«

Robert Coe <> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:25:58 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
>: It is also a reflection of the fact that most photojournalists have no
>: need of anything significantly over 12 MP, so 18 MP allows a useful
>: margin for cropping etc..
>
>Why photojournalists use what they do has long been a mystery to me. I
>regularly encounter newspaper photogs lugging around D3's and 1D's, yet the
>quality of reproduction in the average U.S. newspaper is so wretched that a
>moderately good P&S might suffice. I suppose the answer is that they're also
>shooting for their paper's Web site. But when I shoot for the Web, my shots
>get mercilessly dumbed down too. In fact, I usually submit everything as a
>JPEG 1200 pixels high and tell the Web designers that I can provide higher
>resolution if anybody needs prints.


18 MP is enough for a full page in a glossy magazine. 12 MP was more
than enough for anything less than full page.

You're right about newspapers - anything more than 6 MP is probably
overkill, but there is always the possibility that your shot will be
syndicated and used in magazines.

Robert Coe <> writes:

> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:25:58 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
> : Me <> wrote:
> : >
> : >Perhaps some of the emotion about this is exacerbated by the D4 and 1Dx
> : >having /relatively/ low pixel counts. Some people seem to think that
> : >the likely reason is that this is some "magic" optimum number of pixels
> : >offering ultimate image quality, when reality is that it's a compromise
> : >needed to get high full resolution frame rates off the sensor, buffered,
> : >and saved to card(s) at >10fps.
> :
> : It is also a reflection of the fact that most photojournalists have no
> : need of anything significantly over 12 MP, so 18 MP allows a useful
> : margin for cropping etc..
>
> Why photojournalists use what they do has long been a mystery to me. I
> regularly encounter newspaper photogs lugging around D3's and 1D's, yet the
> quality of reproduction in the average U.S. newspaper is so wretched that a
> moderately good P&S might suffice.

Photojournalism requires low-light and fast-response capabilities far
beyond the current P&S market. But not high resolution, as you note.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2/24/2012 12:14 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Doug McDonald<> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Not necessarily! There are rumors the date may be March 2.
>> More rumors say possibly two new cameras, one 22Mp and one ~36 Mp,
>> possibly different announcement dates.
>>
>> In other word, Canon Leak Central is very very busy.
>
>
> So we have had 22 MP, 34 MP and 45 MP rumours, now 36 MP!
>

no, not 36 ... I was just saying "approx 36" because
I didn't remember the exact 34 rumor.

Doug

On Feb 24, 5:02*pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> >On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:25:58 +0000, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >: It is also a reflection of the fact that most photojournalists have no
> >: need of anything significantly over 12 MP, so 18 MP allows a useful
> >: margin for cropping etc..
>
> >Why photojournalists use what they do has long been a mystery to me. I
> >regularly encounter newspaper photogs lugging around D3's and 1D's, yet the
> >quality of reproduction in the average U.S. newspaper is so wretched that a
> >moderately good P&S might suffice. I suppose the answer is that they're also
> >shooting for their paper's Web site. But when I shoot for the Web, my shots
> >get mercilessly dumbed down too. In fact, I usually submit everything asa
> >JPEG 1200 pixels high and tell the Web designers that I can provide higher
> >resolution if anybody needs prints.
>
> 18 MP is enough for a full page in a glossy magazine. *12 MP was more
> than enough for anything less than full page.
>
> You're right about newspapers - anything more than 6 MP is probably
> overkill, but there is always the possibility that your shot will be
> syndicated and used in magazines.

This all presumes you can always fill the frame with the subject.

Doug McDonald <> wrote:

>On 2/24/2012 12:14 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> Doug McDonald<> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not necessarily! There are rumors the date may be March 2.
>>> More rumors say possibly two new cameras, one 22Mp and one ~36 Mp,
>>> possibly different announcement dates.
>>>
>>> In other word, Canon Leak Central is very very busy.
>>
>>
>> So we have had 22 MP, 34 MP and 45 MP rumours, now 36 MP!
>>
>
>no, not 36 ... I was just saying "approx 36" because
>I didn't remember the exact 34 rumor.


That's a shame, it could have gotten quite exciting there.

On 2/24/2012 7:27 PM, George Kerby wrote:
>
>>
>> Why photojournalists use what they do has long been a mystery to me. I
>> regularly encounter newspaper photogs lugging around D3's and 1D's, yet the
>> quality of reproduction in the average U.S. newspaper is so wretched that a
>> moderately good P&S might suffice.

But they offer a very large number of still photos per second.
This would seem mighty important for press photogs.

Doug McDonald

On 24/02/2012 3:00 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> Will Robert Coe's prayers be answered? The rumours all suggest the
> new DSLR will be a replacement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but after
> that they diverge.
>
> There is no agreement on the pixel count. Some suggest 'only' 22 MP,
> which would disappoint many. There have been wild suggestions of as
> many as 45 MP. Canon has previously tested some 34.5 MP sensors in
> the field, but who knows?
>
> We only have four days to wait.
>
Perhaps some of the emotion about this is exacerbated by the D4 and 1Dx
having /relatively/ low pixel counts. Some people seem to think that
the likely reason is that this is some "magic" optimum number of pixels
offering ultimate image quality, when reality is that it's a compromise
needed to get high full resolution frame rates off the sensor, buffered,
and saved to card(s) at >10fps.
Meh - I kind of hope Canon doesn't come up with a 5D III with a sensor
as good as the D800. That would just have me lusting after a 5D III
with a 17mm TSE, which would be ultimately more interesting and useful
(to me) than a D800 with the heavy and flare-prone 14-24 Nikkor. A lens
of the quality of the 17mm TSE, with that many pixels, and with the
massive dynamic range of these new sensors would create some interesting
capability to shoot landscape, the limitation for composition of fixed
focal length much reduced by the ability to crop quite heavily yet still
print quite large.

In article <>, Eric Stevens
<> wrote:

> I remember being told about 16 years ago that Tokina had several staff
> ex Nikon and that they did a lot of deveopment and prototype work for
> Nikon. I don't know how true this was then but maybe there is still a
> connection.

tokina was started by ex-nikon people.

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:09:28 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
: Robert Coe <> wrote:
:
: >On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:00:51 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
: >: Will Robert Coe's prayers be answered? The rumours all suggest the
: >: new DSLR will be a replacement for the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, but after
: >: that they diverge.
: >:
: >: There is no agreement on the pixel count. Some suggest 'only' 22 MP,
: >: which would disappoint many. There have been wild suggestions of as
: >: many as 45 MP. Canon has previously tested some 34.5 MP sensors in
: >: the field, but who knows?
: >:
: >: We only have four days to wait.
: >
: >Funny you should mention me.
:
:
: You shouldn't be surprised, Bob. We have discussed the 5D II
: replacement several times and I kept telling you it was imminent.

No, I believed you. I meant funny that you mentioned me just as I was pulling
the plug on my FF ambitions.

: >I have indeed been watching the 5D3 announcement
: >rumors with great interest. I've become quite annoyed with the number of
: >pictures I take that are badly OOF, especially those from my old 50D. The 50D
: >is a very decent landscape camera, but I guess its archaic AF system just
: >isn't up to the event work that I do. My 7D is a lot better, but I almost
: >always use two cameras at events, to minimize lens changes. So I've been
: >hoping that the 5D3 would solve that problem, while giving me an excuse to
: >sneak into the FF world.
: >
: >But I've gotten increasingly discouraged.
:
:
: Canon's AF system is fundamentally different to some others. It
: suffers from problems caused by fundamental design flaws that have
: never been completely overcome. The problem was clearly and concisely
: described on here a couple of years ago by the photographer,
: journalist and publisher David Kilpatrick, who formerly edited and
: published the UK's EOS magazine. It made me realise why I had
: encountered so many problems with focusing my 5D bodies and EF lenses.
:
:
: >The rumor mill seems to think that
: >the 5D3 will come in at over (some say well over) $3000 US, a notion not
: >dispelled when its most plausible walking-around lens, the new 24-70 f/2.8L,
: >was announced at a breathtaking $2300. And it became very clear that I
: >couldn't get either the camera or the lens for months anyway; the fanboys
: >alone will probably clog the pipeline until early summer. I need a solution
: >NOW; I have four photo shoots in the next 11 days alone. So yesterday
: >afternoon I made a snap decision ...
: >
: >... And today the UPS truck stopped by and delivered my second 7D and a
: >24-105mm f/4L lens. Total cost: less than I probably would have paid for the
: >5D3 body alone. I know it's a copout, but the 7D should solve most of my
: >focusing problems, and the 24-105 (if it's anywhere near as good as some claim
: >it is) should be fine for outdoor events and street photography, in tandem
: >with the 70-200 f/2.8 I got last month.
:
:
: I was one of those who gave you a strong recommendation for the
: 24-105mm f/4L. It's a beauty, with traces of rectilinear distortion
: at the ends of the zoom range that are easy to deal with in PP.
: Otherwise, I cannot fault it.

From reading dozens of reviews of that lens and of the old 24-70 f/2.8, I
found that many had difficulty choosing between the two. I might have bought
the 24-70 to get the extra stop, but its design struck me as kludgier than
that of the 24-105. (Its detractors sneered at the fact that its detachable
hood has to be oddly positioned in order not to cause vignetting at the
telephoto(!) end.) Also, I liked the longer reach of the 24-105; and since I
expect to use it mostly as an outdoor walker, the fact that it's a stop slower
shouldn't matter much.

: Although I no longer use Nikon gear, I wish Nikon would complete their
: line of higher quality f/4 glass. The 24-120mm Nikkor is a
: disappointing optic in all its versions (two f/3.5-5.6 versions and
: the latest f/4, and they still can't get it right!) and there is no
: sign of the 70-200mm f/4 that Nikon desperately needs. There are
: strong rumours that the new Tokina 70-200mm f/4 is the lens design
: that Nikon didn't take up for some reason ...
:
:
: >Yeah, I'll probably have some
: >occasional twinges of regret about not going FF. But 22MP won't win any prizes
: >for resolution, and resolution is at least half the reason for craving FF. If
: >I were a Nikon user, I'd have ordered the D800 the first day, but I'm not a
: >Nikon user. You play the cards you're dealt. I'm gonna spend the weekend
: >calibrating my lenses vs my new 7D and hit the ball hard next week.
:
:
: I recall when you bought the 7D and I also recall the strong
: encouragement I gave you to do so.

You did, and that's one reason I bought the first 7D. I've been very happy
with it.

: It was the right decision then and
: it is the right decision now. The 7D is a fine camera that includes
: among its strengths areas where the 5D II is weak. I think I may have
: said at the time that it may be all the camera you ever need; if I
: didn't, I meant to.

Well, ever is a long time (though a little less long when you're as old as I
am), so I can't swear I'll never consider FF again. But for what I need now,
the second 7D does look like a match. :^)

Bob

On Feb 25, 9:32*pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <062gk7d2ng3v1vb5jk6uvllij617ts4...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>
> <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> > I remember being told about 16 years ago that Tokina had several staff
> > ex Nikon and that they did a lot of deveopment and prototype work for
> > Nikon. I don't know how true this was then but maybe there is still a
> > connection.
>
> tokina was started by ex-nikon people.

Explains why it produces the best of the three aftermarket companies.