Camera glass and megapixels
Feb 22, 2016 19:03:14 #
mas24
Loc: Southern CA
travelwp wrote:
It doesn't matter at all. I posted to UHH to lear... (show quote)
Canon has already developed a 120 megapixels APS-H sensor for still photos, according to thenewcamera.com. Article read this year. That would be a big surprise seeing that sensor on a camera body.
Feb 22, 2016 19:13:03 #
HarryBinNC
Loc: Blue Ridge Mtns, No.Carolina, USA
jerryc41 wrote:
This was a major topic of discussion when the D800 came out. Lower quality lenses produced disappointing images. For a good camera, you need a good lens. I hear the Zeiss Otus range of lenses is excellent, but they cost more than most cameras.
All of my old Nikkors from the 70's/early 80's got better every time I upgraded, from D70 to D200 to D700 and finally D800. I am stopping there - I don't need any more megapixels/IQ or any better lenses. I am an extremely happy camper!
Feb 22, 2016 19:18:20 #
mas24 wrote:
Canon has already developed a 120 megapixels APS-H sensor for still photos.
I did a google on that and found that Canon has a 250 megapixel sensor that will fit in to a DSLR sized body. I guess we are years away from delivery, but it's coming.
Feb 22, 2016 19:30:45 #
Feb 22, 2016 20:41:13 #
As PhotoArtsLA points out, there are more reasons than sharpness to desire more megapixels. (a person with much more technical photographic knowledge than I possess)
Just for one factor, I have assumed there would be some parallel analogy with film photography where the more pixels or more silver grains in a larger negative there were within an exposed area, the more accurate display of the tones & colors would result because of more chances to catch the intermediate values, making for a photo with more "life," "pizzazz" or whatever you'd want to call it. ... more pleasing to the eye and noticeably better to view. I don't know how strong that parallel is when comparing digital to film but have often wondered -- gotta be somewhat the same although the two mediums are different.
Just for one factor, I have assumed there would be some parallel analogy with film photography where the more pixels or more silver grains in a larger negative there were within an exposed area, the more accurate display of the tones & colors would result because of more chances to catch the intermediate values, making for a photo with more "life," "pizzazz" or whatever you'd want to call it. ... more pleasing to the eye and noticeably better to view. I don't know how strong that parallel is when comparing digital to film but have often wondered -- gotta be somewhat the same although the two mediums are different.
Feb 22, 2016 21:20:39 #
Petesfixit
Loc: Houston Texas
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is a simple, glass - less adapter allowing a Nikkor lens on Canon ef mount( +-) $20 on ebay :thumbup:
Feb 22, 2016 21:33:03 #
I have just one question. Are you all aspirants to be a primary National Geographic photographers? Or are you taking pictures just for fun? Would you be happy with a picture from a Brownie camera with some meaning in it? Or, is your father going to beat my father? You look to me like a bunch of spoiled brats.
Feb 22, 2016 23:51:49 #
Steve_m wrote:
I have just one question. Are you all aspirants to be a primary National Geographic photographers? Or are you taking pictures just for fun? Would you be happy with a picture from a Brownie camera with some meaning in it? Or, is your father going to beat my father? You look to me like a bunch of spoiled brats.
You mean like this?
That's my Dad in the hat
Feb 23, 2016 01:44:05 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.