Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: PHRubin
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 338 next>>
Mar 20, 2024 13:34:11   #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
As for full frame I figured if upgrading go with larger sensor. 16 x 20 is as large as I'll print.

Full frame will let me crop more too.
Granted my logic can be faulty
I also do astrophotography through a 10 inch scope


When you crop the image of a full frame by 1.5, you reduce the pixel count to only 44.4% of the original. For crops/blow-ups, using a crop camera of 24 MP is like using a full frame of 54 MP.
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 14:36:20   #
I suspect the kit 18-135 lens is an EF-S lens, for crop cameras only. If Canon changed and now allows crop lenses on full frame mirrorless bodies, the camera will go into crop mode and eliminate the contribution of over 1/2 the sensor pixels. I went to the R7 to get all the mirrorless features in a crop body.

What makes you want a full frame?
Go to
Mar 19, 2024 14:29:58   #
selmslie wrote:
...What happens to noise when you move the Exposure slider to the right to brighten the image? With each stop added via the Exposure slider we increase the apparent brightness by one stop. But we also double the effect of shot noise and this lowers the visible SNR....


NO! When we increase ISO most of us either reduce aperture or exposure time. This decreases S/N ratio.
Go to
Mar 18, 2024 21:23:15   #
After 42nd St changed hands it lost its good reputation.
Go to
Mar 10, 2024 15:24:58   #
As you can see, I have 2 pocket models, both Panasonic Lumix. The DMC-ZS100 is for the 1" sensor and I love it. I got it before the ZS200 came out. The DCZS80 is for the wide range zoom lens, and I love it too. Both have viewfinders which I insist on. Both are a little large for pocket use and require large pockets. I chose the ZS80 over the HX99 due to worries I'd break the 99's pop-up viewfinder. All have wider zoom ranges than the models with 25-75 or so lenses - I'm a fan of wide range zooms.
Go to
Mar 7, 2024 12:48:36   #
Good idea, take one.
Go to
Mar 4, 2024 13:09:59   #
I do not like to change lenses while on a shoot, so 70-200 or 300 plus a 24-70 doesn't work for me.
I compromised price vs zoom range and have a Sigma 18-300 mm zoom. Here is a used one for under $400:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/802751343-USE/sigma_886306_18_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_dc_macro.html
Here is a better one: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/802871618-USE/sigma_886306_18_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_dc_macro.html

Nikon also makes an 18-300, but it is more expensive.

The Tamron 18-400 is heavier and more expensive, but with more range.
Go to
Mar 3, 2024 14:53:18   #
JohnR wrote:
There's a big difference in both systems and cameras Jim. Nikon APSC vs OM M4/3, DSLR vs Mirrorless. Your 150-300mm Sigma lens gives a 35mm equivalent of 225-450mm on your D7100. A 70-300mm M4/3 lens gives you an equivalent of 140-600mm on an OM body. Clarity/sharpness is more related to the quality of the lens you have than the sensor size/system - consumer grade lenses from both are similar in sharpness ...


The difference in the systems is the sensor size, which has little to do with clarity. It hass more to do with cropping and overall size. The D7100 has an APS-C sensor which has a 1.5 crop factor, the OM 1 has a smaller micro 4/3 (MFT) sensor which has a 2.0 crop factor, making the result look like it was taken with a longer lens.

You can compare the two here (with a D7500 rather than D7100):
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/OM+SYSTEM_OM-1_vs_Nikon_D7500/BHitems/1688415-REG_1333060-REG
Go to
Mar 3, 2024 14:43:34   #
BebuLamar wrote:
Yeah they don't want to take pictures of their venues. I don't want to take pictures where they don't want me to take pictures.


It usually isn't the venue. It is the contracts with the performers who want royalties on their image, performance.
Go to
Mar 2, 2024 14:07:51   #
Frank T wrote:
I scan old photos with the same scanner I use for documents. Check the settings and if you can scan at 300 ppi you should be fine.
If you look at the software there probably a setting for photos.


I do the same!
Go to
Feb 29, 2024 14:30:07   #
datsmar wrote:
...I allso still have my 5d mark 3 and and 580ex ...


My flash is older than that, I've had it a long time. It is a 550EX! I use it on my R7. No adapter required.
Go to
Feb 23, 2024 14:05:17   #
markwilliam1 wrote:
If you are just trying to capture Totality you Don’t need a filter. A few years ago in Indiana I captured amazing pictures of Totality without any filters on my Sony camera. Good Luck


That is what I did. Totality only so no filter.
Go to
Feb 17, 2024 15:03:35   #
User ID wrote:
Okaaay. Ive found the discrepency. Its partly me and partly that old devil, Nikon vs Canon.

Firstly, I get 22.7MP, not 27.2MP. The rest of the difference is, as I described earlier, that I am cropping the image myself so starting out with FF I cut it right in half, to 18x24mm. My 45MP body is a Nikon so, even if I were to let the camera engage the APSC format, Id still retain more than 17MP cuz 17 is peculiar to Canons reduced version of the APSC format.

----------------------------------------------

I had figured from my Nikon cuz my Canon is 50MP and so acoarst my cropping that image myself to 18x24 would leave 25MP. If I were to let that camera internally engage Canons own version of APSC, that would leave 20MP. So, bottom line, I was using Nikon specs.
Okaaay. Ive found the discrepency. Its partly me a... (show quote)


Actually, you were cropping yourself and ignoring the APS-C level of crop which for Nikon is 1.5. Using the Nikon crop factor 45/1.5/1.5=20
Go to
Feb 17, 2024 14:54:55   #
I find the OP confusing. MP is an image PIXEL count, MB is a FILE size, and "never the twain shall meet."

The first question is what size FILE did you create? How?

Where was it changed, or was it? Obviously a 36 MP image creates more than a 175 KB file. A Thumbnail of the image can be 175 KB.

What do you use for email?

Do you ATTACH the photo file or somehow get the image in the email body?
Go to
Feb 17, 2024 02:25:31   #
User ID wrote:
If I crop my 45MP FF to APSC I get waaaay more than 17MP. Ive still got 27MP. Thaz the benefit of not limiting my options. But if 17MP is really somehow the result with your set up, that is a rather unfortunately heavy loss. The math doesnt hold up, but maybe your FW is doing that ?


The math is as follows: BOTH length and width are reduced by 1.6. So, start with 45 then 45/1.6/1.6=17.57. Now that is reducing the 45MP by a 1.6 crop per side. If you got more you reduced it less.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 338 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.