Pixel Peeper Anomalies - They're Totally Missing the Big Picture

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:37:32 +0100, Mike
wrote:


Whilst agreeing with you that I can (and do) examine pics far more
critically since I went digital it's not completely without merit.

Whilst on holiday I only had my Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4.5 with me and the
picture of my son on a fairground ride really needed something in the
range of 2-300mm. I've got a 1400x900 crop from the 10mp RAW file that
is still very sharp, it makes a great desktop and could be printed
still if req'd.

Had I used the sony kit lens I doubt I'd have got anything usable. I
took some test shots with my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 and compared them to
test shots taken with my Sigma 135-400mm APO and cropping the Tamron's
images to match the view of the sigma at 400mm produces a picture only
slightly less sharp, though a lot less pixels.

The sigma is now redundant and going for sale on ebay shortly.

Mike

A super-zoom P&S camera would have avoided all those problems, for half the
cost of just one of those lenses.

If worried about pixels then check out
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml,
where a 20x super-zoom lens easily beats a DSLR + 3x zoom lens in
resolution and CA performance. This isn't the only P&S camera to do so,
merely a handy link to one of the many super-zoom P&S cameras capable of
this today. Then you won't need to desperately crop everything trying to
get a decent useable image. Do it right in the first place by having the
focal-length needed with you at all times.

Mike wrote:

snip

Had I used the sony kit lens I doubt I'd have got anything usable. I
took some test shots with my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 and compared them to
test shots taken with my Sigma 135-400mm APO and cropping the Tamron's
images to match the view of the sigma at 400mm produces a picture only
slightly less sharp, though a lot less pixels.

Had you used a point and shoot camera with a super-zoom lens, after all
the lag time, you would have gotten a picture of someone elses kid on
the fairground ride.

I remember running into a colleague of mine at Kelly Park, a small
amusement park in San Jose. She was there with her two kids, 4 and 5
years old, and was futilely trying to take pictures of them on the
merry-go-round with her super-zoom point and shoot, trying to time the
lag so it would take photos of her kids, not someone else's. Of course
even if successful, the focus would be off.

I told her, "let me do this," and took a bunch of great photos of her
kids with my Canon 20D and gave her a CD with the photos (too big to
e-mail to her). Now she wants a digital SLR but she doesn't like the
idea of the larger size, though really it's not that much larger.

As the old saying goes, "Friends don't let Friends buy P&S cameras."

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:58:47 -0700, SMS wrote:

Had you used a point and shoot camera with a super-zoom lens, after all
the lag time, you would have gotten a picture of someone elses kid on
the fairground ride.


What a shame that your role-playing-photographer troll's misinformation is
about 6 years out of date. This is no longer a problem, for many years.

Catch up, troll.

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:13:25 -0700 (PDT), "D.Sandoval"
wrote:


That's a bit harsh, but you're correct that for what Mike was doing,
pictures of children in motion, a point and shoot would not be a good
choice. Even the point and shoot with the absoute lowest shutter lag
still is far too slow for children on a moving ride.

Then I guess the shutter lag of any DSLR is too slow too. Considering that
many P&S cameras are now faster than DSLRs because they don't have to move
that agonizingly slow mirror and shutter to capture the image.

I swear, are all you DSLR morons this uneducated and inexperienced?

unHoly Idiot wrote:
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 13:13:25 -0700 (PDT), "D.Sandoval"
wrote:

choice. Even the point and shoot with the absoute lowest shutter lag
still is far too slow for children on a moving ride.

Then I guess the shutter lag of any DSLR is too slow too.

Show me a P&S that does a) focus as fast as a DSLR b) has a
working focus prediction for moving objects. Maker, exact Model
designation and Proof.

You cannot? Thought so ...

The P&S takes a few ages to calculate the *wrong* focus and by
then even any theoretical zero shutter lag is locking the stable
door a few weeks after the horse has bolted.

I swear, are all you DSLR morons this uneducated and inexperienced?

No, it's only you.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:
08:57:04 -0500, wrote:

I still get lots of great photos but none that I'm really excited about.
Those seem to be happening fewer and further apart. Perhaps a simple
solution is to use memory card capable of holding only 36 images.

I remember the days when I was out for the afternoon with my 3
double-sided 4" x 5" plate holders I would get quite annoyed with
those people who in the same time could take 36 photographs with their
busy little 35mm cameras. What amused me is that at the end of the day
we would be lucky if we had one good shot each.

I still tend to take as much trouble with my D300 as I used to take
with the plate camera. I won't comment on the results.

Photography can be very difficult, it requires holding a bunch of
different factors in your head while remaining fluid & open, paying
attention to every little corner and the big picture. I mess
opportunities up all the time but also I get lucky pretty often g.

I took one college class doing b&w darkroom work and adjusting the
exposure when printing was always how you printed. No shame for burning
or dodging, lots of film exposures were off too, with no way to see the
histogram g.

It would be interesting to set up a nice tethered computer with a large
screen and glare protection (black cloth?). I've done some like that, it
really is ideal to be able to see 'polaroids' on a big screen. I still
never know what I've got till I get home. Live view can help for tripod
work and macros but wow is that a lot of tedious difficult work zooming
& panning around the screen, I want 1920x1200 live view g and a
roll-up, lightweight 24" monitor (per the movie, Minority Report) and
black cloth over my head.

But usually I don't even use a tripod g.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:

It would be interesting to set up a nice tethered computer with a large
screen and glare protection (black cloth?). I've done some like that, it
really is ideal to be able to see 'polaroids' on a big screen.


That's probably one reason I enjoy shooting with a 4X5. The large
viewing screen :-)

Stephanie

Paul Furman wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:
08:57:04 -0500, wrote:

I still get lots of great photos but none that I'm really excited about.
Those seem to be happening fewer and further apart. Perhaps a simple
solution is to use memory card capable of holding only 36 images.

I remember the days when I was out for the afternoon with my 3
double-sided 4" x 5" plate holders I would get quite annoyed with
those people who in the same time could take 36 photographs with their
busy little 35mm cameras. What amused me is that at the end of the day
we would be lucky if we had one good shot each.

I still tend to take as much trouble with my D300 as I used to take
with the plate camera. I won't comment on the results.

Photography can be very difficult, it requires holding a bunch of
different factors in your head while remaining fluid & open, paying
attention to every little corner and the big picture. I mess
opportunities up all the time but also I get lucky pretty often g.

As I tell folks: If you take enough pictures _some_ of them will come
out well. I'm trying to improve my success rate.

I took one college class doing b&w darkroom work and adjusting the
exposure when printing was always how you printed. No shame for burning
or dodging, lots of film exposures were off too, with no way to see the
histogram g.

It would be interesting to set up a nice tethered computer with a large
screen and glare protection (black cloth?). I've done some like that, it
really is ideal to be able to see 'polaroids' on a big screen. I still
never know what I've got till I get home. Live view can help for tripod
work and macros but wow is that a lot of tedious difficult work zooming
& panning around the screen, I want 1920x1200 live view g and a
roll-up, lightweight 24" monitor (per the movie, Minority Report) and
black cloth over my head.

We need large virtual monitors mounted in headsets. Maybe in 10
years.

But usually I don't even use a tripod g.

Becasue the photo won't stay still long enough to set it all up.

--
Ray Fischer