BimmerFest BMW Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
In Driving Heaven
Joined
·
2,772 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
D3 with a full frame sensor and D300 with a DX sensor.

Nothing on the D300 makes me think I need to trade in my D200, but the D3 looks like a worthy camera to take advantage of the 35mm-format lenses I have. Well, there's that issue of a $5000 price tag. :yikes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
The 1Ds Mark III and the 40D pwn n00bs.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
I definitely saw the announcement, Peter. The new 14-24 f2.8 lens is of more interest to me than the new bodies - my D2X is capable of taking better photos than this photographer is producing from it.

edit: the new autofocus system and 100% viewfinder coverage are very appealing features of the D300 versus the D200. I would consider selling my D2X in favor of a D300 (D2 weighs a freaking ton), but I'll probably just stand pat and wait a while. Spending a bunch of money on cameras is not in my game plan at the moment anyway.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
Canon just announced some crazy new products too, including a 20 something megapixel pro body.

Can you just imagine what will be available 5 years from now?
I think Peter, like myself, just gets tired of people justifying their purchase decisions by bagging on the competition and in this case, demeaning their customers. Folks who confuse product choices with religion are awfully tiring.

Back on topic (sort of - this is a Nikon thread), that new Canon pro body is likely to be very intolerant of anything less than perfect optics. The sensors currently have incredible resolution - way better than film. You can correct for lens flaws in post processing, but that's very time intensive. I have to wonder whether resolutions will continue to increase, or rather if we'll instead see less noise, faster bus speeds, cost efficiencies, etc. from here on.
 

·
Bimmerfest Founder
Joined
·
15,461 Posts
I think Peter, like myself, just gets tired of people justifying their purchase decisions by bagging on the competition and in this case, demeaning their customers. Folks who confuse product choices with religion are awfully tiring.

Back on topic (sort of - this is a Nikon thread), that new Canon pro body is likely to be very intolerant of anything less than perfect optics. The sensors currently have incredible resolution - way better than film. You can correct for lens flaws in post processing, but that's very time intensive. I have to wonder whether resolutions will continue to increase, or rather if we'll instead see less noise, faster bus speeds, cost efficiencies, etc. from here on.
The buzz around the new Canon products centers around low noise (cut by a purported 50%) as well as bus speeds.

The cost needs some work.
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
The buzz around the new Canon products centers around low noise (cut by a purported 50%) as well as bus speeds.

The cost needs some work.
The new Nikons support UDMA bus speeds. Apparently they're using that to reduce the need for a large memory buffer in the camera. Frame per second speeds are crazy - with a vertical grip (and its extra batteries) that D300 will do 8fps just like my D2X. Only at full resolution. Jeebus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,372 Posts
I noticed the 20 megapixel mentioned and it reminded me of something thats been bugging me since about the 4 megapixel point :)

How much is to much?

I am not a pro photographer, I have very little experience with cameras other than for personal use and shooting pics of football games for the school my brother in law was playing for. So a true amature.

My question is basically for home use 350k pic size to me seems to be the ideal pic size for most shots. Im sure more for magazines or something larger makes sense and all. Basing this on 350k you can keep tons of pics and not delete something to make space and still have nice clear pictures to print or display on even a 20" monitor, so how much is enough in the mega pixel department?

I never gave it much thought other than I tried to keep my pics between 350k and 450k. Thus I change the rez on my diamage z2 to a rez that gets me that which is 1280x960x16m. So how many megal pixels is that?

I never wondered this as for some reason I just figured that the 4 megapixels the camera was rated at is what it did all the time. What made me wonder was helping a journalist that needed to upload a story they were doing on an election and the camera had megapixel settings and not resolutions. At least in the menu they were working with.

So what rez is what mega pixel or am I looking at this wrong?
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
That's freakin' incredible.

Alex
I have rarely wanted more than about 5fps for what I shoot. 6fps (and 8 with the grip) from a fairly affordable body is a lot of speed for the dollar. Canon's new bodies are in the same league, so it's not like Nikon is breaking new territory here. But yeah, cameras in general are freakin' incredible these days.

I noticed the 20 megapixel mentioned and it reminded me of something thats been bugging me since about the 4 megapixel point :)

How much is to much?

I am not a pro photographer, I have very little experience with cameras other than for personal use and shooting pics of football games for the school my brother in law was playing for. So a true amature.

My question is basically for home use 350k pic size to me seems to be the ideal pic size for most shots. Im sure more for magazines or something larger makes sense and all. Basing this on 350k you can keep tons of pics and not delete something to make space and still have nice clear pictures to print or display on even a 20" monitor, so how much is enough in the mega pixel department?

I never gave it much thought other than I tried to keep my pics between 350k and 450k. Thus I change the rez on my diamage z2 to a rez that gets me that which is 1280x960x16m. So how many megal pixels is that?

I never wondered this as for some reason I just figured that the 4 megapixels the camera was rated at is what it did all the time. What made me wonder was helping a journalist that needed to upload a story they were doing on an election and the camera had megapixel settings and not resolutions. At least in the menu they were working with.

So what rez is what mega pixel or am I looking at this wrong?
Image resolution is what is captured by the sensor. For example, a 4 megapixel camera captures an image that is usually around 1700 pixels by 2300 pixels. You may (and hopefully do) resize that image to something smaller before sharing it with people on the web. That process is somewhat independent of the capture resolution.

Image resolution is mostly relevant to printing. Take the pixel measurements and divide by 300 (as in a 300dpi printer resolution) and you'll get the size in inches of the photo that can be printed without resizing the image. If you want to print a larger image, the image will need to be resized and that resizing process may introduce undesirable artifacts in the image.

Additionally, greater resolution gives you greater flexibility when it comes to cropping an image. For example, if I want to crop an image to print at 8x10, then I am going to be discarding no less than a 728x2848 chunk of my image (~17% of the pixel count: (4288px - ((2848px/8 inches)*10 inches)) * 2848px), and maybe more. The more pixels I have in the capture, the more that are left after cropping.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,372 Posts
Thanks :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
How much is to much?
It's a simple question with a complex answer. Here's a longer answer... :)

In addition to what Cliff said, the megapixel count does not even necessarily mean there is more picture information. Sensor size and sensitivity are probably more important. A pocket sized camera has a small sensor, which means only a physically small chunk of light is available from which to extract a picture. A digital SLR has a larger sensor, which usually means a better picture cause there's more light and more sensor, and that's why this full-framed sensor on the D3 is interesting.

A pocket-sized camera boasting 10 megapixels won't look particularly better than a 6-megapixel one with a similar sensor. Yeah, you get more pixels, but that doesn't mean you get more sharpness or less noise.

Since we're dealing with area, you need to quadruple the megapixel number to get twice as many pixels in each direction.

The sizes you were giving ("350k and 450k") presumably refer to the compressed JPEG file sizes, which doesn't actually say how many megapixels you have. Complex images will take more space than simple images, and your camera's compression setting may vary from other cameras.

In general, use the 300-ppi rule that Cliff said. If you want to make 4"x6" prints, you'd need at most (4 x 300) x (6 x 300) = 2,160,000 = 2 megapixels. You could also stretch down to 200 ppi, since just a smidge of off-focus can make the difference between the two resolutions.

One other benefit of a higher resolution is you get more swaths of smooth area for noise-reduction software to scrub graininess from your images, resulting in cleaner images/prints.

More reading:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
http://www.digicamguides.com/print/ppi-print-size.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
I am thinking of getting the Canon 40D once it comes out in late Sept.

Anybody have any thoughts?

I have been thinking of switching to Nikon, but I got a bunch of lenses with canon that I do not really want to part with
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
I am thinking of getting the Canon 40D once it comes out in late Sept.

Anybody have any thoughts?

I have been thinking of switching to Nikon, but I got a bunch of lenses with canon that I do not really want to part with
It sounds to me like you have a fairly compelling reason to stick with Canon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
567 Posts
If you already have Canon lenses, stick with a Canon body, you'll save money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
I am thinking of getting the Canon 40D once it comes out in late Sept.

Anybody have any thoughts?

I have been thinking of switching to Nikon, but I got a bunch of lenses with canon that I do not really want to part with
Stick with Canon.

I am sticking with Nikon because of my Nikkor lenses and have been shooting with Nikons since 1970. If I didn't have the Nikon history and lenses, it would have been a harder decision. I've pre-ordered two Nikon D300s instead of buying a new D2Xs.

Regards...JL
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
69 Posts
Yea that is what I ended up deciding, amazon has a pre-order page up, might just get it from B&H once they put it up there.

Where do you guys buy your camera equipment?
 

·
Empowered Consumer
Joined
·
4,042 Posts
Stick with Canon.

I am sticking with Nikon because of my Nikkor lenses and have been shooting with Nikons since 1970. If I didn't have the Nikon history and lenses, it would have been a harder decision. I've pre-ordered two Nikon D300s instead of buying a new D2Xs.

Regards...JL
Why 2 of them?

Alex
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
Why 2 of them?

Alex
Two different shops, two different preorder lists. I will cancel one when I get one, but if I do buy both, I will sell one. Not looking to make a profit, just want the money I paid for the camera and shiping. BTW, I am #6 on one list and #10 on the other.

Regards...JL
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top