show the image with Flat colors. Noise Reduction / Sharpening also show similar behavior. I.e. LR will start with Flat, Nikon tools will start with the settings that were used for that picture.

Incorrect. In Lightroom you can choose to use "Camera settings" instead of Adobe default settings. Vivid etc., are supported

Most of the heartbreak people get w.r.t colors on lightroom is due to using "Adobe" profiles instead of camera profile.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

Both are pretty good, but different. I was talking to Nikon tech team yesterday in a workshop, few comments:

Originally Posted by tsk1979

This is true for most manufacturers. However, at Adobe end, Canon and Nikon new models get priority in ACR. Now Sony also gets the top priority. Fuji etc., are supported later

Does Camera RAW come as a default plugin with CS/LR or needs to be installed separately. The fact that LR can read RAW directly through default bundle I suspect the plugin is available by default. But I also see separate updates for plug-in. So looks like a separate development schedule for the same as well.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ampere

Does Camera RAW come as a default plugin with CS/LR or needs to be installed separately. The fact that LR can read RAW directly through default bundle I suspect the plugin is available by default. But I also separate updates for plug-in. So looks like a separate development schedule for the same as well.

Lightroom comes with RAW processing capabilities and profiles for released cameras. But if you have old version, and new camera comes out, you have to update the RAW capture plugin.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Lightroom comes with RAW processing capabilities and profiles for released cameras. But if you have old version, and new camera comes out, you have to update the RAW capture plugin.

Thanks. Will check it out. Right now I use DPP to convert to TIFF before reading the TIFF into LR5. Dont use the LR5 RAW capabilities.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by ampere

Thanks. Will check it out. Right now I use DPP to convert to TIFF before reading the TIFF into LR5. Dont use the LR5 RAW capabilities.

DPP is one of the best RAW processors out there. Right there with lightroom. You won't gain anything with Lightroom by switching to it from DPP. Only advantage is unified workflow.
Do try out DXO though. I have read that it does wonders for Canon based cameras.

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Incorrect. In Lightroom you can choose to use "Camera settings" instead of Adobe default settings. Vivid etc., are supported

Most of the heartbreak people get w.r.t colors on lightroom is due to using "Adobe" profiles instead of camera profile.

That was just an example, few things that were categorically mentioned by Nikon techs:

1. Active focus points
2. Auto Distortion Control
3. All Settings from “Custom Setting Menu”
4. Picture Controls (other than Camera Landscape,Camera Neutral,Camera Portrait,Camera Standard,Camera Vivid)
5. High ISO NR

[ajay_satpute]

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

Thanks a lot everyone for the valuable suggestions. Love this community!

I am excited!

The Wedding photo shoot went pretty well, better than I had expected. The 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 lens is damn good. However, its VERY heavy to carry around for 4-5 hours job. I clicked about 500 photos and 90% have come out very sharp and with good light, in spite of not using the flash.

Overall I am happy with my work and most importantly, my customers are very happy with the output. Not bad for a start.

[venuvedam]

The Adobe Creative Cloud suite - (400 odd rupees per month) comes with Photoshop CS and LR. My question is this: Are these the full versions of the iconic software or stripped down SKUs? Anybody subscribed to this?

[gr8guzzler]

Originally Posted by venuvedam

My question is this: Are these the full versions of the iconic software or stripped down SKUs? Anybody subscribed to this?

Full versions with regular updates to new features as and when they are released.

[voyageur]

Hello all,

I have a nikon d5200 and I am planning to buy a telephoto lens for my cam. My preference would be 70-300. I checked Nikkor and it's out of my budget. Does any one here use a Sigma, Tokina or a Tamron?

I personally don't know anyone using these lenses, so all I want to know is how will a 'SIGMA 70-300mm F4-5.6 DG Macro Zoom Lens' or a similar one in Tamron or Tokina go with my cam.

I currently use 18-105 nikkor with a VR and I like it. Is there anything like the VR technology for the other lenses?

Suggestions are welcome...

Cheers guys!!!

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by voyageur

My preference would be 70-300. I checked Nikkor and it's out of my budget. Does any one here use a Sigma, Tokina or a Tamron?

All three have two version of 70-300 lens. One version is cheaper (costs around 6 - 8,000) and lacks VR + many other other things.

E.g.: Nikkor has a 70-300 that costs around 7,000

http://www.flipkart.com/nikon-af-zoo...mdxsrgndw8fbag

Other 70-300 from Nikkor is more expensive (Around 32k), but has better image quality and has VR.

Tamron also sells a version with VR (called VC). That costs 30.

Tamron's cheaper version is around 7k, it lacks VR and uses simpler glass.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by NetfreakBombay

All three have two version of 70-300 lens. One version is cheaper (costs around 6 - 8,000) and lacks VR + many other other things..

The Nikon 70-300 VR is actually the cheapest good quality 300mm lens you can buy. You can go for the 10-12000 versions, but they do not cut in terms of image quality. Its better to save up and get a decent lens(if not top of the line 60-70000 lens), than get an entry level 70-300

I have used entry level 70-300, and results were rubbish

[NetfreakBombay]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

The Nikon 70-300 VR is actually the cheapest good quality 300mm lens you can buy.

I have 70-300 VR and it is quite good in terms of image quality (though bit expensive at ~30k).

I use it for portraits at 70mm and for Birding at 200 - 250mm. It is tack sharp at f/8.