I think the 18-55 VR "kit" lens is greatly underrated. I originally bought one with my wife's D3100 as an all around "snapshot" zoom for her to learn with but was soon impressed with its sharpness, versatility and lightness. It even focuses close enough to shoot flowers and branches. When you expect good light and want a minimum weight mid-range zoom, it fits the bill excellently.

I had to awaken this old thread because I just bought one of these lenses to go with my wife's first DSLR body and so now have an opinion on whether they are worth keeping or not. I was a little skeptical about the claims of some of the posters above, but I found that OK, it is slow so no chance of any shallow DoF work, but it has VR and this example is a really sharp little sucker! So far I have only shot it around the house but during the coming week we will be out shooting and I'll post a pic here. It is significantly sharper than my 18-105VR to the extent that I am looking to sell it for a 24-70 f2.8.

Well thanks sir. (and now off topic) You live in Parke county? I am heading over to Terre Haute on Wednesday for work and will actually be out and about in Parke county before my meeting in Terre Haute.

I would post a picture I just took of a covered bridge this last weekend, but I haven't gotten around to messing with them yet.

(and back on topic)
I think most people want that priceless picture of the best quality. I think that people obsess with equipment so much in that we all believe we will make money or take that shot that everyone will buy or win photo contests. When in fact I personally see very little difference in any kit lens performance be it the 18-105 or 18-200...they are a bit different in their own respects, but does it matter that much...probably not.

We all want 36 MP to blow up billboard size pictures or super sharp glass to have them featured in national geographic. I mean I have been saying since I got my first dSLR that I was going to make money with it and shoot this and that. I might have taken some decent pictures, but I still haven't made a penny! I do blow up some pictures and have them around the house, but most are just desktop backgrounds of sitting on my hard drives.

I have mentioned it before though and even the lowly (insert whatever body you want here) and an 18-55 kit lens can take awesome pictures. I have opted as time went to get more and better glass. Each to fill their own niche for me and make taking pictures in certain situations easier. Each time spending more and more on the lenses. Now amassing nearly $5000 worth of stuff (now having made negative money since we have made prints for other people for presents), but some days I can't tell the difference from my 18-200 and my 17-55. I have now made educated and reasonable purchases in that I knew what I needed after a while and figured out what lenses to get to help with those needs. I started with my D5000 and 18-200. I think anyone starting out should do the same if they don't really know. I don't believe it is waste and you learn in the process. Gosh if I look back I know I made a similar thread to this when I was getting my D5000. Plus you can always spend more money later when you contract NAS (the need to buy more and more Nikon equipment all the time!). This weekend I did some nighttime long exposures for the first time in a long while and I was learning and struggling the whole time. Even with all my stuff and now several years under my belt I am learning all the time and it was fun. I also have slowly purchased and upgraded, but I don't have any equipment without a reason, I use it all, and they all have a known purpose.

tcole1983.........

A GREAT post, sir ! I was just thinking the same thing ! When I read all of the "requirements" people have, (and they want it ALL in one lens, (and preferably one which is "dirt cheap" ! My thoughts are, (after messing around with photography for about 60 years now)......if you don't "know about" photography, it's almost impossible to figure out which camera to buy to start out with, (let alone which 4 or 5 lenses to buy to go with this "starter" camera ! (And I just noticed someone up above mention that "don't pay any attention to Ken Rockwell, as he's a "schmuck", (whatever)......WoW ! I don't necessarily agree with Ken on every little thing, but if he's a "schmuck", he's certainly the single smartest "schmuck" I've ever run across !
Here's what I fail to comprehend; my fiancee's son and his wife, (with a total combined income of around 150 K, take more pictures than anybody I have EVER known.........he with his "Blackberry", and she, with her iPhone ! (and no children, no house payment, and yet another BIG promotion (that's imminent), Yet other people still in college, struggling to even survive, are "torn between" whether to "start out" with a D 7000, or a D 300 ? All while people "with means" are satisfied with cell phone photos ! (The world is a strange place, as are the people in it !

This is a TRUE STORY........I live in a dinky little village in western Indiana; our big "claim to fame" is.........we happen to have more wooden covered bridges than any other county in the U.S. So seeing people taking pictures of the covered bridge we have in OUR village, is a very common thing........people come from "all over" just to take pictures of OUR particular bridge, as it's the one most people "know" about. Anyway.......to illustrate how very different, different people are........one evening, just before dark I see this fellow with a fancy looking camera (on a tripod yet), about to take a picture THROUGH the bridge; (and it's almost dark)

The curiosity got the better of me.......so I just HAD to "get nosey".....and and "casually" ask him.......whacha kinda camera yu got there , son ? The guy's got about a 3 day beard, but he ISN"T any "hillbilly", (even though he clearly assumes that I am "one" !
So he casually remarks, "Oh, it's a Sony A 900 (if I remember correctly) ( I'm not at all familiar with ANY of Sony's new D-SLR's (even though I AM a walking "catalog" of just about everything Nikon makes, from the D 40 on up. So we get into this conversation about "the latest and greatest" D-SLRS, and the guy happens to mention the Nikon D 700; and I'm like, "yeah, but for a full frame, FX body, and for only $2,700, it's a great deal.....and he looks at me (like he just saw a ghost), and proceeds to pull out of his bag......a brand new D-700 with a pretty decent lens mounted ! So we talk some more, and one of us mentioned the D3s (my camera to die for at that time, about 2 years ago; so he says, "let's step over here to my motor home, I want to show you something; (the "something" was a brand news D3s ! At this point, I'm thinking, this cat is either a rich millionaire who just buys every expensive camera he sees, and while I'm "pondering that", he's going nuts, wondering, "how the hell does this old hillbilly know so much about all the latest and greatest Nikon D SLR cameras ?

It was undoubtedly one of the most "unlikely" (while at the same time, very pleasurable conversations I've ever "blundered " into ) ! This fellow must have had easily 50 k worth of very expensive cameras in his bag, and in his motor home; (and we were just standing outside , by the door, but I could see inside )........and as I'm looking at this "strange looking contraption" on the floor.......trying to remember where I had seems something that looked like that.... I said.....Uh...is THAT by any chance... a Segway ?

And he goes.....good lord....don't TELL me you've ridden a Segway ! " No, never rode one, but I've seen a few, (mostly at Midway Airport in downtown Chicago) so he drags the Segway out, proceeds to un-fold the "steering "thingie".....and while I'm asking him "how long does it take to learn to ride those things", he's already telling me, any where from 30 seconds to about 6 months, just depending on the "prospective operator" ! ( It took me all of about a minute and a half to "master" the Segway ! By this time he's convinced I'm a camera salesman in some big shop someplace bigger than Terre Haute, and I'm realizing that this fellow is actually some kind of a pro photographer, who obviously isn't "broke", (what with 50 K in expensive new cameras, two Segways, and a pretty classy small motor home to haul it all around in. Turns out this guy's contemplating writing a book about our county's covered bridges, and I finally had to admit, after "several years of relative inactivity in photography, I was starting to get the "urge" to get back into it, and buy a decent new D SLR, and as is my nature, anything I get interested in, I tend to read everything in print about it, the better to determine how much to spend, and which camera to buy.

And my new "acquaintance" is thinking of photographing ALL of our 34 covered bridges for his "prospective new book........and I mentioned........it's been tried before, never been commercially successful, and HE says, Yeah, but I have something DIFFERENT......my pictures are ALL going to be taken from THE AIR ! Me........"good grief, don't tell me you have a helicopter ?" He..."Nope, no helicopter, but even BETTER ! I have a BLIMP ! (after the 50 K of hi-end cameras, 2 segways and a motor home, now this guy's got a damned BLIMP ? NO WAY ! ( Turns out the "blimp" is a huge "blimp-shaped" ballon, that takes TWO 200 lb cylinders of helium to fill it up, to lift the camera to the necessary height, (which is actually MUCH lower than any helicopter can safely go, and it's made specifically for doing ariel photography from very low altitudes; I forget what he said there blimp cost, but when I asked him what two cylinders of helium costs, and "isn't that pretty darned wasteful, having to "deflate" the blimp after every bridge, he explains, I only have to let one cylinder of helium out, THEN the blimp will fit into my cargo trailer ! Me......."looks to me like you need a bigger trailer ! " He........."yeah, you're right again, and I'm working on getting a bigger trailer !" ( And I'm thinking....."is there ANYTHING that this guy DOESN"T have" ? " A VERY wealthy girl friend, possibly ? "

And that's really what everyone should do; learn as much as possible about the "subject"; in this case, it's such a humongous subject, that one must first determine MANY "things" about one's self, before you have any hope of making an intelligent decision, regarding "which camera to buy"? Some people have more interest than others; some have more money than others; some have more "enthusiasm", and so on; It's really a daunting task to make objective suggestions about cameras, unless you first know a lot about the person needing the advice ! Some people may be ecstatic about photography one day, and almost equally as "enthused" about buying a boat the next day… (I'd hate to recommend someone buy what I like one day, only to find the next day that they really wanted to buy a boat ! Even though I know a bit about photography, (over many, many years), about all I can do, hell, all anyone can do, is to tell people what I like, and WHY I like it, and if you see any relation to our "likes and dislikes"....maybe you'll like what I like, and then again, maybe you won't ! I can only suggest to prople what I like, based on facts, as opposed to merely what my "taste" dictates that I like.

This is a fantastic website, and I love it dearly, HOWEVER.........there are a couple of VERY "vexing" things about it......(or is it just me?) ... that tend to drive me "batty".....??

A. first of all... many (or most?) of the questions being asked, were asked one, two and even three years ago ! Yikes! what use is there in answering someone's "year old question" about "which camera to buy ? ( Nikon has probably come out with two more models by now ) !

B. and the passwords ! the password that I'm obliged to type in, would probably be great (if I was a spy, working for the National Security Agency ! I mean...talk about SECURE passwords ! This thing is so "secure" that NSA would take six months trying to crack it with their super-duper-computers !

(and it's real hard to even type in, what with upper case. then lower case, then "punctuation" marks, followed by more upper and lower......Whew !

The website I'm "used to" has 900, 999 members, so when a thread gets started, 637 people answer it in the first 3 minutes........ and here, i/10 of that take about 9 years ! (but at least I like what people like to "talk about" on here a lot better )!

C. my third and final "rant" for the moment.......every time I try to change pages, I somehow become "logged out", thereby necessitating going through all of that laborious password nonsense all over again ! I think I need a simpler password ? like maybe "1,2,3,4" ? (if I can just find the password department !)

I use to shoot in JPEG the first 2 months I got my DSLR. Every since I found out what I can do from shoot in RAW I never went back to JPEG. With RAW I can change the white balance, noise reduction, clone, etc... with the outcome looking much better than if I would of done those editing when shoot in JPEG.

sevencrossing said:
Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

It will be arriving from B & H on Thursday. I did not need to try it out as I have Lightroom 3 and find it is wonderful. I understand Lightroom 4 will allow the RAW 14 Bit Lossless, compressed files to be used, so, the D4 will be producing some even more exciting photos...... And I will be back to seeing the humongous files in my computer once again. Ha, ha, ha...

Pierre said:
Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

That is just you creativity bursting to get out ...

msmoto said:
Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition.

Then LR 4 is just the ticket. Why not try in for free on the 30 day trial

bjrichus said:
Ah ha! A voice of reason...

Except that with my shots I am never happy with just the jpeg. I always shoot in raw and play with the PP, sometime barely changing a thing and sometime doing lots more.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.... you folks are all great. Of course no one answered the question, "Do I even know what I am doing?" Ha, ha, ha.

Most likely, I will go with Lightroom 4, as I am becoming a little familiar with LR 3. Primarily, my interest in post processing is an improvement in shadows, highlights, overall tonal balance, and composition. Eventually I may try some HDR stuff, really love it, but the end is almost always to attempt to emulate the Ansel Adams tonal range but do this in color. I think I can actually see some differences in the RAW images which I put on my desktop, import as DNG, then process. There is more available than with JPEG. And in the past with the D90, D200, I was always in RAW, shooting that is.

OK, please remember this is my ATTEMPT, to have nice images... so, thanks again for the help... from and old film photog...

Pierre said:
Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

Ah ha! A voice of reason...

I shoot 100% raw and process on the computer, before exporting to JPG for final use that get sent to printer department with machines like large format inkjet, offset (still have one left), Xerox high speed etc, for magazines, document, poster, or web use.

While I certainly *could* shoot just JPG (especially when its going to be used on a poster sized thing like something that gets hung in a 2 story stair well to advertize an event), how I record the image is because I want to be able to give the printers the best quality image for the tasks they have to perform.

If I am going to do a portrait that will get used no more than 3"x5", then while a small JPG might be all I need, I do not know if that is the only use it'll get. I may need to produce something that is not just a 3"x5" but also gets used at six feet on the long edge too. Doing as much of the editing and cropping etc in RAW (largest size and maximum detail) lets me keep as much of the quality until I can reformat it into the right size and resolution for the end result(s).

Note the plural above.....

All you have to do is update the camera raw to 6.7 beta and your set supports the D4 and D800. Im sure it will officially released soon but meantime just use the beta version.

msmoto said:
Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom 3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files.

I could be wrong but I think I have read, Adobe are only updating L4 for the D800 and D4

LR4 is a big improvement on LR3 particularly the brush tools and the clarity shadow and high light sliders

msmoto said:What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

upgrade
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/03/06/adobe-lightroom-4-released-with-nikon-d4-d800-d800e-85mm-f1-8-support.aspx/

msmoto said:How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

TBH i think you'll find developing RAW of little use to you, as you can shoot with a D4 and 400 2.8 anyway, so won't need to get extra out of the files.

Maybe white balance might be of use.

I suggest reading up on raw and possibly getting the "raw without fud" instructional dvd. it was useful to me when I first looked into raw.

msmoto said:
... new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. ... What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed? ...

As I mentioned before, that's part of the fun of being an early adopter, you may need to wait for the vendors to update their softwares (probably at some cost).

In the mean time, you could save both raw and jpeg for the shots you think may be improved in PP for later. Storage is rather cheap.

I have keept all of my raws thinking that when my PP skills improves, I have the option of going back to my prefered shots and give them another workout.

The raw has so much more information that can be retrieved simply not available in jpeg.

Raw is not a necessity as you may be perfectly happy with your jpeg but for me, I like to keep extra options in my pocket.

TaoTeJared said:
The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

Thanks for explaining.

I highly doubt 14 bit, I was just curious about the different sorts of RAW.

adamz said:
no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Thanks for letting me know.

Gosh another thread I can learn from. So, I have this new camera D4 and find the Lightroom3 does not support the RAW, 14 BIT Lossless, compressed files. So, I am shooting in JPEG Fine, giving me 8-10 MB files before fiddling.

What do I need to do to shoot the RAW files and use Lightroom?

How much am I loosing shooting JPEG, Fine vs, RAW, 14 Bit Lossless compressed?

Do I even know what I am doing?

no 14bit on d40 AFAIR

Gareth said:
You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

The big difference is not just in the shadow but in the total image. More colors creates smoother graduations (think of sunsets) and can even help with image detail.

Does it make much difference in real world? If you shoot stop signs for a living, probably not. Sunsets/rises or other gradual color shifts, It can make a big difference. With only a 6mp sensor, it can make a huge difference - but that really depends on what you are shooting.

I thought the D40 was only 12bit. Does it have a 14bit option?

You are losing HUGE amount of data "2 to the 12th power is 68 billion colours, and 14 bit is 4.3 trillion colours".

as for real world detail, there is only a big difference in the shadow detail.

AS FOR JPEG VS RAW.

My kids teacher had some wedding shots done which were very nice. I offered to print one for her as prints weren't included in the package she got.

The photographer used a d300 and a 85 1.4. they shot the photo i want to print at f2.2 ISO400. so this shot should look good.

when viewing at 100% (approx print size) I can see horrible grain, aliasing and noise. I asked for the RAW file to maximise for print, but it has been deleted.

I am a bit gutted as I could end up with a MUCH better print if I had the original RAW file, but with the jpeg I am limited. The photographer says that the file is the maximum quality, but I think they ran it through post to add pop, and in doing so added noise.

IMO, the photographer should offer RAWS for print, and stipulate this in the contract.

The teacher is still happy to have the pic printed, and I am having it framed very nicely, so it should look good from a couple of feet away, but up close, not as good as it could.

Not a question of RAW or jpg, I was just curious about RAW.

How much data are you losing when you move from 14 bit to 12 bit?

And if it does not specify what type of RAW file it is, can I assume it's 12 bit?

I'm asking specifically about a D40.

Thanks.

Hi DaveyJ,

I think for your purposes and tastes, JPGs are fine.

It's not a 'one size fits all' world; I have a lot of caps that prove that.

For me, I like to take my RAW images and tinker with them as I would (with some anguish) in the darkroom, only now I'm enjoying it more.

Layer masks, HDR, a slew of other things are better done with RAW files as the beginning ingredients.

Somehow I think we lose sight that everyone has their own way to get to their where their going.

My best,

Mike

Thank those who commented on JPEG fine large for individual manufacturers. Very helpful!

My guess at this point is that RAW in Nikon cameras is about twice the file size or somewhat less. I have every Nikon from D100 to D700 and do not have a D7000 yet as the D90 and D300 combo is fairly good. For what it is worth, I still rate the D200 as really versatile and tough. RAW is what you should use under the most challenging situations and JPEG I still use most of the time as it is fast and RAW is a huge overkill. I do think the JPEG ranges from manufacturer to manufacturer. Since I shoot Nikons that is what I have now that I am out of large format. So do not discount JPEG fine large for a lot of your shooting. Unless you are going to squeeze a lot of post processing in. I do think one common situation that warrants use of RAW is distinct shadows on very sunny days where detail might be quite lost without manipulation. Some of the newer cameras have better dynamic range. Any comments about RAW versus JPEG with the D7000? Release dates on the D700 replacements and D400 and my current depressed budget indicates the D7000 may be all I could afford on the horizon.