PHOTOGRAPHIC THREADS: camera queries, any photo tech stuff!

[Anthony Darby]

Increasing the number of pixels will allow us to get even closer to the subject by cropping without losing definition, always assuming you have the lens to cope.

There seems to be some doubt about whether Sony is willing to sell their 24.4 mp technology to Nikon, however.

[Carlo]

Nikon already has two full-frame DSLR's, the aforementioned D3 and the D700. It's a little misleading to imply that older lenses can now be used BECAUSE they've finally got full-frame capability. Older lenses could always be used--even with the less-than-full-frame sensor. It's just that effective focal length is a multiple of the length stated on the barrel of the beast.

DX lenses, however, are another matter since they were designed specifically for the smaller sensor. There is apparently an issue about using them on a full-frame camera (something I'm looking into so that I can understand it better).

As for increased numbers of pixels...unless you're among those of us who shoot for publication, or have specialized needs, you don't need them. The vast majority of people making photographs are more than amply served by existing pixel counts.

[nicheplanthead]

I was late going digital and had a collection of nikon's and another slr set with all the lens..

I first used a canon G4 similar to slr functions still have it but now using a canon elp
the bought a compact canon sd700 is elp 6mpix it was rated right up there with the top slr
functions are all there... automatic mode is hard to beat

have been using it a few years now really handy and excellent results and fits on the waist belt with a holder.

just shut off the flash even in low lighting and ignore the warning and the pix are still very good..

[gote]

Of course you can use a lens for a larger format. You can mount a 30 cm standard lens for 18x24 cm negative on a 35mm camera but you are only using a fraction of the usable field of definition. This used to be the poor mans telephotolens.

I agree absolutely that a long lens is valuable for closeup photography. Closeup photography is a misnomer. The pictures are better the further you are. It is the scale that is important. If you use a 4 times longer lens you can stand four times further away. This means that you can work in a less cramped position and you can use a tripod with less fuss. You also get less distracting background in the field of vision. The unfortunate situation is that most of the popular zoom lenses do not focus in the near field in the tele-position. My own digital camera has a zoom range of 12x. However, If I "close up" to the motif using the zoom, I have to move back to a distance of about two meter which of course defeats the purpose. I would thus need to add a 0.5 dipoptri lens to get the range into the 1-2m bracket but these are unavailable in the market. 2 Dioptries is the best I have found and then I am back crushing my plants with my knees.

However this is a disgression. I have a 21mm lens for a 35mm camera in the cupboard. If I am to use the full capabilities of this lens, I HAVE to have a full frame sensor. I also have an f1.4 lens. If I use this on an undersize sensor camera, it transforms to a telephotolens. The f 1.4 lens is most valuable for interiors in available light. In interiors we usually need a wide angle field because of the cramped conditions.

Thus a full frame sensor is a boon to those who have old high class equipment lying around. Personally I wuld be happy to sacrify some of the resolution in the sensor if we could find a sensor that is 4.5x6 cm or preferably 6.5x9cm since this would give us closeup freaks the possibility of using our view cameras - meaning that we can tilt the plane of focus and have complete control over scale It is easy to get the picture on the negative/sensor larger than life on a view camera. There are such contraptions on the market but they can only be used in studios since they work like scanners with a moving bar. (and they cost a fortune)

One point in this connection is that many things we do to our picture files like correcting perspective or changing the file format cause loss of definition.

The "Vast majority" has been conditioned to be happy with fuzzy pictures because they rarely see anything better. This is just as they have been conditioned to be happy with the kind of plants they get in the garden centers. TV is probably the biggest culprit. Moving pictures always look sharper than they are. 

Göte



       

[ranunculus]

I could read you for hours, Gote.

[TC]

Anyone got the low-down on the new 24 mp (?) Nikons that are coming out soon?

The camera is the Nikon D3x with a 25.4Mp sensor,  35.9 x 24mm. in size.  I have been reading the specs. in the Nikon pro magazine and it certainly seems impressive, but it is far in excess of anything the average photographer would need and is aimed at the medium format market such as Hasselblad and Bronica users.  At 75 Mb files, considerable computing power would be required.  The camera is so new that it does not even appear on the Nikon website.  I would imagine the price will be astronomical.

[Maggi Young]

I would imagine the price will be astronomical.

That would be in keeping with a camera that will allow the printing of huge images that would probably be visible from Space, Tom!! 
I cannot see any "ordinary" person being able to afford to print out ( bearing in mind  all the dedicated equipment that would also  be called for) such huge prints 

[Anthony Darby]

................ but think of the detail that closeups would reveal?

[Maggi Young]

................ but think of the detail that closeups would reveal?

I'm not bothered, Anthony, not only can I not  afford the camera, I can't afford new spectacles either, so I couldn't see the detail anyway 

[TC]

If you want fine detail, get a plate camera, use the new Kodak Ektar colour negative film and have it scanned professionally.  This would probably give you a 1 Gb. file which would crash the average computer !  The new Nikon is aimed at photographers who produce shots for fashion magazines or for technical subjects.  It's way above what is required for 10 x 8 prints. I am sure it will sell to some amateur photographers to whom "new gear" is a "must have".  In many cases it is a form of male jewellery.
To draw an analogy, why have a car with a 4 litre engine and a top speed of 180mph when you cannot use its performance.

[gote]

Well,
I am a camerafreak but this does not mean that I have the latest equipment. Among other bits and pieces I own an Original Anschütz 13x18 with a top shutter speed of 1/1200. Manufactured around 1905. It is quite good for some kinds of work.
I can assure you that there is a difference to be seen between the picture from a large formate camera and a small formate one also in 18x24 prints which is what I prefer for good pictures. Of course many are happy with the lower quality just as many are happier with Petunias than Soldanellas.
If you use large formate positive colour film, your normal flat bed scanner will give you excellent results. This combination will not only give you sharp images it will give better contrast range. I find that all digital cameras I have tried are deficit in gradation. The silver-based film is in my view superior when shooting white or near white flowers. It is not superior when shooting Ramondas they come out too red unless one uses a sharp infrared-cut out filter.
I think that excellence is a goal to strive for. Not because the equipment needed is ornamental but because it is a goal I want to strive for - does not mean I achieve it.
By the way, The performance of  four litre car is not only in top speed as anyone who has driven one will know.
Göte
   

[Carlo]

I can't say that I'm a camera freak, but I have published photographs (yes, for money) and hope to do a lot more of it. I won't buy a new camera just to have the latest and greatest, BUT if there is a visiually detectable difference...I'm all for it (given a budget that...someday...would allow it). For me it's a tool and not JUST a recording device. Few of us stuck with tape when CD's came along, and relatively few of us stil shoot film on a regular basis. Now people are migrating from DVD to Blu-Ray--and they say the difference is amazing...

[gote]

My personal experience is that the best buy in photographic equipment used to be second hand professional quality. I am not sure that this is still true. All equipment is becoming increasingly complex and accordingly prone to breakdown. However, a 12.5mm 1:4.5 Zeiss Tessar from the thirties will give sharper pictures with less distorsion than the lenses usually supplied with digital cameras. Used with a bellows rack it will make an excellent closeup contraption for those who do not wish to be on their knees all the time.
It is the same for other tools by the way. My mortise chisels from the forties can be honed to much sharper edge than those I can buy today unless I buy a Japanese handforged one at an astronomical price.
Cars are a similar case. The drop in value that comes in the first couple of years has no bearing on the milage that can be had in the following years.
Have a nice weekend everybody
Göte

[Anthony Darby]

I was speaking to a friend this afternoon. He has a 12.8 mp Canon. He reckons it's barely enough if you want to blow it up to A3, and that doesn't take cropping into account. He's not a pro.

[jomowi]

Gote

Have you ever located a photographic infra red cut-off filter?  If so where from?  I have been seeking one for ages and have never seen one listed except for scientific interference filters at a huge price.


Brian Wilson
Aberdeen