Bob Locher :

Bob,
To answer your question honestly: Yes & No. (a) Any larger sensor, all else equal, will give higher resolution. (b) All else equal, the more pixels in a given sensor, will give higher resolution. Problem: All is not EVER equal. First, it is NOT just the number of pixels (achieved via utilizing smaller pixel for a greater number in a smaller sensor, or using same sized pixels in a larger sensor. It is the quality and type and size of the pixels themselves. My choice of cameras is the professional (old) Fuji S5 Pro which went a totally different direction by incorporating 6.1 small pixels to better capture highlights plus 6.1 large pixels to better capture shadows. Results is a camera that can create an HD image in ONE exposure where Canon & Nikon users have to take at least two (one under exposed and one over exposed - plus one right on for best results). Then Fuji created an interpolating system to increase the resolution resulting from having only 12.2 Mp caused by using the non-full frame sensor (I guess to keep cost lower)- giving an all around superior image even tho' it has the smaller sensor. When the Fuji first came out it was touted by both reviewers and professionals as capturing the best color (aka 'skin tones) of any DSLR available. But, that is just my take on the issue.
YOU SPEND YOUR MONEY; YOU MAKE YOUR OWN CHOICE. (my choice isn't even made anymore)

grandpaw:

Excellent photograph in every respect: composition, exposure, etc. Did you use a 400mm lens: they are fairly skittish.

Graham Thirkill :

Well, Graham, that was a really beautiful story. It related a time when there were Humans on Planet Earth. But, a coin has two sides and TODAY's side has a much darker color. Today, not only do doctors NOT make 'House Calls', they don't even make phone calls . . . they won't even answer a simple 'Yes or No' question without an "Office Visit". And while the evils in this world are perpetrated by the "Evil Ones', we are also responsible for allowing such with our "If it doesn't happen to me, it doesn't concern me" attitude. I sometime with I could completely lose my mind (and awareness of the way the world is today) and live what years I have left in a fantasy of yesterday.
Have a nice day.

Bill_de :

One stop makes difference at 2mm or any in between. If one stop MORE would make a perfectly exposed image, one stop less won't make the image unusable- just a bit darker. I'm sure the 400mm f2.8 is many times more costly than the other you mentioned; but, will even 50% of your images REQUIRE the extra expense? Only you can decide.

Thanks everybody for playing with me (more or less) most got it right.

You win the "Best Answer of All" award.

Nope see other answers in particular the one that states a shadow moves faster after you pass the light

Nope. See other answers.

OK- You're walking down a dark, narrow, One-Way street at 1:34 A.M. in Kansas City, KS. There is NO moon! There are NO lighted buildings. There is a blank, white, block wall to your right the full length of the short block. With the direction you're walking, you are approaching the ONE lone, but quite bright, streetlight on the OTHER side. As you get close to being abreast of that light, does your shadow:
(a) follow you as you pass the light?
(b) precede you as you pass the light?
(c) stay abreast of you as you pass the light?
(d) since you are a Vampire, you cast NO shadow!
(e) None of the above.

ronsipus :

May I disagree? That is NOT so much the face of age, but the face of a very hard life. This is the face of 'age' (80 years), and while I haven't had it easy, by any means, I never had to wonder where my next meal was coming from. The photo you presented looks like someone who literally had to struggle on a 'Day-to-Day' basis for Life itself.
The photo, however, is quite good.

(Download)

nanaval :


Putting in a shadow isn't usually terribly difficult . . . BUT, HOW ON EARTH WERE YOU ABLE TO GET THAT GIRL TO HOLD IN THAT POSITION WHILE YOU TOOK HER PHOTO? Sheer MAGIC!

JD750:

I liked you very honest comment; actually, and with some people, 'Great' can be VERY subjective.
I used to be a pilot (license is always good as long as I don't fly the Space Shuttle under the Golden Gate Bridge)
and in 2003, I decided to build a small plane; there are several kits available, but I soon found out that even kits
are Veeeeeeery expensive. Building one from plans is quite reasonable, as far as the 'Plane' is concerned, but once
you start adding instrumentation, the cost soars dramatically! That, I didn't think about and since the available plans
didn't suit me, I designed my own. It turned out rather nice (took me a whole 90 minutes to finalize- maybe a bit
'suspect'?) Anyway, after I did some "Cost Accounting" the cost came to over $68,000, and since I'm also NOT a
cost accountant (I'm also NOT an Aeronautical Engineer, either), I added 50% to that amount to cover any stupidity
on my part. Well, that final amount was prohibitive- plus my age (at the time) was 65 and considering my luck, I would
have dropped dead the day it was finished, so decided against the project. I had built a sailboat back in '78; actually lived on it
for 10 years before moving to Hell, NV (aka Las Vegas), so the construction wasn't a big fear. The boat cost me just
$16,100 and the nice thing was that the amount was spread out over 3 years . . . pretty easy. But I was curious as to whether
my airplane would even fly or not. Some friends I had at the time told me about software that could evaluate aircraft design,
so I set to task of looking . . . and finding- one for the diminutive cost of $7,500! Uh . . . NO! But, I kept looking and finally found
a Cad-Evaluative jobbie for $99 and grabbed it. Turns out my plane would have flown and apparently quite well; original design
with 2 modified Corvair engines of 250 HP each (Yes, Corvair engines @ $2,000 instead of 2 Continental or Lycoming engines at
$20,000 EACH would have had a top speed of 281 MPH.! And utilizing the software to sorta 'Reverse Engineer' my own design plus
bumping the HP of each engine to 350 by Turbocharging, the final speed came to 401 mph! Not bad, huh. Anyway, here 'tis. The first
image/drawing is my original hand line drawing; the last 3 are drawings created by the software. If I had won the lottery and could have
expected to live to be 100, I would have built it! Thanks for being so patient as to allow me to share my dream that DIDN'T come to pass.
UHH folks are 'besties'.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

photogeneralist:

Tell them . . . The color of 'T-Rex'! Remember "Jurassic Park"? The DNA was held secure for millions of years in . . . you guessed it . . . Amber.

willmscr:

One can spend money and THINK they are getting more for more money (try shopping at Nordstrom if you think that). If that is your Paradigm, what I offer here won't mean anything. I had never heard of Tubu as I never used a backpack as a pro photographer; however, I had occasion to shoot a gig where my equipment was likely to disappear, so I purchased one. Not knowing if I would ever use it again ( I always used an aluminum hard case for my 'goodies'), I got a 'cheapie' Vivitar from Amazon for $19. Upon searching the nearest Tubu thing, also on Amazon, was a 6070 for $85. It had the same number of dividers as the Vivitar. So, what do I have in my Vivitar: 2 DSLR bodies, one with a Nikon MB-D200 extended battery grip, a 11-16mm f2.8, 16-35mm f2.8, and a 28-105mm f2.8, plus a 'Doubler'. A Nikon SB-800 flash plus a MONSTER Interfit Strobies 360 bare bulb with round reflector (360 ws of power- 4X the power of the sun), and a rotating flash bracket, plus misc. goodies. Both the Strobies round reflector and the 4½ amp Strobies battery/power pack (450 flashes at Strobies full 360ws power/over 1000 for the SB-800- will fully light a school gymnasium) had to go in pockets outside. It's cramped, but all fits without forcing. I just noticed Amazon raised the price to $23. I have bought Vivitar products, including their lenses, over the past 30 years and never had a complaint. Is a Vivitar lens as good as a Nikon, Canon, or Tamron SP . . . NO; but they are as good as Sigma and a lot less.
Something to think about.

handsab;

I'll tell you my Horror stories: I have over a thousand dollars of useless printers with clogged heads: one $850 Canon 13X19 format 10 ink, and 2 cheapie Epsons. They are all inkjet. With disuse, inkjet heads clog up with ink- usually the Cyan. I had the head replaced in the Canon twice for about $100, but, then Canon, in their GREEDY Marketing, quit making the 'replacement' heads. Instead they made a 'replacement' printer for another $850. NO MORE CANON FOR ME! Same with Epson (only dif is that one doesn't hurt so much when a $59 printer goes 'belly up'!
Solution? Buy a color Laser printer. The color is just as good; the only real dif is the demarcation between colors is not quite as sharp (still very minimal), so ultimate sharpness is not as much.
But you said ultimate sharpness wasn't your main desire . . . so, there's you solution. And you can print forever with a Laser printer (almost- I haven't found 'Forever' yet).
The best description between an inkjet and Laser, is that a Laser print looks more like a fine painting than a print. They are a bit higher; my 8X10, 2-sided printer, cost $350 and aftermarket toner kits (all 3 colors +black was less than $100 and works just as well as the $400 Brother set.
My take, anyway. Any questions, just leave a quarter on the counter.