Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 12:06:32 GMT -8
This picture demonstrates that you don't have to have a bazillion megapixel camera to get sharp detailed pictures...  This was shot with my old Nikon Coolpix 950 camera with only 2 megapixel resolution. Check out the fine detail on the dial stripes and the extra fine reflections in the sides of some of the markers  Of course pictures on the internet will never look as sharp as they can when printed to paper. For Internet use the resolution of the camera isn't really that important. Having a close macro capability and a solid platform to shoot from makes all the difference. I could not get sharp pics like this if I was holding the camera in my hands. Another example taken with the same camera...  I shot this in macro mode with the lense almost touching the dial. The lens on this will focus down to 1cm from the intended object. Most modern point and shoot or cellphone cameras cannot focus this close but if you use a loupe or optical comparator, even cameras with minimum focusing of a couple of inches can get nice close detailed pics like this. BTW...this is an example of the excellent lume work that Kent Parks does! |
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296 
|
Post by sdoocms on Dec 2, 2014 12:15:47 GMT -8
I completely agree. I have a Nikon D3200 that is a 24 megapixel camera that was a waste of money. This shot was taken with a Nikon E4600 Coolpix. That camera is capable of either 4 or 2 megapixel. Most of the pictures that I post are from this camera. Check out the Hong Kong text and I am not all that close.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 12:22:14 GMT -8
I completely agree. I have a Nikon D3200 that is a 24 megapixel camera that was a waste of money. This shot was taken with a Nikon E4600 Coolpix. That camera is capable of either 4 or 2 megapixel. Most of the pictures that I post are from this camera. Check out the Hong Kong text and I am not all that close. Well, the D3200 is probably a superior camera for print shooting but yeh, way overkill for Internet posting. I'm not sure but I believe that Kelly Rayburn used the E4600 for all those fantastic photos he used to post. His secret was in using a tripod(I think) and well planned lighting. |
|
sdoocms
Is a Permanent Fixture
Carl
Posts: 5,296
|
Post by sdoocms on Dec 2, 2014 12:41:40 GMT -8
I completely agree. I have a Nikon D3200 that is a 24 megapixel camera that was a waste of money. This shot was taken with a Nikon E4600 Coolpix. That camera is capable of either 4 or 2 megapixel. Most of the pictures that I post are from this camera. Check out the Hong Kong text and I am not all that close. Well, the D3200 is probably a superior camera for print shooting but yeh, way overkill for Internet posting. I'm not sure but I believe that Kelly Rayburn used the E4600 for all those fantastic photos he used to post. His secret was in using a tripod(I think) and well planned lighting. Looking at some of the pictures that Kelly took, I would have to believe that some of them were enhanced through computer software. |
|
|
|
Post by sweffymo on Dec 2, 2014 13:08:59 GMT -8
One of my hobbies is photography and I think that the difference between a point & shoot and a single lens reflex camera is night and day. However people who take pictures for eBay listings are really just either awful at photography or they are intentionally trying to mislead people. I used to use a point & shoot camera (a Kodak easyshare to be precise) before I got my SLR (a Canon EOS 30D) and it's definitely possible to take great pictures with them.
It really mainly comes down to the person who is taking the pictures. Lighting and making sure to fine-tune the focus make a huge difference. I have a few lenses that have image stabilization but having a tripod still makes it a lot easier to get good photos if you're trying to get up close to something.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 13:12:12 GMT -8
Well, the D3200 is probably a superior camera for print shooting but yeh, way overkill for Internet posting. I'm not sure but I believe that Kelly Rayburn used the E4600 for all those fantastic photos he used to post. His secret was in using a tripod(I think) and well planned lighting. Looking at some of the pictures that Kelly took, I would have to believe that some of them were enhanced through computer software. Oh absolutely but unlike what Hollywood wants us to believe; if the resolution isn't there to start with, it can not be created. Kelly often talked about some of his Photoshop techniques. Mostly he used it to make corrections to white balance or to make artistic effects. Ya just have to have a solid picture first, otherwise even Photoshop can't help. |
|
|
|
Post by earthphase on Dec 2, 2014 13:14:31 GMT -8
the camera on the asteroid chaser that ESA just bounced off the asteroid had only 2 mega pixels.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 14:09:21 GMT -8
the camera on the asteroid chaser that ESA just bounced off the asteroid had only 2 mega pixels. Yes and look at the incredible pictures it sent back! |
|
Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Dec 2, 2014 15:09:34 GMT -8
The mega pixels are all a myth.
Whats important is the field of view and maximum angle of the lens etc. In fact a lot of the old digital camera are fantastic at macro shots because they have very narrow lenses, which lend themselves to better macro images.
You have a a 100 megapixel CCD sensor, but unless you have the right lenses, angles etc, it will produce a rubbish image. Also, the massive megapixel CCD sensors often come out looking interpolated, which looks horrible. You'll see a trend starting now in a lot of consumer electronics to drop the stupidly high mega pixel sensors in favour of ones that handle the image properly and deal better with light conditions etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by sweffymo on Dec 2, 2014 15:32:57 GMT -8
The mega pixels are all a myth. Whats important is the field of view and maximum angle of the lens etc. In fact a lot of the old digital camera are fantastic at macro shots because they have very narrow lenses, which lend themselves to better macro images. You have a a 100 megapixel CCD sensor, but unless you have the right lenses, angles etc, it will produce a rubbish image. Also, the massive megapixel CCD sensors often come out looking interpolated, which looks horrible. You'll see a trend starting now in a lot of consumer electronics to drop the stupidly high mega pixel sensors in favour of ones that handle the image properly and deal better with light conditions etc. I completely agree that the glass is way more important than the image sensor... That's why I'm still using my EOS 30D even though it's from 2007. As long as the CCD is enough for the size you want to print, then lenses are much more important. Higher resolution CCD sensors are pretty much just a fad. The image processing quality is more important and that's why I would recommend a Canon or Nikon camera (even for point & shoot cameras) because they have the best processors. Some of the Sony cameras do an OK job too but I have been using Canon for a long time and I personally would probably just stick with them because that's what I know... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 15:40:23 GMT -8
The mega pixels are all a myth. Whats important is the field of view and maximum angle of the lens etc. In fact a lot of the old digital camera are fantastic at macro shots because they have very narrow lenses, which lend themselves to better macro images. You have a a 100 megapixel CCD sensor, but unless you have the right lenses, angles etc, it will produce a rubbish image. Also, the massive megapixel CCD sensors often come out looking interpolated, which looks horrible. You'll see a trend starting now in a lot of consumer electronics to drop the stupidly high mega pixel sensors in favour of ones that handle the image properly and deal better with light conditions etc. The race to higher and higher megapixel count was a bogus journey. The CCD and CMOS sensors stayed the same size and all the makers did was to make the software partition the area into more and more but smaller blocks. This results in less light getting to each block and less data falling on them. The software then had to try and make up for the short fall by using higher ASA settings which always introduce noise. In a point and shoot camera with the smaller sensors, I don't see any advantage to more than 10mega pixels. DSLRs with the full 35mm sensors will obviously capture and translate many times more data and receive more light. DSLRs with 12 to 18 megapixels should easily be able to duplicate a 35mm film camera's pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by saul on Dec 2, 2014 15:43:23 GMT -8
I completely agree. I have a Nikon D3200 that is a 24 megapixel camera that was a waste of money. This shot was taken with a Nikon E4600 Coolpix. That camera is capable of either 4 or 2 megapixel. Most of the pictures that I post are from this camera. Check out the Hong Kong text and I am not all that close. Well, the D3200 is probably a superior camera for print shooting but yeh, way overkill for Internet posting. I'm not sure but I believe that Kelly Rayburn used the E4600 for all those fantastic photos he used to post. His secret was in using a tripod(I think) and well planned lighting. Was a Nikon Coolpix 4300 actually. :-) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2014 16:10:11 GMT -8
Well, the D3200 is probably a superior camera for print shooting but yeh, way overkill for Internet posting. I'm not sure but I believe that Kelly Rayburn used the E4600 for all those fantastic photos he used to post. His secret was in using a tripod(I think) and well planned lighting. Was a Nikon Coolpix 4300 actually. :-) Even more impressive 7dfe79adc2f0 |
|
Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Dec 2, 2014 16:19:14 GMT -8
It's one of those things. I used to be in IT and people tend to equate higher numbers with higher performance. When the Pentium 4 series was being phased out and replaced with the Pentium M and Pentium D series, people were way confused as the clock speeds were half what the 4 was, but the instruction pipeline was much more efficient and because they used much less power, they didn't overheat and could run at consistently better speeds, resulting in actually higher performance for a lower clock speed. Of course I had loads of arguments with people saying "But the p4 is way faster". You couldn't get the efficiency point across. So people were under the impression that Intel had gone BACKWARDS in their development because the numbers were lower, which started the "performance rating" number. My point is that for marketing purposes, people tend to just look at a number and say "higher is better". Most people don't have the patience to properly analyse the specifications and take what's important from that. I now have a HTC One M7 phone, after retiring my One SV, and Desire HD. The SV is a 5MP camera, the Desire HD is 8MP, the M7 is a 4. So have I downgraded? Nope. The M7 camera lets in WAY more light and has a much wider FOV. So shots that were impossible on the SV and the HD I can now do. Macro shots were near impossible on the SV/HD and you'll see some of my close shots are so dark they are nearly unusuable. No longer an issue, but the wider FOV is an issue for some shots. So its a six of one, half dozen of another situation. So that's a win for a BETTER sensor. Also the point with less noise is definitely true, the SV/HD camera was noise central, just garbage. The race to higher and higher megapixel count was a bogus journey. The CCD and CMOS sensors stayed the same size and all the makers did was to make the software partition the area into more and more but smaller blocks. This results in less light getting to each block and less data falling on them. The software then had to try and make up for the short fall by using higher ASA settings which always introduce noise. In a point and shoot camera with the smaller sensors, I don't see any advantage to more than 10mega pixels. DSLRs with the full 35mm sensors will obviously capture and translate many times more data and receive more light. DSLRs with 12 to 18 megapixels should easily be able to duplicate a 35mm film camera's pictures. |
|
|
|
Post by yorkiesknob on Dec 3, 2014 1:21:05 GMT -8
I use an old school Canon A430 4 meg camera. I always get far better macro photos with it. We have several cameras around the house with up to 16megs rate. They cannot hold a candle to the Canon. So in this case less is better.
|
|
Adrian-VTA
Global Moderator
Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 5,327
|
Post by Adrian-VTA on Dec 3, 2014 2:36:50 GMT -8
The A430 is amazing. I have one too. I use an old school Canon A430 4 meg camera. I always get far better macro photos with it. We have several cameras around the house with up to 16megs rate. They cannot hold a candle to the Canon. So in this case less is better. |
|
|
|
Post by madeofducktape on Dec 3, 2014 5:14:23 GMT -8
It really mainly comes down to the person who is taking the pictures. Bingo! Ansel Adams said "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it!" - He was a pretty good photographer  Similarly, One of the users on YouTube posts a few videos where he gives pro photographers really cheap cameras, the results are pretty amazing. |
|
