Nope - it goes to 15.36 Mp if you put the camera in DX mode.

The comma is fine - you just need to block and copy the entire text contained in the link, including the last bit that didn't turn blue. Then open a blank page in your browser and paste the entire link into the URL address space.

That essay from Tomsguide is 3 years old, and contains more than a few statements that are no longer true and some that were never true. They really should either do a major rewrite that takes current technology into consideration or take it down.

I have owned 3 Lumix cameras over the past 6 years (still have 2 of them, a GH2 and a GX7. The GH2 had an "Infant Failure" when only about 3 months old. I went to the support website, they emailed instructions, I sent the camera in, got it back within 2 weeks, camera was fixed and has been perfect ever since. I didn't have to deal with anyone in person.

I have experienced IR photography with several cameras - a D70, D800, a Lumix GH2 and a Fuji X-pro1. I have found that "mirrorless" is the way to go. It's all about what you can see in the viewfinder and achieving focus. The electronic viewfinder and the focus sensors being on the imaging chip give the mirrorless a huge advantage over an SLR, especially when the SLR doesn't have Live View. If you are serious about doing IR, I would strongly recommend selling your D300 and replacing it with a fairly modern mirrorless with 12-16 megapixels and a decent electronic viewfinder. There will be no need to do anything to the focus system and you can use autofocus and the built-in manual focusing aids that mirrorless cameras have to offer. You can also see what you are shooting in the finder, whether you are shooting in good light or not. You can get something like the GH2 for around $200 or less, and it is a great camera, and of course, there are a lot of other geat options with Sony, Olympus, lower end Fujis, etc. The main thing is the EVF and on-sensor focus that mirrorless provides. And don't forget that you can adapt any manual Nikon lenses that you have to just about any mirrorless 4/3 or APS camera.

As to what filter to spec when having a camera converted, I recommend the "Full-Spectrum" conversion unless you are absolutely sure what you want to get out of the camera going forward. "Full-Spectrum" means that the camera has no filter at all on the imaging sensor (the "Filter" is a piece of clear glass), so you can put any filter you want on the lens to allow only the light you are interested in - for example: B&W IR (no false color monochrome), Near IR (lets some visible light through to allow "false color"), visible light only (the camera works like it did before modification, with full color), or UV if you get interested in that at some point. If you specify a particular filter with the conversion, it becomes a permanent part of the imaging sensor and you are stuck with it. If you haven't already been there, go to https://www.lifepixel.com/focus-calibration-options - where they discuss their different filter options and focus issues with SLRs in depth. Scroll about 1/3 the way down and read "Mirrorless Camera Calibration" (no calibration required) - and explains why you really should be looking at mirrorless cameras for IR photography.

When I finally decided to do the conversion, and decided on the simple clear glass conversion, I looked around for someone with a good reputation that doesn't cost so much. This is the person I picked - <http://www.isaacszabo.com/infrared.html> and <http://www.ebay.com/itm/Infrared-IR-Conversion-Service-for-Digital-Cameras-720nm-590nm-830nm-/191233382227> He is a very nice guy and a fabulous photographer - check out his images at both sites. He has a 100% rating on ebay and has converted over a thousand cameras. I couldn't be more pleased with the whole experience of dealing with him.

Finally, I settled on what seems to be the overwhelming extenal filter preference for IR photography - the Hoya R72, which is the "Near IR" that lets a little visible light through if you want some color on occasion. I got the 67mm size, which fits the lens that I use the most, and use reducing rings with it for the other lenses that I use once in awhile.

Best wishes for your journey into Infra-red!

I have recently had 2 Wasabi batteries swell up and become unusable. They were about 3-1/2 years old and were originally purchased for my Fuji X-Pro1, but were mostly used in my X-T1. The original Fuji batteries are still fine, and have probably been used three or more times as much as the Wasabis. On the other hand, all 3 of the original Fuji batteries for my 5 year old X-100 have swelled up.

I believe that overheating is the cause of the failures - my Fujis are mostly used intensely on project oriented road trips, and they all really heat up the end of the camera where the batteries are when used non-stop. I have used the X-T1 90% of the time for the 2 years I have had it, and figured that the hot batteries and mandatory changes every few hours when shooting all day were just something I had to put up with. However, after recently reading forum posts from a significant number of fellow Fuji users claiming up to 1000 shots per battery charge, I decided to see if I could duplicate their experience. For me, that meant shortening the after shot review to the shortest time possible, turning the rear screen completely off, and setting the Viewfinder to turn on only when the camera was up to my eye. I also drastically reduced the amount of chimping I was doing. I have only done an intensive shooting day one time since making the changes, but that was enough to prove that the battery life per charge was radically increased, and the camera never got really hot. However, I am going to use only OEM batteries in my Fujis going forward, because my wonderful Fujis deserve the best!

What I am seeing in your image is a lot of jpg artifacts - this is typical of low quality jpg images, especially when they have been cropped, over-processed, and/or saved at low quality. If you carefully examine your image (as delivered to the forum) at high magnification, you will see horizontal components in the artifacts as well as vertical. In fact, you should also see that what you are looking at is actually a regular checkerboard pattern. You will also see a lot of smearing - this is also typical of low quality jpgs. Since you were using a very good camera to capture the images in the first place, I have to think that the destruction of the image happened in the processing stage, and was made worse by the compression/file downsizing that happens to images sent to the forum. It would be good to send us a RAW image that could be evaluated fairly.

[quote=philmurfin]Hi,
In terms of jpeg image quality, there seems to be very little difference between the Fuji X70 - £499, Ricoch GR - £350 and the Nikon Coolpix A - £293.
Given that I'm just wanting something small and light, that will give good quality, without the bother of interchangeable lenses. From your experience, which one of these, or any others, would you go for please? [end quote]


If forced to purchase one of the three, I would pay the premium for the Fuji because I really, really like their old-school direct controls and the way Fuji listens to their customers and regularly updates their cameras in response.

However, given the freedom to choose something else, I would purchase a Panasonic LX-100 instead of any of the above because: 1. I don't like fixed focal length cameras 2. I will not have a camera that doesn't have an EVF (Electronic View Finder) 3. The Panasonic has a fast zoom lens, a nice EVF and, although it has a small disadvantage in IQ due to its smaller 4/3 sensor, I feel that it is more than good enough for its intended purpose. I have its slightly bigger brother - a Panasonic RX7 that is my "always with me" camera and I am very happy with it.

On the other hand, if pocketability is paramount, the Ricoh wins out, even though I would not care to have a >4" long, 1.6" brick in my jeans pocket - in a loose jacket - maybe.

Or better yet, look at the Panasonic LX100, which is the same camera in a more ergonomic body for almost $400 less money. Leica surely don't give those red dots away, do they?

BTW, the Leica/Panasonics are 4/3 sensor cameras at nearly the same cost as the 3 APS sensor cameras originally mentioned, so have the inherent slight IQ disadvantage of the breed when compared to the larger sensor APS cameras. However, the Leica/Panasonics have a built in zoom lens and an EVF, which for me, makes me strongly more likely to buy the Panasonic than any of the others. I don't like fixed focal length lenses and will not buy ANY camera that doesn't have a viewfinder.

Are/Were you aware that Pentax has just announced the "Full-frame" K1? It looks like a real beauty in both aesthetics and function, and considering the great feature set, such as 5-axis IBIS, 36mpxl, pixel shifting, nifty articulated rear screen, etc., looks like a bargain at $1799.

See the highlights at:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html.

Scroll down to last Thursday's blog posting. You might have sold out just a little too soon!

All of my old Nikkors from the 70's/early 80's got better every time I upgraded, from D70 to D200 to D700 and finally D800. I am stopping there - I don't need any more megapixels/IQ or any better lenses. I am an extremely happy camper!

You are seeing exactly what one should expect (assuming that you are pixel peeping at 100%) since you are comparing a 24mpxl camera without a low-pass filter with two 16mpxl cameras.

However, I have both 16mpxl M4/3 and several 16mpxl Fujis, and I can tell you from much experience that in the real world (comparing high-quality PRINTS) that you have to print real big and look real close to see the differences, even compared to my D800, which has more than double the IQ of the D5300. The biggest real-world advantage of a higher megapixel count is the ability to crop more without the image falling apart when magnified. That is why my D800 sits on the shelf 90% of the time these days.

I have had 4 Nikon DSLRs over the years, and have always shot RAW + Large Fine JPG. Until my last (and I do mean my last) DSLR, a D800, I had to color correct and do significant sharpening on just about every image. With the D800, I rarely sharpen (except for pre-print) but still have to correct for the slight yellowish cast typical of OOC Nikon images. Since I always have RAW images to work with, I just automatically do my post-processing with them for the highest possible quality.

Now that I have both Fuji X and Lumix MFT system cameras, both of which have amazingly good colors and sharpness OOC, I rarely do much post-processing at all, and even more rarely resort to the RAW images.

Finally, for what it's worth, I can't see myself EVER buying another DSLR, not when superb mirrorless cameras like the Fuji X APS (1.5 crop just like most of the crop sensor SLRs) and MFTs from Panasonic and Olympus are available.

I agree with Apaflo's comment "Lots of confusion here!"

Anyway, Apaflo and others have been all over the map with info and suggestions, but I have yet to read an accurate response to Todd's original question, which is as follows:
[Quote] "I am an owner of a Nikon D810 and most of my event images do not need 36 MB resolution, so I decided to try the small RAW setting. The menu says that large RAW is 36 MP and small is 9 MP, however the small actually average around 29 MB files.
What am I missing? Or is really 3 X 9 due to the three pixels needed for red, green and blue?" [End Quote]


First, There is no such thing as a SMALL RAW setting - the S, M & L designations refer to JPGs only. The only way(s) to reduce the size of Nikon D8xx RAW files is by (1) selecting 12 bit (compressed or not) or 14 bit compressed RAW file save modes and/or (2) choosing one of the 3 cropped "Image Area" modes - these are 1.2, DX, and 5:4 which are crops inside the full 36x24 mm sensor's imaging area. These will give you the following approximate Megapixel count and image storage sizes - based on my camera's default RAW save parameters, which are 12bit non-lossy compressed, which results in a full-frame (FX) 36.1 MP, 44.8 MB baseline file. The three crop modes available give me the following image and file sizes:
1.2 = 30x20mm crop which results in a 25MP, 30MB image
1.5 = 24x16mm "DX" crop - 15.4MP, 20MB
5:4 = 30x24mm crop - 30.2MP, 38MB
Please note that the storage sizes are the norm for MY average images, which tend to have a lot of fine, non-repetitive detail, and do not usually have a lot of flat blue skies, etc. that can be highly compressed when saved. YMMV
The crop modes are described on Pages 74-75 in your D810 manual.

BTW, my S, M & L jpgs for the various crops range in size from 3.8MP/4MB to 36MP/25MB depending on size and quality. I personally shoot everything at max resolution RAW + Large Fine JPGs. As someone suggested, what is the point of owning/using a superb 36MP camera if you are going to shoot in Low Res/Low quality modes?

He also made some of the most beautiful landscapes I have ever seen (in Italy if I remember correctly).