welrdelr
I think it's meant to be constructive criticism (the act or art of judging the quality of an artistic work ). Thats the POSITIVE definition. As a newbee here and to digital photography I am glad they have " Nothing better to do" than to answer my questions.
Since a lot of my photos (butterflies for instance) are taken with a 300mm lens and they don't normally sit still too long, is it acceptable to crop for the proper composition or does the orignal need to be composed correctly to be "politically corect"?
Do the same rules apply to macro photography?
I thought that with a dedicated flat field macro lens ( micro nikkor 105mm f 2.8), that the depth of field was 1/2 in front & 1/2 behind point of focus
Where can I read more about the "Photosite vs Pixel controversy" ? I'm still trying to learn all I can about the digital photo world.
Thanks to all that replied. I thought that since about the same number of pixels were on a larger sensor(FX)that the pixels would be larger on the FX than on the DX thus showing more grain in the image. Looks like the opposite is the case. P.S. All my lenses are Nikon & FX compatable. Nikkor 105D f2.8 macro, 80-200 f2.8, 300 f4 & 80-400 f4.5-5.6. Thanks again. When I muster up the nerve I'll post some pics.
8 seconds? Was it dead? I can't get rhem to sit still that long.
Hi everyone! I'm new here.I've been reading the posts on Ugly Hedgehog for several weeks now & have really enjoyed some of the topics. I've finally gotten the courage to ask a question. I take mostly nature pics ( insects, butterflies, birds,etc.) & tightly crop most pics. I have a Nikon D-90 with several Nikon lenses. Im looking to buy a second Camera body so I don't have to change lenses in the field. I'm looking @ a D-700 (FX format-12.1MP). The D-90 (DX format-12.3MP) has almost the same MP. Will the resoulution on the FX format be less than the DX?