|
Pompous Rhombus posted:It may not matter much for a hobbyist, but if you go to sell your photos down the line later, a number of stock agencies won't accept less than 10-12 megapixels. I've never heard anything about 8MP being a magic number either? It's safe to say a pretty vast majority of people starting out won't wind up selling to stock agencies though. Some agencies restrict which bodies they'll accept images from as well, and those lists don't conform to megapixel considerations. 8-10 megapixels is in the general area I've seen that produces the least noise, but your mileage might vary with different cameras. Just speaking from personal experience based on what I have used instead of throwing made up figures out there. If someone wants more than that for their personal use or needs it professionally, more power to them. It's just going to cost more for more megapixels that aren't too practical compared to other features they could be getting for roughly the same price. In the case of upgrading from a 450D to a 40D on the previous page, just paying attention to the MP count will leave out all the advantages the 40D has in comparison.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
I am going to be at a car show this Sunday in SF and plan on taking my new 5D. It will be in a big parking garage, so probably not the best lighting. Does anyone have any advice for car photography? I am guessing that lighting will be fun with all sorts of reflections on polished cars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 00:58
|
|
|
what is a good site to get prints from? prints 8x10 and larger
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 01:46
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Go past eight MP or so and you're past the point of diminishing returns compared to ISO handling, AF speed, and several other forms of performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 10:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Look how wrong you are. What's the resolution of the camera with the best ISO performance? Do you know how phase detection AF works? Are we talking about the number of pixels as an important factor, or as the only factor? That's all I've been seeing on this page. Of course you're going to be getting better performance at the same ISO with a >20MP full-frame beast, which would be a great point to bring up if it weren't a comparison between a 40D and 450D. I'm well aware of how phase detection AF works, but now it's getting into questions made to stir things up. Feel free to disagree with me if you find different specs to be higher priorities, but would you be willing to suggest phootnote not switch from his 450D to the 40D just because it has ten rather than 12 MP, despite every other difference?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 14:50
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Are we talking about the number of pixels as an important factor, or as the only factor? That's all I've been seeing on this page. Of course you're going to be getting better performance at the same ISO with a >20MP full-frame beast, which would be a great point to bring up if it weren't a comparison between a 40D and 450D. I don't think that's the point. I think we'd all agree the 40D is an upgrade. Unfortunately, in a "General Photography Questions" thread, you made a broad, inaccurate statement instead of a narrowly tailored answer. This is SA, you'll get called on that every time. Remember, the 5Di has larger photosites at 12mp since it's full frame, and in the ballpark on price with the 40D now, I think.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 14:57
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I gotta disagree with Bob here. A circular polarizer is very useful, unlike protective filters, if used in the right circumstances. Assuming you know that, yes, low profile filters lessen vignetting. You can also address post, but that's less effective. Low profile filters are more expensive, though. Thank you, and thanks to KOFT. Bob, must disagree with you too - I know of no easy way to accurately recreate the increased colour saturation and loss of reflection that a polariser provides. I do not believe that it is easy to recreate in post the effect of a polariser (that said, I know very little about PS etc). I would rather create an image that is close to how I want it as possible and minimise post tinkering.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 15:24
|
|
|
DevNull posted:I am going to be at a car show this Sunday in SF and plan on taking my new 5D. It will be in a big parking garage, so probably not the best lighting. Does anyone have any advice for car photography? I am guessing that lighting will be fun with all sorts of reflections on polished cars. Best I can advise after going to this year's Detroit Auto Show: Take a fast, somewhat wide (Around 25mm) lens with you and be patient. People will be everywhere and using anything longer might make you have to step back to the point where there will always be people walking in front of you. People do also seem to have a habit of getting their grubby fingerprints and hand prints all over the paint too, which doesn't do anything to help  .
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 15:26
|
|
|
therattle posted:Bob, must disagree with you too - I know of no easy way to accurately recreate the increased colour saturation and loss of reflection that a polariser provides. I do not believe that it is easy to recreate in post the effect of a polariser (that said, I know very little about PS etc). I would rather create an image that is close to how I want it as possible and minimise post tinkering. Good, that's what I wanted to hear.  Like I said, there are perfectly legitimate reasons to use that sort of filter, and it sounds like you know what you're doing with it. There are just too many people who use filters without really understanding why, at which point it isn't helpful and will only cause problems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 15:31
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I don't think that's the point. I think we'd all agree the 40D is an upgrade. Unfortunately, in a "General Photography Questions" thread, you made a broad, inaccurate statement instead of a narrowly tailored answer. This is SA, you'll get called on that every time. Fair enough. I was interpreting the context as people slamming the 40D over the 450D because of the megapixel count, so I can see how things got wrapped around. Good to know that wasn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 15:46
|
|
|
TheFuglyStik posted:Fair enough. I was interpreting the context as people slamming the 40D over the 450D because of the megapixel count, so I can see how things got wrapped around. Good to know that wasn't the case. This is a place where routinely the 30D and 20D are still pimped hard over the Rebel series...and for good reason in many cases. We loves our xxD line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 15:49
|
|
|
torgeaux posted:I don't think that's the point. I think we'd all agree the 40D is an upgrade. Unfortunately, in a "General Photography Questions" thread, you made a broad, inaccurate statement instead of a narrowly tailored answer. This is SA, you'll get called on that every time. The 40D is usually around 600ish used, 5D still about a grand or thereabouts.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 16:31
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:Look how wrong you are. What's the resolution of the camera with the best ISO performance? Do you know how phase detection AF works? Considering this IS the general photography questions megathread: Would you care to enlighten some of us?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 16:57
|
|
|
I was more trying to nudge him in the right direction. Best camera for shooting high ISO is probably a Nikon D3s (12MP), but Nikon's got shitall modern superfast glass. 5dII might be the best Canon, but a Canon guy can answer that question better than I. Phase detection autofocus (the kind in SLR's with a mirror box) explained there. Since it doesn't use the sensor, pixel density or sensor size is completely irrelevant. Compact digital cameras use contrast detection AF.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2010 17:06
|
|
|
Does anyone have health insurance through ASMP? Do any of the programs they offer have good rates? It seems you have to log in to find out more information. I know an ASMP membership is great for me to have, but my budget is reeeeeally tight until April, so I can't purchase a membership anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 18:40
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I was more trying to nudge him in the right direction. Best camera for shooting high ISO is probably a Nikon D3s (12MP), but Nikon's got shitall modern superfast glass. Who needs super fast glass when your high ISO performance is a stop or two better than the competition? DPReview put up a 1DMkIV review and it's kind of disappointing compared to the D3S once you start getting up past 1600. I thought the MkIV would have been Canon's big reply to the D3S.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 19:33
|
|
|
HPL posted:Who needs super fast glass when your high ISO performance is a stop or two better than the competition? DPReview put up a 1DMkIV review and it's kind of disappointing compared to the D3S once you start getting up past 1600. I thought the MkIV would have been Canon's big reply to the D3S. It makes up for it in IQ and resolution (granted some would argue you don't need resolution for news articles in the papers and magazines and such). Let's not forget, the D3s is the (tried and true) 12MP FX sensor so of course it's going to look better at higher ISOs. That said, I was slightly disappointed by the high ISO comparison between the two but my kind of shooting hovers around ISO100-400 (MAYBE 800) so this doesn't really affect me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 20:01
|
|
|
germskr posted:It makes up for it in IQ and resolution (granted some would argue you don't need resolution for news articles in the papers and magazines and such). Let's not forget, the D3s is the (tried and true) 12MP FX sensor so of course it's going to look better at higher ISOs. That said, I was slightly disappointed by the high ISO comparison between the two but my kind of shooting hovers around ISO100-400 (MAYBE 800) so this doesn't really affect me. I think Nikon took the right route with the D3S. It's a professional camera aimed at photographers shooting in difficult conditions. I'd rather have better high ISO than better resolution and image quality, especially if an extra stop or two means the difference between a blurry shot and a clear one whether because you absolutely need to get the shutter speed up to 1/8000 or you're shooting in near zero light. Nikon has the D3X for people that need maximum image quality. The 1DMkIV is supposed to be the high ISO, high FPS speed monster of the Canon line.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
As far as I can remember, basically any video I have seen out of a Canon/Nikon DSLR has either been choppy, or has an occasional skip. I've yet to see a continuous video without cuts that doesn't at least skip occasionally. I mean it's not that disruptive in video from high end cameras such as the 5dmk2, but I notice it. Even looking at promo video that Nikon and Canon puts out can have some heavy choppiness to it. Sorry for not being specific on terminology here, but I'm hoping someone knows what I'm talking about. Is there a specific technical reason for this (not being able to write/process the frames fast enough resulting in dropped frames?), and is there hope for getting completely smooth HD video out of a DSLR sometime in the near future? SynVisions fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Feb 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 21:09
|
|
|
SynVisions posted:As far as I can remember, basically any video I have seen out of a Canon/Nikon DSLR has either been choppy, or has an occasional skip. I've yet to see a continuous video without cuts that doesn't at least skip occasionally. I mean it's not that disruptive in video from high end cameras such as the 5dmk2, but I notice it. Even looking at promo video that Nikon and Canon puts out can have some heavy choppiness to it. This has not been my experience at all, except when viewing HD video on a slow computer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 21:17
|
|
|
I have a 5d2, and in camera the video has never been choppy or skippy. Only when playing back 1080p on an already-busy computer. Can't speak for video on some of the others, but I'd be surprised if they would release a DSLR with video function that couldn't keep up with the fps.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 21:19
|
|
|
SynVisions posted:As far as I can remember, basically any video I have seen out of a Canon/Nikon DSLR has either been choppy, or has an occasional skip. I've yet to see a continuous video without cuts that doesn't at least skip occasionally. I mean it's not that disruptive in video from high end cameras such as the 5dmk2, but I notice it. Even looking at promo video that Nikon and Canon puts out can have some heavy choppiness to it. Not sure what you're talking about, if the computer which handles the video is powerful enough to process it, there shouldn't be any problems. That being said, the T2i, for example, can do 720p @ 60 FPS which is silky smooth. e: and the HD video only requires a card capable of doing like 8MB/s throughput, so that shouldn't be an issue either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 21:54
|
|
|
HPL posted:Who needs super fast glass when your high ISO performance is a stop or two better than the competition?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Not sure what you're talking about, if the computer which handles the video is powerful enough to process it, there shouldn't be any problems. he's talking about the rolling shutter I'm pretty sure
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
Anyone do any microstock? worth it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
Oh god I'm going to Ding Darling tomorrow and I'm not sure what the layout is. I see the map online... but can I assume they have good information at the visitors center? I checked the low tides already and timing it accordingly... but I'm just nervous 
Bahama.Llama fucked around with this message at 00:46 on Feb 27, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 00:43
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:Anyone do any microstock? worth it? Not really, look in to Getty's Flickr collection.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 03:51
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The other way to look at it is "You need high ISO performance a stop or two better than the competition because you have no decent fast glass options". The new 24mm is a good start (Now a 35mm please), but the new wide zoom being f/4 is just retarded. What? It's supposed to compete with the 17-40 f4, so complaining about the aperture is just silly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 05:19
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:Not really, look in to Getty's Flickr collection. I find it so hard to shoot stuff for stock, all of my stuff has people in it. do you submit to the getty collection and then get invited to be a contributer?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 12:01
|
|
|
fronkpies posted:I find it so hard to shoot stuff for stock, all of my stuff has people in it. You put together up to ten images and submit them, approval process is kinda random in the time it gets. They sent me an invite with 5 of my pictures a couple months after the fact, not all of which were in the ten that I submitted to them  There's some great stuff I'll never be able to sell as stock because of random people in them, but I also have a decent number of shots of friends who'd probably be fine with signing off on a model release. Wouldn't you need a release for microstock as well?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 13:25
|
|
|
Bahama.Llama posted:Oh god I'm going to Ding Darling tomorrow and I'm not sure what the layout is. I see the map online... but can I assume they have good information at the visitors center? You're probably already there, but if not, it's a big loop. In general, there will already be a cluster of photographers wherever there's a good shot. Have fun!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:the new wide zoom being f/4 is just retarded. This is why lens designers drink. "You want a lens that, pointed forwards, can see your feet, and also fast enough to shoot at midnight during a lunar eclipse? And you want it to cost less than your car?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 06:00
|
|
|
SoundMonkey posted:This is why lens designers drink.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 08:21
|
|
|
I am thinking about getting the Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM for my Rebel T1i / EOS 500D. Someone told me not to, as the heavy thing will "feel wrong" on my lightweight consumer camera. Is this true? Is it a good always-on lens? The 15mm at the low end and the additional zoom compared to the kit lens are enticing, even with the high price (for me at least). Thanks! Edit: This was supposed to go into the gears thread. Sorry. A few more questions. Sorry if these sound stupid. What does the AF LOCK button do? I read the description in the manual but I still don't understand its function. How do I change the white-balance when taking photos? Let's say I notice a photo in a snowy environment is too yellow. How do I fix this while shooting (not in post). Is it even necessary when I can change the colours afterwards? Thanks! lllllllllllllllllll fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 28, 2010 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 18:50
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The new 24mm is a good start (Now a 35mm please), but the new wide zoom being f/4 is just retarded. I first thought that too but it does make sense, you get VR so that helps a bit but often wide angles are used for landscapes where you will be stopping down anyways. This lens will probably be a pretty big hit with people who hike etc. Remember there is always the 14-24 2.8. f4 also lets them keep the cost down.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 20:19
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:I am thinking about getting the Canon EF-S 15-85mm IS USM for my Rebel T1i / EOS 500D. Someone told me not to, as the heavy thing will "feel wrong" on my lightweight consumer camera. Is this true? Is it a good always-on lens? The 15mm at the low end and the additional zoom compared to the kit lens are enticing, even with the high price (for me at least). Thanks! I wouldn't worry too much about it "feeling wrong" but try before you buy. Most camera stores should let you put a lens on your body just to get the feel of it. It's a good range, I'm not sure if many canon goons have used it, but from what I remember it was very well reviewed. AF lock basically does what it says - you use it when you've got a specific subject and you don't want your AF to spazz out and focus on someone's knee after you've already focused it on their face. WB should be pretty easy to change - firstly you should be shooting RAW, but your camera should have some preset WB options depending on your circumstances. Those tend to be pretty helpful at getting you in the ballpark and you can fine tune in post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
Not hardware, but software related: can I upgrade my copy of Photoshop Elements to normal Photoshop? Or do I have to buy the entire Photoshop suite?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Not hardware, but software related: can I upgrade my copy of Photoshop Elements to normal Photoshop? Or do I have to buy the entire Photoshop suite? You can, and you can only buy the upgrade directly from Adobe. It's $599 (the difference between Elements and Photoshop) online or by phone. If your copy of Elements is from a Wacom tablet, you qualify for a considerably lower price through Wacom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2010 02:11
|
|
|
So, everyone knows about using tilt-shift to make life-size things look tiny... Is there a photographic technique to do the opposite? That is, make tiny things look life-sized.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
SquallStrife posted:So, everyone knows about using tilt-shift to make life-size things look tiny... Macro photography?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2010 04:11
|
|