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

"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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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