I don't have a camera but have been reading forums on here for a few months to help me decide which one to buy, I want one that takes the best jpegs out of the camera, I feel that if I have to play with a pic after I take it to make it look good then I'm not really taking a good pic, thats why I want nothing to do with RAW, I'm interested in the Sony A77, Canon 60D, Pentax K5 and Nikon D7000, thanks for any help
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
best jpeg dslr
- Thread starter jim9756
- Start date
Certainly there will be subtle differences between them but all are highly configurable and you can make them all look like each other. Howevere just shooting jpeg is not the whole answer. Different scenes will benefit from different jpeg settings so you will still need to vary contrast, sharpness, WB etc. to get the best out of any camera.
--
Steve
http://www.pbase.com/steephill
--
Steve
http://www.pbase.com/steephill
Shooting the image is only half of the process. Developing your image is the other half. And developing the image does take place, either by the JPEG engine in-camera, or by (post-)processing the image in the digital darkroom (i.e. the computer.)
The main difference here is that in camera, the controls are very course and limited, leading to stock images.
The notion of an image being "bad" because it needs fine-tuned development is flawed. - I could even argue the opposite: if an image [obviously] improves by post-processing, then it is already a well-shot image in camera.
If you want to build your workflow / photography around shooting JPEG, then by all means go for it. But don't think that RAW editing is about masking faults/flaws in the image. Mostly it is about giving the image a uniqueness or very specific style or appearance that the photographer envisaged.
The main difference here is that in camera, the controls are very course and limited, leading to stock images.
The notion of an image being "bad" because it needs fine-tuned development is flawed. - I could even argue the opposite: if an image [obviously] improves by post-processing, then it is already a well-shot image in camera.
If you want to build your workflow / photography around shooting JPEG, then by all means go for it. But don't think that RAW editing is about masking faults/flaws in the image. Mostly it is about giving the image a uniqueness or very specific style or appearance that the photographer envisaged.
without having to do a lot of tweaking in post processing.... then the Olympus jpeg engine is probably the best one out there.
Canon is also very good, and the latest Pentax cameras are also good, but Nikon and Sony seem to be prone to odd color casts. Panasonic seems to have a tendency to render blues as slightly turquoise.
I suppose a lot has to do with your own personal color preferences. A great many people seem to feel that the Olympus jpeg engine is the best.
Virtually every single review of Olympus cameras on this site mentions the jpeg quality, and conversely some other brands get qualifiers like "great image quality but only if you use raw."
However, there is more to selecting a camera than the jpeg engine. In fact, many shoot exclusively with raw files, rendering the jpeg engine a moot point.
You can make a strong case for any brand based on your particular needs. If all you care about is "best looking jpegs" then you will not be disappointed by an Olympus DSLR, although you will probably be disappointed by their relatively poorer performance in low light, greater noise, and less dynamic range.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55
Canon is also very good, and the latest Pentax cameras are also good, but Nikon and Sony seem to be prone to odd color casts. Panasonic seems to have a tendency to render blues as slightly turquoise.
I suppose a lot has to do with your own personal color preferences. A great many people seem to feel that the Olympus jpeg engine is the best.
Virtually every single review of Olympus cameras on this site mentions the jpeg quality, and conversely some other brands get qualifiers like "great image quality but only if you use raw."
However, there is more to selecting a camera than the jpeg engine. In fact, many shoot exclusively with raw files, rendering the jpeg engine a moot point.
You can make a strong case for any brand based on your particular needs. If all you care about is "best looking jpegs" then you will not be disappointed by an Olympus DSLR, although you will probably be disappointed by their relatively poorer performance in low light, greater noise, and less dynamic range.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55
Deleted1929
Veteran Member
You take the shots. All the camera does is record them as data. Best JPEG out of camera, putting other minor technical factors aside, is entirely your responsibility. The more you learn to control the process from capture to final image the better.
Good images start with good shots, but processing has to take place in-camera to convert the RAW data the sensor captures to an image. The more you take control of that process, the better.
You can get away without post processing, but you're basically limiting what you can do - rather like only driving a sports car with a automatic gearbox - manual gives you the finer control that makes it a driving experience, not a trip to the shops.
Your image starts as RAW. The camera converts it a JPEG. You loose control of that if you ignore RAW. It's up to you how much control you want, but it's not a good idea to start off with such a closed mind.
All good cameras. If you can take a good shot with one, you can take it with the others.
Frankly all overkill if you're going to avoid post processing and RAW. That attitude suggests you'll treat them as glorified P&S cameras, which they are not - those are cameras designed for serious enthusiasts. Get an entry level DSLR or a MILC like an Olympus E-PL or Panasonic G3.
--
StephenG
beshannon
Veteran Member
Then buy a point and shoot camera and be happy.
You are really short changing yourself as almost all images can benefit from some processing. The cameras you have listed are massive overkill for jpegs with no processing
--
My Smugmug photos http://www.brianshannonphotography.com/
My photo blog http://brianshannonphotography.blogspot.com/
My 500px photos http://500px.com/brianshannonphotography/
Facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Shannon-Photography/157237647635870
... but there are outdated viewpoints and plenty of so-called 'old school' photographers that hangout at photo clubs and perpetuate these macho-laced viewpoints on what photography is.
Good news! Photography is whatever you choose to make it. Think that daring to work on an image after the magical time of clicking the button is for talentless hack that need to improve their technique?
Then you just insulted 99.9% (or more) of all the great photographer through history up to today. How does that make you feel, totally disregarding 150+ years of craft and art, because you have a poor understanding of how an image gets from A to Z?
Have fun with your choice, you have so little to learn and practice taking the route you are choosing that you should be a master in just a few years of hard study and intensive practice. If, after getting a new camera and adhering to this narrow perspective, you still feel like there could be more - come on back and the friendly people here will guide you in a direction. Maybe even the right direction if you are lucky!
Good news! Photography is whatever you choose to make it. Think that daring to work on an image after the magical time of clicking the button is for talentless hack that need to improve their technique?
Then you just insulted 99.9% (or more) of all the great photographer through history up to today. How does that make you feel, totally disregarding 150+ years of craft and art, because you have a poor understanding of how an image gets from A to Z?
Have fun with your choice, you have so little to learn and practice taking the route you are choosing that you should be a master in just a few years of hard study and intensive practice. If, after getting a new camera and adhering to this narrow perspective, you still feel like there could be more - come on back and the friendly people here will guide you in a direction. Maybe even the right direction if you are lucky!
Juri Janasik
Forum Enthusiast
I would suggest you go to a camera store and handle the different DLSRs. You might even take an SD memory card and shoot a few shots with each camera. This way you will get an initial impression of which camera(s) handle well in your hands.
On you computer you should be able to view the stored images.
The argument that you are wasting your time with and the potential of a DSLR if you are shooting JPEGs isn't really valid. You have to start somewhere. Moreover, learning to frame is more important to start.
I started in the days of Brownies, SLRs, and rangefinder cameras using film. No one argued that if you didn't develop your own film you should stick to a Brownie. In fact, many individuals sent their film to processing labs.
Let me add: read some of the comments in the following thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=39986821
Photography is not only about getting good images, but enjoying going out and photographing.
--
J Janasik
On you computer you should be able to view the stored images.
The argument that you are wasting your time with and the potential of a DSLR if you are shooting JPEGs isn't really valid. You have to start somewhere. Moreover, learning to frame is more important to start.
I started in the days of Brownies, SLRs, and rangefinder cameras using film. No one argued that if you didn't develop your own film you should stick to a Brownie. In fact, many individuals sent their film to processing labs.
Let me add: read some of the comments in the following thread:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=39986821
Photography is not only about getting good images, but enjoying going out and photographing.
--
J Janasik
Thanks, for some of the replies?
With an attitude like that... go get'm, tiger!
With an attitude like that... go get'm, tiger!
You just figured out that every forum is the same? In AA they call this the 'moment of clarity'!
Guidenet
Veteran Member
I understand what you're saying and that's fine. You just don't understand digital workflow. As was stated, all digital cameras shoot RAW. That's all a camera knows how to do. From that point, the software in the camera or the software in your computer will process that RAW file to taste. You can either make those edits in the camera or at home on the computer. It doesn't matter. If you do it in the camera, it's a bit of a pain because you really need different settings for different scenes, but to each there own. Remember, all the camera can do is record red, green and blue dots. If you think you can arrange them pretty without processing, have at it.
If you set your camera to some set of Jpeg settings for color, contrast and everything else, you'll end up with one size fits all type images. That's not very purist.
You see the problem is that people think that somehow a pure image comes naturally out of a camera. It doesn't. There's going to be editing whether you like it or not. It just depends on whether or not you want to be that editor. If not, you'll never get to the ability to produce the image quality you might hope for.
All the great images you see in magazines, National Geographic or advertisements today or 50 years ago from film, have all been extensively processed. Each image in National Geographic from 1965 or whenever started as film, usually slide film, then an internegative was made and it went to the darkroom for printing by a master printer, often the photographer. In that darkroom, color was corrected. Additional or less contrast added, areas were dodged or burnt. Finally the image was ready for the magazine. The same holds true today, except it's a digital darkroom. The original out of the camera wasn't a bad image. It was just not ready for prime time. If images that are not ready for prime time is your highest aspiration, have at it. I don't care. I just want you to understand how it really works.
If you stick to Jpegs out of the camera, your images will never look as good as those where the photographer cared enought to have full control over all aspects of photography. They won't always be bad, just never as good on the average.
As far as which Jpeg engine is the best, mostly it's nonsense. It's like a fancy stereo. There are volume, bass, mid and treble controls and much more the shape the sound the way you want it. The output of any Jpeg engine is a result of these settings. The default is the way it comes from the factory. Who cars what that is? It would be like buying that stereo because you liked the settings for everything the way it was in the showroom while you rejected another because someone had the treble up to max.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
thanks for explaining everything the way you did, it does make sense the way you put it, for me though when I see some of the pics from say the pentax k5 or sony a77 that are jpegs look beautiful, well to me anyway, but I guess I don't really know what I'm supposed to look for, I've read in every forum of people who only shoot jpegs, so thats basically why I had that in mind.
Guidenet
Veteran Member
Jim, you have to understand that the way you phrased your question it not only a question but a pretty contentious statement too, which some took as insulting. I didn't take it as insulting; just not educated or not knowledgeable.
Some took offence by you saying that you wanted a pure image from the camera and that doing one's own edits were fixing poorly taken shots. After you learn digital workflow, you'll see how badly that might have come across.
Passionate photographers work very hard to take a great image with the camera then make it an even better image during the processing stage of it. That's what doing your own processing is all about. You can't fix a poorly shot image.You were basically telling them they were bad photographers because they had to fix their image and you wanted to learn to get it right in the camera. You'll learn later how impossible that is. You can only get it as right as possible in the camera and the rest of it right in the digital darkroom. The camera is only half of it. See?
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
Guidenet
Veteran Member
Jim, I really understand. Why not get started shooting Jpegs only. Learn the exposure side and the artistic side together. Take your time and become passionate. Keep it fun and exciting.
I would not listen to what I believe is nonsense about one camera having a color cast while another doesn't. I think that's all in the settings pretty much, and if some camera does have a red or yellow cast, just change it by turning that down. It's BS though, IMO. The sensors are pretty much all Bayer Array and have the same red, green and blue dots. It's all software after that and software is adjustable.
Now let me make one suggestion. Every camera you listed can shoot RAW and Jpeg at the same time. If you want, set it to that. Now you'll use up way more space on your memory card. I only get around 140 on a 4 gig card when I do this, but that's ok. Memory is cheap and plentiful. When you get home and save them, delete the garbage. If you're like me, that's more than half. Why waste space keeping out of focus shots? After a year, go back and erase all those RAW files if it turns out you don't want to learn processing.
The advantage, as you might see, is if you do, you still have the best stored as georgous RAW files. Almost all of us who didn't do this wished we had. I promise. Then you can bring out those sunset colors and make the moon less hazy if you wish. It might not be the way others like, but it can be the way you want.
For example, this image I took a couple of weeks ago, the moon could not be exposed the way the desert was. One or the other was wrong and no camera has the dynamic range to get them both right at the same time. So, I took a double exposure; one of the moon and one with the rest of it. Now they both have the exposure and look the way I saw it with my eyes. You or someone else might not like it, but I do and I was there.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
I would not listen to what I believe is nonsense about one camera having a color cast while another doesn't. I think that's all in the settings pretty much, and if some camera does have a red or yellow cast, just change it by turning that down. It's BS though, IMO. The sensors are pretty much all Bayer Array and have the same red, green and blue dots. It's all software after that and software is adjustable.
Now let me make one suggestion. Every camera you listed can shoot RAW and Jpeg at the same time. If you want, set it to that. Now you'll use up way more space on your memory card. I only get around 140 on a 4 gig card when I do this, but that's ok. Memory is cheap and plentiful. When you get home and save them, delete the garbage. If you're like me, that's more than half. Why waste space keeping out of focus shots? After a year, go back and erase all those RAW files if it turns out you don't want to learn processing.
The advantage, as you might see, is if you do, you still have the best stored as georgous RAW files. Almost all of us who didn't do this wished we had. I promise. Then you can bring out those sunset colors and make the moon less hazy if you wish. It might not be the way others like, but it can be the way you want.
For example, this image I took a couple of weeks ago, the moon could not be exposed the way the desert was. One or the other was wrong and no camera has the dynamic range to get them both right at the same time. So, I took a double exposure; one of the moon and one with the rest of it. Now they both have the exposure and look the way I saw it with my eyes. You or someone else might not like it, but I do and I was there.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
yes thank you again but I wasn't insulting anyone, well except myself that is, I know I wont be taking good pics for a while when I get a camera, so if I take some that aren't good I wont try to fix them I will delete them, I wasn't really trying to debate jpeg vs raw I've read enough in the last few months to know raw is the way to go if you want perfection, I just asked about the best jpeg camera for a place for me to start, I'm retired so once I get the camera and really enjoy it I plan on taking classes, from my replies it looks like Olympus is the one for me to look at, thanks again
Guidenet
Veteran Member
Jim, my friend, I know you weren't being offensive. I never took it that way. I'm just trying to explain why others might have answered the way they did.
Good luck on your retirement. I've done it a couple of times myself. Then I get bored and go back to work, sometimes more than one job.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
Good luck on your retirement. I've done it a couple of times myself. Then I get bored and go back to work, sometimes more than one job.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
that is a gorgeous picture and I will take your advice for sure using jpeg and raw even if I end up needing an external hard drive, can I ask you a real stupid question? how long did it take you to make that picture look as good as it does, thanks
I urge you to proceed with caution.
At least make an informed decision.
Let me explain that I am a big fan of the 4/3 system. I own (and have owned) several 4/3 cameras. and currently own 9 Zuiko Digital lenses.
And I stand by my previous statement that "Olympus has the best jpeg engine." But it would be foolish to base your system decision on this one factor.
As Craig so ably explained, EVERY image is processed, either by you, or by your camera. If you let the camera do it by exclusively shooting jpegs, then you will get "pretty good results" but not the best results. Because your camera is just guessing, using mathematical algorithms. Because each shot is different, 100% of the time you can "beat the jpeg" by processing the raw file yourself.
I should add that I am mostly a jpeg shooter.... only because my needs are not that critical. But when something is important, I switch to the "raw+jpeg" setting on my camera.
There are some serious issues about Olympus that you need to consider before committing to a 4/3 system:
If I was starting fresh, I would seriously consider a Pentax K5, Canon 60D or Nikon D7000. All three of which are more modern designs with newer technology. And the last two are fully supported systems from financially sound makers.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55
At least make an informed decision.
Let me explain that I am a big fan of the 4/3 system. I own (and have owned) several 4/3 cameras. and currently own 9 Zuiko Digital lenses.
And I stand by my previous statement that "Olympus has the best jpeg engine." But it would be foolish to base your system decision on this one factor.
As Craig so ably explained, EVERY image is processed, either by you, or by your camera. If you let the camera do it by exclusively shooting jpegs, then you will get "pretty good results" but not the best results. Because your camera is just guessing, using mathematical algorithms. Because each shot is different, 100% of the time you can "beat the jpeg" by processing the raw file yourself.
I should add that I am mostly a jpeg shooter.... only because my needs are not that critical. But when something is important, I switch to the "raw+jpeg" setting on my camera.
There are some serious issues about Olympus that you need to consider before committing to a 4/3 system:
- The company is mired in a financial scandal, and may not even exist in the future
- Olympus has effectively discontinued making any new 4/3 cameras or lenses
- The last 4/3 lens was released in 2008
- Their latest DSLR, the E5 is really just a nice rework of their 2007 E3
- Olympus sensor technology lags behind all other makers
- Sigma, the sole 3rd party lens supplier has discontinued 10 of their 14 4/3 lenses
If I was starting fresh, I would seriously consider a Pentax K5, Canon 60D or Nikon D7000. All three of which are more modern designs with newer technology. And the last two are fully supported systems from financially sound makers.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1
Sony SLT-A55
thanks for that information, I see you use Sony but don't advise it? Ive kind of been leaning toward the Pentax or Sony because of the stabilization I don't think I have a very steady hand lol, I also have 2 lenses from a Minotla Maxxum 7000 from years ago which Ive heard can be used on Sony cameras, one is a 50mm that came with it and the other is a 70-210mm but not sure if that should be part of my decision
Guidenet
Veteran Member
Thank you for your kind words. It took the longest sitting on top of the mountain if 29 degree weather waiting for the moon to rise and the sun to set where I wanted them. I wanted pink skys. I really wanted clouds too, but there weren't any and I hate to change things too much.
The funny thing was I had my Nikon 16-35 f/4 mounted on my big D700 with a tripod. About the last minute, I decided I wanted a much tighter image. I pulled off that super wide angle and put a Sigma 150 f/2.8 APO Macro lens on. That lens might be one of the two sharpest lenses in my kit. The scene was a wide angle type scene and certainly not macro, but that's what I used and it framed the scene I wanted just right at the last moment. I set it to f/8 for maximum sweet spot and fired several shots a few minutes apart when the sun got just right.
When I got back to the hotel and moved it to my laptop, I realized the moon was hazy and overexposed by too many stops to save it. I quickly loaded my D300 and my big 500 f/4 up and went into the parking lot to shoot the moon. I wanted the same moon. I then masked the moon and merged the two as a double exposure. I tried to make it the same brightness as it was but I made it on purpose a little larger covering the crappy moon that was there. Then I lowered the transperancy to let the light of the crappy moon come through a bit. I thought about adding the haze back, but decided to leave it sharp. Since all this is saved, I can go back later and adjust it a little.
The rest of the RAW file took maybe 30 seconds to a minute to get it where I wanted. It didn't take a whole lot of tweaking. I lowered exposure a little and increased saturation a little. Increased contrast a little and dodged the clift sides on the sun side a little to bring that out and add a very small glow to the sky there. I then sized it for the web and added a little unsharp mask to the whole thing. I try not to over sharpen scenes like this.
I try to be careful but these old diabetic eyes can trick me and make it not come out like I want it or what I saw. I have to start over. That's what's nice about having that RAW file intact. I can start over now or in the future. I also save the Photoshop version with all the layers of things I did, so I can tweek just one thing or get rid of that tweek. I sometimes get really wishy washy with an image if I like it. Someone will say there's too much gold, so I'll go back and remove a little gold. A week later someone will tell me the moon is too bright. I'l agree and dim it down. LOL. I try to stay with what I saw, but over time you kind of forget. I also have the original Jpeg and can look at it to make sure thngs don't deviate except in good ways. I never publsh it though.
--
Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum