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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: : RichA wrote: : On Mar 30, 6:09*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg : David J Taylor wrote: : : And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. *Just not : necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would : indicate. : : Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ... : : Are you all so blessed as to have so many lenses you never, ever have : to crop? : : Now, RichA, yes, we do have lenses. For example, I can couple a : 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter (and still get : a better image and more resolution with 8 MPix than a cropped 24 : MPix with a 200mm lens). : : Cropping is only ever *required* for format changes (say 1:1). : : In real life in 99% I crop only slightly, if at all. Then you probably don't crop enough. We don't necessarily live in a 3:2 world, and some pictures just look better when cropped to their natural aspect ratios. : Do you want 8 megapixels on that 1/4 page crop, or 3? : : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Bob |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix. Stock photography requires higher res. News usually does not. Magazine (news/journal) does not. To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but that resolution disappears in print - and 3x more so in web display. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: : On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote: : On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : : : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. : : Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for : publication. : : Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page : phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. Forgive me, Alan, but you seem to be inventing your own reality. A few years ago, when the best cameras we had were 10Mp, my wife and I submitted some pictures for a calendar; and even with very little cropping, were barely able to meet the minimum requirements. Maybe you're right, and 3 Mp is enough. But if the editor doesn't agree, you're just another doggie howling in the wind. : The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was : with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix. That was then, and this is now. (Besides, who, other than Davd Littleboy, reads the Japan edition?) : Stock photography requires higher res. As does anything else, if the customer decrees it so. : News usually does not. At least it shouldn't. You're right to that extent. : Magazine (news/journal) does not. Debatable, and certainly unproven. : To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but : that resolution disappears in print - Sometimes yes; sometimes no. : and 3x more so in web display. Three times the sensor resolution in each direction? Maybe, but that's well more than 3 to 4 Mp. Bob |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On 2012-04-08 13:53 , Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: : On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote: : On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : : : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. : : Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for : publication. : : Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page : phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. Forgive me, Alan, but you seem to be inventing your own reality. I don't need to invent anything to state what I stated. I know 2 press reporters who used the Nikon D2H for about 5 years before upgrading to the next one. One of them was published in the weekly news magazine associated with his paper as well. A friend (freelancer) still uses his D2H's as a backup to his two D3x's despite the huge pixel count difference. A few years ago, when the best cameras we had were 10Mp, my wife and I submitted some pictures for a calendar; and even with very little cropping, were barely able to meet the minimum requirements. Maybe you're right, and 3 Mp is enough. But if the editor doesn't agree, you're just another doggie howling in the wind. As I said below, stock requires higher counts (usually for no good reason), but daily grind news simply never did and still does not. The only reason pro newsies use higher res cameras is because that is what is sold and issued to them by the photo dept. : The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was : with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix. That was then, and this is now. (Besides, who, other than Davd Littleboy, reads the Japan edition?) : Stock photography requires higher res. As does anything else, if the customer decrees it so. And news organizations (which I made crystal clear) do not and have not. : News usually does not. At least it shouldn't. You're right to that extent. : Magazine (news/journal) does not. Debatable, and certainly unproven. Newspapers supplied their news photogs with enough D2H's to fill a cargo ship. Many of those cameras saw 3 - 5 years daily, hard use. : To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but : that resolution disappears in print - Sometimes yes; sometimes no. Look on a news stand. NONE of those magazines needs more than a 4 MPix camera. Even that leave oodles of cropping margin. Most magazine print screens are about 180 dpi equivalent. : and 3x more so in web display. Three times the sensor resolution in each direction? Maybe, but that's well more than 3 to 4 Mp. Well ____ LESS ___. Computer monitors are around 100 dpi. Prints are around 300 - 360 dpi (typical). Magazines are around 180 dpi (some run higher - 240 - 300 or so). Your calendar editor may have needs - technically appropriate or not. But that does not represent the needs of newspapers and magazines. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On 9/04/2012 2:48 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix. I'm not sure about Japanese edition, but the US edition made quite a public fuss about their first all digital article which was shot with Nikon D100 (and D1x IIRC). The article was about fighter jets. At about that time, if you searched their web site some shots common to both web site and magazine were searchable by camera model. There were a couple of surprises to me in that, firstly that while I expected to see lots of D1/2 and 1D/s, many of the journos were using lowly 300d, D70, and similar model cameras. Next surprise was looking through a current (at the time) edition of Nat Geo and trying to guess digital or film for the printed images. If it was so blindingly obvious that 3, 4 or 6mp wasn't enough for a full page image, then it sure didn't show. But regardless of this, the OP can keep the idea of a lowly 24mp Fx camera. I still want a d800. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote: On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp. The first all digital article in National Geographic (Japan ed.) was with a high end P&S of about 3 or 4 Mpix. Stock photography requires higher res. News usually does not. Magazine (news/journal) does not. To be sure most professionals have higher res cameras these days, but that resolution disappears in print - and 3x more so in web display. Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
Robert Coe wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : RichA wrote: : On Mar 30, 6:09Â*am, Wolfgang Weisselberg : David J Taylor wrote: : And more pixels will always get more out of the lens. Â*Just not : necessarily nearly as much as the increased pixel count would : indicate. : Rich always looks at photos in 200% view, though ... : Are you all so blessed as to have so many lenses you never, ever have : to crop? : Now, RichA, yes, we do have lenses. For example, I can couple a : 70-200mm f/2.8 IS with a 1.4x and 2x teleconverter (and still get : a better image and more resolution with 8 MPix than a cropped 24 : MPix with a 200mm lens). : Cropping is only ever *required* for format changes (say 1:1). : In real life in 99% I crop only slightly, if at all. Then you probably don't crop enough. We don't necessarily live in a 3:2 world, and some pictures just look better when cropped to their natural aspect ratios. Yes, some pictures work better 1:1/24:25 and some work better 2:1. Usually though 2:3 works fine for me. : Do you want 8 megapixels on that 1/4 page crop, or 3? : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Remind me that I need at least 50 MPix in the output for publication of a 5"x6" image on newspaper quality. Then I shall remind you that I photograph as a hobby --- something I do for fun --- and not something for the unrealistic expectations of some editor. -Wolfgang |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On 2012-04-08 19:58 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 10:48:49 -0400, Alan Browne wrote: On 2012-04-07 20:45 , Robert Coe wrote: On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 17:32:08 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg : A 1/4 page is (usually) around 4.25" x 5.5", or 2.1 MPix at : 300 dpi. 8 MPix at that size is 585 dpi --- total overkill. : : So, yes, 3 Mpix is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Tell that to the editor, the next time you submit a photograph for publication. Press photogs used 4 Mpix DSLR cameras for years, resulting in full page phots in newspapers and magazines. Nothing better was (or is) needed. The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp. The D2H was 4. True that the D1 was hugely popular with press photogs and very much up to the task even for full page magazine photos. -- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did. I said I didn't know." -Samuel Clemens. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp. actually it was 2.7 mp from a 10.8 mp sensor. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Entry level Nikon 24mp?!
On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 11:55:04 -0400, nospam
wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: The Nikon D1 was 2.4 Mp. actually it was 2.7 mp from a 10.8 mp sensor. Neither of us are right according to http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Produc...Tabs-TechSpecs Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon D3000 - entry level? | David J Taylor[_16_] | Digital Photography | 2 | May 20th 10 03:51 PM |
entry level P & S | No Name | Digital Photography | 1 | November 9th 08 05:02 PM |
entry level digital SLR recommandation. nikon D50 or D40 or any other cameras.TIA | jamie kim | Digital Photography | 2 | March 6th 07 12:25 AM |
Buying my first ZLR (entry level) | Susan McGee | Digital ZLR Cameras | 15 | January 5th 05 02:52 PM |
Best Entry Level Camera? | Linda_N | Digital Photography | 3 | October 25th 04 01:39 AM |