I am still using Canon DSLRs and also have the Samsung S22 Ultra mobile phone.
I've recently returned from 5 weeks in New Zealand photographing scenery, waterfalls, animals, museums, watersports etc. and my 18 month old granddaughter. Some subjects were taken on the phone, some on a camera, and some on both.
The phone photos looked stunning on the phone screen, much better than on the camera screens, which are, of course, much smaller. However, on my return home, and selecting keepers and discards, where both were used for the same subject the cameras (with their "L" lenses) were definitely the keepers.
Now I have been a photographic society member for over 40 years and instinctively I do look for the best possible quality, even for my holiday photos which will probably never be entered in a competition. So I admit to being fussy and understand those who feel that phone photos are getting good enough to satisfy many people. But for now they remain a very good second best. I believe they always will, as the parallel technologies both continue improving.
Finally, even on the best mobile phones, with their "Pro" settings, the degree of personal input away from the auto settings falls far short of a DSLR or Mirrorless camera.
Brilliant. What an amazing collection. In many ways makes one want to turn the clocks back. If only!!!
CHG_CANON wrote:
Sadly, there's no way to put a stake through the heart of this level if misinformation.
There is NO DIFFERENCE (Nil, Nada, Zero, Zilch) between a pixel based image at 3000x2000 and any other pixel-based image at 3000x2000. There are no 'dots' in pixel-based images. There is a text-tag for DPI, but unlike the idea espoused above, the pixels are not closer nor further from each other. The pixels run 3000 wide and 2000 up. That's why the file sizes are exactly the same. DPI is as relevant as the create-date of the file. Or the copyright. Or any other text-based EXIF data.
The print quality of a 3000-pixel wide image is exactly the same as any 3000-pixel wide image. If you want a 300 pixels per inch print, just do the simple math: 3000/300 = 10-inches wide. If you want a large print, just calculate the resulting pixel resolution. Try 200ppi for 15-inches wide. The issue is the output paper / print-size and how the data supporting the pixels are 'spread' by the printer over the target print surface. There are no dots in pixel based images. There are only legacy text-based values of DPI to confuse far too many people on the internet in Feb 2023.
Don't believe me? Still? Here's three sample files, each 3000x3000. Each the same file size in bytes. Each with a different DPI: 10, 72, 500. They were output by Adobe Lightroom who accepts any whole number value greater than 0 and just writes that text value into the EXIF-tags of file, to make anyone who believes this myth happy. See the screen capture for details or download and inspect yourself.
Sadly, there's no way to put a stake through the h... (
show quote)
Paul, I appreciate that you often give out very good advice, but you have totally misunderstood me here.
I was replying to the suggestion that changing the resolution would alter the file size. I was agreeing with you that 3000x2000 pixels will always give the same open file size, whatever the resolution.
I did also state that resolution means nothing when screen viewing.
However it makes a big difference when printing. Whatever your file size, if you want to print too big, thereby unduly reducing the ppi resolution, you will reduce the quality of the print. Opinions do differ, but for an entry into a national or international exhibition I would aim for 300ppi pixel resolution and my maximum dots per inch (dpi) settings (4800H/2400V) on my Canon ImagePrograf 300 printer.
In your criticism of my comments you kept quoting DPI which I had not even mentioned. I am, however, fully aware of the difference between DPI and PPI. We were, I believe, stating much the same advice so why attack me in the way you did?
twowindsbear wrote:
Try reducing the resolution. That may work. Good luck in the contest, too.
Resolution has nothing to do with the file size. What determines that is the total number of pixels. Resolution merely refers to how closely those pixels are squeezed together.
3000x2000 pixels at 72 pixels per inch will create the same file size as 3000x2000 pixels at 300 pixels per inch. The difference between the two will only really matter if you print the image. The latter will give a smaller print but better quality as the pixel density will be higher.
gwilliams6 wrote:
DPReview: Sony LA-EA 5 Adapter Review: Real Time Tracking with vintage lenses! Note: this is a 2020 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8naWq_Lp5U
From Sony about the LA-EA 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXpAtouJVPk
Professional Sports shooter, Patrick Murphy-Racey using the LA-EA 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN3N6ZMxJys
BTW, after using both pro Nikon and Canon gear (both brands for over 40 years) I moved to Sony mirrorless in January 2017 and have never regretted it. I have owned A6500, A7RII, A7RIII, A7III, A9, and currently own A7RIV, A1, A7SIII. And I currently own 13 native E-mount lenses covering 12mm-600mm from Sony, Sigma, Tamron.
I would have loved to have that A-mount 300mm 2.8 lens. Sony has said there finally will be an E-mount 300mm f2.8 GM coming in 2024.
Cheers and best to you.
DPReview: Sony LA-EA 5 Adapter Review: Real Time T... (
show quote)
Sorry! You moved to Sony 6 years ago and since then have purchased 8 of their bodies. Doesn't sound a very good recommendation to me.
Jack 13088 wrote:
I think the club style contest is the best learning experience you get. Every meeting you bring forward your best work and the judge may say “I like that one” and then in detail tells you how to improve it seemingly ripping it to shreds. That rock is too bright and draws the eye away from… or darken the sky a bit this is not a picture of the sky… or tighten the crop a bit that will … . If you came to have your ego puffed you will be disappointed and angry. But if you came to learn you will see the judge has pushed you away from good toward great. You might appreciate that mean judge.
I think the club style contest is the best learnin... (
show quote)
I completely agree. I have been a member of my local photographic society for 37 years and have enjoyed all the monthly competitions, whether I have entered or not. They are firstly a great source of learning and secondly some light hearted competition between friends. As far as judges are concerned some, of course, are better than others. Ones I particularly admire are those who will say words to the effect "this is not a subject which I personally enjoy but it is a very good and worthy example so I will give it an award". For 7 years I was Competition Secretary so it fell on me to book good judges. There was only one in all that time that I marked in my records never to invite back.
If you are printing photos with non OEM inks the important thing to establish is that your retail ink supplier only sources from one wholesale supplier. You can then do calibrations for your printer, ink and papers which should not change when you replace ink cartridges. Unfortunately many suppliers of compatible (non OEM) inks themselves multi source which makes calibration near impossible.
I recently upgraded from The Canon 9500 Mk2 to the Pro 300. My 9500 needed a new part which was, understandably, no longer produced 13 years after the model was discontinued. However, Canon still offered me 20% off the Pro 300.
Initial impressions are very favourable, also their Professional Print and Layout software. You can't reset the chips in the cartridges the way you could with earlier models. However, OctoInkjet in the UK offers a way round that with their inks and I expect Precision in the US will have something similar if you want to use non OEM ink.
Canon do seem to have mastered avoiding blocked printheads better than Epson have.
goldenyears wrote:
I should have added on my original reply that I do it this way because I want the photos transferred off the camera at the earliest opportunity before I have returned home from a vacation photo shoot.
So Google Drive or Dropbox are great options.
Fabulous. Photos to die for!
CrazyJane wrote:
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog about the Lightroom v.12 update that's been rolling out this past week. The really mind-bending updates are to masking, which has new superpowers for selecting objects, people (and people's anatomy -- lips, eyes, face skin, hair, etc.), and backgrounds. These new mask selection types now complement sky and subject masking selections, as well as the existing masking tools and gradients. There's tremendous power in just this fragment of the v.12 update, not to mention all of the other updates.
Those of you wedded to the v.6 stand-alone are really missing the boat. I try hearing you when you say things like "... it meets my needs" and stuff like that, but that's like riding a horse to the store and saying "well, it get's me there 'n' back, dunn'it?" No offense intended, but you're stuck in 2015. Time to get back to the future. You just might find that you like it there. (Acourst it does cost a whopping .33 cents a day, so there's that big hit to consider.)
I'm surprised there's so little chatter on the Hog... (
show quote)
Completely agree. Whenever I hear photographers complaining about £10/month subscriptions I think back to what I used to spend on film and developing. Also, the latest Adobe CC programmes are light years ahead of the old "one off purchase" versions.
gvarner wrote:
What would be a minimum kit for indoor real estate photography and other indoor venues with low light? A friend of mine wants to know.
I did this job part time for 11 years after I retired from my main career.
For interiors I used a 12-24mm Tamron lens. By squeezing my back right into a corner of the room 14mm gave me a 90 degree field of view, including both the walls running into my corner. In other words, all but the corner I was standing in showed in the photo. Camera was Canon full frame.
I then set the camera settings to expose for the windows and used the flash settings to correctly expose the room, bouncing the light off the ceiling.
Sometimes the wide-angle lens did distort some of the detail, but I adjusted for that in Photoshop.
For external shots I used my 24-105mm L lens.
I hope that helps.
Nigel.
In the UK you get offered free Shingles vaccination by our National Health System when you reach 70. The normal vaccine is a single dose of Zostavax, which is a live vaccine. Therefore, if you have a weakened immune system, you get the newer Shingrix vaccine in 2 doses. This is a non-live vaccine.
Can anyone say they have ever seen still water yet many only want to photograph it that way. Landscape photography is meant to be realistic, so surely we must show movement in waterfalls, lakes etc.
I was born in the late 40s and grew up in the 50s & 60s when it was expected that you used Mr, Mrs etc. for anyone of an older generation. For some inexplicable reason there was a belief that that showed respect. Where on earth did that assumption come from. You can disrespect a person but still use his/her title.
We are given Christian names for them to be used. My children's friends have always used mine and I am delighted that they did. They were also suitably respectful.
There are some things today which have taken a step backwards from when I was a child. This is not one of them.
I do not want to be remembered as a pensioner who is living in the past. Much in the world has changed for the better and we should all embrace it - perhaps with a few exceptions. I would hate to be seen as a dinosaur by the younger generations.