If you have Photoshop, they will update their raw file list pretty soon to include the new camera--but raw or no,what do you think of the image quality, especially at zoomed out ranges???
Right on!! --you can see it in people rushing the get the latest and greatest camera body filled with features that probably will hardly be used!!
I sent you a long message about how important photoshop has been to me over many years and i tried to attach a recent video an image gallery of a Latino Dance group i have been working with---but i don't think the attachment went out to you --if you want to see it, shoot me your email address and i'll attach the video file back to you --this works, i have already sent it to a bunch of people this way --my email: george13sabo@gmail.com ----thanks for you inspiring thoughts!! --George
I couldn't agree with you more --I have been using Photshop for over twenty years, and still haven't gotten to the bottom of what it can do--and it is the perfect artistic tool to develop the types of layered images with people and scenic, etc. backgrounds that I have been using first with Alaskan Native peoples and now with Latinos--I've had a number of museum exhibits of my work while in Alaska, and am now developing some online means of showing my latest work. It is the perfect tool for me I cam going to try and attach the Latino dance group video I recently completed which will go on youtube pretty soon.I hope you can see it, and I really appreciate your remarks--a lot of people don't seem to realize what a marvel Photshop in it's ongoing versions it actually constitutes. I couldn't live without it!! -George Sabo
I have been using photoshop for thirty years to create layered images--using two or more source images; lightroom wouldn't d o you any good in this regard, as I understand it--hope this helps!
The Nikon F was the first good 35mm camera I got way back then, and yes it was and is a trusty instrument--but now I've gone to the Nikon digital models!!
I have been using photoshop forever--i need it because i work extensively with layers, and phootshop does a great job at this!!
I completely agree that good optics are more important than a camera body --it tickles me when a number of people go right out and buy a very expensive camera body like the D850, which is probably overkill for most people--who really needs all that resolution, and all the bells and whistles?? I sure don't and with much simpler, less costly gear I have produced images that have been shown in museum exhibits, etc.---but i guess that's what keeps camera makers in business; as soon as they come out with the latest, most advanced camera body, some people think they can't live without it --to me, the Nikon D750 is a technological marvel, and does everything I need from it and theh some!!
I don't know of any replacement, but I have had a 750 for several years now, and it is a marvel of camera technology and usefulness--i don't see how you can go wrong with this camera!!
I have the contemporary model of the Sigma 150-600for my Nikon bodies and I love it--sharp as can be and I can handhold it even at 600mm and get good results!!
It really cracks me up that some people have perfectly good mirror cameras but to save a few ounces of weight, they want to start over with an expensive mirrorless rig, new lenses, etc etc. I guess that kind of thinking is what keeps camera makers in business --I've always been a nikon guy and wouldn't dream of switching, what with the several camera bodies and lenses I have--I'm not so weak (even though I'm 75 years old) that I can't handle a Nikon body and lens combo in any situation!!
Yes technical versus artistic are two separate things --it's relatively easy to produce a technically excellent photo, much harder to produce one with definite artistic merit --photography's great strides in the technical area actually seem to make it harder to be really artistic ---you see lots of striking images, but how may photographers have a really unique vision and can personalize this vision in the photographic medium? ---very few in my opinion --i think there was more of this in the earlier eras of the Weston, Eugene Smith, Cartier Bresson, etc. --and especially in the area of human subjects in photos--very few photographers seem to even deal with this area --photography is dominated by scenics, etc. --the pictures of people are few and far between, and not very expressive when they appear --well, that's one person's opinion and observations!!!
What you said is right--I've tried it both ways--the FF lenses work fine on DX cameras, but not the other way around!
I think people have given you good advice on DX vs FX lenses on a DX type camera--it amazes me how people think they need to get the new D850 camera, even though they have a perfectly good Nikon already (I have a D750, a D800 and a couple of old D80's --they all still serve their purposes well though in different ways) ----I really question how many people really need such an advanced model as the D850, which comes at a steep price!! If Nikon comes out with an even more advanced model at an even greater price, would a lot of people rush in to get it, when they already have adequate Nikkon gear just because it' the latest and greatest??