The King is dead, long live the King . . .

[Guest CJS2]

I remember a few years back discussing with a friend, the 'new fangled' digital cameras. Having watched domestic music reproduction change from Analog to Digital, made my living in that industry for 15 years. One watched the heartach in the industry wax and wain. Digital music reproduction has generaly sorted its self out now, its just the performers, to quote Kate Bush, 'there is to much computer technology in music today' it doesent mater if you cant sing or are off pitch, a few stroke of the key board, bingo!

 

I look at digital photography as a leyman, it has swept though like a new broom, despite the film industry seeming to try and pretend the medium was not/is not there. They have it seems to me, been draged kicking and screeming into our digital world. Like the Audio business, I think there have been some low points in the transition, however, would you agree, image quality is realy very good, even excelent, now we have viable 6mp resonably priced cameras.

 

Any one got any coments re the latest 8/10mp cameras, is it just guilding the lilly for 99.9% of us, is that level of pixel number simply no advantage?

 

Computers are great, no dark room, but I personaly have an issue with some of the cheating that is possible, some will say, 'art', I say 'cheat' or own up then its 'art', and then, like art, we can make up our own minds, or does Kate's centiment extend to Photogaphy?

 

The only consession I see to film these days, is to those who use large format and or love to fiddle around in the dark?

 

The King is dead, long live the King . . . . I think?

 

 

[jeepster]

Any one got any coments re the latest 8/10mp cameras, is it just guilding the lilly for 99.9% of us, is that level of pixel number simply no advantage?

 

 

 

with good lenses, and good electronics, it's worth having as many pixels as are available to you, but without these pixels numbers are meaningless. give me a 3 megapixel camera with a decent lens over a 6 megapixel with a cheapo lens anyday

[habilis]

................ give me a 3 megapixel camera with a decent lens over a 6 megapixel with a cheapo lens anyday

 

No. Go buy yer own Jeepster!

[n4lly]

I have my camara set at 300,000 at all times, dont have to

resize later. What would 6mp have added here? (for eg)

Edited January 11, 2006 by n4lly

[Guest CJS2]

I have my camara set at 300,000 at all times, dont have to

resize later. What would 6mp have added here? (for eg)

 

'n4lly', love the pic. I was always under the impresion that the no., of pixels 'pi' was relevent to the final size the picture will be printed and retaing good quality. Hence 3m is fine for most of us, 5m or 6m is still overkill if we go to A4, infact I think A3 is OK? Hence the question, 8/10mp, pointless for 99.9% of us, just a ruse to part us from our cash.

 

Fast car syndrome, why on earth does any one need a car that does more than 90mph, with a maximum national speed limit of 70, Jeramy Clarkson is peddling a dream to any one who will lisen, the man has much to answer for! (did I say man?)

 

Same applies to + 6.1mp cameras, we dont need them????

 

Not giving an answer, just how I see it, tell me pleas if I'm wrong

 

Edited January 11, 2006 by CJS2

[Newt]

If you need to crop out a small piece of a picture and enlarge it, you need the best resolution you can afford.

 

If you need to blow up a picture to a large size, you need the best resolution you can afford.

 

Given that any of us may need to do one of these at some point and that once you've gotten over the sticker-shock of paying for a top end camera and the additional storage space, probably better to have it and rarely need it than to need it and not have it.

[David.W]

My camera's are 6.1 and 6.3 mp, I do print to 20"x16" regularlly but that my job.

 

Normal folks wont print over A4, so a 3mp is fine. Some of the press guys I work with use 4mp camera's and sometimes have the pics put up to full page, so as Jeepster says a 3 mp with good glass con be better than a 6 with cheap glass.

 

I'm looking at getting a 10.2 mp camera, it will be good for big group shots but I can see most of the other stuff I do I will put it on a lower setting.

[Peter Sharpe]

I use a 5mp camera for magazine photography, but I could really do with a better one now. The strange thing is that I can tell no difference whatsoever between the highest quality setting and the next one down. I do, however, convert all jpgs to tiff format if I want to use them in the magazine. Where you do notice the difference, is if you need to perform any Photoshop (I actually use Paintshop Pro) functions such as fade correction, colour manipulation or contrast boosting. The lower resolution pics will soon display what looks a bit like green mould in all the shadowed areas. The downsize of 6mp plus is the huge file sizes, which all but the most recent PCs (yes I do use a PC) struggle to handle. I know I should use a Mac, but I just can't make sense of them and I also need MS Access, which isn't available on a Mac.

[poledark]

I started off with a Sony FD which used floppy discs and captured at a "massive" .5 mp. It had a superb 10x optical zoom lens and so I was able to "get in close" and not crop to much.

 

I printed up to A4 (on a cheap printer) and was happy with the results with objects which filled the lens.

 

Landscapes were a waste of time, but my Sony video 2x converter worked well with it.

I then purchased "Camera of the year" Olympus C3000 Z which had a fabulous 3mp and an equally good lens but only 3x zoom.

 

Huge improvement in landscapes, and the ability to be able to crop and print was quite a marked improvement over the Sony.

 

I find that with my Nikon 8mp camera i can carry this stage even further and certainly landscapes and capturing fine detail is much better.

 

I started to use it at the 5mp setting, partly to get a lot of images on the card, and also because it writes the image faster, sometimes important for bird shots, but I now seem to use the 8mp setting nearly all the time..

 

Would I go back to .5mp or 3mp ? Yes, there is certainly a strong case for the 3Mp as a point and shoot and print up to 8x6.

 

 

Final comment, if you haven't tried it yet, try sending your pics to an online printer like photobox,co,uk, this will get the best from your pics.

Den

[Guest CJS2]

I use a 5mp camera for magazine photography, but I could really do with a better one now. The strange thing is that I can tell no difference whatsoever between the highest quality setting and the next one down. I do, however, convert all jpgs to tiff format if I want to use them in the magazine. Where you do notice the difference, is if you need to perform any Photoshop (I actually use Paintshop Pro) functions such as fade correction, colour manipulation or contrast boosting. The lower resolution pics will soon display what looks a bit like green mould in all the shadowed areas. The downsize of 6mp plus is the huge file sizes, which all but the most recent PCs (yes I do use a PC) struggle to handle. I know I should use a Mac, but I just can't make sense of them and I also need MS Access, which isn't available on a Mac.

 

Interestin that, I do a little fishing mag work, my early 'D' pics were with a Richo 2m point and shoot. Although the editor was not so impressed when I said what I had done, he went ahead and published, blowing one of them up to half page, it looked fine. A strang transition from the Nikon F100/F80 to the Richo, made one feel very unprofesional, which I supose it was/is? Even now, despite my lazey 'grab the S50, quality more than adequit P&S', only if I'm on my own boat, any where else on location, hide behind my D100, but the S50 is still on my person, just in case.

 

One get the destinct impresion that in 'Hobby'ist, amatuer terms' one needs to be focusing in on a tiny part of an image for blow up to justify any upgrad to the new 8/10mp cameras, if one already has a curent quality 5-6mp cameran that is.

 

This begs the question in my mind. We are sold the idea of more 'pixels' and yet, the real value for money quality comes from better glass . . . which seems to be the 'Cinderela' of the 'D' photo world? Ho-hum

 

Edited January 12, 2006 by CJS2