Hi.

Firstly, RAW will mean that the picture is not compressed or changed in the camera, it provides you greater freedom when post processing as the photo is basically untouched. RAW if good to have if you intend to post process images with software such as photoshop or aperture..

As far as IS (image stabilisation), this is something you need when taking photos at long focal lengths or when zooming. When you zoom in any movement in the camera is exaggerated, so if your hands shake slightly it is magnified. The IS will balance this out so your shot comes out sharp. Also in low light you need IS if not using a flash..

If your taking just happy snaps during the day in sunlight and will use the flash indoors it's not critical but a nice feature that you will use at times.Nikon D200!24-120mm AF-S..

It's not a must but for some situations it's very handy. Basically if you want to handhold in low light with not much subject movement you'll need IS. As the focal length increases so does the shake from your hands. For example at 300mm you won't be able to handhold at less than 1/300s shutter speed without incurring blur, and either a tripod or IS will stabilize the image for you..

Oops I forgot to adress your RAW question..

Ok RAW is useful if you miss exposure, you can fix it by almost 2 stops in RAW. You will incurr some added noise if you try to brighten the exposure too much in RAW, but you can make some chnages to the exposure after the shot has been taken in post processing which I find to be very useful. I wouldn't buy a camera without RAW anymore after having used it unless there was some special need that the camera provides (for example small enough to fit in my pocket)..

If you are serious about learning the art of photography, not just taking snapshots, then don't worry about IS, but get and learn to use a tripod..

Taking the time to set up and use a tripod will slow you down and give you a chance to compose your images thoughtfully. The composition skills that you can develop using a tripod will also serve well in your hand-held shooting..

Don't worry about getting a camera with RAW format output until you have mastered JPG shooting and feel frustrated by the limits of exposure latitude of JPG. RAW is a lot of extra work (and storage) for little or no benefit if you are just shooting casual snapshots. If you take the time to use it properly RAW can give you more choices in how you render images, but if you don't have the patience to experiment and learn and purposefully chose how you render an image, then don't worry about RAW..

Juanita1 wrote:.

Hello all,.

Thank you first for your most valuable information you post here..

I've posted this question over on steves-digicam as well, but thoughtI might get a bit more feedback here..

I'm an ABSOLUTE beginner. I'd love to have the G7 or even G9, justbased on looks alone. Since I know nothing from nothing at thispoint the lack of RAW means nothing to me. I've read extensively onthe A640 as well which also appeals to me; it lacks imagestabilization. I know that at some point it may matter and make adifference, but for a beginner how relevant is it??.

Many thanks for your input!.

Juanita.

Galleries: http://www.dheller.net..

Beginnings are always worrying times. Image stabilisation is not essential, and there is an argument which says you will learn to become a better photographer and take more interesting photographs without it..

Most cameras come with a self-timer function allowing you to rest the camera on a bench, rock, wall or even your bag. If the camera has a flip and twist LCD then I would say image stabilisation is even less important. You can do other things to help with any camera that has a viewfinder: lean against a wall or a tree, get some stability from a fence etc..

So if you only want to take shots the same as everyone else from eye level then get a camera with image stabilisation to extend the Point & Shoot capabilities in dim light; if you want to be more adventurous then find a camera with a flip out LCD, some of them have that kind of LCD and also IS (Panasonic Fz50, Canon s5)..

RAW? - a photograph taken in RAW mode is like an old-fashioned film negative. You can print from it in any way you wish at a later date. You might have a nice sunset landscape and the shadows are too dark or the colours are wrong, from RAW you have the possibility of correcting these things..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr..

I think it really boils down to your type of photography or subject matter. I have found VR to be essential, especially when I photograph from a moving object or using telephoto in less than perfect light..

VR is a tool you could do without, but if you have it you will certainly find times you really appreciate what it can do..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...

IS is not necessary to take good pic. but the less you know about the proper way the handhold a camera to keep it steady the more valuable IS is going to be..

As for raw, I wrote the following a while back-.

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.this keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg.yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

IMHO it matters where you want to go after you are a beginner. When I started in this hobby about 35 years ago it was definitely a learning experience when I got prints that where disappointing because of camera shake. I learned how to hold the camera and take steady shot. Also about the limitations of the system; low light giving slow shutter speeds, long lens and such. I was never too steady but now that I'm A LITTLE older it is even harder to keep the camera shake down so I find IS very helpful. I think if you want to develop good shooting methods and advance in the hobby you should start without it and learn how to handle the equipment and deal with limitations.



Now if you just like taking pictures it is very handy and can help but will not cure everything that causes a blurry shot so don't expect it to.Doug.

Http://douginoviedo.smugmug.com/..

Image stabilization is not a must for a beginner. Image stabilization has only been available as an affordable option in the last few years. If is helpful when you are using your telephoto lens at it's maximum or you are shooting a handheld shot at low shutter speeds, but it is not a must..

If you are an absolute beginner, why do you want to start with a G-7 or G-9 other than it's looks. You should get a camera to fit the type of pictures that you are expecting to take. For example, you like to take low-light photos, but the G-7 is not great at low-light photos..

Why would you want to mess around with RAW at this stage of your development? Have you done any post-processing of photos?..

IS is necessary or not depending on how long your lens would be. At 140 mm as A640 has you need 1/160 s @ f/4.1. Most of the time during the day you'll find that easy to get. If not use a tripod.For long lens over 300 mm IS gives you more opportunities for a shot.VictorBucuresti, Romaniahttp://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/..

Thank you all kindly for your responses! Certainly helps in the decision process!.

Deadzone1003, I was merely illustrating my ignorance in such matters; not to say I AM going to purchase the G7 and RAW, exactly, I have no clue so what would it matter to me at this point? Again, just an illustration of how little I know .

RAW does not sound like something I'm interested in for no other reason, sounds time consuming. Perhaps once I've mastered the art and/or I've retired. For now, have no interest in now that I understand from all of your excellent posts just what really is involved...

DavidMaven wrote:.

...Don't worry about getting a camera with RAW format output until youhave mastered JPG shooting and feel frustrated by the limits ofexposure latitude of JPG....

I think this is really bad advice. Get a jpg only camera until you get frustrated by the limits of jpg? And then what? End up stuck with a camera that frustrates you?.

Why not get a camera that does RAW? You can use jpg only on it until you feel like trying out the RAW function. But at least with a camera that can do RAW you have the option. The only caveat is the Pentax K10D, which has such a horrible JPG engine that you pretty much have to stick to RAW to get a decent output from it...

... is buying more camera than needed for more money than desired for somebody who has not yet expressed a desire to master both the technology and art of photography..

Canoneyesed wrote:.

I think this is really bad advice. Get a jpg only camera until youget frustrated by the limits of jpg? And then what? End up stuck witha camera that frustrates you?.

Given the rate of change of models, features, megapixels, etc., anybody starting out with their first digital camera who becomes intent on mastering the art of photography will inevitably buy more cameras down the road. So buying a first digital camera without RAW is not "stuck with a camera that frustrates you". I guess it's impossible to make good pictures or perform "serious" photography with just JPG..

FYI, I shoot mostly RAW, but that's because I demand more from my photography than most, and I'm willing to work at it. But the OP asked as an "absolute beginner", not an intermediate photographer frustrated with the dynamic range limits of JPG...

DavidMaven wrote:.

If you are serious about learning the art of photography, not justtaking snapshots, then don't worry about IS, but get and learn to usea tripod..

Taking the time to set up and use a tripod will slow you down andgive you a chance to compose your images thoughtfully. Thecomposition skills that you can develop using a tripod will alsoserve well in your hand-held shooting..

I disagree - especioally with the implication that "the art of photography" relates only to pictures (subjects) that lend themselves to tripod use, and the rest is "snapshots"..

If your preferred subject/style is "street" otr "candid" or "photojournalism" or whatever, a tripod is not a substitute for IS (or good handheld technique)..

IS for a beginner? It has nothing to do with "beginner"; the most experienced photog can value IS for it's ability to allow you to take pictures in more extreme lighting (and zoom) conditions; and help you get sharp results in less extreme conditions..

I wouldn't say it's a "must" for a beginner, or a "must" for anyone - but on the other hand don't underestimate the value of IS..

The only thing I would say to a beginner about IS - don't over-rely on IS as a substitute for good technique. Learn good technique so that you are using IS for what it is intended, not so that you are using it to compensate for poor technique and bad habits..

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window..

Arrowman wrote:.

DavidMaven wrote:.

If you are serious about learning the art of photography, not justtaking snapshots, then don't worry about IS, but get and learn to usea tripod..

Taking the time to set up and use a tripod will slow you down andgive you a chance to compose your images thoughtfully. Thecomposition skills that you can develop using a tripod will alsoserve well in your hand-held shooting..

I disagree - especioally with the implication that "the art ofphotography" relates only to pictures (subjects) that lend themselvesto tripod use, and the rest is "snapshots"..

I never said or implied that the art of photography required a tripod, only that learning the art of photography would be better enabled through use of a tripod. You will note that I also said that hand-held images would benefit from the learning of composition skills acquired through use of tripod, so obviously, I don't think hand-held photography precludes either the art or craft of photography..

If your preferred subject/style is "street" otr "candid" or"photojournalism" or whatever, a tripod is not a substitute for IS(or good handheld technique)..

When did I say it was a good substitute? Please re-read what I wrote. And IS is not always good for hand-held work. If your subject is moving, the lower shutter speeds for which IS is useful may induce subject-motion blur..

IS for a beginner? It has nothing to do with "beginner"; the mostexperienced photog can value IS for it's ability to allow you to takepictures in more extreme lighting (and zoom) conditions; and help youget sharp results in less extreme conditions..

What does "zoom" condition have to do with IS? Do you mean that IS is not helpful with fixed focal length? If you mean "longer focal length" or "telephoto" instead of "zoom", then use the proper term. And beginners would do well to learn the rule of thumb suggesting 1/(focal length) is generally the minimum shutter speed required to avoid blur induced by camera/lens shake, so they learn about the limits of IS...

I absolutely understand that you didn't exactly "say that" and I don't want to get into a strong argument, just expressing a different view from which our OP can take what he wishes..

DavidMaven wrote:.

I never said or implied that the art of photography required atripod, only that learning the art of photography would be betterenabled through use of a tripod..

Fair enough, although I don't agree that "learning the art..." is inherently "better enabled through use of a tripod". I think that's a bit of an extreme generalisation but, agree to disgaree..

When did I say it was a good substitute? Please re-read what I wrote..

No you didn't, but you did talk about tripods and you did not mention handheld technique. Just trying to complete the picture with a different viewpoint..

And IS is not always good for hand-held work..

Now it's my turn - I never said "always" .

If your subject ismoving, the lower shutter speeds for which IS is useful may inducesubject-motion blur..

Of course. On the other hand, 1/60 or 1/125 sec (say) may suffice for a stationary or semi-stationary subject, but be inadequate for a 200mm lens (say). There's no "total" solution, I was just pointing out the benefits of IS in this sort of work..

What does "zoom" condition have to do with IS? Do you mean that IS isnot helpful with fixed focal length?.

Of course not..

If you mean "longer focallength" or "telephoto" instead of "zoom", then use the proper term..

OK, sloppy use of language. I think the meaning is clear, though..

And beginners would do well to learn the rule of thumb suggesting1/(focal length) is generally the minimum shutter speed required toavoid blur induced by camera/lens shake, so they learn about thelimits of IS..

Absolutely..

Cheers..