Everything starts RAW. Most images wind up as JPEGs, save for those few high end prints made directly from a RAW image on a big inkjet.

The big question is whether:

YOU want to do PRE-processing (by setting ALL the menu choices on the camera VERY carefully, and by using some sort of reference target for white balance and exposure), OR

You want the CAMERA to do pre-processing for you (by using automatic exposure, automatic white balance, and various other pre-sets), OR

YOU want to do POST-processing in software.

Letting the camera do it automatically is a risky crap-shoot. Sometimes, the camera does a great job, but other times you will encounter what labs call "subject failure" (a scene that is nearly all white, nearly all black, nearly all one color, or that has an extended brightness range).

I like to use manual pre-processing options when I can, and generate great JPEGs out of the camera. YES, I have to think, YES, I have to have experience with EVERY single menu on the camera, and YES, sometimes that isn't enough, and I resort to RAW + JPEG to hedge my bets, or to ensure that I bring home the images I want. Sometimes, the light or action is changing so quickly, I shoot only RAW in an auto exposure mode, but I hate — HATE — to resort to that.

My time is valuable, so I avoid post-processing from RAW for well over 80% of the work I do. But that is because pre-processing options are so good, now, that I can use them with confidence. The little bit of post-processing required on most of my JPEGs to make them suit their intended purposes is well within the latitude of the files. When it's not, I have a RAW file to open and tweak, because I know when to turn on RAW + JPEG capture.

Experience is a great teacher. So is a set of "ring-arounds" made with every menu setting on your camera, of a standard test scene. If you know the limits of the pre-processing options built into those menus, you can save a ton of time.

Back in the film days, there were valid reasons to use color negative film, black-and-white negative film, and color slide (transparency) film. The choice of RAW or JPEG is much like the choice between color negative films and color slide films.

Purists abound here, and in every forum. Just know that this debate is as old as digital photography, and that there are valid reasons to use RAW capture, and equally valid reasons to use JPEG capture... Those with experience, wisdom, and intelligence will gain experience with both workflow methods and make appropriate choices for their immediate circumstances.

Doesn't matter. Nikon's 1 series is the worst in the mirrorless field.

Please watch the video linked by another poster here. It (or a visit to DXOMark.com for some quick comparisons) will explain and demonstrate why lenses optimized for a larger format often perform less than optimally on APS-C or DX cameras.

When a lens is designed to produce an image circle just slightly larger than the sensor, it concentrates more light, more effectively. It can be smaller, lighter, and built with better tolerances when made specifically for that format. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Micro Four Thirds, where Panasonic Lumix (with help from Leica) and Olympus have delivered some astoundingly great glass.

I have never had issues working with full frame lenses on APS-C Canons, but perhaps that's because I didn't need optimized resolution for portraits and product photos!

The need for maximum possible resolution becomes apparent when you make extremely large prints, or crop deeply into an image. Few photographers do that on a regular basis, which is why most are comfortable using lenses designed for full frame on APS-C or DX sensor cameras. In the vast majority of instances, it just doesn't matter. Real people don't buy photos of test charts... or paste them on social media sites.

OTOH, if you are an Ansel Adams wannabe, go for the largest format and matching optics you can find... Test them for optimal performance points (ISO, focal length, aperture...), and use accordingly.

Yes, good link. Tony drives deeply into the subject.

APS-C lenses do work best on APS-C bodies... The major catch is that if you start with APS-C lenses and APS-C bodies, those lenses will not work properly on full frame bodies. But full frame lenses will work on APS-C, just not optimally.

Best recommendation is to use cameras and lenses that are designed to work with one another, unless, as Tony points out, you're going to do wildlife and crop.

Many photographers got "caught" with big collections of lenses that performed sub-optimally when they switched from film to digital photography. The image circles of their old lenses were designed to concentrate the light on 24x36mm film planes. The lenses were not dust sealed. They were not as sharp as they needed to be for digital capture, even on full frame.

A lot has happened to improve recent lens designs, so it behooves anyone building a new system to read the test reports and choose optics carefully, for both the body they choose today, and the bodies they may use later.

The comparison nearly always refers to the angle of coverage or field of view that is saved in the image. Others here have detailed that.

The issue came up in the mid-1990s because the earliest dSLRs were simply full frame 35mm cameras with smaller sensors mounted in the middle of the film plane. The result was a "cropped" image, when using the same lens as for "full frame". The camera body was still a "full frame" modified 35mm SLR, but the sensor only captured a central segment of the image.

To keep things simple, the camera manufacturers kept making the same lenses, but mounted small (DX or APS-C) sensors in their digital cameras. Then some companies began making lenses that ONLY covered the DX and APS-C sensor formats, and cannot be used on "full frame" sensors, re-complicating the market. Those "full frame" cameras came out after the smaller sensor cameras were the norm, re-complicating the market yet again...

As for image quality, smaller pixels record fewer photons at any given point in time. That means there is less *signal* (image) when compared with *background noise* (digital grain).

A 16MP full frame sensor will have slightly larger pixels than a 16MP APS-C or DX sensor, which will have slightly larger pixels than a 16MP Micro Four Thirds sensor. So, all *other* things being equal, the full frame sensor's image will have about a one stop ISO advantage over the APS-C or DX image, which will have about a 2/3 stop advantage over the Micro Four Thirds image.

That said, your results likely will vary, because everything else is seldom equal. Real world comparisons of 60x40 inch prints of the same subject can reveal small or huge differences, depending on the camera, the lens, the ISO used, and other factors.

If all your work consists of low light night shots made on street corners, save your cash for a full frame dSLR. If you seldom use ISOs higher than 1600, and most of your work winds up on the Internet for consumption on screens, then format choice isn't that important, unless you also intend to make huge prints, or have existing lenses you want to use.

A small but growing group of professionals is using Micro Four Thirds these days, largely because of the video capabilities built into the Panasonic Lumix GH4, and the quality of lenses available for that camera. Their work is called "hybrid photography", and it blends video and stills and audio and graphics into Internet-based media.

I don't care what car you drive, just that you drive it safely. Same goes for camera gear.

And please, don't "shoot" people! Photograph them. "Shooting" "hooters" in the RAW? Please, just don't go there!

I LOVE THIS. You are so right, sir!

Photography with an old wet plate camera (or any of the older technologies that weren't "point and shoot") was a huge challenge that required thought and disciplined execution. May it be a reminder to us to "pay the upfront price" for a decent image by getting things right at the camera.

There is a time and a place for a RAW workflow with post-processing, and a time and a place for a JPEG workflow with pre-processing. The appropriateness depends upon the situation — the importance of the images, the profit margins (if commercial), the risk (changing lighting vs. consistent, controlled lighting, contrast, and ratios), and several other factors.

I worked for years in an industry where we controlled the lighting, used appropriate setup targets for exposure and white balance control, and could work with little to no post-processing for tens of millions of images that sold at low margins.

At the same time, I developed a personal workflow that can switch seamlessly between RAW and JPEG capture, to take advantages of the best of both worlds. It's the evolution of decades of exposing color slide and transparency films in some pretty challenging circumstances.

I don't like to be a slave to a computer, *or* disappointed that I missed a shot. So I use all the controls on the camera, whenever I can. (The settings for a great JPEG capture provide a great RAW file — and a reference image of the scene — that help me tweak a RAW image to my heart's content, if that is what I need to do.)

I have studied and followed the development of the technology and science of digital photography professionally, having implemented it in a major pro lab since the mid-1990s. So it is with my tongue in my teeth that I read many misconceptions about quality in various forums on a daily basis.

One of the biggest misconceptions is that photographers somehow always "need" to work in RAW mode. That may be a preference, a comfort zone, or habit, but it is simply not necessary in all situations, and can be prohibitively difficult or impossible in others. It is often "majoring on the minor".

It is surprising, perhaps shocking to some, that whole segments of the digital photography industry — indeed, those that consume the largest quantities of photo paper — use 100% JPEG workflows. Even more shocking is that some of their images get opened, re-rendered, and saved up to three times before printing, and yet still look great to the customer.

I'm not opposed to working in RAW mode, and will when I need to, or want to. However, with proper planning, I generally do not need to do so.

Anything that requires post processing is suspect in my book. I only want post-processing as an option, not a normal workflow.

Lytro concept has been around for about five years. Until you see evidence of shipping product, I'd avoid excitement.

Need a camera? Go get one!

The combination of LR and PS is the preferred standard set of WORKFLOW tools for professional photographers. They are completely different programs, with completely different purposes, and yet they overlap in some areas. As such, they are designed to be complementary, and are usually used together.

Lightroom IS the workflow tool. It's used for importing, cataloging, cull editing, rating, and tagging images. It can do gross image adjustment (color, brightness, saturation, sharpness, curves, etc.), printing, and posting to your Internet web pages.

Photoshop is a PIXEL EDITOR. You can tweak individual images to your heart's content, doing retouching, layering, masking, compositing, adding text, blending images together, in addition to the gross image adjustments Lightroom can do.

As an amateur/beginner, or even as an experienced, casual photographer, you might be well-served by using Photoshop ELEMENTS. It has most of the more popular features of Photoshop, without the heavy cost.

Another choice, if you are on a Mac, is FOTOR. It also comes in versions for Windows Phone, iOS, and Android. While simpler than Photoshop Elements, it is absolutely great for quick edits. I use it all the time, when I'm not getting super-picky about an image.

Glad you clarified that. I've used both Windows and Macintosh systems since the late 1980s, and both Nikon and Canon systems since the late 1960s.

Macs are easy for Windows users to learn, once they quit looking for arcane, complex ways to do things. When you figure out that Apple's elegance is many layers deep, and Window's OS is shallow, you know why Mac users are so fanatical.

My impressions of Canon vs. Nikon ease of use basically comes down to the menu structures. Canon's structure, while still too complex, is better organized and easier to understand quickly. It just takes too long to find the settings you're looking for on a Nikon.

In the end, you can do most of the same things on either (and any major) camera platform, but you have to figure out how. Experience breeds comfort.

The original poster should quit wasting time on this thread and go use his '750 until it makes sense. And don't try to use it like a Canon!

Where have you been? Do some research! Canon has the lion's share of the interchangeable lens camera market, and has for a decade. Nikon is a solid #2. All others trail distantly.

Nikon was definitely the lead dog for a long time, up until about the early 1980s, when Canon's AE-1 broke new ground with its automation features.

Nikons pride in its high prices and expensive ruggedness cost it market share. I have always liked their gear, and used plenty of it in my film days, but Canon managed to steal their thunder during the early days of digital.

The market is confusing right now. The Japanese are buying increasing numbers of mirrorless cameras, while Americans cling to the dSLR concept, perhaps due to owning lots of lenses.

Meanwhile, the fixed lens "point and shoot" camera market is rapidly losing market share, smart phones are gaining wildly in popularity, and interchangeable lens cameras are rebounding slowly. Yet the big camera companies' overall sales are flat or declining.

There is more "imaging" going on than ever before, but there is more unrest and change in the camera markets than at any time I can recall.

I have used both Canon and Nikon products (and several other brands) since 1968. From my experience, Canon definitely has better ergonomics.

Nikons are more rugged. Currently, Nikons have better sensor performance at reproducing test charts in low light. While Canons seem to record better flesh tones for portraits, Nikons seem to record better color saturation.

Nikon and Canon have different "audiences" for their gear. Both make excellent systems. Both have distinct features that are either advantages or disadvantages, depending upon what you need to do.

The best advice I can give you is to look at what you need to do, then get a detailed analysis from several sources of how each system meets your needs, or doesn't. In the end, there is no one best system... just the one you are using now.

I do know the NEXT system I'll be using will be mirror-less, and it probably won't be Canon or Nikon.

Great question! This reminds me of someone I knew in business, meeting with an Internet web site designer for the first time in 1995. He said, "We know we *need* a web site. But, um, what is that?"

Well, if you don't know what it is, how do you know you need it?

Before you go shopping for cameras, know what you want to photograph! That should shape your decisions as much as a hands-on trial of several different bodies and lenses.

Different gear is suited to different uses. Some cameras perform best for sports action and wildlife. Others perform best for portraiture. Others make excellent video, which might be a factor for you. It's a huge factor for me, as I want one system to do everything.

As far as brands go, various people will hate me for saying this, but they're ALL pretty good right now, and it boils down to *personal choice of what is best for YOU and your needs.* You can head over to www.dpreview.com for some really detailed test reports of the more popular cameras and lenses, but you should also go try them, and look for other forums, and read as many comments from users as you can.

It might be the best brand on the planet, by someone's tests, but if it does not feel right in your hands, or work naturally for you, will you want to use it?

In my own 46 years of serious photography, I started with Canon, switched to Nikon a year later, and used Canon, Nikon, Yashica, Bronica, and Mamiya in my film days. Each had distinct advantages and annoyances.

Since digital came out, I have used both Nikon and Canon. I prefer each for different purposes. From my perspective, Canon bodies have better handling, menus, and ergonomics. Their computer tethering software comes with the camera, free of extra charge. I like their pro quality lenses, but I like Nikkors just as well. And I like certain Tamron lenses on both platforms.

Nikons tend to have better sensors, hence better low light performance, but I seldom use ISOs higher than 3200. In my experience, Nikon gear tends to be more rugged, but that's not a huge factor for me any longer.

These days, I'm a HUGE fan of Panasonic's Lumix GH4, and the entire family of Micro Four Thirds lenses, especially the Lumix "Holy Trinity" of 7-14mm f/4, 12-35mm f/2.8, and 35-100mm f/2.8. Leica makes some primes for this camera format, too, and inspired many of Panasonic's designs, so lens selection for the m43 format is excellent.

The primary advantages to the GH4 are size, bulk, and weight savings, coupled with the very best video performance of any camera in its price range, and excellent still photography performance. Unless you are a sports and wildlife still photographer, or for you, life begins in "available darkness", you don't need APS/C or DX or "full frame" cameras. Micro Four Thirds is gaining popularity quickly, and has significant appeals to those with small hands, large travel budgets, and a need to avoid bulk and weight.

Probably the best advice I can give you isn't about equipment, though, since that is a highly personal choice. It's about learning, the importance of understanding the basics of photography, and how that knowledge can help you capture anything with confidence. What ever you do, read your camera manual!

Consider the following:

ISO, shutter speeds, and f/stops control exposure. Change one, and you must change one of the other two to compensate, as the sensor needs a specific amount of light to capture a "correct" exposure of any subject. ("Correct" can be relative to your interpretation of the scene.)

Camera meters are calibrated to see the world as reflecting 18% of all colors, equally (photographic gray). Point them at white, and they will provide readings that underexpose. Point them at black, they will provide readings that overexpose. Point at an average scene, or a gray target, and you will get correct exposure.

Cameras sense the color of light and set white balance the same way. Point them at white, black, or gray, and they see color correctly. Point them at red, and they set a scene balance of cyan. Point them at green, and the scene balance goes magenta. Point them at blue, and the scene balance goes yellow.

RAW and JPEG capture modes have entirely different purposes. RAW provides the potential to extract the best quality from an image later, in software. JPEG uses the camera pre-sets to process a scene from RAW to a finished file in the camera. It provides instantly usable images, but only if you discipline yourself to pre-set the camera properly! My advice? Always apply that discipline, even when using RAW, and you will always come away with images you can use.

These are but a small sampling of concepts that need your consideration as you learn. This is a good forum. But there are many others. Consider joining a local camera club or Meetup group to learn more.

Above all else, once you get some gear, use it! You'll learn as much from your mistakes and experience as you will from reading, studying, and listening.