[VW2010]

90% of raw files are unused and redundant. Its a long process but clean up your drive. I started this a week ago and have already recovered close to 100gb of space. Specificlly the sony a7r files were ridiculously big. I even thought of getting an a7s instead to manage file size. I now everyday spend 20 minutes on all pictures taken over the years. And those i wont ever need raw which is 90% of them i simply convert to jpeg and delete the raw files. At the same time have google and flickr doing auto back up.

For safety i have a freenas built on my old pc where raid z takes care of redundancy

Most important lesson is to keep what you want. Delete the rest.

[Aroy]

I shoot RAW and store them at two places - on the desktop and on external disk. In the last two years I have shot over 50K images and the 2TB external disk is filling up fast. I will get another external disk once the existing one fills up.

On the desktop, I have SATA for 6 HDD and space for ten (after installing a SATA controller), so adding 2/3/4 TB internal drives for current storage is no problem.

If I have to delete any format, I would do so with JPEG, as you can always recreate them from RAW, but you cannot get RAW from jpeg. Storage is cheap, 2TB is around 6.5K, so there is no reason to skimp on external USB drives.

[Simhi]

Originally Posted by augustinepaul4u

Unless you are doing this for money you really don't need to save your raw images. Just process it to your liking and get rid of them. If you decide to store raw no HDD will satisfy your need. Just try to find the right balance. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Out of the 350-500 I will process less then 20 photograpsh into JPEGs.
But I know one thing. Very photographers in the old day would throw away their negatives and these days very few throw away their RAW filed.

Originally Posted by ampere

I would suggest the following:

Try with about 100GB like Google drive or Dropbox or Amazon and use that to upload only the selected images. I move these selected JPGs to the cloud. For RAW, we still have the hard disks.

Originally Posted by gsurya

I have a paid Flickr account for more than a decade now. I process & upload ALL my pics there in JPEG (46K count now). For RAW, I back them up & keep them in external HDDs.

Originally Posted by VW2010

Most important lesson is to keep what you want. Delete the rest.

Originally Posted by Aroy

If I have to delete any format, I would do so with JPEG, as you can always recreate them from RAW, but you cannot get RAW from jpeg. Storage is cheap, 2TB is around 6.5K, so there is no reason to skimp on external USB drives.

Thanks everyone.

If I have to summarize some of the lessons I have learned from all inputs

1. Short-list RAW files I want and use them for post-processing and delete rest of them (This itself is going to save lots of space)

2. Store RAW and post-processed JPG in HDD if sufficient space is available (350GB HDD is not going to be sufficient. Need to evaluate 1TB or 2TB HDD)

3. To avoid HDD crashes, store online. Time to evaluate Google Drive, Dropbox, Flickr. Storing RAW is going to be time consuming, so storing JPG online makes sense. Though with this statement I will be overlooking the statement that we cannot recover RAW from JPG,

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by Simhi

Thanks everyone.

If I have to summarize some of the lessons I have learned from all inputs

.....

3. To avoid HDD crashes, store online. Time to evaluate Google Drive, Dropbox, Flickr. Storing RAW is going to be time consuming, so storing JPG online makes sense. Though with this statement I will be overlooking the statement that we cannot recover RAW from JPG,

I create a date based directory structure for RAW files
1. YYYY
2. YYYYMM
3. YYYYMMDD

and transfer the data from the SD card straight to the designated directory. I then work in RAW processor (in my case Nikon NX-D) from this directory. NX-D creates a sidecar file which contains all the transformations and leaves the RAW file untouched. In future if a better RAW processor comes, I can reprocess the files I want to get better image.

I would be very careful of depending on on-line storage for archiving. Any thing can go wrong, the site may fold up one day and leave you in a lurch.

As I mentioned, HDD space is quite reasonably priced. Invest in one or two 2TB external drives and mirror the RAW files. I keep one copy on the desktop and one on an external USB drive.

[DevilsCry]

Off-topic but
1. Create 16MP PNGs of every RAW pics you have.
2. Upload these PNGs on Google Photos (select High Quality).

Benefits:
1. Unlimited online storage
2. Zero compression (don't know why Google Photos doesn't compress 16MP PNGs)
3. Unbeatable search functionality
4. Can put single image in multiple albums for great organisation

Drawback:
1. Can Google Photos misuse your photos? I don't know.

[Jeroen]

I really don't think keeping RAW files or other files have anything to do with being professional or not. It's all down to preference.

HDs are cheap these days. Certainly into comparison what many of us would spend on our photography hobby per year a few HDs aren't going to break the bank.

Each to its own, of course. But free if up space to save some money isn't my idea of enjoying my hobby. Besides you never know. Lots of stories out there from some of the top photographers out there who made a killing with a image they shot a decade ago! A man can only dream of course but this dream comes at a very small price, relatively speaking

Jeroen

[wanderernomad]

Guys, am confused over which camera to buy. Been pondering it for more than a year now. Between a dslr and a mirrorless camera which one is better? If I had to choose between a Nikon D5300/5500 or a Sony a6100 today which one is a better value for money. Primary use will be shooting pics during our travels and will shoot portraits or landscapes. Thanks.

[VW2010]

Between a dslr and a mirrorless camera which one is better? If I had to choose between a Nikon D5300/5500 or a Sony a6100 today which one is a better value for money. Primary use will be shooting pics during our travels and will shoot portraits or landscapes

A6000 is a better option. Rather the A6 series is a better bet for its size and weight. Like you clearly mentioned about usage, have a look at the olympus mirroless as well. They make the smallest yet highest quality mirrorless.

Alternatively you should look at the sony RX100 IV or the Ricoh GR or II. I have the RX100IV which sits in my pocket all the time but a terrific camera with 1 inch sensor and brilliant picture quality.

And shooting slow motion at 920fps is simply fun. (ignore 4k like quality)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90EeFXgel1g

[aim120]

Originally Posted by wanderernomad

Guys, am confused over which camera to buy. Been pondering it for more than a year now. Between a dslr and a mirrorless camera which one is better? If I had to choose between a Nikon D5300/5500 or a Sony a6100 today which one is a better value for money. Primary use will be shooting pics during our travels and will shoot portraits or landscapes. Thanks.

Get the a6100 ,mirrorless cameras are the future.

[ptaneja]

Just got myself a 5100...excellent camera! Such compact body, that my wife loves it, and will be able to squeeze it in her purse. No external bag needed !!

I was about to go with 6100, but horseshoe/external flash, viewfinder were not in my priority listing...

Upgrading from smartphone/point and shoot, i am getting amazing snaps..still working with Auto mode for now..no time to learn manual settings. NFC, control from smartphone all works fine. Just upgraded the firmware as well to the latest released version available in Sony India site.

[shantonob]

I have been using a Nikon D3200 for 2 years with the 18-55 and a 70-300. Recently acquired a tamron 16-300 from the US to replace the kit lens. IMO the image quality with this lens is better than my old sigma 70-300 and the ulrtrasound motor is faster. Also the best part of this lens is its focus ring which can be used even on Auto focus.
Here are a few samples with he 16-300 taken in April this year. Was out of touch with photography for a long time so had to fumble with the settings. The lens is good but since its a slow lens hence faced issues in lowlight. Will have to get a better body but first need a good and sturdy tripod. . I am saving up for a d7200 and finally a 150-600 tamron, so the tripod should be able to hold out then.Any suggestions within 10k for a good and sturdy tripod with preferably a fluid/pan head ?

[wrongturn]

I bought my first DSLR, the Nikon D3300. I initially wanted to buy Nikon P900 as P510 has served me well all this while and mega zoom camera are such an ease to carry and use. My friend who is into photography persuaded me to buy Nikon D3300 with dual lens kit. More so because it came with
1. the new AF-P NIKKOR 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 G DX VR lens.
2. Other lens was the usual AF-S NIKKOR 55-200mm 1:4-5.6 G II ED DX VR II.

The AF-P VR lens is so much more silent and smooth than the AF-S VR II. It has another huge advantage, while in the autofocus mode you can use the manual focus ring on the lens to adjust the focus without switching off/on between auto & manual mode. Also there are no dedicated auto/ manual selection buttons or VR on/off buttons on the AF-P lens.
I'd bought it on 15 June, for Rs. 35800, from the Nikon's authorized dealer. Camera bag + 8 GB class 10 memory card came with it. It was imported from Thailand in the month of May 2016.
So if you are buying a new Nikon, look for AF-P lens.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by wrongturn

I bought my first DSLR, the Nikon D3300.

COngratulations. Btw, nice timing on the shot, but focus seems to be on the wall below the pigeon.
--------

I played with the D500 for a few days last week. The FPS helped me get a few shots that I wouldn't usually get. Perhaps I would get, but it would take much longer to get an interesting expression or position, especially with a rapidly moving creature such as a swallow.

The FPS, buffer and AF are very nice. Image quality still not at par with FX big brothers (even those with older sensors), as I expected. There was too much hype about the D500, and people were expecting the moon.

500mm, 1/4000s


500mm, 1/2500s

[amrisharm]

Originally Posted by wanderernomad

Guys, am confused over which camera to buy. Been pondering it for more than a year now. Between a dslr and a mirrorless camera which one is better? If I had to choose between a Nikon D5300/5500 or a Sony a6100 today which one is a better value for money. Primary use will be shooting pics during our travels and will shoot portraits or landscapes. Thanks.

I purchased a nikon D5300 in January from flipkart for 34,000/- and I must say I am 110% satisfied. Picture quality, manual settings, wifi, I am a very satisfied customer. Back then the Nikon D5500 was a cool 10,000 more expensive than the D5300. Plus they have the exact same sensor and 90% same features. So decided to save on the camera body price. That money I will use to buy a wide angle lens in the near future.

It took me a while to get the camera set up to take the kind of pictures that I want. But now that its set. The pictures are just awesome.

Picture clicked over the weekend. Taken at around 12pm which is not the best time to be clicking pics. But still the colour came out very well.

[wrongturn]

Originally Posted by nilanjanray

COngratulations.

Thank you. I still sometimes can't get the focus right maybe I will get better with time. It was my first day with the camera, and I was on auto mode, like always. But now I am learning about photography slowly and steadily and I am on manual all the time, learning through trial & error. Hopefully some day I will be able to take great shots like you. There is a lot to learn for me specially about editing RAW files.
I have found photography to be a great stress buster honestly and also it's a great hobby to have, which actually & literally pays.
Here is a shot of my dZire.