It is a different type of product and work flow. There is not "camera raw" it just imports the images and you have all the mostly used photography tools. Many like me, barely use photoshop anymore as Lightroom does 90-100% of the work that needs to be done. (depending on the type of work it is of course.) The nice thing about LR is that you can choose to edit the photo in photoshop once you have it where you are ready for big heavy lifting.

You should try it to see what you think.

To your original post - you need to do all raw edits in NX2 if you work in that work flow.

Is there anything lightroom can do that you dont with camera raw + photoshop?

Just a Thought
Use Lightroom rather than Capture
As they are both Adobe products, they will integrate seamlessly
you can download a free trial for 30 days

But then I cant access the things like exposure controls in camera raw.

Save as a TIFF from NX2. Import that into PS.

<insert gory details here>

Capture and View NX2 save their changes nondestructively inside the NEF file as a series of steps (instructions). You will find a basic JPG with these steps applied but that's all. The adobe or apple raw converters don't understand the Nikon (NX2) data so you start over from the raw sensor data.

See this thread for discussion on why this may or may not be a good idea

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=13062

What in particular do you want to do in photoshop?

Whats the proper way of transfer images from Capture to photoshop? It is crap. I do processing
in capture. Fix exposure and lens things. Save the image as a nef. Open in photoshop 13. It does not have the changes that I have made. Im not sure if it camera raw that does not work or the nikon software. Any ideas?

When my wife said I could. I tell her that she can get almost all her money back when im gone. I show her some of the threads like i bought this 85mm lens and a year later sold it for more than I paid for it(we need more of this). She just smiles at me and says ok. Thanks for the help everyone. Not sure if I like that kind of a smile though.

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

YES!

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

No! You have permission to buy two.......one for you and one for your old mucker Skinty!!! :-)

Geoff_K said:
Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

I wouldn't want to take that chance..... ;-)

After 3 years of shooting HS football and basketball with my D90 I decided it was time to move to FF. Luckily I have a very understanding wife as this is just a hobby for me.

Wait until I start to add lenses to go with it. THAT will tell how much she loves me.

PB PM said:
If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? .

+1

other wise no, enjoy what you have

n0msky said:
I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

To answer your question, no. When you buy a DX camera such as the D7000 you get about the same complexity as the D600 at (currently) less than half the cost. Buy the D7000, use it, learn the difference in the way it affects you in your fields (i.e. macro, sports, portraits, landscapes cityscapes, nightime etc. then make the decision. If you buy an FX lens to go on that DX body, you can take it with you if you go to an FX body.

As said before, DX is a positive advantage in many fields of photography, not a disadvantage across the board. View the PAD thread to see what cameras people are using and you will see that the difference in quality of the images is more to do with talent and lens than body or sensor size.

Be logical - it is when you lose control of your mind that the cost of this hobby gets way out of hand ;-/

If you have the disposable income, and love photography, why not? It also depends on what you want to do with your images.

Although I primarily shoot as a hobby, I also provide images for charities websites and a few clients. Having the ability to shoot high quality images in low light can be very helpful, given those uses. Unless you get caught up in the, I must upgrade every time a new camera comes out, mindset you can keep using that body for years to come.

I am wondering, as you guys have mentioned above about FX being able to produce more shallow DOF and better bokeh and to shoot at high ISO , is it worth enough to spend more than $3,000 just to get those advantages, especially for those who just doing photography as hobby?

spraynpray said:
Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

Now come on guys...

YOU don't buy one, you have her buy one for you as a Christmas present.

bjrichus said:
I know a photographer who uses two D3 bodies for EVERYTHING. He has more FX glass in his gear boxes than most stores keep!

We spoke about the D4 a few months ago and while he likes the results, he thinks that for his work, he cannot justify the upgrade. Yes, over time they would pay for themselves, if he swapped out the 3's for 4's but he doesn't HAVE to, so no NEED to.

I can't argue with him ...

Same thing here. I looked at the D600 and accept for video, could not see the benefit over an older FX body.

With a grip, the D600 was close to $2500.

I picked up a D3 with less than 7500 clicks on it for $2000. I already have a D7000 for video. No brainer.

Thanks Seven, I'l tell the wife I'm OK to buy one then....

spraynpray

As you know, we love spending other peoples money

you have our permission to buy a D800

There are of course pros and cons for both formats but with a D800 I could shoot crop mode, but there is no button on my D7000 for switching to 36Mp FX mode.....

TaoTeJared said:
Alright I'll just state the real obvious point - It depends on the size of the room.

If the lens will cover at least 90 degrees, I think it will always cover at least 2 sides

Alright I'll just state the real obvious point - It depends on the size of the room.

I have a 17mm from Tokina and like it enough to hold off on buying a 16-35mm or 14-24mm. It just really covers everything. I just really like the size of a prime and the less weight. With 36mp, I can crop 1/4 of it and it's fine. I haven't had a 20mm for a very long time but when it comes to these, it really is a personal choice.

Hi , I have the 12-24 nikkor in dx format = to 18-36 FX and i can tell you that at the widest 12mm(FX/18 mm) that it does not cover the wall to wall 90 degrees of the room if you stand in one corner, it just misses by a frustrating few degrees! FX/17 mm probably will just make it.

Dutch, I kicked myself after I posted my question as I did just that, with my own 12-24. /facepalm ... It did not occur to me until I posted and unpacked my camera gear after my vacation.

Thank you seven, outside shots didnt show me how much of a room i would capture. The last sentence helped.

Oh well, I hope we all get a 1 dumb question.

the field of view of the 17 mm lens will be 93 degrees

the field of view of the 20 mm lens will be 84 degrees

At the risk of stating the obvious
it will not change if you are inside or outside

If you stand right in the corner of a room and look at the opposite corner, with a 17mm you should get both sides of the room in. With a 20mm you will not