[Radiance-general] Digital Camera recommendations?

[Greg Ward]

Thanks, Paul, for that wealth of information.

I just wanted to add a note on the RAW image files -- most of the time, 
the native converters lose the exposure information on their way to an 
(uncorrected) JPEG or TIFF image for Photosphere, so I don't recommend 
RAW unless you know your camera is screwing with your JPEG's.  
Photoshop CS actually does a decent job converting RAW files, saving 
the exposure info in the Exif header, and it handles most varieties of 
RAW.  Each RAW format is maker- and model-specific, which causes real 
problems for long-term support and archiving -- another reason to avoid 
this format.  RAW files also tend to be large, and their advantages for 
reduced noise and exposure latitude are widely exaggerated.  Since 
multiple images are averaged together to make an HDR, noise tends to 
get smoothed out, anyway, and JPEG artifacts disappear as well.

That said, I encourage you to do your own experiments, but weigh the 
cost in your time using RAW against the actual benefit you get from 
them.  I've done my own, and I've found the benefit to be negligible 
next to the effort required.

-Greg

P.S.  I should have included the Nikon 900 series in my list of 
recommended cameras -- most people who have used them for HDR capture 
have had good experiences from all I've heard.

> From: Paul LaBerge <plaberge at labergedaylight.com>
> Date: March 9, 2005 10:41:50 AM PST
>
> Hello,
> After the previous camera questions in early January I did some 
> checking to find out just what my Nikon 990 could do as well as other 
> camera options.
> ...