The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)

[bigshot]

That picture was originally shot at 2048x1536. It was printed as a 14x18 four color poster and it looked sharp and clear. The resolution of even 3mp cameras is plenty to print high quality images at reasonably large sizes. The difference between the horizontal dimension of this Olympus and my Nikon D200 is less than half. How often do you need to blow up your images beyond 14x18 inches?

The quality of a camera isn't in the number of megapixels. It's in the sharpness of the optics, the smoothness and accuracy of the color and tones, and the ability to shoot fast in challenging lighting situations. This particular Olympus was not a cheap camera. It cost me $800 when I bought it. It's got great glass, handles well in dim light, it fits in my pocket and it's unobtrusive for shooting in public without attracting attention. I have a D200 too, and it's a lot better for shooting in low light, but when it comes to resolution, it isn't all that much different.

Megapixels are not the best way to judge cameras.

See ya
Steve

[lan]

Originally Posted by Towert7

But hopefully you agree with my main point? Something will only be outdated in an absolute sense if it wasn't good to begin with.

I still think it's a matter of taste and needs. "Good" is still subjective.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by bigshot

That picture was originally shot at 2048x1536. It was printed as a 14x18 four color poster and it looked sharp and clear. The resolution of even 3mp cameras is plenty to print high quality images at reasonably large sizes. The difference between the horizontal dimension of this Olympus and my Nikon D200 is less than half. How often do you need to blow up your images beyond 14x18 inches?

The quality of a camera isn't in the number of megapixels. It's in the sharpness of the optics, the smoothness and accuracy of the color and tones, and the ability to shoot fast in challenging lighting situations. This particular Olympus was not a cheap camera. It cost me $800 when I bought it. It's got great glass, handles well in dim light, it fits in my pocket and it's unobtrusive for shooting in public without attracting attention. I have a D200 too, and it's a lot better for shooting in low light, but when it comes to resolution, it isn't all that much different.

Megapixels are not the best way to judge cameras.

See ya
Steve

I know..........

You seem to be continuing down a different path than what I want to convey. That's ok though, no worries.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by lan

I still think it's a matter of taste and needs. "Good" is still subjective.

You said it!
Good is very subjective.

[fureshi]

i had a d70s for a short period last year. it deserved the praise that it received and had many features that make shooting easier. in the end, i kept my d50 and sold off the d70s. the d50 had better iso performance, same image quality at low iso and is much smaller. the few extra features of the d70s wasn't enough for me to keep it and the size made it difficult to carry. if i want to carry something that big it should have better capabilities. like a d300 for example.

anyhow, the point of this is that there is a point when a body will become the limiting factor. i feel that many of the current bodies will keep most users happy for many years. in the past, sensor performance was a limiting factor and in the case of the d70s, its high iso performance disappointed me. this is subjective and for me, the d50 meets most of my needs. if you're happy with your camera's performance then maybe the better strategy is to spend your money on better lenses.

[SenjStevo]

Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular.

[RYCeT]

Originally Posted by SenjStevo

Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular.

Use appeture priority, f/8 to f/11, it should take care your landscape scenes.

[dj_mocok]

Believe it or not, I printed an A3 size from my 1280x960 picture (1MB). The result looked great.

3MP can give you a very good result if the picture is taken properly.

[Towert7]

Originally Posted by SenjStevo

Just brought a 18-55 D40 kit and still waiting for the SD card. Any tips for a total camera newbie with an appreciation for pretty scenes? I live in the country, so i'd like to take loads of landscape pics of hills and the sky, etc.. and also some nice pics of hi-fi stuff, and some really up close, detailed shots of electronics. The country side is the main reason i wanted a camera, i live in Scotland and the views can be spectacular.

As always, a tripod will help (or monopod). You just need to decide if you want to carry one when you go out to take pictures.

A polarizer filter *can* be a nice addition to some scenic pictures thanks to it's ability to intensify colors and change the brightness of the sky.

And, aside from learning the basics of general photography, the next biggest thing is just timing!!! Time the pictures so they look nice in person, and you will be more likely to get a very wonderful picture.

Once you get good at these, then you can start experimenting with different lenses if you have money to spare.

[perplex]

Anyone have experience with the 80-200 f2.8 push-pull? I just ordered one off ebay, hoping it's a good one.