[Mission_Safari]

Hi All, Autofocus stopped working in my kit lens of Canon EOS 500D. This was bought towards the end of 2010 and I don't have the original bill with me. Any guesstimate on the cost to have this fixed at the authorized Canon service center?

[shajufx]

Originally Posted by RSimonS

Did you visit the service center near Safina Plaza, somehow the attitude of the folks there leaves many things to be desired.

I know only one place in the city, thats opp Richmond Hotel, Richmond Road. Its usually crowded, but plenty of heads at the desk to attend to customers. I felt nothing wrong.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by RSimonS

- is Nikon service center reliable, are there any reliable alternate options?

Lens in question
- AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II
- AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

Any pointers on this will be highly appreciated

If you are willing to pay for the best service go to the Nikon Service Centre. The kind of lenses these are, they deserve nothing but the best care.

And yes, get the fungus removed ASAP...it spreads. Every day counts.

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by R2D2

Since you have the budget just go in for the D800 with your eyes closed. The reports you refer to are from 12-18 months ago. Their production issues have been reportedly resolved. My D800 or D4 have no issue and both are from the 1st lot of bodies in India - purchased in early May 2012 and March 2012 respectively.

I am throwing this question since you own both D800 and D4. How would you compare the quality of image between D800 and D4? The new Nikon Df has the same sensors as that of D4. If it is between D800 and Df, what would you recommend?

[amitoj]

I have a question regarding processing software.
Adobe has recently switched to a subscription based model and under that, it is offering a subscription to Creative Cloud (formerly CS) and Lightroom 5 for 9.99USD per month for one year. After one year, it will switch to whatever is the current rate. On the other hand, i can make an outright purchase of just Lightroom 5 for roughly 100USD and be done with it.

Which one makes more sense? I don't get very "creative" in my post processing. Apart from curve adjustments, saturation and occasional cloning, I dont do much post processing. But latest CC version has a filter that is supposed to treat camera shake as well (although however i tried i could not get it to work on the trial version that i have).

So, based on this, I feel LR5 would work best for me. But the subscription based model ensures that I dont need to pay for any future upgrades. For example, current LR4 users would need to shell out around 70USD to upgrade to LR5, which would not be required under the subscription model.

Thoughts?

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by amitoj

I have a question regarding processing software.
Adobe has recently switched to a subscription based model and under that, it is offering a subscription to Creative Cloud (formerly CS) and Lightroom 5 for 9.99USD per month for one year. After one year, it will switch to whatever is the current rate. On the other hand, i can make an outright purchase of just Lightroom 5 for roughly 100USD and be done with it.

Which one makes more sense? I don't get very "creative" in my post processing. Apart from curve adjustments, saturation and occasional cloning, I dont do much post processing. But latest CC version has a filter that is supposed to treat camera shake as well (although however i tried i could not get it to work on the trial version that i have).

So, based on this, I feel LR5 would work best for me. But the subscription based model ensures that I dont need to pay for any future upgrades. For example, current LR4 users would need to shell out around 70USD to upgrade to LR5, which would not be required under the subscription model.

Thoughts?

As for me, I'm going for the subscription version as I need Photoshop more than LR. I use photoshop a lot (only Photoshop) and it makes sense for me to go for the subscription as CS6 itself is too costly to touch. Also as Adobe made it clear that they will no longer release any more boxed version, it kind of make sense to take the subscription model.
Having said that, if you are using only LR then you can go for the 100$ one time purchase and be done with it. But what would be the upgrade path down the line? Most of these softwares have a life span of say 2-3 years and by the end of 3rd year, the newer versions becomes so attractive that you'll have to go for the new version. So in that case you can say that you've bought LR5 for 100$ for 3 years. Even that is some kind of savings if you don't at all need Photoshop. But if you need Photoshop then go for the subscription.
Regards,

[josejoseph]

Originally Posted by amitoj

I have a question regarding processing software.

I don't want to ruin your plans. This offer from Adobe seem tempting at $9.99 per month but after going through the reviews I stepped back.

Since you've mentioned you mostly use picture correction, why don't you try the Elements 12? If shoot in RAW then Elements comes with Camera Raw v8.1. I use Elements but couple of days ago got a copy of Lightroom. As of now, I'm more comfortable with Elements.

Nevertheless, downloading and using the trial version will also help you decide.

Thanks,
Jose

[amitoj]

Thanks for the replies, guys.

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

But what would be the upgrade path down the line? Most of these softwares have a life span of say 2-3 years and by the end of 3rd year, the newer versions becomes so attractive that you'll have to go for the new version.

I spoke to a few people who are on LR4. Right now they don't feel the need to upgrade to 5 but i guess they dont use cloning much.

I was wondering, if I took the 9.99 subscription and one year later decided not to renew it, will i still be able to keep LR5? I think not but it would be nice if I could!

Since you use both LR and CS, what do you find in CS that LR does not have? I ask because I read a few articles on who should use CS and who LR, and most of them said that if you spend a LOT of time in post processing, that is, the picture straight out of the camera is just your beginning, then CS makes sense.

Originally Posted by josejoseph

Since you've mentioned you mostly use picture correction, why don't you try the Elements 12? If shoot in RAW then Elements comes with Camera Raw v8.1. I use Elements but couple of days ago got a copy of Lightroom. As of now, I'm more comfortable with Elements.

Nevertheless, downloading and using the trial version will also help you decide.

Thanks,
Jose

My one month trial for LR5 just got over and i must say i found it quite good. I didnt get a chance to try out its cloning feature, which is supposed to be new in 5. So, if you get a chance to try it out, please do let me know. Just before my trial got over, i tried out the GND filter in LR5 and found it to be quite amazing.

Right now, my one month trial for CC has just started. So, lets see how that goes.

The thing with Elements is that it may fulfill my needs now, but if i want to learn a little bit more about post processing, will Elements be sufficient?

[gsurya]

If you want a canon 350d watch on eBay or JJ forums. I have a Rebel XT that's been brilliant for me for 7 yrs but I am planning to move to 70d soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Team-BHP

[Samurai]

I bought CS2 in 2006 and then upgraded CS4 in 2008. Then I realised I didn't have to upgrade at all. Since then I just download the latest ACR with DNG converter to convert my RAW. Haven't needed to upgrade at all.

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by amitoj

Thanks for the replies, guys.



I spoke to a few people who are on LR4. Right now they don't feel the need to upgrade to 5 but i guess they dont use cloning much.

I was wondering, if I took the 9.99 subscription and one year later decided not to renew it, will i still be able to keep LR5? I think not but it would be nice if I could!

Since you use both LR and CS, what do you find in CS that LR does not have? I ask because I read a few articles on who should use CS and who LR, and most of them said that if you spend a LOT of time in post processing, that is, the picture straight out of the camera is just your beginning, then CS makes sense.

I've used Photoshop extensively and not much of LR. I have to say that I'm kind of novice at LR. But whatever I've used I've found that I use Photoshop more as I use lot of layers and blending which is not exactly available in LR (you can do many things without layers but I'm used to the ways of layers). Yes, I guess, for quick edits I won't mind using LR as I get more comfortable with it.

About keeping LR after expiration, I guess you'll have to pay for LR subscription separately after expiration (unless ofcourse they decide to continue the program). If you are still confused, then you can get both at this point of time i.e. LR5 for 100$ and 9.99$ subscription. By year end you would know which one you really need and depending on that you can either cancel the subscription or sell off the LR5 license.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I bought CS2 in 2006 and then upgraded CS4 in 2008. Then I realised I didn't have to upgrade at all. Since then I just download the latest ACR with DNG converter to convert my RAW. Haven't needed to upgrade at all.

I've used PhotoShop 7 for a long time (3-4years I guess) and then I found that CS4 is much more useable than PS7 and I've upgraded. Now after trying CS6, I'm sure that I would need CS6 in my workflow. I guess it depends on how much one depends on the particular software, so YMMV.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

I am throwing this question since you own both D800 and D4. How would you compare the quality of image between D800 and D4? The new Nikon Df has the same sensors as that of D4. If it is between D800 and Df, what would you recommend?

In terms of IQ there's not too much to distinguish between the D4 and D800. What you get for 2x the price over the D800 is a very tough and fast pro body.

Low light sensitivity, colour, continuous shooting (FPS), ergonomics, AF speed it is the D4. For dynamic range and resolution it is the D800. D4 for sports and action and D800 for landscapes and any other 'normal' DSLR use.

I love retro style cameras. Even so if I had to choose between a Df and a D800 today, given they are similarly priced, I'd choose the D800/E all over again.

The soon to be launched D4s will improve low light sensitivity by 1 stop over the D4 and have other marginal improvements in AF and other features for the same price as the D4.

[rameshnanda]

Originally Posted by R2D2

I love retro style cameras. Even so if I had to choose between a Df and a D800 today, given they are similarly priced, I'd choose the D800/E all over again.

Thanks R2D2. I am contemplating between D800 and Df provided I get some Vitamin M in another couple of months. Any reason that you prefer D800 over Df? I kind of inclined more towards the Df over D800 for the following reasons.

- Better Low light capability
- Slightly faster than D800 at 5.5 FPS
- And the Retro Design

[ampere]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

Thanks R2D2. I am contemplating between D800 and Df provided I get some Vitamin M in another couple of months. Any reason that you prefer D800 over Df? I kind of inclined more towards the Df over D800 for the following reasons.

- Better Low light capability
- Slightly faster than D800 at 5.5 FPS
- And the Retro Design

Any particular reasons for an upgrade? Because if not into serious photography, do you really need that as an upgrade is the question.

My take : slowly you should build lens fire power. Unless and until you push the limits of your current camera to extreme, you should not feel the need to upgrade. (If I remember through one of your TLs, you have a D7000 right? )

Of course you know your needs better. But just trying to make the point that don't go for an upgrade till you have not pushed your current camera to the maximum.

I have a 4 year old 550D Canon. I am still OK with it for landscapes and other snaps. But I built up on lens based on checking out my own shooting profile preferences.

[R2D2]

Originally Posted by rameshnanda

Thanks R2D2. I am contemplating between D800 and Df provided I get some Vitamin M in another couple of months. Any reason that you prefer D800 over Df?

Frankly the reason I'd prefer the D800 is because it is still a cutting edge camera even 2 years after introduction. In the less than Rs 200K price range, for me it's always the D800. The Df, IMO is a tad overpriced because it addresses a fad for retro cameras. It would have been tempting had it been priced at the Rs 1.3-1.5L range. Let me remind you that I love retro cameras too, but this time I'll pass.

Most importantly I fully agree with what ampere has stated below - upgrade only if you must, not coz you want the latest and greatest, and before upgrading the body, upgrade/invest in better lenses. If you have a D7K with DX lenses, you'd be better of purchasing FX lenses which can be expensive rather than buying a Df. The camera body should be the last to be upgraded.

Originally Posted by ampere

Any particular reasons for an upgrade? Because if not into serious photography, do you really need that as an upgrade is the question. My take : slowly you should build lens fire power. .

+10