Digital camera help!

In article ,
"bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

If you’re looking to make enlargements, you’ll need a lot of pixels. The more pixels you have, the larger a print you can make, and the more you can crop an image and keep the cropped area a particular size.

Unfortunately, to make enlargements for putting up on the wall, you probably won’t be happy with 2-4 megapixel images, which is what you’ll get for $300. If you can spring for a camera in the 5-6 megapixel range, I think you may be happier with the results.

I’m quite fond of Canon cameras; I have both a Canon Digital Elph and a Canon digital SLR that I’m quite happy with. A couple friends of mine have Sony Cybershot cameras, which also seem quite good; I have been less impressed with HP digital cameras. As with anything else, though, your mileage may and probably will vary.

—
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more!
www.xeromag.com/franklin.html

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

At that price – buy a film camera.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

bmw wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Try asking in rec.photo.digital, or search the archives of that newsgroup. Lots of help of offer there.

—
The email address used to post is a spam pit. Contact me at http://www.derekfountain.org : <a
href="http://www.derekfountain.org/">Derek Fountain</a>

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

Owen Ransen wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

I am not about to criticise the article on that webpage in the way I could. Let’s just say that it was very optimistic, exaggerated and in places, straight out inaccurate. It was basically written by a person who was clearly biased towards using a camera for his particular needs, which were very undemanding needs.
Simple as this, all other things being equal, the higher megapixel camera will give better quality, period. (All other things being equal means both cameras have quality lenses, quality metering and focusing systems, etc. An el cheapo no-name 4MP camera can often give far less quality than a decent quality 3MP camera, but that is a silly comparison). From my experiences and understanding, if you want to purchase an inexpensive camera, you need to decide what size you may want to print to, and a "rough" guide could be taken as follows: need to print at A4: 5MP camera
need to print 6" x 8" 4MP camera
need to print 4" x 6" 3MP camera
Please note I am talking about images at the quality of image you are used to obtaining from a "basic" film compact camera. The above cameras could print at larger sizes than shown, but would not be photo quality. They would be noticably digital. This is only from my experiences, please do not take as being gospel.

Brian.

In article , bmwdriver
says…

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Thanks!!

BMW

BMW,

This is probably not the best news group to ask this question. While there are many photographers here, you might be best served in one of the photo NG’s, like rec.photo.digital.

That said, the first advice that I would give is to go to www.dpreview.com and take a look. This is a "comparison" review site and allows the user to select several cameras, which have been reviewed, and do a comparison between them. It also goes a long way toward de-mystifying a lot of the terms that define digital cameras.

Lastly, once you have narrowed your search to say, three cameras, go to a good photo shop and actually handle them. Ergonomics play a major role in the use you will get from the camera. As you are just starting out, I’d also recommend that you purchase from a full-service camera store, rather than just save a few $’s (or whatever your monetary exchange is), by buying online. A brick-n- mortar shop will offer you a lot more in terms of an education, than will an on-line reseller. They have a vested interest in helping you become a customer.

Good luck,
Hunt

PS All of the major mfgrs, i.e. Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, etc. offer good cameras, that are all priced closely to each other. While I have always had Nikons (and Hassleblads, and Cambos), I recently bought a Canon for my wife, because it fit her needs best.

"Brian" wrote in message

Owen Ransen wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

I am not about to criticise the article on that webpage in the way I could. Let’s just say that it was very optimistic, exaggerated and in places, straight out inaccurate. It was basically written by a person who was clearly biased towards using a camera for his particular needs, which were very undemanding needs.
Simple as this, all other things being equal, the higher megapixel camera will give better quality, period. (All other things being equal means both cameras have quality lenses, quality metering and focusing systems, etc. An el cheapo no-name 4MP camera can often give far less quality than a decent quality 3MP camera, but that is a silly comparison). From my experiences and understanding, if you want to purchase an inexpensive camera, you need to decide what size you may want to print to, and a "rough" guide could be taken as follows: need to print at A4: 5MP camera
need to print 6" x 8" 4MP camera
need to print 4" x 6" 3MP camera
Please note I am talking about images at the quality of image you are used to obtaining from a "basic" film compact camera. The above cameras could print at larger sizes than shown, but would not be photo quality. They would be noticably digital. This is only from my experiences, please do not take as being gospel.

Brian.

I actually tend to agree with Owen
I have a 3Mp Nikon D1 and a 6Mp Nikon D70 I often print images from both cameras up to 24" x 38" and there is not a huge difference in quality the D1 pics tend to look a bit softer indeed a bit more like 35mm film, the D70 pics are sharper and more "digital". as with any photography it’s the lens that really makes the difference.
This number of pixels thing is a bit of marketing hype, to get people who don’t know better to part with their money.
if I were to purchase a pocket size camera I would go for one of the small Nikons or Canons. maybe Olympus

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:45:21 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

MOP wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Owen Ransen wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

Ok, in reference to the above, 3MP cameras are useless if you want a decent A4 sized print. I have one myself, more as a quick grab and shoot "toy" to send pics to family overseas, etc. The images are beautifully exposed in most circumstances and very sharp too! – but they are FAR from photo quality at that size!! I also have a friend who works in a major camera store in Melbourne and he shows me sample prints all the time that HE has taken in favourable conditions to test the different cameras. I am yet to see a "decent" A4 print from 3MP. BMW clearly stated that he/she is intending to enlarge images to put on his/her wall. I will say this though, we all have different standards. I have enlarged 3MP images to A4 that I thought were inadequate, and other people have seen them and thought they were fantastic!

Brian.

I actually tend to agree with Owen
I have a 3Mp Nikon D1 and a 6Mp Nikon D70 I often print images from both cameras up to 24" x 38" and there is not a huge difference in quality the D1 pics tend to look a bit softer indeed a bit more like 35mm film, the D70 pics are sharper and more "digital". as with any photography it’s the lens that really makes the difference.
This number of pixels thing is a bit of marketing hype, to get people who don’t know better to part with their money.
if I were to purchase a pocket size camera I would go for one of the small Nikons or Canons. maybe Olympus

With all due respect MOP, there is no way known you have produced photo quality prints at 24" x 38" from your Nikon 3MP camera. My neighbour just but a 5MP Nikon Coolpix camera and I tweaked and printed an A4 image for her off that camera at its highest quality seting. I have been working with images and getting the most out of my printers for 8 yrs. The A4 looks fantastic from about 2 and a half feet away. From 12" it still looks good, but was clearly off a digital camera. Keep in mind A4 is only 8.3" x 11.7". It would lose a lot enlarging to 24" x 38". Once again, it all comes back to standards and perceptions. BMW may be thrilled by an A4 from a 3MP camera. I am certainly not!

Brian,

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:25:39 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Let’s just say that it was very optimistic, exaggerated and in places, straight out inaccurate.

I suppose you mean "straight out *wrong*"…?

Please tell me where it was inaccurate, and I’ll correct it.

It was basically written by a person
who was clearly biased towards using a camera for his particular needs, which were very undemanding needs.

That is what is important. Particular needs. Maybe undemanding needs. If you are undemanding don’t waste money on things you don’t need. Is it a crime to be undemanding?

I explained in the article why 1Mpixel was good enough for me, to print several images on a single A4 page.

The point is that some people feel unsatisfied if they
have not got as many mega pixels as they can afford.
But if you cannot tell the difference between a 1MPixel
photo and a 6MPixel photo printed on a quarter of an
A4 page why buy the 6MPixel camera for that purpose?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:51:05 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:45:21 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

It’s always about size, isn’t it?

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 22:51:05 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 06:45:21 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

On 20 Mar 2005 12:56:35 -0800, "bmw" wrote:

I’m looking to buy my first digital camera. I know absolutely nothing about them. I basically want to take family photos & maybe scenery that I could enlarge and put on my walls. I’m looking for something under $300.00. Any recommendations for a beginner?

Don’t get trapped into "I’ve only got 3 Mpixels so this is a useless camera" idea:

http://www.ransen.com/Articles/MegaPixels/default.htm

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

You mean small physical size or small number of pixels?

It is the results which matter to the customer which count, so many people fall into the marketing consumer trap….

Owen Ransen wrote:

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 23:25:39 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Let’s just say that it was very optimistic, exaggerated and in places, straight out inaccurate.

I suppose you mean "straight out *wrong*"…?

Please tell me where it was inaccurate, and I’ll correct it.

It was basically written by a person
who was clearly biased towards using a camera for his particular needs, which were very undemanding needs.

That is what is important. Particular needs. Maybe undemanding needs. If you are undemanding don’t waste money on things you don’t need. Is it a crime to be undemanding?

I explained in the article why 1Mpixel was good enough for me, to print several images on a single A4 page.

The point is that some people feel unsatisfied if they
have not got as many mega pixels as they can afford.
But if you cannot tell the difference between a 1MPixel
photo and a 6MPixel photo printed on a quarter of an
A4 page why buy the 6MPixel camera for that purpose?

Hi Owen!!!

you stated that so beautifully, I must say. The way you just expressed yourself in the above message, I can only agree with you totally.

The reason I made my comments was because bmw wants to have enlargements to put on his wall and obviously a 1MP or 2MP camera would not give him what he wants. Depending on his standards, 3MP may not either. The 3MP cameras I have seen results from certainly don’t meet my expectations when printing images at A4 size. I had no idea that it was you who wrote that article btw or I would not have commented at all. I thought you were putting a link to something you had read.

I now realise the main point of your page was "buy what suits your needs". I actually missed that point, probably browsing through it too hastily and basically misread it as an article saying you don’t need 6MP, 2MP will do the job. I apologise for that error on my part. Thanks for repsonding to my message, Owen, I am glad you did.

All the best,
Brian.

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:55:52 +1100, Brian
wrote:

The reason I made my comments was because bmw wants to have enlargements to put on his wall and obviously a 1MP or 2MP camera would not give him what he wants.

Which I sort of missed, but pointed to the article as a
general guideline. He needs to try to get some prints from the camera he is thinking of buying to see if it is
up to his standards…

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:21:37 GMT, Fred Banaszak
wrote:

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

It’s always about size, isn’t it?

So men tell me 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 06:23:01 +0100, Owen Ransen
wrote:

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

You mean small physical size or small number of pixels?

Physical size of course. Pixels don’t matter a damn if the sensor size is tiny.

It is the results which matter to the customer which count, so many people fall into the marketing consumer trap….

Yes, it is the results. The OP wanted a camera for less than $300. That means a camera with a tiny sensor. Doesn’t matter if you’re just looking for stuff to put on a web page, but he/she wanted to print. Which is why my first reaction was to say : buy a film camera instead – at that price range she/he will get far better prints.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, it is the results. The OP wanted a camera for less than $300. That means a camera with a tiny sensor. Doesn’t matter if you’re just looking for stuff to put on a web page, but he/she wanted to print. Which is why my first reaction was to say : buy a film camera instead – at that price range she/he will get far better prints.

Ain’t that the truth.

I bought my wife a little 3mpx Olympus pocket camera. Then I got her extra media to hold all the pictures she would make on her vacation. Of course, an extra battery, too. Then the cute little case, table-pod, and some other things that excape me. Considering todays $$$, I COULD HAVE GIVEN HER THE OLD LEICA M4 instead! And still worked out the scans. 🙂

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:21:37 GMT, Fred Banaszak
wrote:

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

It’s always about size, isn’t it?

So men tell me 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hey now, are you male or female, Hecate? I always took you to be a male. I hope men don’t tell you that sort of thing? Is there something we don’t know about you? LOL

Brian 🙂

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:21:37 GMT, Fred Banaszak
wrote:

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

It’s always about size, isn’t it?

So men tell me 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hey now, are you male or female, Hecate? I always took you to be a male. I hope men don’t tell you that sort of thing? Is there something we don’t know about you? LOL

Brian 🙂

If ya paid one iota of attention, you’d know she was all woman!

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:22:55 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Hey now, are you male or female, Hecate? I always took you to be a male. I hope men don’t tell you that sort of thing? Is there something we don’t know about you? LOL

You forgot to go look up Hecate + Greek + mythology in Google like I told you, didn’t you?

Here’s a clue:

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Hecate.html

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:08:29 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, it is the results. The OP wanted a camera for less than $300. That means a camera with a tiny sensor. Doesn’t matter if you’re just looking for stuff to put on a web page, but he/she wanted to print. Which is why my first reaction was to say : buy a film camera instead – at that price range she/he will get far better prints.

Ain’t that the truth.

I bought my wife a little 3mpx Olympus pocket camera. Then I got her extra media to hold all the pictures she would make on her vacation. Of course, an extra battery, too. Then the cute little case, table-pod, and some other things that excape me. Considering todays $$$, I COULD HAVE GIVEN HER THE OLD LEICA M4 instead! And still worked out the scans. 🙂

LOL!

I’m about to buy digital, but I’m not going to stop using film for a while yet (for a start, digital doesn’t have the tonal range of B&W film).

A lot of people haven’t cottoned on to the scam that’s going on. In "the old days" you bought a camera and a back up (well, I did anyway <g>) and all you had to do to improve quality was buy into reformulated film as the technology got better – you know, less grain, improved colour and so forth. When the camera no longer did what you wanted, or just plain out and died (or you got a bad dose of camera envy <g>) you bought a new one. Now, if you want to improve "film" quality and thus the quality of your images you have to *buy a whole new bl**dy camera*!

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

You forgot to go look up Hecate + Greek + mythology in Google like I told you, didn’t you?

Here’s a clue:

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Hecate.html

Hecate, a divinity of the Underworld is called the queen of night, she killed Clytius in the course of the Gigantomachy. Hecate is regarded as supreme, both in Heaven and in the Underworld, and it is said that Zeus calls upon her whenever any man on earth offers sacrifices, and prays for favour.
This goddess, a night-wanderer, is credited with wit-depriving spells, It is Hecate, some believe, that bestows wealth and grants advances to those she receives favourably. Similarly, the outcome of war and victory in games may depend on her, And to those who work at sea, she gives great catch or takes it away, if that is her will; likewise, concerning herds, she increases their number from a few, or reduces it to be less, following her own will.
Medea, who was a priestess of Hecate, used witchcraft, apparently under the guidance of the goddess, in order to handle magic herbs and poisons with skill, and to be able to stay the course of rivers, or check the paths of the stars and the moon. The Caucasian witch also relied on the goddess’ help, when she was about to commit a crime in Hellas:

Even assuming that only a small part of all this is true!!! It’s probably best not to upset her!!!

Harry

Scruff wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:21:37 GMT, Fred Banaszak
wrote:

No. The problem is "I’ve only got a tiny sensor so this is a useless camera"…

It’s always about size, isn’t it?

So men tell me 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hey now, are you male or female, Hecate? I always took you to be a male. I hope men don’t tell you that sort of thing? Is there something we don’t know about you? LOL

Brian 🙂

If ya paid one iota of attention, you’d know she was all woman!

Be nice, Scruff. So glad Hecate is all woman, not only half woman.

Hecate wrote:

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:22:55 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Hey now, are you male or female, Hecate? I always took you to be a male. I hope men don’t tell you that sort of thing? Is there something we don’t know about you? LOL

You forgot to go look up Hecate + Greek + mythology in Google like I told you, didn’t you?

Here’s a clue:

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Hecate.html

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Thanks for the link, madam! Actually, I did put "hecate" into google and looked at "one" site that night. There were no pictures on it, so I must have become bored with nothing to look at (just kidding). I think I was distracted actually and came back here.

I won’t make that mistake again.

Brian 🙂

Harry Limey wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

You forgot to go look up Hecate + Greek + mythology in Google like I told you, didn’t you?

Here’s a clue:

http://homepage.mac.com/cparada/GML/Hecate.html

Hecate, a divinity of the Underworld is called the queen of night, she killed Clytius in the course of the Gigantomachy. Hecate is regarded as supreme, both in Heaven and in the Underworld, and it is said that Zeus calls upon her whenever any man on earth offers sacrifices, and prays for favour.
This goddess, a night-wanderer, is credited with wit-depriving spells, It is Hecate, some believe, that bestows wealth and grants advances to those she receives favourably. Similarly, the outcome of war and victory in games may depend on her, And to those who work at sea, she gives great catch or takes it away, if that is her will; likewise, concerning herds, she increases their number from a few, or reduces it to be less, following her own will.
Medea, who was a priestess of Hecate, used witchcraft, apparently under the guidance of the goddess, in order to handle magic herbs and poisons with skill, and to be able to stay the course of rivers, or check the paths of the stars and the moon. The Caucasian witch also relied on the goddess’ help, when she was about to commit a crime in Hellas:

Even assuming that only a small part of all this is true!!! It’s probably best not to upset her!!!

Harry

I get your point there Harry, yikes! I better never mention the word "Corel" again, I just might not survive the outcome!

Do you ever have competitions in here, just for fun? Like setting a task and seeing who comes up with the best result? That would be fun.

Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:08:29 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Yes, it is the results. The OP wanted a camera for less than $300. That means a camera with a tiny sensor. Doesn’t matter if you’re just looking for stuff to put on a web page, but he/she wanted to print. Which is why my first reaction was to say : buy a film camera instead – at that price range she/he will get far better prints.

Ain’t that the truth.

I bought my wife a little 3mpx Olympus pocket camera. Then I got her extra media to hold all the pictures she would make on her vacation. Of course, an extra battery, too. Then the cute little case, table-pod, and some other things that excape me. Considering todays $$$, I COULD HAVE GIVEN HER THE OLD LEICA M4 instead! And still worked out the scans. 🙂

LOL!

I’m about to buy digital, but I’m not going to stop using film for a while yet (for a start, digital doesn’t have the tonal range of B&W film).

A lot of people haven’t cottoned on to the scam that’s going on. In "the old days" you bought a camera and a back up (well, I did anyway <g>) and all you had to do to improve quality was buy into reformulated film as the technology got better – you know, less grain, improved colour and so forth. When the camera no longer did what you wanted, or just plain out and died (or you got a bad dose of camera envy <g>) you bought a new one. Now, if you want to improve "film" quality and thus the quality of your images you have to *buy a whole new bl**dy camera*!

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Now that is a very good point!! I had not thought of that one, says Brian who has bought about 4 crappy ones so far. I am about to purchase a new one soon though, it’s gonna be good!!!!!!!

Brian

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

A lot of people haven’t cottoned on to the scam that’s going on. In "the old days" you bought a camera and a back up (well, I did anyway <g>) and all you had to do to improve quality was buy into reformulated film as the technology got better – you know, less grain, improved colour and so forth. When the camera no longer did what you wanted, or just plain out and died (or you got a bad dose of camera envy <g>) you bought a new one. Now, if you want to improve "film" quality and thus the quality of your images you have to *buy a whole new bl**dy camera*!

Now that is a very good point!! I had not thought of that one, says Brian who has bought about 4 crappy ones so far. I am about to purchase a new one soon though, it’s gonna be good!!!!!!!

Told you so. I guess you didn’t read my article afterall, Brian. After you are satisfied with the top-of-the-line ’35mm’ style DSLR, some electronic demon will break after the warrantee exipires and you will have to repurchase. If you are lucky and it does not break, you will want an MF style back and MF camera. If it is the new Hasselblad (made in japan), it will break, too.

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:30:19 -0600, "jjs" <john&#064;xstafford.net> wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

A lot of people haven’t cottoned on to the scam that’s going on. In "the old days" you bought a camera and a back up (well, I did anyway <g>) and all you had to do to improve quality was buy into reformulated film as the technology got better – you know, less grain, improved colour and so forth. When the camera no longer did what you wanted, or just plain out and died (or you got a bad dose of camera envy <g>) you bought a new one. Now, if you want to improve "film" quality and thus the quality of your images you have to *buy a whole new bl**dy camera*!

Now that is a very good point!! I had not thought of that one, says Brian who has bought about 4 crappy ones so far. I am about to purchase a new one soon though, it’s gonna be good!!!!!!!

Told you so. I guess you didn’t read my article afterall, Brian. After you are satisfied with the top-of-the-line ’35mm’ style DSLR, some electronic demon will break after the warrantee exipires and you will have to repurchase. If you are lucky and it does not break, you will want an MF style back and MF camera. If it is the new Hasselblad (made in japan), it will break, too.

The Mamiya Z looks nice, but I’d much prefer medium format with a digital back. Then, you have the choice of using film, and if the back dies, you can still use your camera. I’ve got no doubt that, in the future, digital will be standard and film will be niche (fine art and so forth – but then, I do fine art so.. <g>).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:16:30 -0000, "Harry Limey" wrote:

Even assuming that only a small part of all this is true!!! It’s probably best not to upset her!!!

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Hecate wrote:

A lot of people haven’t cottoned on to the scam that’s going on. In "the old days" you bought a camera and a back up (well, I did anyway <g>) and all you had to do to improve quality was buy into reformulated film as the technology got better – you know, less grain, improved colour and so forth. When the camera no longer did what you wanted, or just plain out and died (or you got a bad dose of camera envy <g>) you bought a new one. Now, if you want to improve "film" quality and thus the quality of your images you have to *buy a whole new bl**dy camera*!

Now that is a very good point!! I had not thought of that one, says Brian who has bought about 4 crappy ones so far. I am about to purchase a new one soon though, it’s gonna be good!!!!!!!

Told you so. I guess you didn’t read my article afterall, Brian. After you are satisfied with the top-of-the-line ’35mm’ style DSLR, some electronic demon will break after the warrantee exipires and you will have to repurchase. If you are lucky and it does not break, you will want an MF style back and MF camera. If it is the new Hasselblad (made in japan), it will break, too.

Hi jjs

Why are you so convinced that these cameras are all going to break? So far, I have never had a digital camera break on me, although one I sold to a friend stopped working a few months later. It may have been due to mistreatment though, I can’t really say. I have even dropped really cheap digital cameras more than once (too small for my large hands, fiddly little crappy things!) and they still worked fine.

I have not read any adverse stories of the Canon DSLR’s falling apart or dying. If there is info somewhere on the "unreliablity of digital SLR’s" then please post the site, I would be interested in reading about it.

Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

Why are you so convinced that these cameras are all going to break?

Personal experience. The later model cameras with a lot of electronics just don’t stand up under the punishment of humidity, rain… the things I work in every day. I broke an Olympus 8080 just last month. Down to three of those crummy cameras.

I have not read any adverse stories of the Canon DSLR’s falling apart
[…]

Maybe I have the wrong hardware, but regardless, of all the later cameras I have purchased, the rate of failure is enormous compared to the old analog stuff. For our mutual concern, I hope they become more robust.

Best,
jjs

"Hecate" wrote in message

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

Pictures, pictures!

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

Pictures, pictures!

My thoughts exactly!

Maybe we should have a competition, and the winner gets photos of Hecate? LOL That might be the incentive needed for one to produce "adequate" work.

Brian.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Why are you so convinced that these cameras are all going to break?

Personal experience. The later model cameras with a lot of electronics just don’t stand up under the punishment of humidity, rain… the things I work in every day. I broke an Olympus 8080 just last month. Down to three of those crummy cameras.

I have not read any adverse stories of the Canon DSLR’s falling apart
[…]

Maybe I have the wrong hardware, but regardless, of all the later cameras I have purchased, the rate of failure is enormous compared to the old analog stuff. For our mutual concern, I hope they become more robust.
Best,
jjs

Thanks very much for that info jjs!! That is something I really must look into then before buying a serious digital camera. What are other people’s experiences in here? I know that Canon DSLR’s are all the go with our press photographers over here in Australia. At the Melbourne Cup this year (a famous horserace over here) I was actually doing security (can’t believe I admitted that). I was right next to all the press photographers taking shots of the winning horses for each race. There were 12 photographers, 11 were using Canon EOS digital SLR’s.

Thanks again jjs, you have me worried now!

Brian.

Thanks very much for that info jjs!! That is something I really must look into then before buying a serious digital camera. What are other people’s experiences in here? I know that Canon DSLR’s are all the go with our press photographers over here in Australia. At the Melbourne Cup this year (a famous horserace over here) I was actually doing security (can’t believe I admitted that). I was right next to all the press photographers taking shots of the winning horses for each race. There were 12 photographers, 11 were using Canon EOS digital SLR’s.

Thanks again jjs, you have me worried now!

Brian.

I have been using digital for several years now and have not found digital cameras to be any less reliable that film.
though my D1 did die after a lot of work and required a new mirror box that cost

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:08:26 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

Pictures, pictures!

LOL"

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:12:05 +1100, Brian
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

Pictures, pictures!

My thoughts exactly!

Maybe we should have a competition, and the winner gets photos of Hecate? LOL That might be the incentive needed for one to produce "adequate" work.

Yeah, right. 😉

I really must use my web site space to pout a few images up, maybe even an edited one of me <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:07:48 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

Maybe I have the wrong hardware, but regardless, of all the later cameras I have purchased, the rate of failure is enormous compared to the old analog stuff. For our mutual concern, I hope they become more robust.

Yeah, I have to say you probably do. I would suggest that DSLRs are rather more bullet proof and a Canon 1Ds is nigh on bomb proof. It’s a case of getting what you pay for. I’m convinced that digital bridge cameras, compacts etc, are less robust than their film equivalents. But the SLRs are much better built (though I thought the 300D a bit flimsy – apparently the 350D is much more robust). In fact, I had thought of buying a 20D, but I don’t want to spend that much money on my first DSLR _ I could buy more, better lenses instead which is really what counts <g> If I get on alright with, maybe in a year or so I’ll consider whether it’s worth taking out a loan for a 1Ds.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:56 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

The Pros use to use Nikon most of the time then they went over to Canon, but there is a move back to Nikon now with the new D2. Nikon has always been slightly behind in the pixel race but now we are up to the 10Mp + area the number of pixels is not very important

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

I really must use my web site space to pout a few images up, maybe even an edited one of me <g>

Show me you and I’ll show you … ah, someone more attractive than me.

Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 19:08:26 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Anyone will tell you I’m a pussycat really 🙂

Pictures, pictures!

LOL"

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Ok Hecate, here’s the deal. I am posting a link to my silly Yahoo Profile page with a ridiculous picture of me on it. I have made it b&w and grainy to make me look younger (at least I am honest). So now, you should post a pic of you in return. Give and take, you know.

Just for the record, I sat a yukky 3MP Kodak digital on the window ledge in my bathroom (frosted glass gives a nice soft light LOL) and stood by the door. It chopped the top of my head off…I rather liked that look.

Post your pic and then I will give you a proper pic showing all of me (not naked of course!!!)

Brian.

ps. oops, the link is: http://profiles.yahoo.com/coolbri1

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 00:45:50 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:56 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

The Pros use to use Nikon most of the time then they went over to Canon, but there is a move back to Nikon now with the new D2. Nikon has always been slightly behind in the pixel race but now we are up to the 10Mp + area the number of pixels is not very important

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important.

You mean a 500 by 250 pixel camera with a large sensor is better than a 2000 x 1000 pixel camera with a smaller sensor?

Impossible!

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:56 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

The Pros use to use Nikon most of the time then they went over to Canon, but
there is a move back to Nikon now with the new D2. Nikon has always been slightly behind in the pixel race but now we are up to the 10Mp + area the number of pixels is not very important

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size, it’s the amateurs that keep going in about chip size and preserving their lens. however there is a point where pixels become too small and cause problems, but that’s is a way off.

MOP wrote:

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size, it’s the amateurs that keep going in about chip size and preserving their lens. however there is a point where pixels become too small and cause problems, but that’s is a way off.

If ‘most’ professionals prefer that, why is it that Canon is the market leader in professional photography by a large margin? And why is it that more professionals move from Nikon to Canon these days than vice versa? And are you suggesting that the Canon 1DsII is maily bought by amateurs? Get real. Professionals know what their needs are, and not all needs are the same. Some professionals may prefer the increased DOF of a small sensor, many think that is a disadvantage. Many professionals also think that the inherently lower dynamic range and higher noise of smaller sensors is a disadvantage.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

MOP wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:56 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

The Pros use to use Nikon most of the time then they went over to Canon, but
there is a move back to Nikon now with the new D2. Nikon has always been slightly behind in the pixel race but now we are up to the 10Mp + area the number of pixels is not very important

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size, it’s the amateurs that keep going in about chip size and preserving their lens. however there is a point where pixels become too small and cause problems, but that’s is a way off.

That is a very strange argument you hold there MOP. A larger CCD is like a larger film format. To draw an analogy with film cameras a 4" x 5" camera with 150mm lens at f/4 has greater depth of field than a 10" x 8" camera with a 300mm set at f/4. Both camera/lens setups have the same angle of view.

So the smaller format camera gives a greater depth of field for the same angle of view (as per your digital comparison), but what gives the better image quality? The 10" x 8" camera, of course!!

The larger CCD has better light gathering qualities. A large CCD with a high pixel count is the ultimate.

Brian.

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

MOP wrote:

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the
same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the
smaller chip size, it’s the amateurs that keep going in about chip size and
preserving their lens. however there is a point where pixels become too small and cause problems, but that’s is a way off.

If ‘most’ professionals prefer that, why is it that Canon is the market leader in professional photography by a large margin? And why is it that more professionals move from Nikon to Canon these days than vice versa? And are you suggesting that the Canon 1DsII is maily bought by amateurs? Get real. Professionals know what their needs are, and not all needs are the same. Some professionals may prefer the increased DOF of a small sensor, many think that is a disadvantage. Many professionals also think that the inherently lower dynamic range and higher noise of smaller sensors is a disadvantage.

The lower dynamic range and higher noise is more to do with Nikon using CCD and Canon using CMOS
which Nikon have addressed in the new D2 it’s got very little to do with chip size.

MOP wrote:

If ‘most’ professionals prefer that, why is it that Canon is the market leader in professional photography by a large margin? And why is it that more professionals move from Nikon to Canon these days than vice versa? And are you suggesting that the Canon 1DsII is maily bought by amateurs? Get real. Professionals know what their needs are, and not all needs are the same. Some professionals may prefer the increased DOF of a small sensor, many think that is a disadvantage. Many professionals also think that the inherently lower dynamic range and higher noise of smaller sensors is a disadvantage.

The lower dynamic range and higher noise is more to do with Nikon using CCD and Canon using CMOS
which Nikon have addressed in the new D2 it’s got very little to do with chip size.

Wrong. First of all, the D2X uses a CMOS chip as well, so this is not a CMOS vs CCD issue at all. And secondly, dynamic range and noise are very closely related to the size of the photosites on the sensor. The smaller the sites, the lower the dynamic range and the higher the noise.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"MOP" wrote in message

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size, […]

So much for professionals.

"Brian" wrote in message

That is a very strange argument you hold there MOP. A larger CCD is like a larger film format. To draw an analogy with film cameras a 4" x 5" camera with 150mm lens at f/4 has greater depth of field than a 10" x 8" camera with a 300mm set at f/4. Both camera/lens setups have the same angle of view.

Let’s make a minor correction then move on: you are presuming that the lens designs are the same. Angle-of-view is not strictly a function of focal length of a real-world, conventional (compound element) photographic lens.

"MOP" wrote in message

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size […]

You must be speaking of the toy digital cameras, and you believe that ‘most professionals’ have dumbed-down requisites for image quality. Maybe they do.

The better digital sensors are as large as conventional 35mm film (and some are larger) so that the cameras do not have an inherent advantage to greater DOF – they have the same as their film counterparts.

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 19:00:05 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

I really must use my web site space to pout a few images up, maybe even an edited one of me <g>

Show me you and I’ll show you … ah, someone more attractive than me.

<g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:40:14 +1100, Brian
wrote:

Ok Hecate, here’s the deal. I am posting a link to my silly Yahoo Profile page with a ridiculous picture of me on it. I have made it b&w and grainy to make me look younger (at least I am honest). So now, you should post a pic of you in return. Give and take, you know.

I’ll think about it 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:28:42 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:57:56 GMT, "MOP" wrote:

The Pros use to use Nikon most of the time then they went over to Canon, but
there is a move back to Nikon now with the new D2. Nikon has always been slightly behind in the pixel race but now we are up to the 10Mp + area the number of pixels is not very important

<slight disagreement> The number of pixels has never been very important. What *is* important is the sensor size. And the new Nikon still doesn’t cut it. The Canon is full frame, the Nikon is still a
1.5 x sensor. That’s not going to matter so much for press work, but
for anyone else who is spending that amount of money on a camera it matters *a lot*.

Sorry I don’t agree the smaller chip will give more depth of field for the same angle of view, so most professional photographers actually prefer the smaller chip size, it’s the amateurs that keep going in about chip size and preserving their lens. however there is a point where pixels become too small and cause problems, but that’s is a way off.

No. Most professional photographers prefer the best results they can get – smaller cheap sizes produce images with less detail and a lot more noise. (Try comparing enlargements of the Canon 1Ds and the equivalent Nikon if you want to see the difference).

Furthermore, the increased depth of field isn’t a benefit, it’s a pain in the ass to anyone who knows how to use depth of field correctly in an image. It is a complete fallacy that greater depth of field is always a benefit – a lot of the time it isn’t.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore, the increased depth of field isn’t a benefit, it’s a pain in the ass to anyone who knows how to use depth of field correctly in an image. It is a complete fallacy that greater depth of field is always a benefit – a lot of the time it isn’t.

And further, the small lens over the small sensor is very unsharp when stopped down enough for some bright conditions. Diffraction is not our friend.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

That is a very strange argument you hold there MOP. A larger CCD is like a larger film format. To draw an analogy with film cameras a 4" x 5" camera with 150mm lens at f/4 has greater depth of field than a 10" x 8" camera with a 300mm set at f/4. Both camera/lens setups have the same angle of view.

Let’s make a minor correction then move on: you are presuming that the lens designs are the same. Angle-of-view is not strictly a function of focal length of a real-world, conventional (compound element) photographic lens.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? So do tell, what other factors, "lens design factors", influence depth of field. I am not aware of this to be honest with you.

You missed my point above. The person I was responding to (MOP) made a comment about getting greater depth of field at the same angle of view. I agreed with MOP! But, my response was…..yes, the smaller format/CCD does give greater depth of field, but which format/CCD size gives the better quality? The larger one, of course.

Brian.

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore, the increased depth of field isn’t a benefit, it’s a pain in the ass to anyone who knows how to use depth of field correctly in an image. It is a complete fallacy that greater depth of field is always a benefit – a lot of the time it isn’t.

Two things on the above: (1) depth of field can be an advantage and a disadvantage, so you cannot call it a pain in the ass at all. What if you shooting a band for a CD cover, in a small studio for instance, and the band members are all at different distances from the camera. The closest person may be ‘reasonably’ close to the camera. As you know, the closer the subject, the less depth of field one has. In that situation, a greater dof is a blessing.
(2) I have never heard any fallacy that depth of field is ALWAYS a benefit. Not too many books on "portrature" would make a statment like that.

Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

Let’s make a minor correction then move on: you are presuming that the lens designs are the same. Angle-of-view is not strictly a function of focal length of a real-world, conventional (compound element) photographic lens.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? So do tell, what other factors, "lens design factors", influence depth of field. I am not aware of this to be honest with you.

I take Angle-of-view as how much of the scene a lens captures – wide, narrow, whatever.

You missed my point above. The person I was responding to (MOP) made a comment about getting greater depth of field at the same angle of view.

Yes, it is a silly statement. The greater DOF comes from shorter lenses regardless of sensor size.

I agreed with MOP! But, my response was…..yes, the smaller format/CCD does give greater depth of field, but which format/CCD size gives the better quality? The larger one, of course.

Of course; larger is better for larger prints.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

Let’s make a minor correction then move on: you are presuming that the lens designs are the same. Angle-of-view is not strictly a function of focal length of a real-world, conventional (compound element) photographic lens.

Would you care to elaborate on that statement? So do tell, what other factors, "lens design factors", influence depth of field. I am not aware of this to be honest with you.

I take Angle-of-view as how much of the scene a lens captures – wide, narrow, whatever.

You missed my point above. The person I was responding to (MOP) made a comment about getting greater depth of field at the same angle of view.

Yes, it is a silly statement. The greater DOF comes from shorter lenses regardless of sensor size.

I agreed with MOP! But, my response was…..yes, the smaller format/CCD does give greater depth of field, but which format/CCD size gives the better quality? The larger one, of course.

Of course; larger is better for larger prints.

I think we both agree actually, and were probably talking about different things 🙂

Brian.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 12:33:56 +1000, Brian
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore, the increased depth of field isn’t a benefit, it’s a pain in the ass to anyone who knows how to use depth of field correctly in an image. It is a complete fallacy that greater depth of field is always a benefit – a lot of the time it isn’t.

Two things on the above: (1) depth of field can be an advantage and a disadvantage, so you cannot call it a pain in the ass at all. What if you shooting a band for a CD cover, in a small studio for instance, and the band members are all at different distances from the camera. The closest person may be ‘reasonably’ close to the camera. As you know, the closer the subject, the less depth of field one has. In that situation, a greater dof is a blessing.
(2) I have never heard any fallacy that depth of field is ALWAYS a benefit. Not too many books on "portrature" would make a statment like that.

You miss the point. Heard of differential focusing? MOP was claiming that the increased depth of field was a benefit. No it’s not. Why not? Because it kills any chance you have of differential focusing. Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance. (That is a specifically lens, rather than camera complaint, but there you go).

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance.

DOF scales have been steadily discontinued for quite some time, but regardless – on a tiny sensored digital camera, a small aperture (large numeric) destroys image quality due to severe diffraction.

You miss the point. Heard of differential focusing?

Clearly it is you who miss my point! How can you achieve differential focus "adequately" for the situation I described without proper depth of field? Even though I did not state it, I was implying that I wanted all of the members of the band in focus. You forget that you are talking to another photographer here, Hecate, you cannot blind me with photographic terminology.

MOP was claiming

that the increased depth of field was a benefit. No it’s not. Why not? Because it kills any chance you have of differential focusing.

Oh really, ever heard of using a wide aperture and knowing where to focus (to achieve the particular differential focus result you require)?

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance. (That is a specifically lens, rather than camera complaint, but there you go).

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Have a great day Hecate, hope you enjoyed your Easter,

Brian.

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance.

DOF scales have been steadily discontinued for quite some time, but regardless – on a tiny sensored digital camera, a small aperture (large numeric) destroys image quality due to severe diffraction.

By the way, I agree with you totally jjs in your above statement. I am not arguing with you at all.

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate. It is a generalisation, and a silly one, to state that depth of field is a disadvantage. The ultimate situation is to have a fast enough lens to offer extremely shallow depth of field when needed, a small aperture for extended depth of field when needed, and the skills to know where to focus and at what aperture to achieve a desired differential focusing of the subject when required.

All the best,

Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate. It is a generalisation, and a silly one, to state that depth of field is a disadvantage. […]

What Hecate probably means is that having _only_ deep DOF is a disadvantage. When the sensor has an area of only 8cm, (Nikon Coolpix 995) then the (nominal) normal lens is only about 9mm. A 9mm lens has no option to create shallow DOF under ordinary picture-taking circumstances. One must restort to photoshop-like effects after the fact. Larger sensors fare much better. Hopefully, this tiny, toy-camera sensor size will become a thing of the past and we can chuckle at this soon.

jjs wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate. It is a generalisation, and a silly one, to state that depth of field is a disadvantage. […]

What Hecate probably means is that having _only_ deep DOF is a disadvantage. When the sensor has an area of only 8cm, (Nikon Coolpix 995) then the (nominal) normal lens is only about 9mm. A 9mm lens has no option to create shallow DOF under ordinary picture-taking circumstances. One must restort to photoshop-like effects after the fact. Larger sensors fare much better. Hopefully, this tiny, toy-camera sensor size will become a thing of the past and we can chuckle at this soon.

Ah! Thank you very much for that jjs, and in that case, sorry Hecate!! I understand what you mean now. That would be a total pain then. What a restriction.

Brian.

"Brian" wrote in message

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I have an old Pentax KM SLR I bought in 1976 that has made me so much money, and a big part of that is because of the great DOF preview button it has on it!

"Brian" wrote in message

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance.

DOF scales have been steadily discontinued for quite some time, but regardless – on a tiny sensored digital camera, a small aperture (large numeric) destroys image quality due to severe diffraction.

By the way, I agree with you totally jjs in your above statement. I am not arguing with you at all.

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate. It is a generalisation, and a silly one, to state that depth of field is a disadvantage. The ultimate situation is to have a fast enough lens to offer extremely shallow depth of field when needed, a small aperture for extended depth of field when needed, and the skills to know where to focus and at what aperture to achieve a desired differential focusing of the subject when required.

All the best,

Brian.

The bottom line is that a depth of field preview will help you get the shot you need, whether you want just the subject or the whole pic in focus.

Scruff wrote:

"Brian" wrote in message

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I have an old Pentax KM SLR I bought in 1976 that has made me so much money, and a big part of that is because of the great DOF preview button it has on it!

Great stuff Scruff!

I just hope there will always be a place for the classic film camera. I am sure there will for some time to come. Digital is fantastic too. Let’s hope they run side by side for many years to come.

All the best,
Brian.

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I don’t know any professional who uses DOF preview up to MF. They _know_ where the depth is without it.

"jjs" wrote in message

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I don’t know any professional who uses DOF preview up to MF. They _know_ where the depth is without it.

Hmm, I guess "professional" is a subjective term. I can’t say I know much about
every aspect of photography, but I’ve made quite a bit, and carved out a nice little
additional bit of income as an action photographer.
I think a lot of people get hung up on what you know vs. what you do. I guess I’m one that "does".

On a sidenote, I may be wrong, but doesn’t any 4 x 5 baffle camera project the depth of field?
And, I bet a lot of still photographers that waste a fortune on Polaroid’s to get the proper DOF wish their cams had a DOF preview.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:40:11 +1000, Brian
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance.

DOF scales have been steadily discontinued for quite some time, but regardless – on a tiny sensored digital camera, a small aperture (large numeric) destroys image quality due to severe diffraction.

By the way, I agree with you totally jjs in your above statement. I am not arguing with you at all.

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate.

Not what I said. I said that MOP stated that having extra DOF was *always" an advantage. I pointed out that it clearly wasn’t. Clear? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 11:28:28 -0500, "Scruff" wrote:

The bottom line is that a depth of field preview will help you get the shot you need, whether you want just the subject or the whole pic in focus.

True. But a problem with a lot of the small sensor cameras it’s that it’s impossible, with the lens provided, to get any kind of differential focus.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:33:28 +1000, Brian
wrote:

You miss the point. Heard of differential focusing?

Clearly it is you who miss my point! How can you achieve differential focus "adequately" for the situation I described without proper depth of field? Even though I did not state it, I was implying that I wanted all of the members of the band in focus. You forget that you are talking to another photographer here, Hecate, you cannot blind me with photographic terminology.

No, you’re missing the point. MOP stated that increased DOF that you get with small sensor cameras was *always* an advantage. It isn’t. It’s more often than not a disadvantage.

MOP was claiming

that the increased depth of field was a benefit. No it’s not. Why not? Because it kills any chance you have of differential focusing.

Oh really, ever heard of using a wide aperture and knowing where to focus (to achieve the particular differential focus result you require)?

You can’t get a wide enough aperture on a digital camera with a small sensor because you can never get a lens that’s long enough. If you use a DSLR, your chances are much improved however, because the sensors are much larger.

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance. (That is a specifically lens, rather than camera complaint, but there you go).

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.

Yes. It’s a shame we’re not talking about professional cameras – they don’t have the small sensors this whole thread is about…

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:30:44 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I don’t know any professional who uses DOF preview up to MF. They _know_ where the depth is without it.

I use it occasionally to check whether a specific part of a shot is out of focus, but I’ve used it less and less over the years as I got more proficient. Generally I can estimate what’s going to be in and out of focus over a whole image, but sometimes there’s a particular area on an image which I want out of focus and I use it to check.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:40:11 +1000, Brian
wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance.

DOF scales have been steadily discontinued for quite some time, but regardless – on a tiny sensored digital camera, a small aperture (large numeric) destroys image quality due to severe diffraction.

By the way, I agree with you totally jjs in your above statement. I am not arguing with you at all.

I am only debating the issue of "depth of field" with Hecate.

Not what I said. I said that MOP stated that having extra DOF was *always" an advantage. I pointed out that it clearly wasn’t. Clear? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Very clear thank you 🙂

Yes, that one word which I overlooked previously kinda completely changes the statement. Thank you for pointing it out.

Be good,
Brian.

p.s. where is this photo (of you)?

Hecate wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 00:33:28 +1000, Brian
wrote:

You miss the point. Heard of differential focusing?

Clearly it is you who miss my point! How can you achieve differential focus "adequately" for the situation I described without proper depth of field? Even though I did not state it, I was implying that I wanted all of the members of the band in focus. You forget that you are talking to another photographer here, Hecate, you cannot blind me with photographic terminology.

No, you’re missing the point. MOP stated that increased DOF that you get with small sensor cameras was *always* an advantage. It isn’t. It’s more often than not a disadvantage.

MOP was claiming

that the increased depth of field was a benefit. No it’s not. Why not? Because it kills any chance you have of differential focusing.

Oh really, ever heard of using a wide aperture and knowing where to focus (to achieve the particular differential focus result you require)?

You can’t get a wide enough aperture on a digital camera with a small sensor because you can never get a lens that’s long enough. If you use a DSLR, your chances are much improved however, because the sensors are much larger.

Furthermore most of the specifically digital short length have no proper distance indicator making it impossible to increase DOF using hyperfocal distance. (That is a specifically lens, rather than camera complaint, but there you go).

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.

Yes. It’s a shame we’re not talking about professional cameras – they don’t have the small sensors this whole thread is about…
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

I am laughing at myself here. I have been taking this discussion to be on digital cameras generally, and somewhere along the line someone was talking about Canon’s have the lion’s share of the market with its larger sensor (and that particular statement was comparing pro cameras, Canon vs Nikon).

I guess you and I have been debating different issues altogether! Silly me, or you, or both? Probably me.

Bye for now,
Brian.

Hecate wrote:

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 14:30:44 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.
Brian.

I don’t know any professional who uses DOF preview up to MF. They _know_ where the depth is without it.

I use it occasionally to check whether a specific part of a shot is out of focus, but I’ve used it less and less over the years as I got more proficient. Generally I can estimate what’s going to be in and out of focus over a whole image, but sometimes there’s a particular area on an image which I want out of focus and I use it to check.
—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

I am totally with you on this one. We do get to know by experience what we are going to get, but it is impossible to know in "every" situation, so the occasional check if very useful!

Take care,
Brian.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:01:31 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Ever heard of "depth of field preview" ? Any decent professional camera has a depth of field preview, so you can "see" the result. It is better than a depth of field scale in a lot of cases, you can actually see and do not have to visualise.

Yes. It’s a shame we’re not talking about professional cameras – they don’t have the small sensors this whole thread is about…

I am laughing at myself here. I have been taking this discussion to be on digital cameras generally, and somewhere along the line someone was talking about Canon’s have the lion’s share of the market with its larger sensor (and that particular statement was comparing pro cameras, Canon vs Nikon).

I believe you are correct. At one point MOP was comparing the Pro Nikon and Canon cameras. And the point there is that Canon use full frame and Nikon still use a smaller sensor (1.5x). Consequently, I could use my 20-40mm f2.8 and still have a wide lens on the Canon. More importantly, my 70-200 f2.8 would be the same range. On the Nikon I would need to use a 47-133mm. It’s much harder to get differential focus with the latter because of the shorter focal length.

I guess you and I have been debating different issues altogether! Silly me, or you, or both? Probably me.

No, you were correct. I went and checked, hence my reply above.

Actually, to add to that, I can get reasonable differential focusing on a fast moderately wide lens as well, such as a 35mm f1.4, buy using it wide open. The Nikon equivalent would be a 23mm lens. Much harder to differential focus with that.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:56:00 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Not what I said. I said that MOP stated that having extra DOF was *always" an advantage. I pointed out that it clearly wasn’t. Clear? 😉

Very clear thank you 🙂

Good. 🙂

Yes, that one word which I overlooked previously kinda completely changes the statement. Thank you for pointing it out.

No problem. To be honest I couldn’t see why you were arguing about it. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough (several) times round 🙂

Be good,
Brian.

p.s. where is this photo (of you)?

Hmm, well, you see, I don’t know if you’re like me, but, as a photographer, I hate having my picture taken. And the only ones I had readily to hand that my partner had taken were certainly not for family viewing <g> So, I’m trying to find one were I actually have *all* my clothes on ….

Give me week or two because I’m away next week for 3 days shooting wildfowl and some architecture (an old cathedral) and I’m preparing for the trip. After that I should have something for you. You’ll have to remind me 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:56:00 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Not what I said. I said that MOP stated that having extra DOF was *always" an advantage. I pointed out that it clearly wasn’t. Clear? 😉

Very clear thank you 🙂

Good. 🙂

Yes, that one word which I overlooked previously kinda completely changes the statement. Thank you for pointing it out.

No problem. To be honest I couldn’t see why you were arguing about it. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough (several) times round 🙂

Okay, knock it off before y’all get into Group Hugs.

Actually, to add to that, I can get reasonable differential focusing on a fast moderately wide lens as well, such as a 35mm f1.4, buy using it wide open. The Nikon equivalent would be a 23mm lens. Much harder to differential focus with that.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

Hey,

at least you and I have 2 things in common. We both like Canon cameras, and we are both passionate about what we belive in.

I am at long last going to create a website. When it is done I will send you the URL address so you can have a look at some of my work and let me know what you think. That is probably not a good thing with you LOL. When I say work, my initial site will be a personal one with just my own personal photography on it. That will be my practice site before I make a commercial one.

Take care,

Brian.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:36:37 +1000, Brian
wrote:

Hey,

at least you and I have 2 things in common. We both like Canon cameras, and we are both passionate about what we belive in.

True 🙂

I am at long last going to create a website. When it is done I will send you the URL address so you can have a look at some of my work and let me know what you think. That is probably not a good thing with you LOL.

I’m sure you’ll find my professional opinions are rather less caustic 😉

When I say work, my initial site will be a personal one with just my own personal photography on it. That will be my practice site before I make a commercial one.

Good idea.

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:05:00 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

No problem. To be honest I couldn’t see why you were arguing about it. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough (several) times round 🙂

Okay, knock it off before y’all get into Group Hugs.

Me? Group hugs? Where the hell am I going wrong, you b***ard… 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

Fashion: Buying things you don’t need, with money
you don’t have, to impress people you don’t like…