Well there is an awful lot of play on the internet about the Nikon D800E and the missing Low-Pass filter as some are referring to it.

This google search offers many hits on the topic. Some of the hits are from accepted reviewers.

https://www.google.com/search?q=low+pass+in+the+d800e&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

If that search does not survive, here is one of the hits talking about both the D800 and the D800e

http://www.slashgear.com/nikon-d800-and-d800e-dslrs-address-low-pass-filter-debate-07212359/

And Then, here is another excerpt from one of those listed in the search:

"The ultimate attention to detail — the D800E
Nikon engineers have developed a unique alternative for those seeking the ultimate in definition. The D800E incorporates an optical filter with all the anti-aliasing properties removed in order to facilitate the sharpest images possible.

This is an ideal tool for photographers who can control light, distance and their subjects to the degree where they can mitigate the occurrence of moiré. Aside from the optical filter, all functions and features are the same as on the D800.

Note: The D800E carries an increased possibility that moiré and false color will appear, compared to the D800. IR cut and antireflective coating properties of the optical filter remain the same with both versions"

You are shooting digital... Hmmm?

So pay some attention the the Low-Pass filter (AA filter) technology changes taking place.

Strong AA filters in digital camera's have been used to reduce the instances of "Moire" patterns in images. The down side is that a strong AA filter smears detail in images, which appears at first glance to be diminishing sharpness.

Some camera manufacturers' are currently tackling this shortcoming of strong low-pass (AA) filtering/lack of sharp detail, with efforts to install weaker such filtering, or remove the filter altogether.

The Nikon D800E is using a dual system wherein the low-pass filter strength is essentially neutralized, hence some increase in detail sharpness (ie less smearing of detail).

Olympus took the first good crack at using a weaker AA filter when they introduced the PEN E-PL1 (their 3rd or 4th PEN). It was not highly advertised and I read an obscure article about this weakening of the AA filtering.

I immediately purchased and E-PL1 and was rewarded with great sharp, or apparent sharper focus. Have had an E-PL1 since and going to purchase the 16Mp Sony sensor E-PL5. Olympus has retained the weaker AA (Low-Pass) filtering in the OM-D EM-5s, and subsequent PEN's, which is just one of the reasons the EM-5 captured Camera of the Year for 2012 at DPreview.

The $600 E-PL5 PEN has the same sensor and configuration of filtering the anti-aliasing.

I recall reading that both Sony and Pentax are experimenting with removing the AA filtering altogether on some new models.

It's coming to light that "moire patterns" are easier to correct in Post Processing and does not occur in all images, while sharpening is more work and must be done on every image, as the AA filter does not discriminate. It filters every image from camera's where it is installed and may be a bit too strong.

I've always been a bit frustrated at the money and energy the camera manufacturers have put into the megapixel race, High ISO, and Video in primarily Still Cameras, and not attacking the sharpness issues by overlooking the low-pass AA filter problems.

So it may add a bit more to the mix, if one considers that part of the problem may be behind the lens, but in front of the sensor, the low-pass or AA filter.

Adorama recently had (may still have) refurb D5100 w/lens for $439. I am considering one, but as mentioned they do require the AF-S lenses. The OP with the D200 may have straight AF style lenses w/o the focus motors in the lens.

The part of this post about the eventual disappearance of CD/DVD disks and drive is very pertinent.

Now is a good time to begin migrating your data, documents AND images away from CD/DVD disks and get optical media totally out of your work flow and your storage media. You may be lucky to find an Optical drive in five years to be able to read the optical disks you now have. Move to other memory based storage media.

Not only is the drive availability due to be an issue, but your current optical media disks are "rotting" as we post here.

Go to Yahoo, or Google, and search....

CD Rot
DVD Rot

It may be inevitable that soon you may insert a CD or DVD in your drive and not be able to read anything on the disk.

This week, Six 3 hour community ed classes on computers (maintenance and filing/organizing files) at the local community college, 2 hours volunteering to help people with computer questions at a local library, 2 hours volunteering to help seniors with computer questions at a local Senior Center, volunteering to keep the computer lab open. Couple of hours bringing one student up to date on a missed class. Another day of shooting a group of Rock Climbers at Smith Rocks Oregon. Get a little more work done on a custom Large Format camera (2-4 hours if I can work it in), that the customer is anxious to have.

Thank heaven for retirement. How could I do all this and handle a job as well.

A few minutes here and there to visit UHH for a chuckle or two, and to keep tabs on the latest RAW vs Jpeg threads (how disappointing, only two today)

Visit a couple of other forums RFF and Large Format Forums for some serious discussion.

I think the week will be full. :mrgreen:

Well, nice test and good technique, using filters vs. no filters.

But remember, you used Hoya filters. Might have been a better apples to apples "control" test using your Hoya filters alongside about three other lesser quality filters (most other brands) to do the test.

I can't imagine that Quantaray filters for instance could return the same results. It also appears that discrimination about filter brands is not high on the list of most camera users, digital or film.

I use a set of Cokin filters with an attachment that fits on an adaptor ring on the front of the lens. The filters are square, quite thin, and the adaptor revolves. I can stack up to three filters in the holder for various results and apply the math on the filter factors accordingly. The filters are about 2.25 inches square, so the kit works on some fairly large lenses by using different size ring adaptors on the holder.

So, while being versatile, the Cokin are in the same quality league as the Hoya filters. I also use them on the front of Large Format lenses.

I have a very large camera bag, chock full of filters (various brand) that I wouldn't put on the front of any lens. I call them my "Lomo" filters. I can't bring myself to sell them to anyone, because I have personally experienced how bad some of them are, again except for "Diana" "Holga" and acolytes of "lomo" to use.

Good test, but again, would be interesting to run it with the filters most people are actually using. It's not a test of filters vs. no filters that's needed, but rather a test of filter quality.

It appears that's been discussed here, but admittedly I did not read every post.

It's pretty amazing how fast the pages rack up on these threads.

When is anyone taking pictures?

And the Canon 6D is rated as a great camera for STILL images. It's getting hammered on the video, so that may be a dealbreaker for some ... the video.

https://www.google.com/search?q=canon+6D+video&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Anheuser Dimentia....

Drink one sixpack and start forgetting things, or end up found two towns over.

I've had it since post pubescence.

Late chatter here on UHH is that Picasa may appear to open RAW files in some cases, but it has to do some internal processing to do so. It's implied that the RAW is not intact as the camera created it.

Based on the ability of some pretty casual programs being able to open RAW, I suspect this is true of more programs than just Picasa.

The clue to this internal processing is seeing the image come up on the screen and then watching it clear itself to a clean image. If that's the case, what good is the RAW?

It seems that almost every new camera that comes out with RAW capability appears to have a new RAW proprietary to that camera, and it takes ADOBE, in some cases, a few weeks to get the new format written into ADOBE CAMERA RAW and the update available on their web site.

I don't think the fact that Picasa can appear to open a RAW file means you are getting anything more than a "processed" file, which you can then further "process" in Picasa.

Again, I think this is true of most free, or inexpensive editing programs that "appear" to handle RAW. If you watch it open, are you seeing a clearing process taking place?

I truly suspect that until the RAW converter for specific cameras gets written into Camera Raw, the only real converter specific to YOUR camera is the Converter that came in the box with the new camera.

You LOL prematurely. Why wait... buy one now...

http://hothardware.com/News/RAW-Shooting-Comes-To-Smartphone-Cameras-Thanks-To-OmniVision-Chip/

can you imagine what's happening "as we now post here", over on the smartphone forums.

Question for your question....

Courses about Photography....???

Courses about editing, or processing digital image files after they come from the camera.

Somewhat different courses.

I took the NYIP (New York Institute of Photography) course in the mid 6O's. At that time, pre-digital, the information taught was about the use of the camera, understanding exposure settings and composing images. Use of the light meter, and many other facets of taking pictures and camera's.

Now with Digital, all that old information is still as important or applicable today, but some of it has been automated to "dumb" down the process of image capture. Automation in the camera, with some camera's also designed to use the manual function of many years ago.

Currently, and again, only as an example here. NYIP still has a photography course similar to what I experienced many years ago. The media of delivery of the course information has changed (video, televised, etc).

But now they have added coursework on the software and editing processes of the image files that come out of the camera.

Refraining from any kind of exchange on the best way to go, this example of NYIP points out that there is still a distinction between learning how to photograph subjects or objects. Then separately there is the work done after the image file is in the computer. This is called "post processing" the image file, or the work done to "enhance" the image after it is in the computer.

So, it behooves one to think of your question from three different perspectives.

1) Are you challenged to find out how to actually take the best picture you can take with your camera. (ie, photography)?

2) Are you more interested in the work on the computer afterward to graphically enhance your captured images? (Graphic Artistry)

3) Combinations of the two with many levels of mix that can be chosen by you.

Understanding and using good photography skills can surely reduce the amount of time spent at the computer, unless "that's the way you roll".

Not sure I gathered from your question where you are aiming toward in your education, but as many have posted, you won't have trouble finding educational information on the internet, either through these forums, or web sites dedicated to assistance, and even other web sites dedicated to sucking your wallet dry.

Proceed cautiously.

Golly, so many close relatives and Kodak Brownie Hawkeyes in this thread. Me too.

I suffer badly from GAS and so, am a gear hog. No idea of the number of camera's owned over the years. Have shot film since the 50's, until today, where I am about 50/50 film and digital. Started shooting Medium Format and Large Format film in the late 80's.

Other careers have been my source of income, and photography has been a hobby.

Disarmingly Pretty

In marketing, that is called the "law of perceived value". The more you charge, the more people perceive your work to be worth. One of the interesting aspects of the "law of perceived value" is that two people whose work is of the same quality may be widely disparate in terms of success, based on how they value (price) their own work.

It might also be stated in other terms, such as "ask and ye shall receive".

I'm sure your work is good, and there is certainly nothing wrong with enhancing it's value by factoring into pricing a certain amount of selfworth and pride in that work.

Good for you. This happens to be on of the prime areas in which most artists are deficient... marketing their work properly, or at all.

There is, in addition, the 80/20 rule. 20% of most people's work produces 80% of their income.

A secret to success is to stop doing as much of the low paying 80%, and do the 20% of work that rings the cash register. That's sometimes a bit hard to do, if you happen to be drawn to the work that doesn't pay well.

Do not overlook the possibility of a "fake or counterfeit" memory card. They are out there, and they are often in known brand names and high GB capacity (more money "why do the crime for little money")

A source of cards is the "waste" cards that do not pass Quality Control at known brand name manufacturers. Those do not get a serial number embossed on the, which is the obvious tipoff.

Here is a web site listing things for watch for on memory cards.

http://oeding.com/tutorial-how-to-spot-a-fake-memory-card/

No intent to be sarcastic here, but does it fulfill your requirements in the pictures you like to take.

I shoot a D60 currently, and it's a fine camera. It's in the genre of Nikon entry level, and it does not have a focus motor in the body, so you are limited to lenses which have focus motors or the AF-S Nikon lenses.

It is fairly capable however. The AF-S lenses are sharp and fast to focus.

Many people get excited by the next, newest and greatest camera out, and never fully extract the capabilities of the camera they are replacing.

After close to fifty years of photography and 12 years of digital, and being a gear head, Not one camera has ever made me a better photographer. A newer camera may have a feature I have found lacking in what I am currently shooting, but little of that has to do making me a better photographer. It just broadens the range of my technical skills.... A very tiny bit.

I venture that few of the people on this forum ever got maximum technical capability out of their last two or three DSLR's OR Point and Shoots.

It behooves only the camera manufacturers to convince you that award winning photography will be "included" in your next camera...... Or, at least, the one after that.

Like I said in my last post here, One of my cameras is a ten year old Olympus E1, and not one of the digital camera's I've had since can render the color that the sensor in that camera can produce, at 5 megapixels.

Here is a site with MANY samples of pictures from the 5Mp Olympus E-1 (which can often be found at eBay for a couple hundred dollars for a low count body)

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/cameras/?camera=166

So, yes, your Nikon D60 is fine, until you are convinced, correctly or incorrectly that it is "old technology". I just picked the one I have up used for $225 with the 18-55 AF-S VR lens and bag.