Posts for: CatMarley
May 28, 2020 18:52:59 #
billnikon wrote:
Excuse me, but their is NO image quality loss in the D5, you are mistaken and I would appreciate if you would not post that AA filters always degrade final images. It just IS NOT TRUE IN ALL CASES.
Oh, and BTW, I will continue to post what I know to be factually true whether or not you appreciate it. I am sorry if the facts offend your pride of choice in cameras, but Science sometimes trumps faith.
May 28, 2020 18:44:45 #
billnikon wrote:
Excuse me, but their is NO image quality loss in the D5, you are mistaken and I would appreciate if you would not post that AA filters always degrade final images. It just IS NOT TRUE IN ALL CASES.
I hate to intrude on your belief system, but all the technical discussions in the literature that I have read, say that the AA filter is a compromise between a certain amount of blurring and the intrusion of the moire artifact. The non-random layout of the sensor elements makes it necessary. Sensors with a different layout do not require the AA and are sharper as a result. Please consult this link for a non tecnical explanation: https://camerajabber.com/anti-aliasing-filter-camera-explain-like-im-5/
May 28, 2020 15:14:40 #
rook2c4 wrote:
The difference is so small, one wouldn't really be able to tell the difference other than through extensive test comparisons.
Some who have both, would disagree with you.
May 28, 2020 12:09:37 #
billnikon wrote:
Really, is that why the Nikon D5 (flagship until a few months ago) has a filter. Are you saying that the images from the D5 are degraded because it has a filter. REALLY?
YES! Anti-aliasing filters are used to blur the lines between repeating patterns in order to avoid moire. Film grain was random, so repeating patterns did not result in moire. Digital sensor elements are laid out in a two by two square pattern in most cameras, which results in moire. Fuji sensors use a 6 x 6 pattern which offers greater randomization and avoids the use of AA filters. You do realize that anything designed to blur, will degrade your image. Most noise reducers do that also. The degradation is minimal, but it does exist, otherwise the moire effect would not be reduced.
May 28, 2020 08:56:01 #
hoola wrote:
Thanx for quick reply . I always thought that my D5300's were ever so slightly less sharp then D5200's I had prior . Now I know why . Think newest in D5xxx series (the D5600) did away with filter .
Quite the opposite. Images are sharper WITHOUT the filter, which degrades the image slightly.
May 28, 2020 08:53:24 #
jeep_daddy wrote:
Con - reduces sharpness
Pro - gets rid of a funky pattern you get from frequency of repeating patterns.
Pro - gets rid of a funky pattern you get from frequency of repeating patterns.
It also degrades the image somewhat.
May 17, 2020 17:35:24 #
tuomi1947 wrote:
Has any one had the experience of sadly dropping t... (show quote)
Dropped my Fugi XT-2 on concrete. Shattered my nice little Nissin flash, but the camera and lens were perfectly OK. I guess the flash saved the camera and lens. Just good luck.
May 6, 2020 14:30:30 #
knutte wrote:
The caribous I saw in Alaska were bigger than the reindeer we have in Finland so I believe they are different species. But then again, people are bigger (being PC and not calling them fat) in US.
North Americans have two names for Rangifer tarandus: reindeer and caribou. They are the same species but domestication has selected for smaller size in the domestic strain. Just look at dogs if you want to doubt what domestication can do. Wolves, Chihuahuas and Mastiffs are all the same species - Canis lupus.
May 6, 2020 11:26:12 #
In Europe the animal would be called a "Reindeer". The same species in Alaska and Canada would be called "Caribou"
May 4, 2020 10:03:56 #
Bigmike1 wrote:
I have a Canon printer and when I need ink I just take the cartridge down to Costco and get it refilled. I have not had any problems. As far as I am concerned ink is ink.
Yes ink is ink, and unless it is messing up your printer, all this purism about ink is quite silly. Do I really believe that all the people on this forum are printing great art requiring precise color control?
May 1, 2020 13:07:14 #
Bob Mevis wrote:
I was going to post some from the archives but I've lost my archives, even my backup drives but, I found my ex wives files look to be all there. I don't understand this. I can live with losing the majority but, the pictures of my Sons graduation from Marine boot camp I can't. I don't understand how they would disappear from my externals they were there not long ago. Anybody have any ideas?
Excuse me now so I can have a breakdown!!!
Excuse me now so I can have a breakdown!!!
Did you check with your Ex?
Apr 30, 2020 12:13:23 #
CatMarley wrote:
Yes, but only in extremes, because it affects othe... (show quote)
And, of course the noise at high ISO's which will vary with the camera, some of which control the noise very well at fairly high ISO's. The best results are always found using the lowest ISO at which you are able to use the aperture and shutter speed which will accomplish your artistic objective.
Apr 30, 2020 09:33:58 #
Yes, but only in extremes, because it affects other things like aperture and shutter speed. Let's say you are shooting a landscape whose ideal exposure would be F8 at 1/200 at ISO 200. Change the ISO to 400 and you will have to use a faster shutter or a smaller aperture. Change it to 3200 and you will have to use a very small aperture, which may cause diffraction fuzziness, or a very fast shutter speed. But unless you are shooting in extreme lighting conditions the changes should not be of any significance.
Apr 30, 2020 09:15:12 #
Sonny Boy wrote:
Used Fuji XT-2 vs. new xt-30. Mainly stills. What do you think?
The 30 has advanced video capability, so if you don't care about video, I would take the XT-2. It is a rugged camera. I dropped mine on concrete and it never even got a scratch. Unless the used one was really beat up, it is probably just as good as a new one - they are hard to destroy.
Apr 29, 2020 12:22:50 #
Afghanistan 2015
