Check out People Photography section of our forum.
Your opinion matters
Nov 30, 2019 09:16:22 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Flickwet wrote:
A day late and a whole thread short Bucko
Some of us, BUCKO, have handicaps which prevent us from responding in a timely manner, but we also, BUCKO, like to feel and sense of contributing, no matter how late, BUCKO.
Nov 30, 2019 12:54:35 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
My comment wasn’t to the OP. I think if that’s what he can afford it’s a fine choice. My comment was in reference to someone saying the D700 is a better camera than the D610, to which someone else asked what they based that on.
And you're quite right, Jimmy. The facts are inarguable, and to 99% of users, the choice would be a clear one.
I was just pointing out to other readers who might be looking at the two as comparable. As you note, they're not.
12MP and relatively ancient technology aren't good enough for me, but for some who are aspiring to full frame above all else, they might be.
Some have urged me to go full frame, but the APS format is best suited to my needs, and I'm unlikely to succumb for many years to full frame's siren song. After all, I've got to have some funds for film and processing for my Hasselblad, Leica, and Rolleiflex!
AndyH sends respect and props....
Nov 30, 2019 13:13:20 #
billnikon wrote:
Some of us, BUCKO, have handicaps which prevent us from responding in a timely manner, but we also, BUCKO, like to feel and sense of contributing, no matter how late, BUCKO.
I'm so glad BUCKO you took the time BUCKO to contribute your thoughts BUCKO. We can never have too much information BUCKO. And a big shoutout to all the other BUCKOs out there.
Check out Commercial and Industrial Photography section of our forum.
Nov 30, 2019 13:30:55 #
Nov 30, 2019 14:14:30 #
AndyH wrote:
12MP and relatively ancient technology aren't good enough for me, but for some who are aspiring to full frame above all else, they might be.
12MP and relatively ancient technology aren't good enough for me, but for some who are aspiring to full frame above all else, they might be.
Photography is not about megapixels it’s first and foremost about optics.
I have a few 8x10 prints from the early digital days, taken by a pro with good class using a digital camera, and they looked great then and they still look great.
I recall showing them to my friends back then and everyone was shocked when I told them that the images were from a digital camera.
Nov 30, 2019 15:14:05 #
billnikon wrote:
Some of us, BUCKO, have handicaps which prevent us from responding in a timely manner, but we also, BUCKO, like to feel and sense of contributing, no matter how late, BUCKO.
Procrastination is a fault, NOT! a handicap
Nov 30, 2019 16:26:47 #
PixelStan77 wrote:
I would not buy a camera with a range of 100,000 to 415,000. Also that bargain may not be a USA camera. If not Nikon will not touch it.
Go with one for $849 refurbished from Nikon with a warranty.
https://www.adorama.com/inkd610r.html
You can pay it out over 6 months with Adorama.
Go with one for $849 refurbished from Nikon with a warranty.
https://www.adorama.com/inkd610r.html
You can pay it out over 6 months with Adorama.
Go with a new D750 for $999.
Check out Traditional Street and Architectural Photography section of our forum.
Nov 30, 2019 16:47:51 #
BebuLamar wrote:
Go with a new D750 for $999.
We have a new winner!!! Thank you, my faith in the human spirit is not diminished.
Nov 30, 2019 17:34:58 #
Flickwet wrote:
We have a new winner!!! Thank you, my faith in the human spirit is not diminished.
Not a new winner. I am not even sure it's a better buy than the used D610 but it's a better deal than a refurbished D610 for $849.
Nov 30, 2019 18:28:29 #
JD750 wrote:
Photography is not about megapixels it’s first and foremost about optics.
I have a few 8x10 prints from the early digital days, taken by a pro with good class using a digital camera, and they looked great then and they still look great.
I recall showing them to my friends back then and everyone was shocked when I told them that the images were from a digital camera.
I have a few 8x10 prints from the early digital days, taken by a pro with good class using a digital camera, and they looked great then and they still look great.
I recall showing them to my friends back then and everyone was shocked when I told them that the images were from a digital camera.
Of course. but to obtain the maximum quality from those good lenses, with some room for cropping and enlargement, 16MP is my personal minimum. Yes, you can make good prints with a lower resolution body, but my personal minimum, based on the cameras I've owned, is 24MP. As I said above, it's an individual choice. Why spend money on lenses capable of resolving much more than the sensors on your camera.
Andy
Nov 30, 2019 20:34:52 #
Nov 30, 2019 21:23:18 #
Very nice shot! Now crop it and print it at 16x20 and I'll give my opinion on whether it has sufficient pixels for my needs.
Andy
Andy
Nov 30, 2019 21:49:46 #
I have an 11x17 hanging in my office, 13x19 paper on a Canon Pixma 100.
I don’t know if it posted but at 11x17 it’s terrific. Shot with a 3.5 mpix, Fuji S-1 Pro or a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mgpix) I don’t remember, the lower one is the Fuji for sure
I don’t know if it posted but at 11x17 it’s terrific. Shot with a 3.5 mpix, Fuji S-1 Pro or a Nikon Coolpix 5000 (5mgpix) I don’t remember, the lower one is the Fuji for sure
Nov 30, 2019 23:33:26 #
AndyH wrote:
And you're quite right, Jimmy. The facts are inarg... (show quote)
Same here. I don’t see a FF in my future. I love my D500 and D7200 but it seems the camera I use most often is heading the other direction, my MFT Panasonic G9.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Photo Critique Section section of our forum.