Last Camera Syndrome?
- Thread starter Danno
- Start date
People who abandon real cameras for phones it would seem are looking for nothing more than a recording device. I can't see how anyone serious about photography would ever consider a phone a viable alternative to a DSLR.
How large do you make prints? Unless you are making banner sized images I don't see where there would be a huge advantage of a 50MP image. In fact I can think of many disadvantages. Bloated files take up a huge amount of HD space and the larger the image, the more time it takes PS (or whatever you are using) to make adjustments.
Last edited:
Everyone has their own technique I guess but wouldn't it make a whole lot more sense to use an appropriate focal length for the image rather than relying on cropping heavily? When you crop heavily you lose all control over depth of field (a real pet peeve of mine) and regardless of how good the lens, relying on magnification (heavy cropping) will result in an image of less IQ than one where an appropriate focal length was used and an image that required minimal cropping.
Last edited:
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
Most can find a need for a new camera----------------------- if they want one
For sure, a total case of the "need' vs 'want'
To quote my Papa "if you have a roof over your head and food in your belly all else is gravy" - when we use the hierarchy of needs, oxegen, water, food, warmth, ... a new camera is pretty far down the list.
As is 95% of what we spend our 'disposable' income on.
The article was more about camera company marketing strategy - and the idea that they need a different strategy to convince more people to part with serious dollars for a new DSLR (or any camera for that matter). But marketing is all about "creating a desire, want, ... dare I say it "need" for their product. And somehow convince people that it is better than the competitors, will make you superior, stronger, faster, safer, whatever. Just buy my gizmo. For camera co. they have convinced us that Nikon is best and Nikon cameras take better pictures. But cameras don't take pictures any more then pencils write books or ... well you get the point.
Hey, just had a new strategy for Nikon - the new Organic Non-GMO - completely chemical free camera. Who cares what it costs or the image IQ - you won't die from the toxin's entering your body by touching the shutter. ... and no animals will be harmed in the production or testing of this camera. ....Baseless fears seem to be the latest craze to open my wallet wider.
Last edited:
It's interesting to note Nikons rumoured strategy of putting the pro sensors in the next generation of D7*** & D7** cameras. Does this signal a slow down in how quickly new models will be rolled out after this next lot comes out ?
I can't imagine them bringing out another sensor that beats the D5 sensor before the D5s is rolled out.
So in other words, will they slow the releases of the prosumer models to match the pro models, or perhaps keep the same sensor for a few consecutive models with incremental improvements in features, which is pretty much what they are doing now.
I can't imagine them bringing out another sensor that beats the D5 sensor before the D5s is rolled out.
So in other words, will they slow the releases of the prosumer models to match the pro models, or perhaps keep the same sensor for a few consecutive models with incremental improvements in features, which is pretty much what they are doing now.
Right, I suppose a D7200 and Nikon 500mm f/4 just isnt good enough
Original image
View attachment 251253
cropped to this
View attachment 251254
I take it you have heard of a teleconverter. I use my TC-14B and TC-300 all the time. And I use my skills as a life long hunter and Army trained Sniper to stalk prey and get closer to shoot them.
And this is a small image on a computer screen. How sharp would it look in a 11x14 or 16x20?
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I think for many people, and this includes a lot of people who own DSLR's, photography is about one thing: Having fun. They're not Photographers (capital P) and don't aspire to be. They don't care about White Balance, ISO, bokeh, Depth of Field or any of that; they take snapshots because it's FUN and just as soon as it stops being fun, they'll stop taking snapshots. They don't care about improving because they don't care enough about the photos they take. It's about the fun of taking them, in the moment, and sharing them in that same moment.
As @Bikerbrent points out: "Then how else do you explain why so many people are abandoning all forms of dedicated cameras to shoot exclusively with their smartphones or tablets? Even with full manual and f1.8, I can't blur the background on a closeup shot of a flower on my wife's LG G4. These people are obviously satisfied with the snapshots they take."
Bingo! It's all about the fun factor and phones combine both aspects: easy snapshots and easy access to social media.
...
Anyone shooting stock is mindful of resolution minimums keep increasing, even 24mpx will soon be obsolete for sales. Studio work, fashion and fine art commercial work keeps getting tighter on specs. A D800 is about minimum for some magazine and fashion work. If someone is printing or displaying for monitor display, 12mpx is fine if once composes well in camera. Dealing with D8x0 files is not a problem for modern computers and SSD and modern display processors. Storage speed and cost have raced in opposite directions to our advantage.
I have sold images to Field and Stream and they are just fine with my "antique" D700 and its "paltry" 12MP
There's plenty of room to increase sensor resolution. We have only taken the first baby steps. First, I'd be glad if my sensor would be able to capture everything my lenses project. That is a tall order, though.
Secondly, let's say we want our lenses to be diffraction limited at f/1 (that's another tall order). It will not happen in the foreseeable future, but it is a goal that doesn't leave much to the table. This way our lenses will record all the details there is on the scene.
Let's do the math.
Spatial cutoff frequency - Wikipedia
For a full frame sensor and 550 nm light (spectral green light, in the middle of human vision spectrum) the spatial cutoff frequency is
f0=1/(0.00055)*1 = 1818.18 cycles/mm
2 pixels per cycle
Fudge factor of 0.9 for the Bayer pattern (I use 2/3 if there's an AA filter).
1818.18*2/0.9 = 4040.4 pixels/mm
36mm*4040.4*24mm*4040.4 = 14.1 GPix
So, for a sensor to be able to capture everything a nearly optimal lens projects, we'll need 14.1 gigapixel full frame sensors. There's plenty of room to grow, since we've not even reached 0.5 % of that (70 Mpix).
Of course the law of diminishing returns apply, but somewhere along the way we won't need demosaicking anymore. Just like our screens now only use R, G and B dots to show all the colors and our eyes do the blending. Plenty of room to go! We'll laugh in 20 years at the crude sensors we're using now. Just like everybody is laughing at my 2 megapixel D1H from 2001 that I still use.
Secondly, let's say we want our lenses to be diffraction limited at f/1 (that's another tall order). It will not happen in the foreseeable future, but it is a goal that doesn't leave much to the table. This way our lenses will record all the details there is on the scene.
Let's do the math.
Spatial cutoff frequency - Wikipedia
For a full frame sensor and 550 nm light (spectral green light, in the middle of human vision spectrum) the spatial cutoff frequency is
f0=1/(0.00055)*1 = 1818.18 cycles/mm
2 pixels per cycle
Fudge factor of 0.9 for the Bayer pattern (I use 2/3 if there's an AA filter).
1818.18*2/0.9 = 4040.4 pixels/mm
36mm*4040.4*24mm*4040.4 = 14.1 GPix
So, for a sensor to be able to capture everything a nearly optimal lens projects, we'll need 14.1 gigapixel full frame sensors. There's plenty of room to grow, since we've not even reached 0.5 % of that (70 Mpix).
Of course the law of diminishing returns apply, but somewhere along the way we won't need demosaicking anymore. Just like our screens now only use R, G and B dots to show all the colors and our eyes do the blending. Plenty of room to go! We'll laugh in 20 years at the crude sensors we're using now.
Just like everybody is laughing at my 2 megapixel D1H from 2001 that I still use.
Last edited:
I've been shooting pictures for a long time. Give me most any camera, and I'll have fun taking pictures.
Still, the best tool for the job is the one most of us want, if we are honest. Sports and wildlife are my passions, and the D500 is just perfect for that. Right now I feel like it's all the camera I'll ever need, but I remember when my Apple Macintosh 512K seemed like the only computer I'd ever need.
Still, the best tool for the job is the one most of us want, if we are honest. Sports and wildlife are my passions, and the D500 is just perfect for that. Right now I feel like it's all the camera I'll ever need, but I remember when my Apple Macintosh 512K seemed like the only computer I'd ever need.