If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2013-02-18 14:47:46 -0800, "David Hare-Scott" said:
Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-18 02:11:07 -0800, Robert Peirce said: In article , "Trevor" wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp I agree. My D300S with its puny 12.3MP sensor is capable of producing images which can be printed at 12X18 (13X19 being the largest simple solution for my E2880) indistinguishable from anything produced from 24MB image files. Any larger prints I trust to Bayphoto and they have been able to present me with astonishing enlargements from image files produced via my D300S. http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY http://db.tt/e0SRj5PB At a time my primary cameras were my, then 25, now 37 year old K1000 and my then 32 now 44 year old Yashica Electro 35, my first digital camera was a 2.1MP CoolPix 775, which served its purpose as a snapshot camera from which I have been able to get some acceptable 8X10 prints. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DSCN0201w.jpg I understand what you are saying about print quality and image resolution but it leads me to a question. Is what you are saying assuming that the original image isn't cropped before printing? So it seems to me that if you had 24MP at your disposal you could crop it by 50% and still get that good quality A3 print. If this is correct isn't that an advantage to the higher resolution camera in many circumstances? David Absolutely. I certainly had to crop a significant area of the original of the FW190 shot to reach the final result. Also what you are saw has been resized for online sharing and viewing. Having 24MP crop leeway at my disposal would be wonderful. However, given that I have a good, rugged, 12.1MP D300S on which I as a retired hobbyist photographer I have spent a fair amount of cash. I have to live within my means and what I might lust for, I might have to plan and wait for. I just can't justify spending that $1600-$2000 for a new 24MP+ body when I have a camera with capability I can work with, and with disadvantages I can work around. I can certainly see myself with a D800, or similar some time in the future, but for now, I can produce pretty consistent work. Here is some of what I was able to capture that day at the Paso Robles airport, and for a different type of shooting, from a cycling leg of a local triathlon. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...%20Over%20Paso https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...ages/WTF-2012w Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
"Robert Peirce" wrote in message ... In article , "Trevor" Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. I deliberately skipped the crap in favour of film. Digital was no benefit to me until 8Mp cameras arrived. Friends who shot for newspapers had different requirements though, and I have no argument with that. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. Sure, that's what my friends with their phone camera pics say. If you view from far enough away, (requires a big room) and squint your eyes, it doesn't look so bad! :-) NOT my idea of serious photography though! 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp You mean you don't, you have no idea what I, or others, may need. Trevor. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
"Savageduck" wrote in message news:2013021817414142612-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. That's the beauty of the D800, you get wide angle Fx with the same glass, and can crop to the same focal length eqivalent as Dx whenever you need, *and* still have the same or more pixels to play with. Not everyone can afford or justify one of course, but claiming they are unnecessary for anyone is just what people tell themselves so they don't feel so bad they don't have one :-) Trevor. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2/18/2013 7:54 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-18 02:11:07 -0800, Robert Peirce said: In article , "Trevor" wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp I agree. My D300S with its puny 12.3MP sensor is capable of producing images which can be printed at 12X18 (13X19 being the largest simple solution for my E2880) indistinguishable from anything produced from 24MB image files. Any larger prints I trust to Bayphoto and they have been able to present me with astonishing enlargements from image files produced via my D300S. http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY http://db.tt/e0SRj5PB At a time my primary cameras were my, then 25, now 37 year old K1000 and my then 32 now 44 year old Yashica Electro 35, my first digital camera was a 2.1MP CoolPix 775, which served its purpose as a snapshot camera from which I have been able to get some acceptable 8X10 prints. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DSCN0201w.jpg The man in your Nikon "CoolPix 775" shot, reminds me of Don Coryell (former head coach of the San Diego Chargers and St. Louis Cardinals). John |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-18 14:47:46 -0800, "David Hare-Scott" said: Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-18 02:11:07 -0800, Robert Peirce said: In article , "Trevor" wrote: Why would they if like many people I know they only print 6"x4" with the occasional 8"x10" print. Those who take their photography seriously are far more likely to buy a D800 as the replacement. The 5200 may be a good camera for those upgrading from older base models or compacts though. My first digital camera only had 4Mp and I printed up to 12"x18" with it. The key is whether people are going to look at the print from normal viewing distances or through a magnifying glass. From what I have seen and read, printing much over 300-360dpi is a waste of ink no matter how closely it is viewed. Even prints down to 100dpi can look great from a reasonable viewing distance. 16Mp will allow 12"x18" prints at 272dpi. You don't really need 24Mp I agree. My D300S with its puny 12.3MP sensor is capable of producing images which can be printed at 12X18 (13X19 being the largest simple solution for my E2880) indistinguishable from anything produced from 24MB image files. Any larger prints I trust to Bayphoto and they have been able to present me with astonishing enlargements from image files produced via my D300S. http://db.tt/GvAFmtLY http://db.tt/e0SRj5PB At a time my primary cameras were my, then 25, now 37 year old K1000 and my then 32 now 44 year old Yashica Electro 35, my first digital camera was a 2.1MP CoolPix 775, which served its purpose as a snapshot camera from which I have been able to get some acceptable 8X10 prints. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil.../DSCN0201w.jpg I understand what you are saying about print quality and image resolution but it leads me to a question. Is what you are saying assuming that the original image isn't cropped before printing? So it seems to me that if you had 24MP at your disposal you could crop it by 50% and still get that good quality A3 print. If this is correct isn't that an advantage to the higher resolution camera in many circumstances? David Absolutely. I certainly had to crop a significant area of the original of the FW190 shot to reach the final result. Also what you are saw has been resized for online sharing and viewing. Having 24MP crop leeway at my disposal would be wonderful. However, given that I have a good, rugged, 12.1MP D300S on which I as a retired hobbyist photographer I have spent a fair amount of cash. I have to live within my means and what I might lust for, I might have to plan and wait for. I just can't justify spending that $1600-$2000 for a new 24MP+ body when I have a camera with capability I can work with, and with disadvantages I can work around. My Pentax "K100D" is an old, 6 MP "entry level" model. It lacks both "live view" and video capture capabilities, in addition to its comparatively low resolution. Alas, as with your case, I can't afford to throw too much money at my photography hobby. I can certainly see myself with a D800, or similar some time in the future, but for now, I can produce pretty consistent work. Here is some of what I was able to capture that day at the Paso Robles airport, and for a different type of shooting, from a cycling leg of a local triathlon. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...%20Over%20Paso https://www.dropbox.com/sh/lx56l61b7...ages/WTF-2012w Pretty good work. Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2013-02-18 23:22:34 -0800, John Turco said:
On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John That was the very capable Yak-9. http://db.tt/gYtZLnwC At that point in the war (1942-45) the later "Mark" Hurricanes would have had the guns (4 x 20mm vs the 8 x .303 they carried in 1940) to deal with the FW-190, but they lacked the speed and were used more in the ground attack role in the ETO 1943-45. The later Spitfires would have also performed adequately against the FW-190, as would the P-38L, P-47D and P-51D. However each of the US fighters would have used somewhat different tactics against the FW-190. Zemke and his P-47 "Wolf Pack" proved to be particularly effective against both the FW-190 & Be-109. P-38s did quite well in the ETO using head-on passes, and with the P-38J/L surprised many German pilots familiar with the P-38E/H, by being able to turn inside the German planes. The P-51 was able to engage in aerial combat effectively in all dimensions, usually maintaining the two man "shooter-wingman" team. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2/19/2013 2:00 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-18 23:22:34 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John That was the very capable Yak-9. http://db.tt/gYtZLnwC Damn, I only saw the front part of the plane! (It still looks like a Hurricane rip-off, to me.) At that point in the war (1942-45) the later "Mark" Hurricanes would have had the guns (4 x 20mm vs the 8 x .303 they carried in 1940) to deal with the FW-190, but they lacked the speed and were used more in the ground attack role in the ETO 1943-45. The later Spitfires would have also performed adequately against the FW-190, as would the P-38L, P-47D and P-51D. However each of the US fighters would have used somewhat different tactics against the FW-190. Zemke and his P-47 "Wolf Pack" proved to be particularly effective against both the FW-190 & Be-109. P-38s did quite well in the ETO using head-on passes, and with the P-38J/L surprised many German pilots familiar with the P-38E/H, by being able to turn inside the German planes. The P-51 was able to engage in aerial combat effectively in all dimensions, usually maintaining the two man "shooter-wingman" team. The Japanese also had to contend with the U.S. Navy's F6F "Hellcat" and F4U "Corsair" (in addition to facing the Army's "Big Three" of Thunderbolt, Lightning and Mustang). John |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2013-02-19 16:32:51 -0800, John Turco said:
On 2/19/2013 2:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-18 23:22:34 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John That was the very capable Yak-9. http://db.tt/gYtZLnwC Damn, I only saw the front part of the plane! (It still looks like a Hurricane rip-off, to me.) At that point in the war (1942-45) the later "Mark" Hurricanes would have had the guns (4 x 20mm vs the 8 x .303 they carried in 1940) to deal with the FW-190, but they lacked the speed and were used more in the ground attack role in the ETO 1943-45. The later Spitfires would have also performed adequately against the FW-190, as would the P-38L, P-47D and P-51D. However each of the US fighters would have used somewhat different tactics against the FW-190. Zemke and his P-47 "Wolf Pack" proved to be particularly effective against both the FW-190 & Be-109. P-38s did quite well in the ETO using head-on passes, and with the P-38J/L surprised many German pilots familiar with the P-38E/H, by being able to turn inside the German planes. The P-51 was able to engage in aerial combat effectively in all dimensions, usually maintaining the two man "shooter-wingman" team. The Japanese also had to contend with the U.S. Navy's F6F "Hellcat" and F4U "Corsair" (in addition to facing the Army's "Big Three" of Thunderbolt, Lightning and Mustang). John Well Dad got 3 "Zekes" and an "Oscar" + 2 probables in his P-38L and zip in his P-47D. http://db.tt/TIkmcOpu http://db.tt/I7j1UqpK -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2/19/2013 7:34 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-02-19 16:32:51 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/19/2013 2:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-18 23:22:34 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John That was the very capable Yak-9. http://db.tt/gYtZLnwC Damn, I only saw the front part of the plane! (It still looks like a Hurricane rip-off, to me.) At that point in the war (1942-45) the later "Mark" Hurricanes would have had the guns (4 x 20mm vs the 8 x .303 they carried in 1940) to deal with the FW-190, but they lacked the speed and were used more in the ground attack role in the ETO 1943-45. The later Spitfires would have also performed adequately against the FW-190, as would the P-38L, P-47D and P-51D. However each of the US fighters would have used somewhat different tactics against the FW-190. Zemke and his P-47 "Wolf Pack" proved to be particularly effective against both the FW-190 & Be-109. P-38s did quite well in the ETO using head-on passes, and with the P-38J/L surprised many German pilots familiar with the P-38E/H, by being able to turn inside the German planes. The P-51 was able to engage in aerial combat effectively in all dimensions, usually maintaining the two man "shooter-wingman" team. The Japanese also had to contend with the U.S. Navy's F6F "Hellcat" and F4U "Corsair" (in addition to facing the Army's "Big Three" of Thunderbolt, Lightning and Mustang). John Well Dad got 3 "Zekes" and an "Oscar" + 2 probables in his P-38L and zip in his P-47D. http://db.tt/TIkmcOpu http://db.tt/I7j1UqpK Excellent! I wonder how well he could've handled a Corsair and/or a Hellcat, from an aircraft carrier? (The Marines also made highly effective use of land-based Corsairs.) John |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Are used D7000's holding their value?
On 2013-02-20 14:23:31 -0800, John Turco said:
On 2/19/2013 7:34 PM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-19 16:32:51 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/19/2013 2:00 AM, Savageduck wrote: On 2013-02-18 23:22:34 -0800, John Turco said: On 2/18/2013 7:41 PM, Savageduck wrote: Talking of crop room, here is the uncropped version of the FW190 shot. Consider that was shot at 300mm (450mm FF equivalent), so I would be looking at using a fair amount of that crop leeway if I had been using a D800 and the same glass. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...DNC_5064-2.jpg That FW190 was being trailed by a "Hurricane" or a "Spitfire" (luckily, for him, it wasn't a "Thunderbolt" or a "Lightning")! John That was the very capable Yak-9. http://db.tt/gYtZLnwC Damn, I only saw the front part of the plane! (It still looks like a Hurricane rip-off, to me.) At that point in the war (1942-45) the later "Mark" Hurricanes would have had the guns (4 x 20mm vs the 8 x .303 they carried in 1940) to deal with the FW-190, but they lacked the speed and were used more in the ground attack role in the ETO 1943-45. The later Spitfires would have also performed adequately against the FW-190, as would the P-38L, P-47D and P-51D. However each of the US fighters would have used somewhat different tactics against the FW-190. Zemke and his P-47 "Wolf Pack" proved to be particularly effective against both the FW-190 & Be-109. P-38s did quite well in the ETO using head-on passes, and with the P-38J/L surprised many German pilots familiar with the P-38E/H, by being able to turn inside the German planes. The P-51 was able to engage in aerial combat effectively in all dimensions, usually maintaining the two man "shooter-wingman" team. The Japanese also had to contend with the U.S. Navy's F6F "Hellcat" and F4U "Corsair" (in addition to facing the Army's "Big Three" of Thunderbolt, Lightning and Mustang). John Well Dad got 3 "Zekes" and an "Oscar" + 2 probables in his P-38L and zip in his P-47D. http://db.tt/TIkmcOpu http://db.tt/I7j1UqpK Excellent! I wonder how well he could've handled a Corsair and/or a Hellcat, from an aircraft carrier? (The Marines also made highly effective use of land-based Corsairs.) John I wouldn't know, he certainly didn't have the carrier training the Navy flyers got. Most of his flying with the 9th Fighter Squadron, 49th Fighter Group was off coral and expanded metal in New Guinea, some islands, The Philippines, & Okinawa. http://db.tt/1i11XB3H However the Marines were flying F4U's off coral and metal in the SW Pacific before the Navy learned how to land them on carriers from the Royal Navy. -- Regards, Savageduck |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
OT Customs Canada holding up items? | Justin F. Knotzke | 35mm Photo Equipment | 44 | September 14th 04 07:43 PM |
Holding Kalogen's Blue | Ken Smith | In The Darkroom | 6 | May 16th 04 02:20 PM |