Transitioning from the Old Ways to the New Ways - the evolution of today's cameras
Jul 15, 2019 12:37:22 #
cactuspic
Loc: Dallas, TX
mniblick wrote:
One of the first things I noticed when I upgraded from a 720 p TV to a 4K TV was just how many actors had really bad skin. It was distracting for a while.
Will you shoot portraits in 100 megapixels and then take the images to Photoshop and blur them so that they will be acceptable?
Will you shoot portraits in 100 megapixels and then take the images to Photoshop and blur them so that they will be acceptable?
When my dad was a commercial photographer shooting large format in the 1950’s, he mentioned that he often had to soften the focus using tricks like shooting through a stretched stocking or a a filter with a dab of smeared Vaseline . The problem is not new
Jul 15, 2019 12:45:43 #
I think technology is the great equalizer. For those of us who love photography and looking at still pictures as an art, but know we have neither the funds or talent to aspire to be Ansel Adams, technology allows us to at least sit in the room in a back seat and dream. Are we better now because of technology? For the masses I'd say yes, because technology allows me to produce images I would have never been able to produce with a simple SLR camera. That being said...... the talented few........Ansel Adams, Dorthea Lange, Gordon Parkes etc.........would produce breathtaking images regardless of their equipment. Genius just is.
Jul 15, 2019 12:55:03 #
Chris T wrote:
About a half-century ago - every self-respecting p... (show quote)
I still enjoy shooting with film (even more so than digital), part of that is that the IQ is better than digital, but it's cheaper to shoot digital, so that is the main reason I do shoot it as well!
Jul 15, 2019 13:14:02 #
nadelewitz
Loc: Ithaca NY
Chris T wrote:
About a half-century ago - every self-respecting p... (show quote)
Besides some odd statements you made, starting with the very first one, you have made so many "points" that one does not know where to begin to discuss what you have said.
Jul 15, 2019 14:06:49 #
josquin1
Loc: Massachusetts
Back in the 1930s when work on computers was just starting I don't think anyone could even imagine what the digital world would become in relation to photography. Now we cannot imagine what the next new technology will be in say another 50 years or so. I won't see it, but guaranteed there will be a completely new technology for photography.
Jul 15, 2019 14:54:20 #
Chris T wrote:
About a half-century ago - every self-respecting p... (show quote)
I have a 24MP DSLR, though I happen to prefer the features and functionality of my 16MP DSLR. I'm not totally convinced any digital camera M5/4 thru Hasselblad, Fujifilm, Pentax, or PhaseOne Medium Format 6x4.5 to 6x7 cm (or there about) has the resolution of a 11x14" Film View Camera. Say Edward Weston or Imogen Cunningham. Also even ancient Daguerreotypes had incredible detail. Check those oldies out with a lupe (loop). Professional digital backs for 4x5" cameras might do it. I own two 4x5" film cameras and they can be tack sharp. Note, that is only a 2X enlargement to a 8x10" print. Many old school "extra" large format photographers shooting say 11x14" or 16x20" cameras left things at those sizes as contact prints. I wrote on another post that I am OK with MILC.
Jul 15, 2019 15:01:10 #
cactuspic wrote:
When my dad was a commercial photographer shooting large format in the 1950’s, he mentioned that he often had to soften the focus using tricks like shooting through a stretched stocking or a a filter with a dab of smeared Vaseline . The problem is not new
I once had to print a 35mm negative of a model (that I did not shoot) though a nylon stocking to soften the model's bad skin. I've heard of photographers putting Vaseline on a filter. One reason I don't fully understand the lust for 45MP FF cameras. They are too sharp for many uses, especially female portraiture. I mainly do close-ups, macro, and landscapes so yes, I might really like a 36MP or 45MP FF. My 24MP CF does mighty well.
Jul 15, 2019 15:06:53 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Do we need it? Probably not, but those who want it and can afford it will buy it. I don't need a D750, but I have one and I like it. Technology advances gradually. If enough people don't like the new things, they die on the vine.
Nice camera, a close friend of mine bought a D750 last year. Even as a 24MP FF it produces fantastic IQ. Now I think he is lusting for a D850. He has the 24-120mm f/4 FX lens and a 150-600mm FX Zoom.
Jul 15, 2019 15:11:49 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
I don't think even billboards need 100 MPx. Nobody looks at them up close except the guy who glues the paper on (assuming they're still made of paper).
Yes, one of the more regular commentators on here says he made billboards and well murals with some old 4MP camera or similar. It is all in the viewing distance.
Jul 15, 2019 16:46:17 #
cactuspic
Loc: Dallas, TX
lamiaceae wrote:
I once had to print a 35mm negative of a model (that I did not shoot) though a nylon stocking to soften the model's bad skin. I've heard of photographers putting Vaseline on a filter. One reason I don't fully understand the lust for 45MP FF cameras. They are too sharp for many uses, especially female portraiture. I mainly do close-ups, macro, and landscapes so yes, I might really like a 36MP or 45MP FF. My 24MP CF does mighty well.
Mike,
You would like the higher mp count for you macro, especially if you focus stack. With its extended depth of tack sharp focus, your subject can show far nearly perfect focus, instead of a single point of focus, with everything closer or further starting to deteriorate.
Irwin
Jul 15, 2019 17:24:17 #
I'm finding point 'n shoot digis (usually without charger) littering thrift store shelves as people who never learned how to use a film camera ("These pix shot in the gym all all BLURRY!") got them and now use a cellphone camera because the digital camera was too hard to use. A lot of Canon Powershots, some with optical finder, other with "live view" screens. 16MP Canon PS for $1. The evolution continues.
Back 50 years there were photographers into "subminiatures" such as Minox, Minolta 16 and others who like to wring the most out of the tiny format. I wonder if some of the 2, 3 and 5 MP cameras will be discovered? Of course there is no size-saving as their was with a tiny Minox.
Back 50 years there were photographers into "subminiatures" such as Minox, Minolta 16 and others who like to wring the most out of the tiny format. I wonder if some of the 2, 3 and 5 MP cameras will be discovered? Of course there is no size-saving as their was with a tiny Minox.
Jul 15, 2019 19:09:58 #
Better resolution has been around since the 60's. Think about the cameras used in the U2 spy plane. Today's satellites read can license plates from 100 miles up. It's only the digital revolution that seems to have caught up with us.
I like the higher resolution. One can always dial back.
Hardy Morgan
I like the higher resolution. One can always dial back.
Hardy Morgan
Jul 15, 2019 22:06:58 #
And does anyone NEED a mirror less camera after spending thousands of dollars on DSLR cameras and lenses?
Jul 15, 2019 23:59:57 #
cactuspic wrote:
Mike,
You would like the higher mp count for you macro, especially if you focus stack. With its extended depth of tack sharp focus, your subject can show far nearly perfect focus, instead of a single point of focus, with everything closer or further starting to deteriorate.
Irwin
You would like the higher mp count for you macro, especially if you focus stack. With its extended depth of tack sharp focus, your subject can show far nearly perfect focus, instead of a single point of focus, with everything closer or further starting to deteriorate.
Irwin
Actually, I do focus stack Close-ups and Macro with both my 16MP and 24MP APS-C DSLRs. But I usually have no interest in printing larger than 10x15". Not enough space for huge prints. The 36MP to 50MP cameras are Full Frame.
What I do want to try is shoot "super" macro/micro with my Leitz Ortholux Microscope. But that dang thing is too huge to set up in my house! It is a 1959-1969 then state of the art professional microscope. Hard to even lift.
Jul 16, 2019 00:03:27 #
I have been taking photos since the mid-50s. My first camera was a Brownie with a separate flash unit that screwed on the side and used blue flash bulbs. It had a plastic flap over the bulb because they sometimes exploded. I have been through just about every iteration since, up to and including DSLR, although I have yet to get into mirrorless. I may never get into those as I am quite satisfied with what I can do with the DSLR and have not yet really mastered all it can do.
The point here is this: 100 years ago photographers were using cameras that are now museum pieces, objects of curiosity only and rarely, if ever, used anymore. Today's commonplace cameras were science fiction back then. So do any of you think for one minute that 100 years from now photographers will be using anything that remotely resembles the cameras in use today? I have absolutely no idea what they will be using 100 years from now; I just know it would be science fiction to us and there is no one alive right now who can even remotely guess what it will be. For now, enjoy the moment.
The point here is this: 100 years ago photographers were using cameras that are now museum pieces, objects of curiosity only and rarely, if ever, used anymore. Today's commonplace cameras were science fiction back then. So do any of you think for one minute that 100 years from now photographers will be using anything that remotely resembles the cameras in use today? I have absolutely no idea what they will be using 100 years from now; I just know it would be science fiction to us and there is no one alive right now who can even remotely guess what it will be. For now, enjoy the moment.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.