Digital SLR
Mar 16, 2007 at 9:03 PM Post #106 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif
When I take photos, I try to keep PP cropping to a minimum. It helps my composition. Also, when I print photos, I get them professionally printed anyway, so I don't even know if higher DPI is noticeable. It just makes me feel better.


You're still an outsider. Image development is another aspect of the art. You'd learn alot more from your own images.
wink.gif
 
Mar 16, 2007 at 9:22 PM Post #107 of 217
If you're going to get a lens that does a range like 18-200, it's going to cost you a lot... a lot, that is, if you don't want an extremely mediocre to bad lens. A lot of new photographers don't seem to take a constant aperture into consideration, in fact until about a year ago I had no idea constant aperture lenses existed. Constant aperture means that, say with a 17-70 F/2.8 lens, the entire zoom, all the way from 17 to 70, 2.8 is the lowest aperture useable. This is extremely useful for low light situations as with 2.8 much more light is able to get in that with, say, 3.5. A lot of lenses even go up to 5.6 at the long end, which requires a shutterspeed much lower in lower light in order to get a properly exposed picture.
Also, the sigma 18-200 isn't reviewed on Fred Miranda OR http://www.the-digital-picture.com/, I'd say stay away from it like the plague.
 
Mar 16, 2007 at 9:27 PM Post #108 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Also, the sigma 18-200 isn't reviewed on Fred Miranda OR http://www.the-digital-picture.com/, I'd say stay away from it like the plague.


Uh, you do realize that this product is new and isn't shipping yet, right?

Even with a EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS and a EF 70-200 f/4 L IS in the house (the latter is borrowed), something like the Sigma still is quite interesting...

Best,

-Jason
 
Mar 16, 2007 at 9:29 PM Post #109 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If you're going to get a lens that does a range like 18-200, it's going to cost you a lot... a lot, that is, if you don't want an extremely mediocre to bad lens. A lot of new photographers don't seem to take a constant aperture into consideration, in fact until about a year ago I had no idea constant aperture lenses existed. Constant aperture means that, say with a 17-70 F/2.8 lens, the entire zoom, all the way from 17 to 70, 2.8 is the lowest aperture useable. This is extremely useful for low light situations as with 2.8 much more light is able to get in that with, say, 3.5. A lot of lenses even go up to 5.6 at the long end, which requires a shutterspeed much lower in lower light in order to get a properly exposed picture.
Also, the sigma 18-200 isn't reviewed on Fred Miranda OR http://www.the-digital-picture.com/, I'd say stay away from it like the plague.


On the other hand, I shoot everything in extremely bright sunlight - and absolutely nothing at all whatsoever in dimmer light (except with flash). In that case, a digital camera - especially a point-and-shoot compact model - does a mediocre to bad job under such lighting conditions. Why? Because their ISOs don't go low enough, and their f-stops don't go high enough (conversely, their lens openings cannot be set small enough without seriously degrading the picture quality due to diffraction).
 
Mar 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM Post #111 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by 3x331m /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You're still an outsider. Image development is another aspect of the art. You'd learn alot more from your own images.
wink.gif



What do you mean by that?
 
Mar 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM Post #112 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Deleted, I don't think this thread really has any purpose anymore since the guy got his question answered.


This thread still offers a lot of interesting discussion though.
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 12:19 AM Post #114 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
On the other hand, I shoot everything in extremely bright sunlight - and absolutely nothing at all whatsoever in dimmer light (except with flash). In that case, a digital camera - especially a point-and-shoot compact model - does a mediocre to bad job under such lighting conditions. Why? Because their ISOs don't go low enough, and their f-stops don't go high enough (conversely, their lens openings cannot be set small enough without seriously degrading the picture quality due to diffraction).


And because of the smaller chip these point and shoot ones have.
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 2:24 AM Post #115 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif
And because of the smaller chip these point and shoot ones have.


I have implied the smaller sensor size when I said their f-stops could not be set to high enough of a number without serious degrading of the image quality. The point-and-shoot ones generally don't stop down beyond f/8 (at minimum zoom setting); some don't even stop down beyond f/5.6. Such low f-numbers may cause the metering system to run out of metering range under a bright sunny day.
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 4:50 AM Post #116 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Eagle_Driver /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I have implied the smaller sensor size when I said their f-stops could not be set to high enough of a number without serious degrading of the image quality. The point-and-shoot ones generally don't stop down beyond f/8 (at minimum zoom setting); some don't even stop down beyond f/5.6. Such low f-numbers may cause the metering system to run out of metering range under a bright sunny day.


also as the camera manufacturers pack more and more pixels into the small sensors, there's a lot less photons reaching the sensor and you again run into problems with image quality.

the mega-pixel wars couldn't be a good thing. in fact, i remember a meeting with the sony camera sensor people last year to discuss mobile phone camera sensors. they were disappointed that the market kept pushing for even higher mega pixels when they knew that they could design a 2mp sensor that could perform as well as a 3mp. but since their customers wanted higher mega pixels, they had to spend time on that instead of getting the best performance out of the current sensors.
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 6:12 AM Post #117 of 217
Oh god, don't even get me started on the whole megapixel thing
rolleyes.gif
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 6:40 AM Post #118 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Oh god, don't even get me started on the whole megapixel thing
rolleyes.gif



QFT! marketing people have really done a number on the customers. who cares about mega pixel count if all of your shots are crap?
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 8:03 AM Post #119 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by fureshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
QFT! marketing people have really done a number on the customers. who cares about mega pixel count if all of your shots are crap?


Couldn't agree with you more. Can't say how many times I've heard point and shoots being compared to high end cameras just on the mega-pixel count. Sometimes I think that people think that they are the only things you should be considering when buying a digital camera.
blink.gif
 
Mar 17, 2007 at 9:46 AM Post #120 of 217
Quote:

Originally Posted by fureshi /img/forum/go_quote.gif
QFT! marketing people have really done a number on the customers. who cares about mega pixel count if all of your shots are crap?


Yay! Toast for all the crap pictures out there!
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top