Recommended Posts

A poster brought that up about resolution on the digicam forum. ie Is an 18 Mp camera better than an 8Mp camera. A few of the Pros stated that this goes back to the start of digital photography, where the manufacturers got into a race and advertising war about their umpteen Mp camera was better than so and so's.

They all agreed that unless you're into enlarging prints into poster size, an 8Mp is adequate.

Most admit they have 10Mp cameras they make their living with, only one stated he needed larger resolution as he does produce a lot of posters as a sideline business.

So bigger isn't always better!!

If you check out the photos in my "Ice Storm Album" on FB, those photos were taken by my wife with an 8Mp Kodak PAS camera. The colours are brilliant and vibrant. I enlarged one to see how far I could go before it started deteriorating, well past the point of a standard enlargement!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I disagree.

As you know detailed photography is part of my job. I could be termed a 'Pro'?

Yes if you only want to print 7X5's from the full image. there's no point in having a High MP camera.

The days of just printing images to photograph is over.

Images are now enlarged and viewed in detail on a computer screen,

or you can print just a small part of the image.

For that the higher the resolution the better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A pro told me just a few weeks ago that even Nikon regard 12.5Mp as the max for most applications. They do offer a 20Mp version of their high end DSLRs, but most agree it is not worth it. You can enlarge a 12.5Mp image to poster size (30x40) without pixelization and the resolution is roughly that of common (ASA 100) color film! (Actually, you can do it with a 10Mp image.)

The other issues with greater resolution images are storage and processing time. In order to take HD video, the camera either has to store the images, or process then very quickly - which is why the video duration on many cameras is very limited. The very high res. Nikon also cannot shoot as quickly as the 12.5 version - a BIG issue for sports photographers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first computer was a 486/25

They had sold out of the 486/20's

So I got the upgraded processor for £5, Bargain!

It had 100mb Hard drive.

A mate at work told me, "You will never fill that"

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are portrait and wedding photographers, plus some landscape guys Mick, remember you're a pro in your area, a bit like I was a maintenance electrician not a house wiring electrician.

Each specializes in his area of expertise.

Have you seen what wedding photographers charge Mick???? I realize they can invest a lot in equipment and usually a week per wedding, but good grief still a lot of money for some piccies!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My first PC was an 8086 with 10Mb hard drive and 250K of ram!!!!!

My very first computer was a Commadore64, then an Amiga 1000.

My wife's first PC was a 286 with 20Mb HD and 250K of ram. With printer and monitor it cost getting on for 2 grand!!!!! That was a DOS OS system.

I've gone through 286, 386, 486, Pentium now on dual core cpu.

Started out on DOS, missed the early Windows as I didn't like it, went on to win95, win98, 2000 Pro, now on XP pro, I do have a copy of Vista, but don't like it.

Just wished I stuck it out with BASIC, I was doing fine debugging software, wished I learned programming with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that future upgrades will not be to more pixels - they will be in processor speed, auto focussing, equivalent ASA speeds and exposure control. Eventually they will get to a point where each pixel is monitored for exposure and the overall adjusted accordingly - all at about 60 frames/second.

The 20Mp Nikon is about $10,000 - just for the body - for most, even professional, photographers, that is an added expense not justified by more customer possibilities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say along the same lines as you Eric, probably move up to true 35mm sensor.

10G's, that's cheap!!! Have you seen the Leica's and Hasselblads???? You could buy an expensive limo cheaper than those!!

Seems most Pros use the diecast metal bodied cameras to take the everyday knocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having just spent the best part of a week trying to get some good 'uns from last Sundays trip to Duxford , I sadly came to the conclusion that I had the wrong ISO on. 200 as opposed to 100 as it was bright sunshine...DOH !! I have lost a lot as they are far too grainy to enlarge decently.

Yes Mick, I read the Spec on that 550D that you'd posted, that's how I know it does the HD and is about half the price of what I was sniffing around.

DEAR SANTA CLAUSE;

I have been a very good boy all year and .....................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Next time use "bracketing"!!!!! Set your settings to three!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian - do you shoot in "raw" mode? I am led to believe that gives you more ability to manipulate the exposure afterwards - problem is it takes a LOT of memory compared to processing to jpeg in the camera.

Bracketing is O.K. - but difficult to do if you are shooting (rapidly) moving objects. The old "film" technique was always to under-expose as that is more likely to capture the image and you could expose it longer at the print stage. I suppose the same is true for digital - if you over expose the image is gone, no matter what.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did get one or two good 'uns, this was over the M11 and I was on the "Tank Bank" for any one who knows the place, for those that don't , it was about 3/4 of a mile away!!

5078652961_4ba9b06aac_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ian - do you shoot in "raw" mode? I am led to believe that gives you more ability to manipulate the exposure afterwards - problem is it takes a LOT of memory compared to processing to jpeg in the camera.

Bracketing is O.K. - but difficult to do if you are shooting (rapidly) moving objects. The old "film" technique was always to under-expose as that is more likely to capture the image and you could expose it longer at the print stage. I suppose the same is true for digital - if you over expose the image is gone, no matter what.

You set it up in the menu Eric, then just shoot, if the Canon's are similar to the Nikon's, just one shot does all three via the camera's menu. one under, one normal and one over, you should even be able to set how much under and over via the menu, 0.5F/ or 1F/ or 1.5F/ either way.

That bloody "Dummies" book is teaching me!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I take that back, you click the shutter release three times, you can set bracketing in the Raw/Fine same as most other setups.

I'm assuming Canon and Nikon are similar!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dakota in invasion stripes - very nice!

Interestingly, many of the routes flown by Dakotas in passenger service here have been replaced by Britten-Norman Islanders!

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'm off to do other stuff, been busy on the roof today and I'm buggered. Catch you all tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

My lips are sealed, I hate to live dangerously..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a film Canon EOS and replaced it a few years ago with the EOS350D ('Rebel' in countries that like redneck names). It produces great results, the standard lens is used almost exclusively and I wouldn't want to change it. Probably the model has changed in name or been upgraded since I bought it but Canon just seems to get better. Have a look on my blog for some recent pics.

Regarding editing software, I used Elements but for a few years, when I switched to Mac, Adobe expected me to pay again. I went instead for Gimp, free to download, and it's been fine for my modest needs. For anyone who hasn't yet got around to moving over to Mac, I think there's a pc version too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...