100 megapixels - overkill-Canon R5S-Sony 7RV
May 25, 2021 12:22:02 #
Paul Diamond wrote:
Geeeeee! I don't remember any 'famous' (or creati... (show quote)
Without agreeing or disagreeing I’m asking you why you insist on publicly pissing into the wind ?
Paul is neutral. He is merely the wind. Only you can choose the direction in which to aim your stream.
May 25, 2021 12:59:29 #
Paul Diamond wrote:
Geeeeee! I don't remember any 'famous' (or creati... (show quote)
Yeah they feel because the cameras were bought and paid for they don't deserve any credit but in fact at least half of the credit should go to the camera. I don't think you can take photograph without a camera. Hmm may be you can????
May 25, 2021 13:00:54 #
As a wise man once said: Photography is 80% mental, and the other half is the camera.
May 27, 2021 08:20:25 #
Paul Diamond
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
CHG_CANON wrote:
As a wise man once said: Photography is 80% mental, and the other half is the camera.
quote borrowed from a Steve Perry thread -
"some people end up using the high-tech features as a substitute for learning real photographic skills, and therein lies the trap of gee-whiz technology"
You can do better with your 24 MP mirrorless camera by learning to develop more knowledge and skills. By the time you do, your skills and knowledge might be prepared for a higher MP mirrorless camera?
May 27, 2021 08:23:33 #
Don't let the photographer you were yesterday stop you from buying a better camera tomorrow.
May 27, 2021 08:27:44 #
Paul Diamond
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
CHG_CANON wrote:
Don't let the photographer you were yesterday stop you from buying a better camera tomorrow.
And a quote from Steve P for you -
"The tech only gets you so far though. Read my article on the three pillars of a great image for my perspective on it 🙂
In short, I don’t care of gear makes it easier, because technically perfect photos are, IMO, the bare minimum requirement. I’m far more interested in composition, artistic style, and light – none of which are readily baked into a chipset.
Also, as someone with an a1, I can promise you, there’s still a lot of tech work to do on our end LOL!"
May 27, 2021 08:35:52 #
May 27, 2021 11:13:17 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
As a wise man once said: Photography is 80% mental, and the other half is the camera.
I spoze that wize man was you ???
May 27, 2021 11:29:09 #
Paul Diamond wrote:
quote borrowed from a Steve Perry thread -
"some people end up using the high-tech features as a substitute for learning real photographic skills, and therein lies the trap of gee-whiz technology"
"some people end up using the high-tech features as a substitute for learning real photographic skills, and therein lies the trap of gee-whiz technology"
UHH provides many amusing examples of what Mr Perry has said.
The usual template for those entertaining queries is inquiring how to program the camera to set up for some particular type of shot. What mode, what compensation, what AF scheme, and so forth. This brings various ultra geeky replies on how to set up the camera. Acoarst confusion ensues.
The way that it demonstrates Mr Perry’s remark is that such amusing queries are all about avoiding doing or learning basic photography, despite the fact that it’s far trickier to program the camera than to just do the shot using only basic controls.
May 30, 2021 11:20:34 #
Paul Diamond
Loc: Atlanta, GA, USA
User ID wrote:
UHH provides many amusing examples of what Mr Perr... (show quote)
I do agree that learning to use your camera takes dedication, experimentation and effort.
However, buying the "latest" model of any camera doesn't translate into you getting better photos than you made before it. And maybe less so, if you still haven't learned how to best use your new toy, even if it is mirrorless instead of DSLR!
Jan 6, 2022 09:22:01 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Few lenses will give the result expected.
The "line resolution rating" of a lens is more important than any mpx rating and is an actual number. Pixels are only a hypothetical or mathematical estimate represented by a phantom number. Resolution has much to do about the lens and less to do about the number of estimated pixels... a great lens on a middle of the road 20 mpx dlsr camera body will outshine a 100 mpx mirror/less wonder camera body with a middle of the road lens on any day... most "kit lenses will only capture half of the body's estimate potential.
The "line resolution rating" of a lens is more important than any mpx rating and is an actual number. Pixels are only a hypothetical or mathematical estimate represented by a phantom number. Resolution has much to do about the lens and less to do about the number of estimated pixels... a great lens on a middle of the road 20 mpx dlsr camera body will outshine a 100 mpx mirror/less wonder camera body with a middle of the road lens on any day... most "kit lenses will only capture half of the body's estimate potential.
Jan 6, 2022 11:24:01 #
I had to get some head shots taken a few years ago at a professional studio. The photographer had a Canon 50D. I asked why the older lower resolution camera....his response was that for my face, lower resolution was better! I mentioned a fuzzy lens might help too. He knew I was a photography enthusiast so was joking. But the point was well made.
The other day playing round of golf with my nephew who shoots consistently in the 70s. I cannot get anywhere near that low. Must be his clubs! We switched. Odd thing, he can still shoot in the 70s with old equipment and I cannot with modern equipment. Hmmm.
At some point, file size thinking it will make a huge impact on our hobby gets a bit goofy.
The other day playing round of golf with my nephew who shoots consistently in the 70s. I cannot get anywhere near that low. Must be his clubs! We switched. Odd thing, he can still shoot in the 70s with old equipment and I cannot with modern equipment. Hmmm.
At some point, file size thinking it will make a huge impact on our hobby gets a bit goofy.
Jan 6, 2022 11:53:01 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Have you found the images that inspire you the most always have the most pixels?
I have a 41.4 MP Camera.
I have found so far that. one advantage, is in cropping one part of a picture, and enlarging it bigger.
Jan 6, 2022 12:44:42 #
Gene51 wrote:
Advertising and fashion, industrial, scientific, landscape, micro/macro, sports, you name it - anything you'd use a camera for - provided one has the very best lenses to use with either one. BTW, one is 45mp, the other is 61.
Using my 50MP for projects that need 50MP, I find I don’t need “the very best lenses”. True that mediocre lenses are just insufficient, but “the very best” is just an expensive marketing myth.
I do use only primes. None are exotically priced. They cost many hundreds but not thousands. They are NOT “f:8.0 only” compromise lenses.
OTOH, zooms as good as these primes would cost thousands or at least well over one thousand. And the zooms wouldn’t be f:1.8, either.
50MP (with no AA filter) is also beneficial with my T/S lenses, which have their own baked-in optical limitations.
Jan 6, 2022 13:29:11 #
charles tabb wrote:
I have a 41.4 MP Camera.
I have found so far that. one advantage, is in cropping one part of a picture, and enlarging it bigger.
I have found so far that. one advantage, is in cropping one part of a picture, and enlarging it bigger.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.