Vidgamer wrote:I've long felt that upgrading cameras is a case of diminishing returns. There was a huge leap from 1 or 2 mp to 3mp. Pretty significant leap to 4 or 5. Harder to see the leap to 7. To improve quality, I not only went to 10mp, but from P&S to DSLR, and I think it's the DSLR part that was more of an improvement than raw pixels, although I do think pixels help. But at some point, you have sufficient resolution for the intended printout.
Vidgamer wrote:As for making panoramas, I have used several programs, and most are tedious, and often show seams, ghosts, etc. I think the best one (certainly easiest) is Microsoft's ICE. When you have a really good stitch, though, I bet you could rival an expensive camera.
Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.
In most cases I did not tell them what they were looking at, simply saying that I had been shooting with two cameras, and that they should divide the prints (about a dozen) into two piles – Camera A and Camera B. They were asked to judge resolution, accutance, colour reproduction, highlight detail, dMax, and any other factors that they wished to consider.
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.
Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?
Greg Beetham wrote:My opinion (for what it's worth) has not changed about APS-C vs FF, there are some advantages in a 24MP FF over a 12MP APS-C but there are more disadvantages, too actually take advantage of the increased pixel count one would have to use very carefull and most likely expensive lens selection and subject framing/composition.
The pixel/density as already stated by others elsewhere is roughly the same for both cameras, so to my mind the APS-C camera has format advantages in such things as sports/action photography, nature photography and macro photography, it has been said that you can afford too crop the FF to regain equality with the APS-C camera, well I say if you do that you have then sacrificed any advantage in having a FF camera in the first place, so..as far as I'm concerned if you want too persist with a FF camera in those sort of activities you will have too invest in much larger more expensive lenses to actually realize any advantage in pixel count, then you have to lug around a much heavier/expensive more cumbersome outfit just to get more pixels under your image that you will never see in any normal sized print.
Where FF has an advantage over APS-C is in the studio (not much),also events (some) like weddings, commercial and scenic type photography (potentially a lot), but I still wonder if filling up memory cards and hard drives faster is worth the advantage if you rarely/never print any larger than 10X8's, or you don't have a giant high-res monitor.
ps The Canon G10 is apparently a good little available light camera...as long as there is plenty of available light.
Sonolta wrote:a) Relative deeper DOF properties of the APS-C format can be a significant advantage for some users. This allows the use of lower sensitivity, smaller apertures, and faster shutter speeds on subjects such as macros etc.
B) The economic thing is a bit deeper than you might think as APS-C format lenses use the sweet spot of a full frame lens, so some lenses that are not great on FF can be very good on APS-C. This is an APS-C advantage for tele shooters (and others as well) for sure as they get a usable 1.5x lens and the FF guy is stuck with a 1x nothing paperweight.
C)File sizes and processing time are another advantage for APS-C...unless you shoot your a900 at reduced resolution.
D) Larger lens selection for APS-C.
E) I won't argue the tele/crop thing...but I will say using the crop mode on the A900 is no real equivalent to shooting straight APS-C.
F) Smaller cameras are unobtrusive and this is of great benefit when shooting candid and street.
G) With less money put towards the sensor, an argument could be made that a stronger feature set could be incorporated with APS-C..articulating LCDs, Video, etc.
H) Personally I like the eye-start AF my A700 has...the a900 does not have it.
I) I am long end shooter and the move to FF would cost me some $$$ beyond the body.
1. My 80-200 is effectively an 120-300 2.8 and that's how I use it.
2. My (2) 135 2.8's are effectively a 200mm 2.8 and I use this one a ton
3. My 70-300 is effectively 105-450mm 4.5-5.6 this is my most used outdoor lens.
So to shoot what I am used to shooting now in a similar fashion I would need some fantasy zoom lens 120-300mm 2.8, a prime that costs me a bundle, and a long zoom lens that costs me a bundle...not to mention the fact that my other 8 lenses that may or may not serve me as well as they did in the past. I don't do a lot of wide angle stuff, the shallow DOF is nice at times, but to be honest the full-frame advantage is really not that compelling to me. A few years ago I thought for sure I would move to FF for better noise characteristics but Sony messed that up by not producing a camera that up to the 5DII or the D700/D3 in noise control and APS-C is now doing excellent resolution and noise control.
If the a900 was great in low light, or had live view and video I would be interested. As it is now, it really serves me no advantage to move to FF, and may in-fact be a disadvantage for me to purchase one if I were to only purchase the body alone.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests