Best JPEG output: 450D, 1000D, K20D, E-520 etc.

[Giles993]

Hi all,

Thanks for responses to my previous post and apologies if this has already been done to death but what are people's thoughts on which of the above (plus any others I should consider) give the best JPEG images? I don't see myself fiddling about on a computer too much.

I've trawled dpreview.com (and all the others) and they're so rarely commital as to "best in class" - is it entirely subjective? Ken Rockwell seems to come up with the better images with Nikons in almost all tests so should I really wait for the D60 replacement...?!

Thanks!

Giles

[RobDickinson]

Ken rockwell? Please....

Canons default JPG settings are realy realy conservative, this is because you cant take stuff away from a jpg, only add, but you can bump the contrast/sharpening/colour etc if you need to, theres also these ne fancy picture styles too.


IMO if your buying an SLR shoot at least JPG+RAW and learn what you can do with the RAW , it will take a while untill you can match the in camera JPG but then you will surpass it and not look back.

[Giles993]

Ken Rockwell no good?

I've previously used a wonderful Contax film SLR but am totally new to digital SLRs.

[RobDickinson]

Go to kens site, click the about him link, read. Then come back and say if you still want to trust your money on what he says.

[Simpo Two]

You may find this odd but from my experience if you want good JPGs straight out of the box then a good compact/bridge jobbie is probably best. If you buy a DSLR you WILL (or should) end up fiddling about on a computer, because that's how you get the best results. DSLRs are about getting the best results, not the simplicity of obtaining them (IMHO).


Ken Rockwell is famous for his ego so you need to take some of his assertions/conclusions with a pinch of salt, but there's still a lot of sound Nikon information on his site.

[Elderly]

I'm not sure if you can still get them but the Fuji S5Pro gives a very good jpeg output,
and you do have the advantage of being able to use Nikon lenses (if you already have them?)
but the size of their RAW files (if you want to go down that route) are ridiculously huge.

[andy-xr]

The rate at which Nikon are bringing out new models I think you'd always be waiting for the next one and never get around to buying anything. Think carefully about whether a D60 will let you expand what you want to do over the next couple of years, and compare that with an older D80 or later D90

The Ken Rockwell stuff is OK for a rough idea, it's slightly more useful than DP Review (who just seem to list datasheet speeds and feeds) but bear in mind the guy's on commission, and his photography is quite subjective.

As for JPEG quality, no issues. But you'd be doing yourself a disservice if you didnt try NEF

[Kermit power]

You would be doing yourself and your camera a big disservice by sticking to jpeg.

I use a 450D, and always shoot RAW. Assuming I've done a good job of white balance, exposure and the like when I actually take the shot, then it takes no more than a few seconds to put it through the RAW processor. If I haven't got the white balance or exposure spot on, then it still only takes a few seconds, whereas on a JPEG, I'd be fairly stuffed, especially with respect to the white balance.

In terms of camera to print, personally I reckon RAW is faster and easier to process JPEG, as well as providing better quality and flexibility.

[Giles993]

I will certainly get around to learning about processing images but I know that the majority of the time I just want to be able to take really clear, sharp photographs so am going for a DSLR for the quality rather than the adjustability of the images. Am I barking up the wrong tree? Would a Panasonic DMC-TZ7 or DMC-FZ28 suit me just as well?

Giles

[Simpo Two]

'Clear and sharp' - tricky to define - apart from the obvious issue of the lens, relative/visible sharpening is often an illusion, a function of processing (be it in camera or in a computer).