Always a pleasure my holy friend x

Glad I was of service ;)

Take a look at the kind of photography that is possible WITHOUT shooting in RAW - go to www.shmueldiamond.com and click weddings, and then tell me what you think. Literally, NONE of those pictures are shot in RAW. The need to shoot in RAW is one of the biggest fallacies in digital photography today!

jeffery brown but raw file have more information about pictures, for example you can fix later the temp of color, exposure, shadows or white point, etc. Basically you can fix bad pictures, that jpg can’t

@@Diamondimagesphoto I did take a little peek at your website and it is full of pictures with completely "nuclear" blown highlights that you could've easily toned down if you were processing your shots from RAW files. Why in the hell would you leave the processing of your precious shots to the camera body when far more advanced software available on the computer gives you much more versatility to achieve far superior quality? If I'm being honest I think shooting jpeg is a cheapskate move, since the only downside is larger file sizes.

check out C1, C2 and C3

There is SO much misinformation about RAW, and even MORE misinformation about JPG. I'm so bored with these shocked "NO RAW" comments! You guys really have little idea. To shoot a wedding or a portrait session completely in RAW in my opinion is INSANE and uneducated! Please remember that are now in 2020. Things changed a LOT from 2005! JPG have come a VERY long way! Get yourself up to date, please and then comment.

@@Diamondimagesphoto That is just your opinion, same as my comment is my opinion.

​@@Diamondimagesphoto I've been shooting weddings and portraits for closer to 20 years now and haven't heard of a single colleague shooting only jpegs. Uneducated? Get out of here with that nonsense.

@@stobe187 I know. It's amazing. I don't say never to shoot in RAW, but if you are using flash and you understand about balancing light, then 99% of the time there is no benefit, in my opinion.

Hi - I don't know if this will help you or not. But, I found there is an option in the menu that will let you set the "touch control" to standard, sensitive, or disable. Perhaps this setting got bumped/adjusted somehow so that it is disabled. In the menu on the back of your camera, the 4th tab across the tab (the yellow wrench icon), go down to the second tab. The very last one at the bottom says touch control. If you highlight that and press the "SET" button, it should open up a selectable menu that says, standard, sensitive and disable. Be sure this is set to at least the standard selection, otherwise I don't think the touch control will work. Please note that if it is set to "disable", you will have to use the scroll wheel on the back of the camera and then press the "SET" button to make changes. Hopefully this will help you some. By the way, there is also a touch to focus option which is used with the live screen settings. That function is one the first tab (red camera), the 5th section, and the third option down from the top says touch shutter. I have mine set to enable, which lets me just touch the touch screen to focus the camera where you want it to focus, and once it achieves focus, the camera will automatically fire the shutter button. Good luck!

@@AutoClubResearch Thank you for the very nice video. May I please ask, I mainly shoot Back button focus were focus is disabled from the front shutter. In live view is there a way, JUST TO focus when TOUCHING THE SCREEN AND NOT take the picture automatically as you said? What if I WANT TO RECOMPOSE OR ENLARGE THE PHOTO just TO SEE IF FOCUS IS CORRECT, AND THEN press the front shutter button to take picture ?

@@FLORAMORAITINI I think there is a "touch shutter" option in the menu

What should I be shooting in?

Well, if you want extract all potential shut in raw maximum quality

Always RAW!

Hi Chris, There is so much mis-informaiton regarding shooting in Jpg. Very few people understand the versatility of jpg images, nor do they understand the downside of RAW shooting. Check this out if you would like to get a little more in the know - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLqCe9aav5PLfGg.html

@@Diamondimagesphoto You're actually arguing that jpegs are more versatile than RAW files? It has been a while since I saw something this ludicrous.

@@stobe187 of course not! I'm just saying, and will continue to say, that the downside to shooting RAW, in my opinion, outweighs the upside.

@@Diamondimagesphoto The larger file size is the only "downside". The benefits massively outweigh that one simple issue. "nor do they understand the downside of RAW shooting" is absolutely hilarious - as if regular folks can't parse the incredibly complicated math that "bigger file sizes means less shots per card".

@@stobe187 fewer shots per card, more involved archive methods, longer time editing, longer transfer times, longer import times, less buffer time in burst, less battery time... And if you really understand the difference between RAW and Jpg, you can shoot jpg 99% of the time and lose out on nothing (in my opinion). These are just my thioughts.

There is SO much misinformation about RAW, and even MORE misinformation about JPG. I'm so bored with these shocked "NO RAW" comments! You guys really have little idea. To shoot a wedding or a portrait session completely in RAW in my opinion is INSANE and uneducated! Please remember that are now in 2020. Things changed a LOT from 2005! JPG have come a VERY long way! Get yourself up to date, please and then comment.