|
Need a manual?
I found this website much simpler for downloading camera or other manuals than wading through manufacturers websites and having to register etc, I don't know about the rest of you but I have often found the manufacturers integrated search functions to suck. This site is fuss (if not ad) free.
http://www.retrevo.com/-- Alex Georgiadis
georgiadis.googlepages.com
|
|
Digital camera?
Hi all,
Not on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions
about some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning to
purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make doesn't
matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I primarily
do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight) Would like to
do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear that full frame
cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably get a zoom 400 or
fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work in autofocus as I
have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with manual? So to make it
short, what camera would be best for everything I do. Thank you
Steve
|
|
 RE: Digital camera?
Well once you make this decision on make, you are committed. You will buy bodies, especially digital ones often, but lenses should last a very long time. Canon and Nikon lenses are not interchangeable so once you decide its not easy or cheap to switch.
Full frame cameras will not hurt you with birds. Some people see that 1.5 or 1.6 as a multiplier, much like the effect of a teleconverter. That really isn't the way it works. I prefer to describe it as a crop factor. That's right the full frame camera will have all the same information as the smaller sensor and the photo is in there. Unlike the small sensor camera where you see the crop in the lens, with the full frame you would have to manually crop to get the same image, but its still there.
If you do wide angle work with landscapes, the full frame will help you get wide angle easier. That's a big plus for landscapes. Birds are a horse of a different color, but sensor size isn't the end all be all. Lets look at a few things. If you are thinking of a teleconverter (and that's not all bad) there are two big disadvantages to them. First is they soften the image. Some do more than others and the more the magnification the greater the added softness. A quality lens with a quality converter and you might find it completely acceptable, but if you can do it with a longer lens that is often a better way to go.
The converters also absorb light. The more magnification the greater the loss of light. A 1.4 will cost you one stop, a 2x will cost you two stops and a 3x will cost you three stops of light. Sometimes its something you can live with by going to a higher ISO, but here is the catch. Most cameras need a minimum amount of light for the auto focus to work. That often is around F5.6, but it can vary. Now if you start with a slow zoom that has only has an F4 to work with, put a 2x on it and now that F4 is now an F8 and you have no auto focus. Put it on a fast lens with say an F2.8 and even with the 2 stop loss, it likely will work.
IF you are looking at really long ranges some prefer primes to zooms because they are often faster and have to make fewer compromises in construction. Yet some think the advantages of a zoom outweigh the handicaps, and that is just a matter of preference. One thing people often forget when they put a 2x on a 500mm lens. Handholding gets very very tough. A good support is very helpful.
Now which to choose??? Right now my suggestion is neither one. Before you fork down the kind of cash needed for this type of equipment, (unless you are in a postion where you could just spend several grand and if you don't like it could spend the same several grand again and not bat and eye or think twice) rent it for a weekend or two. Pick out several lenses, converters and brands, and then rent them all and see how they perform for what YOU want to do. A little spent now to KNOW how a Canon or Nikon feels in your hand, how the features are laid out for YOU need to do, and see the results for yourself. Then you aren't guessing when you have to write a check. You are not counting on the opinions of others totally. Print some samples of images taken in various situations and print them out at the largest size you expect to use. After using each of the cameras for a weekend to a week, you will be back telling us what you bought and why. LOL Hope this helps.
Mark
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Digital camera?
From: Stephen Buckman < buckoproductions@...>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2009 8:42 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
< photoforum@...>
Hi all,
Not on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions
about some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning to
purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make doesn't
matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I primarily
do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight) Would like to
do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear that full frame
cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably get a zoom 400 or
fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work in autofocus as I
have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with manual? So to make it
short, what camera would be best for everything I do. Thank you
Steve
|
|
Re: Digital camera?
Stephen Buckman wrote:
> Not on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions
> about some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning to
> purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make doesn't
> matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I primarily
> do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight) Would like to
> do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear that full frame
> cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably get a zoom 400 or
> fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work in autofocus as I
> have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with manual? So to make it
> short, what camera would be best for everything I do. Thank you
>
Your requirements are expensive :-).
Landscapes, even as small as 20x30 (oh, it's big, it's bigger than all
but 5 prints I've made in my life, but I've seen how the high end has
moved to big prints in the last decade), benefit from all the resolution
you can offer from a DSLR. I've got 20x31 (image area; 24x34 or so
including borders) prints made from 6mp and 10mp DSLR originals that get
very good responses from people. But if you walk up and look, it's also
clear that more resolution would have been even better. 35mm wasn't
really good for that big an enlargement, and digital is somewhat better,
but not so spectacularly as to make it obviously good enough.
This argues for the 5DII, obviously. It's, what, 21MP? Whereas the
D700 is 12MP. That's actually a big enough difference to be noticed if
you're printing big (though not as much as a 2x increase in print size).
Birds in flight really stress the AF system for both speed and
accuracy. The D700 AF is the exact same system as in the D3, and is a
big improvement over the 5DII AF from everything I've heard (I've only
directly compared against the original 5D). This argues for the D700.
However, birds and wildlife in general are telephoto subjects, which
argues for a DX format camera, not full frame. I don't know if the D300
AF is better than the 5DII AF. It's not as good as the D700.
Canon's "intermediate" body, the 5D, is biased more towards studio or
landscape work than towards photojournalism or wildlife. Nikon's
intermediate is definitely a photojournalism specialist (low light, not
that extreme resolution, really good AF). To get high resolution, you
have to go to Nikon's flagship D3x, and that's priced as you might
expect. It does have BOTH the resolution AND the very good AF, though.
The 400/2.8 and 500/4 (or 600/4) modern lenses from Nikon and Canon are
AF, and very good AF. They're also EXTREMELY expensive, to the point
where saying "why not buy both bodies" doesn't change the bottom line as
much as you might wish. But to be serious about wildlife you
*definitely* need to go to some pretty extreme lenses, especially for
birds.
Printing that big is causing me to assume you're pretty serious; hope
you're seriously funded as well, or the compromises get very big.
At a much cheaper level, I'm pretty happy with the Sigma 120-400/4.5-5.6
zoom. It's AF-S on my Nikon D700, so it focuses fairly quickly for a
cheap slow zoom. It cost me under $800, whereas the super-telephoto
primes are mid-4 figures to low 5 figures, which I couldn't possibly
consider in any forseeable future that doesn't involve winning the
lottery. I decided it was a better way to reach 400/5.6 than putting a
2x on my Nikkor 70-200/2.8 (based on testing with a 1.7x on it).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
|
|
Re: Digital camera?
mark@... wrote:
> Well once you make this decision on make, you are committed. You will
> buy bodies, especially digital ones often, but lenses should last a
> very long time. Canon and Nikon lenses are not interchangeable so
> once you decide its not easy or cheap to switch.
>
> Full frame cameras will not hurt you with birds. Some people see that
> 1.5 or 1.6 as a multiplier, much like the effect of a teleconverter.
> That really isn't the way it works. I prefer to describe it as a crop
> factor. That's right the full frame camera will have all the same
> information as the smaller sensor and the photo is in there. Unlike
> the small sensor camera where you see the crop in the lens, with the
> full frame you would have to manually crop to get the same image, but
> its still there.
If I crop to the 1.5x factor on my D700, I've got a 5MP image instead of
a 12MP image. Sure, you can always crop from the bigger image, but
you'll then have less resolution. If he's only printing his wildlife
images small, that may not matter, but he didn't distinguish. A 12MP DX
camera like the D300 gives you the full 12MP.
>
> If you do wide angle work with landscapes, the full frame will help
> you get wide angle easier.
Yes and no. Out to 15mm, it's actually easier and cheaper to do on DX,
with one of the 10-xxmm zooms. You CAN buy a 14mm (which really is
wider than 15mm), but it's around $1500 (or $1700 I think for the
14-24/2.8 Nikkor zoom, which I hear is to die for). And you tend to get
f/4 or even f/4.5 on the DX ultra-wide zooms, and a stop faster on the
full-frame ultra-wides. But the full-frame ultra-wide costs two or
three times what the DX ultra-wide costs. If you've got existing film
ultra-wide lenses, then full frame digital is cheaper/easier since you
can continue to use them. But starting from scratch it's not so
simple. Not sure if the OP is starting from scratch or not. Given the
uncertainty on system, Canon vs. Nikon, I tend to assume he is.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
David I really don't disagree with you but that is also just assuming a pixel is a pixel. That's not the case either. The full frame cameras tend to have larger pixels that produce less noise than stuffing more pixels in a smaller space. A point an shoot can put 5mp on a sensor the size of a thumb nail, but are you going to get the same quality? I doubt it. Like most things what you gain in one area, you lose in another.
My 28 80 2.8L when put on my smaller sensor crops that to about 50mm. That isn't wide angle at all on a digital body unless you use a full frame sensor. I never got a 17 35 for 35mm, but maybe one day I will. I do have an 11 to 18 for the digital body for wide angle (about 17 to 28) but it wouldn't cover a full frame camera and it was about $500 or so as well. A 17 35 that would have covered would have been more flexible. I had committed to a smaller sensor body and had a need that had to be filled then when upgrading the body and lens was out of the question.
Now the original poster may have no issue with budget. If he met all of his wants, its thousands of dollars easily if not tens of thousands. For them dropping 20 thousand in camera gear may just be like me going out to McDonald's. It is also possible they may have no idea yet what kind of cost they are talking about. Compromise is always a part of the process. Even if you have all the money in the world, do you want to carry all the weight around???
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Digital camera?
From: David Dyer-Bennet < dd-b@...>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2009 11:14 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
< photoforum@...>
mark@... wrote:
> Well once you make this decision on make, you are committed. You will
> buy bodies, especially digital ones often, but lenses should last a
> very long time. Canon and Nikon lenses are not interchangeable so
> once you decide its not easy or cheap to switch.
>
> Full frame cameras will not hurt you with birds. Some people see that
> 1.5 or 1.6 as a multiplier, much like the effect of a teleconverter.
> That really isn't the way it works. I prefer to describe it as a crop
> factor. That's right the full frame camera will have all the same
> information as the smaller sensor and the photo is in there. Unlike
> the small sensor camera where you see the crop in the lens, with the
> full frame you would have to manually crop to get the same image, but
> its still there.
If I crop to the 1.5x factor on my D700, I've got a 5MP image instead of
a 12MP image. Sure, you can always crop from the bigger image, but
you'll then have less resolution. If he's only printing his wildlife
images small, that may not matter, but he didn't distinguish. A 12MP DX
camera like the D300 gives you the full 12MP.
>
> If you do wide angle work with landscapes, the full frame will help
> you get wide angle easier.
Yes and no. Out to 15mm, it's actually easier and cheaper to do on DX,
with one of the 10-xxmm zooms. You CAN buy a 14mm (which really is
wider than 15mm), but it's around $1500 (or $1700 I think for the
14-24/2.8 Nikkor zoom, which I hear is to die for). And you tend to get
f/4 or even f/4.5 on the DX ultra-wide zooms, and a stop faster on the
full-frame ultra-wides. But the full-frame ultra-wide costs two or
three times what the DX ultra-wide costs. If you've got existing film
ultra-wide lenses, then full frame digital is cheaper/easier since you
can continue to use them. But starting from scratch it's not so
simple. Not sure if the OP is starting from scratch or not. Given the
uncertainty on system, Canon vs. Nikon, I tend to assume he is.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
Message
I
really agree with Mark on the try before you buy. I also think the feel in your
hands or on your tripod is a consideration. I had been shooting Canon film when
I switched to digital and was pretty locked into a Canon due to the issue with
lenses. I had some nice ones that I wanted to continue to use. But, at one time
I wanted to shoot medium format. I rented one locally for a try and that totally
changed my mind. It just did not fit for me. I saved some money. My mother had
even offered to buy it for me, so technically I saved her some
money.
My
husband shoots with a Canon 5D and he prints 16 X 20 with no issues. I am sure
he could go larger, but that is the limitation or our Epson printer. We just got
back from AK and were shooting with 70 - 200 zoom (2.8) and a 2X extender. It
would auto focus. You have to be careful as the 2X extender DOES NOT autofocus
with the 70-200 (4.?) only with the 2.8. But, we found that out by reading and
knew what would and would not work.
Good
luck on your selection.
Rene
<snip>
Now which to
choose??? Right now my suggestion is neither one. Before you fork
down the kind of cash needed for this type of equipment, (unless you are in a
postion where you could just spend several grand and if you don't like it
could spend the same several grand again and not bat and eye or think twice)
rent it for a weekend or two. Pick out several lenses, converters and
brands, and then rent them all and see how they perform for what YOU want to
do. A little spent now to KNOW how a Canon or Nikon feels in your hand,
how the features are laid out for YOU need to do, and see the results for
yourself. Then you aren't guessing when you have to write a check.
You are not counting on the opinions of others totally. Print some
samples of images taken in various situations and print them out at the
largest size you expect to use. After using each of the cameras for a
weekend to a week, you will be back telling us what you bought and why.
LOL Hope this helps.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Digital camera? From:
Stephen Buckman < buckoproductions@...> Date: Tue, May 19, 2009
8:42 pm To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals -
Students < photoforum@...> Hi all, Not
on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions about
some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning
to purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make
doesn't matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I
primarily do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight)
Would like to do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear
that full frame cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably
get a zoom 400 or fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work
in autofocus as I have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with
manual? So to make it short, what camera would be best for everything I
do. Thank you Steve
|
|
Re: Digital camera?
I would also consider a Pentax K20D (or the new K7) and a Sony/Minolta in the list On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 2:34 PM, Rene Hales <Rene@...> wrote:
I
really agree with Mark on the try before you buy. I also think the feel in your
hands or on your tripod is a consideration. I had been shooting Canon film when
I switched to digital and was pretty locked into a Canon due to the issue with
lenses. I had some nice ones that I wanted to continue to use. But, at one time
I wanted to shoot medium format. I rented one locally for a try and that totally
changed my mind. It just did not fit for me. I saved some money. My mother had
even offered to buy it for me, so technically I saved her some
money.
My
husband shoots with a Canon 5D and he prints 16 X 20 with no issues. I am sure
he could go larger, but that is the limitation or our Epson printer. We just got
back from AK and were shooting with 70 - 200 zoom (2.8) and a 2X extender. It
would auto focus. You have to be careful as the 2X extender DOES NOT autofocus
with the 70-200 (4.?) only with the 2.8. But, we found that out by reading and
knew what would and would not work.
Good
luck on your selection.
Rene
<snip>
Now which to
choose??? Right now my suggestion is neither one. Before you fork
down the kind of cash needed for this type of equipment, (unless you are in a
postion where you could just spend several grand and if you don't like it
could spend the same several grand again and not bat and eye or think twice)
rent it for a weekend or two. Pick out several lenses, converters and
brands, and then rent them all and see how they perform for what YOU want to
do. A little spent now to KNOW how a Canon or Nikon feels in your hand,
how the features are laid out for YOU need to do, and see the results for
yourself. Then you aren't guessing when you have to write a check.
You are not counting on the opinions of others totally. Print some
samples of images taken in various situations and print them out at the
largest size you expect to use. After using each of the cameras for a
weekend to a week, you will be back telling us what you bought and why.
LOL Hope this helps.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Digital camera? From:
Stephen Buckman < buckoproductions@...> Date: Tue, May 19, 2009
8:42 pm To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals -
Students < photoforum@...> Hi all, Not
on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions about
some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning
to purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make
doesn't matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I
primarily do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight)
Would like to do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear
that full frame cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably
get a zoom 400 or fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work
in autofocus as I have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with
manual? So to make it short, what camera would be best for everything I
do. Thank you Steve
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
One other thing to watch for though if you are looking at teleconverters. Canon's 80 200 2.8L and the 28 80 2.8-4.0 L will not work with current camera teleconverter. The converter has a piece of glass that extends to keep the two from mating together properly. The newer 70 200 will, but not the older 80 200. There are third party converters that will fit. I have always wondered if Canon did that to encourage everyone to upgrade lenses.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Digital camera?
From: Rene Hales < Rene@...>
Date: Wed, May 20, 2009 7:34 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
< photoforum@...>
Message I really agree with Mark on the try before you buy. I also think the feel in your hands or on your tripod is a consideration. I had been shooting Canon film when I switched to digital and was pretty locked into a Canon due to the issue with lenses. I had some nice ones that I wanted to continue to use. But, at one time I wanted to shoot medium format. I rented one locally for a try and that totally changed my mind. It just did not fit for me. I saved some money. My mother had even offered to buy it for me, so technically I saved her some money. My husband shoots with a Canon 5D and he prints 16 X 20 with no issues. I am sure he could go larger, but that is the limitation or our Epson printer. We just got back from AK and were shooting with 70 - 200 zoom (2.8) and a 2X extender. It would auto focus. You have to be careful as the 2X extender DOES NOT autofocus with the 70-200 (4.?) only with the 2.8. But, we found that out by reading and knew what would and would not work. Good luck on your selection. Rene <snip>
Now which to choose??? Right now my suggestion is neither one. Before you fork down the kind of cash needed for this type of equipment, (unless you are in a postion where you could just spend several grand and if you don't like it could spend the same several grand again and not bat and eye or think twice) rent it for a weekend or two. Pick out several lenses, converters and brands, and then rent them all and see how they perform for what YOU want to do. A little spent now to KNOW how a Canon or Nikon feels in your hand, how the features are laid out for YOU need to do, and see the results for yourself. Then you aren't guessing when you have to write a check. You are not counting on the opinions of others totally. Print some samples of images taken in various situations and print them out at the largest size you expect to use. After using each of the cameras for a weekend to a week, you will be back telling us what you bought and why. LOL Hope this helps.
Mark
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Digital camera? From: Stephen Buckman < buckoproductions@...> Date: Tue, May 19, 2009 8:42 pm To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students < photoforum@...> Hi all, Not on a lot but more of a reader on the list. I do have some questions about some digital cameras and would like some feedback. I am planning to purchase either the Canon 5D MKII, Nikon D300 or a D700. What make doesn't matter but I am concern about printing fairly large. (20 by 30) I primarily do landscapes, macros, and some wildlife (birds or in flight) Would like to do more birds. I really don't know where to begin. I hear that full frame cameras are not best for bird photos. I would probably get a zoom 400 or fixed 400/500 with teleconverter. What lens would work in autofocus as I have heard most only work in manual or am I stuck with manual? So to make it short, what camera would be best for everything I do. Thank you Steve
|
|
Re: Digital camera?
If you wear glasses I would rule out the Sony/Minolta as the view finders
aren't up to snuff. (I haven't had the opportunity to look thru the
full frame Sony yet) The Canon and the Nikons are much better.The Pentax K20D as
reported by DP Reviews also has a good view finder.
If you decide on a APS-C size sensor the Pentax should be considered.
Roy
I would
also consider a Pentax K20D (or the new K7) and a Sony/Minolta in the
list
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
On Wed, May 20, 2009 01:01, mark@... wrote:
> David I really don't disagree with you but that is also just assuming a
> pixel is a pixel. That's not the case either. The full frame cameras tend
> to have larger pixels that produce less noise than stuffing more pixels in
> a smaller space.
That's certainly true. I own the D700 because of that; I'd really prefer
a DX-type system since I like telephoto a lot, but I do enough low-light
that I went for the D700 because of the large pixels and resulting low
noise.
However, when you're working at base iso with top-line DSLRs like the D300
or D700, the noise isn't much of an issue; that only becomes important at
higher ISOs, or with MUCH smaller sensors like in the P&S camera.
> A point an shoot can put 5mp on a sensor the size of a
> thumb nail, but are you going to get the same quality? I doubt it. Like
> most things what you gain in one area, you lose in another.
These days, they're putting 10-14MP on a sensor considerably smaller than
a thumbnail. And the results show it, especially at high ISOs.
> Now the original poster may have no issue with budget. If he met all of
> his wants, its thousands of dollars easily if not tens of thousands. For
> them dropping 20 thousand in camera gear may just be like me going out to
> McDonald's. It is also possible they may have no idea yet what kind of
> cost they are talking about. Compromise is always a part of the process.
> Even if you have all the money in the world, do you want to carry all the
> weight around???
Compromise certainly always enters the arena; on money, or on weight, as
you say. I didn't mention the weight issue, I guess I was assuming he'd
already know just what a 600/4 was like in that regard. I did mention
prices. Both are certainly relevant.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
That's certainly true. I own the D700 because of that; I'd really prefer
a DX-type system since I like telephoto a lot, but I do enough low-light
that I went for the D700 because of the large pixels and resulting low
noise.
However, when you're working at base iso with top-line DSLRs like the
D300
or D700, the noise isn't much of an issue; that only becomes important
at
higher ISOs, or with MUCH smaller sensors like in the P&S camera.
It might not be for you and that's great. The bigger you push the print
size though the more likely its going to become a problem. IF money
were no object, Id have a full frame sensor. Since for me it is and the
cost vs how often the advantages and limitations come into play when I
upgrade it will likely be for an APS sized sensor. For me the times
when its a limitation I can always use a for letter word. No my mind
isn't in the gutter, its film. But that is another set of problems too
grin.
> A point an shoot can put 5mp on a sensor the size of a
> thumb nail, but are you going to get the same quality? I doubt it. Like
> most things what you gain in one area, you lose in another.
These days, they're putting 10-14MP on a sensor considerably smaller
than
a thumbnail. And the results show it, especially at high ISOs.
Yes it does and the ISO doesn't have to be that high for it to show.
Frankly I wonder whether you are better off stuffing all those pixels
into a smaller chip or using up sizing software to interpolate. On that
note I have used Noise Ninja and highly recommend it. It won't make
satin out of a sows ear, but it helps a great deal. I have Genuine
Fractals as well and can recommend that as well. A sharp image to start
with is the key. Yet if one has the knowledge, or is willing to learn
almost any quality DSLR will make prints far larger than one would
expect. Throw in the fact that the larger the print, the greater the
viewing distance usually is and you can make a photo to cover the size
of a building if the viewer is a mile away. At some point we all have
to make our on decisions on just how good is good enough because
perfection is a goal not a result.
|
|
RE: Digital camera?
On Wed, May 20, 2009 11:13, mark@... wrote:
> The bigger you push the print size though the more likely its
> going to become a problem.
Yep, that's absolutely true. For noise, which was the subject under
discussion immediately, and for all the other ills that images are heir to
as well.
As I said originally, I've done some 20x30" (image area, not including
borders) prints from 6mp and 10mp DSLR images (Fuji S2 and Nikon D200)
which I find very satisfactory. The low resolution is detectable to an
experienced eye, but noise didn't seem to be a problem at that size. Of
course, on the printer we printed that on we could have made it twice the
(linear) size, at which point even more problems would be visible :-).
These were better than I could get from film, though to be fair I didn't
try to print that big in the 90s era of rather better negative films.
I do use Noise Ninja when needed (though I find it works much less well on
high-ISO D700 shots than on anything previous I've tried it on, even
though I have in-camera NR set to not do much). I haven't used any of the
up-res products; I do big prints so rarely, and too many articles suggest
that which one works best and whether any of them are better than
Photoshop varies wildly with image content.
And, agreeing once again, the quality of the original image is certainly
the primary thing that determines the quality of the big print.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...; http://dd-b.net/Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
|
|
Re: Digital camera?
> If I crop to the 1.5x factor on my D700, I've got a 5MP image instead of
> a 12MP image. Sure, you can always crop from the bigger image, but
> you'll then have less resolution. If he's only printing his wildlife
> images small, that may not matter, but he didn't distinguish. A 12MP DX
> camera like the D300 gives you the full 12MP.
Hi,
I'll be doing all size types. 10x12 up to 20X30. Probably using it more for
landscapes. I am leaning towards the D700. Thanks all.
Steve
|
|
New website
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Hi, I've just finished working on a site which I thought might be of interest to some of you, it's not 100% a photography site, but it is informed by my documentary photography studies, and at the end there is an old portrait from just before World War 2, with some discussion about photography from the 1930's. Anyway, I have made the site for my Grandma who is a painter, and I just wanted to find an interesting way of showing her work and some of the stories behind the images to the world, the link is here, http://www.charlotteevagreenwood.com spread the work if you can. Many thanks, Andrew Brooks www.andrewbrooksphotography.com
|
|
RE: New website
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Andrew,
I was moved by your wonderful presentation and the magnificent
work of your grandmother. What an amazing gift to her and her legacy that you
have created here. Really excellent work and I love the simplicity of the site.
Great job and I’d bet she’s very proud to have you for a grandson!
Cordially,
Mark Lent
From:
owner-photoforum@...
[mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of Andrew Paul
Brooks
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:40 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: New website
Hi,
I've just finished working on a site which I thought
might be of interest to some of you, it's not 100% a photography
site, but it is informed by my documentary photography studies, and
at the end there is an old portrait from just before World War 2, with
some discussion about photography from the 1930's. Anyway, I have
made the site for my Grandma who is a painter, and I just wanted to find
an interesting way of showing her work and some of the stories behind the images
to the world, the link is here, http://www.charlotteevagreenwood.com
spread the work if you can.
Many thanks,
Andrew Brooks
www.andrewbrooksphotography.com
|
|
RE: New website
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
Thanks Mark, I will pass your message on(Shes not got an email unfortunately), glad you liked the site, it was a pleasure to work on and it's great to start showing it to people. Andrew
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:58:41 -0500 From: mlent@...Subject: RE: New website To: photoforum@...
Andrew,
I was moved by your wonderful presentation and the magnificent
work of your grandmother. What an amazing gift to her and her legacy that you
have created here. Really excellent work and I love the simplicity of the site.
Great job and I’d bet she’s very proud to have you for a grandson!
Cordially,
Mark Lent
From:
owner-photoforum@...
[mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of Andrew Paul
Brooks
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 4:40 AM
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: New website
Hi,
I've just finished working on a site which I thought
might be of interest to some of you, it's not 100% a photography
site, but it is informed by my documentary photography studies, and
at the end there is an old portrait from just before World War 2, with
some discussion about photography from the 1930's. Anyway, I have
made the site for my Grandma who is a painter, and I just wanted to find
an interesting way of showing her work and some of the stories behind the images
to the world, the link is here, http://www.charlotteevagreenwood.com
spread the work if you can.
Many thanks,
Andrew Brooks
www.andrewbrooksphotography.com
|
|
Re: New website
Some parts of this message have been removed.
Learn more about Nabble's security policy.
A fascinating site, Andrew. The paintings are
enchanting.
How lucky your grandmother is to have such a talented and
helpful grandson.
Marilyn
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:39 AM
Subject: New website
Hi,
I've just finished
working on a site which I thought might be of interest to some of you,
it's not 100% a photography site, but it is informed by my documentary
photography studies, and at the end there is an old portrait from just
before World War 2, with some discussion about photography from the
1930's. Anyway, I have made the site for my Grandma who is a
painter, and I just wanted to find an interesting way of showing her
work and some of the stories behind the images to the world, the link is
here, http://www.charlotteevagreenwood.com
spread the work if you can.
Many thanks,
Andrew
Brooks
www.andrewbrooksphotography.com
|
|
gallery this week
Don Feinberg - lighthouse stairway
Beautiful image of a marvelously thoughtfully designed industrial
structure. The gold, possibly from the windows?, adds something very
nice.
Mark Harris - Engle Light Painted
An interesting shape - egg-shaped. But I wish the light had been
used for more than just lighting the egg. I think it's because
there's no strong connection for me between the area that's lit and
the natural shape of the body.
Don Roberts - Poor Farm Barn
Not sure just which sort of complicated photoshop feature you used to
get this. I do see a little blue in some places in the sky so maybe
you used layers to retain that? But whatever, I do love the
barnboard in various states of verticality. Textures like one sees
in buildings like this attract me as well. I'm not sure I'd be as
happy with the very intense whites, a little more detail might make
me a bit happier, but generally the image is pretty successful for me
in a late '30s depression style.
Bob Sull - On Guard
Boy, every state in the union must use that same print in that same
color on that same proportion sign! And the gull looks mightly
familiar too! Cute and universal.
Marilyn Dalrymple - Topper
There's something about this that looks posed to me, and the pose
looks too human for my taste. It's really hard being a cat owner.
You imagine when you look into their eyes that they actually feel
something, presumably positive, about you and you can see it in their
eyes. Maybe you feel that here, Marilyn, so the pose looks feline?
Michael Hughes - In Party Dress
Cultural confusion. What a curious amalgam of items in a single image.
Chris Strevens - Cup of tea
So strange and so true to life. Milk in the tea. I'd put the cup in
the cup holder. Less likely to slip off the dashboard and fall in my
lap.
--
Emily L. Ferguson
mailto: elf@...
508-563-6822
New England landscapes, wooden boats and races
http://www.landsedgephoto.comhttp://e-and-s.instaproofs.com/
|
|
Re: gallery this week
Thank you for your comment about, "Topper," Emily. Now that you mention it,
the pose does look too human; how strange. I think, when this was taken, he
was gathering strength so he could continue his harrassment of the other cat
and two dogs. Probably planning his attack {:->
Marilyn
>
Dalrymple - Topper
>
> There's something about this that looks posed to me, and the pose looks
> too human for my taste. It's really hard being a cat owner. You imagine
> when you look into their eyes that they actually feel something,
> presumably positive, about you and you can see it in their eyes. Maybe
> you feel that here, Marilyn, so the pose looks feline?
>
|
