Are we all being suckered?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by lens crack, Dec 7, 2005.

  1. lens crack

    lens crack Guest

    Serious question - let me explain.

    We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    gadgets of every shape and size.

    We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours, and
    always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can just
    get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more body with
    a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last camera I
    buy for, oh, five years....honest....

    But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line hosting
    sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite fantastic - as sharp
    as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or dreamy bokeh, or stunning
    colours, the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely satisfied
    with a few years ago. and a great many of these images were produced on 2,
    3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!

    So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and the
    monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the highest
    quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been downsized
    for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even better!

    What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the very
    best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we need
    10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?

    Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys love
    toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three thousand
    pound/dollars worth of equipment?

    I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much money
    I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.
     
    lens crack, Dec 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. lens crack wrote:
    > Serious question - let me explain.
    >
    > We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    > gadgets of every shape and size.
    >
    > We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours, and
    > always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can just
    > get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more body with
    > a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last camera I
    > buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    >
    > But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line hosting
    > sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite fantastic - as sharp
    > as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or dreamy bokeh, or stunning
    > colours, the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely satisfied
    > with a few years ago. and a great many of these images were produced on 2,
    > 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    >
    > So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and the
    > monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the highest
    > quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been downsized
    > for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even better!
    >
    > What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the very
    > best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we need
    > 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >
    > Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys love
    > toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three thousand
    > pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >
    > I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    > digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much money
    > I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.
    >
    >
    >

    I use a 4 MP camera, but the resolution I actually use most of the time
    is 1600 x 1200, or 2.1 MP - my images have been printed (up to 8 x 10),
    posted on the web, emailed (after being downsized), etc. No one's
    complained.
     
    Bruce Coryell, Dec 7, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. lens crack

    lens crack Guest

    "Bruce Coryell" <> wrote in message
    news:6Yrlf.221$...
    > lens crack wrote:
    >> Serious question - let me explain.
    >>
    >> We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    >> gadgets of every shape and size.
    >>
    >> We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours,
    >> and always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we
    >> can just get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one
    >> more body with a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will
    >> the last camera I buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    >>
    >> But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line
    >> hosting sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite
    >> fantastic - as sharp as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or
    >> dreamy bokeh, or stunning colours, the sort of pictures that we would
    >> have been immensely satisfied with a few years ago. and a great many of
    >> these images were produced on 2, 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    >>
    >> So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and
    >> the monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the
    >> highest quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been
    >> downsized for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even
    >> better!
    >>
    >> What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the
    >> very best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we
    >> need 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >>
    >> Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys
    >> love toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
    >> thousand pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >>
    >> I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    >> digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much
    >> money I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.
    >>
    >>
    >>

    > I use a 4 MP camera, but the resolution I actually use most of the time is
    > 1600 x 1200, or 2.1 MP - my images have been printed (up to 8 x 10),
    > posted on the web, emailed (after being downsized), etc. No one's
    > complained.<




    I'm sure that they're great. That's my point - digital cameras are for a
    digital medium, and the digital medium requires only a fraction of the
    pixels now available in modern cameras to look good.

    Despite the efforts made by printer manufacturers and online print services,
    most people now view the majority of the images on their computer - or even
    burn them to DVD and play them on a TV at even lower resolution, and they
    still look good.

    So, apart from people earning a living from printed images, who needs 10
    mp? - come to that, who needs 5mp?

    I can remember reading this forum when 1mp was the trendy thing to have! -
    OK, let's have more than 1 million!, but 6?, 8?, 10?......

    What the manufacturers seem to have successfully done is to make buyers
    forget that they are buying a 'digital' camera - and are applying the rules
    (and prices!) of high-end 35mm photography to an imaging system that simply
    doesn't need that level of quality - in the end, we are governed by the
    resolution of the monitors on which we view our images and the 10mp monitor
    is a long way off!
     
    lens crack, Dec 7, 2005
    #3
  4. lens crack

    bmoag Guest

    Yes we are all part of the consumer economy and conditioned to fall prey to
    the siren song of marketers.
    Like the Eloi falling for the Morlock sirens: eat me we cry out to the
    advertising departments of Canon, Nikon et al.
    Technology, if we do not pollute ourselves out of existence (and the
    Chinese, for $1 a day Walmart paid labor, are trying really hard to prove
    the point), progresses and generally brings added benefits and features.
    Should no hospital have bought an x-ray machine until the CT scanner was
    invented?
    Kodacolor really sucked in the 1950s: should no one have taken pictures
    then?
     
    bmoag, Dec 7, 2005
    #4
  5. lens crack wrote:

    > What the manufacturers seem to have successfully done is to make buyers
    > forget that they are buying a 'digital' camera - and are applying the rules
    > (and prices!) of high-end 35mm photography to an imaging system that simply
    > doesn't need that level of quality - in the end, we are governed by the
    > resolution of the monitors on which we view our images and the 10mp monitor
    > is a long way off!


    Until you get a once-in-a-lifetime shot and want an A3 (or bigger)
    print. I have twenty at home and a half dozen at the office. I want
    all the megapixels I can get in that situation.
    --
    Andy Williams
     
    Andy Williams, Dec 7, 2005
    #5
  6. lens crack

    Sel Guest

    Bruce Coryell wrote:


    > I use a 4 MP camera, but the resolution I actually use most of the time
    > is 1600 x 1200, or 2.1 MP - my images have been printed (up to 8 x 10),
    > posted on the web, emailed (after being downsized), etc. No one's
    > complained.


    For what you use it for that may be ok. The thing is we don't all just
    take snaps and post them for our friends etc. Take this pic below.

    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~selorme/thebee.jpg

    This was taken with my Fuji s9500 9mp. 50% of the pic was cropped, yet
    it still printed at A4 sharp as a tack, plus it looks good on screen.
    Without the mps to work with I could not have done this. Heres another.

    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~selorme/thebee2.jpg

    http://sel.enternet.co.nz/prayingmantis.jpg

    --
    Sel ........ :)

    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~selorme/photos.html

    http://sel.enternet.co.nz/weathersat.html
     
    Sel, Dec 7, 2005
    #6
  7. lens crack

    Mr.Will Guest

    "lens crack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Bruce Coryell" <> wrote in message
    > news:6Yrlf.221$...
    > > lens crack wrote:
    > >> Serious question - let me explain.
    > >>
    > >> We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    > >> gadgets of every shape and size.
    > >>
    > >> We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours,
    > >> and always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we
    > >> can just get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one
    > >> more body with a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will
    > >> the last camera I buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    > >>
    > >> But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line
    > >> hosting sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite
    > >> fantastic - as sharp as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or
    > >> dreamy bokeh, or stunning colours, the sort of pictures that we would
    > >> have been immensely satisfied with a few years ago. and a great many

    of
    > >> these images were produced on 2, 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    > >>
    > >> So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors,

    and
    > >> the monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even

    the
    > >> highest quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been
    > >> downsized for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even
    > >> better!
    > >>
    > >> What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the
    > >> very best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do

    we
    > >> need 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    > >>
    > >> Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys
    > >> love toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
    > >> thousand pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    > >>
    > >> I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    > >> digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much
    > >> money I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>

    > > I use a 4 MP camera, but the resolution I actually use most of the time

    is
    > > 1600 x 1200, or 2.1 MP - my images have been printed (up to 8 x 10),
    > > posted on the web, emailed (after being downsized), etc. No one's
    > > complained.<

    >
    >
    >
    > I'm sure that they're great. That's my point - digital cameras are for a
    > digital medium, and the digital medium requires only a fraction of the
    > pixels now available in modern cameras to look good.
    >
    > Despite the efforts made by printer manufacturers and online print

    services,
    > most people now view the majority of the images on their computer - or

    even
    > burn them to DVD and play them on a TV at even lower resolution, and they
    > still look good.
    >
    > So, apart from people earning a living from printed images, who needs 10
    > mp? - come to that, who needs 5mp?
    >
    > I can remember reading this forum when 1mp was the trendy thing to have! -
    > OK, let's have more than 1 million!, but 6?, 8?, 10?......
    >
    > What the manufacturers seem to have successfully done is to make buyers
    > forget that they are buying a 'digital' camera - and are applying the

    rules
    > (and prices!) of high-end 35mm photography to an imaging system that

    simply
    > doesn't need that level of quality - in the end, we are governed by the
    > resolution of the monitors on which we view our images and the 10mp

    monitor
    > is a long way off!
    >
    >


    I am in agreement regarding the pixel issue - it seems the whole trend of
    the digital SLR user to go for more pixels, what I will say is the sports
    camera I use is 4 megapixel. I also have a 6megapixel camera - supposedly
    the 4MP produced better images even to be blown up because of the better
    pixels it has. I shoot professionally in a variety of settings.

    For viewing on monitors etc I am always astounded by my friend's 2.0
    megapixel camera - his images always look sharp and well exposed etc. and
    easy for him to take.

    Mr.Will
     
    Mr.Will, Dec 7, 2005
    #7
  8. lens crack

    dfw$ Guest

    On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 02:30:13 -0000, "lens crack"
    <> wrote:

    Yes it's called planned obsolesce. Every company does it. Another
    good example is computers. Every 12-18 months the technology gets
    better and then the products do. No one comes to your house and
    twist's your arm to buy...........most people buy new ones sell there
    old ones . The people that can't afford it when's its new technology
    and priced out of there range they wait till they can afford what the
    early adopters sell. That's why E-bay or other auction sites do a
    booming business.




    PhotoSteve
     
    dfw$, Dec 7, 2005
    #8
  9. lens crack

    RobG Guest

    "lens crack" <> wrote
    > Serious question - let me explain.
    >
    >why do we need 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >
    > Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys
    > love toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
    > thousand pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >


    Amen, brother. Just what I've been preaching for years - that technology is
    not a bad thing, but we need to ask ourselves if it actually enhances our
    lives in any way that really matters.

    RobG
     
    RobG, Dec 7, 2005
    #9
  10. lens crack

    RobG Guest

    A famous ad-man (I'm too lazy to look his name up, but I'm sure one of you
    will) once said (and I paraphrase - look it up...) "An ad-man's job is to
    make people dissatisfied with what they already have". Was a truer word
    ever spoken?

    If I just had the new Canon/Nikon/Leica/Hasselblad/fill in your fave here,
    then I could take a picture just like the one in the ad; no, seriously, I
    really could. Honest.

    Yeah, as if. (c:

    RobG
     
    RobG, Dec 7, 2005
    #10
  11. lens crack

    Guest

    Reviews of newly laaunched cameras play their part in creating
    dissatisfaction with what we have: the following is an excerpt from a
    review of the Canon EOS 350D(Digital Rebel XT)on Steve's Digicams - an
    excellent website for authoratitive reviews:

    "The Digital Rebel XT may be an "entry-level" camera but it's quite the
    performer thanks to Canon's most powerful SLR imaging engine. The
    DIGIC II processor provides high-precision and high speed, natural
    color reproduction including high-saturation, bright subjects, improved
    auto white balance, along with increased white balance correction
    control and white balance bracketing. In addition to image quality
    improvements, DIGIC II speeds up the camera's start up time to an
    amazing 0.2 seconds - ten times faster than the Digital Rebel. It also
    reduces the shutter release time lag from ~120 milliseconds to 100
    milliseconds, reduces viewfinder blackout time from ~225 milliseconds
    to 170 milliseconds, and yields CF card data-writing speed
    approximately 3.5 times faster than the Digital Rebel. And capturing
    the action is no problem with the ability to shoot up to 14 consecutive
    Large/Fine (8.0 megapixel) JPEGs, five RAW files, or four RAW +
    Large/Fine JPEGs at a rate of up to three frames-per-second"

    Isn't reading that a good start for making an owner of a 300D(Digital
    Rebel)feel that he is losing out by not upgrading to it's successor?!

    Denis Boisclair
    Cheshire, UK.
     
    , Dec 7, 2005
    #11
  12. lens crack

    Shawn Hirn Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > Reviews of newly laaunched cameras play their part in creating
    > dissatisfaction with what we have: the following is an excerpt from a
    > review of the Canon EOS 350D(Digital Rebel XT)on Steve's Digicams - an
    > excellent website for authoratitive reviews:
    >
    > "The Digital Rebel XT may be an "entry-level" camera but it's quite the
    > performer thanks to Canon's most powerful SLR imaging engine. The
    > DIGIC II processor provides high-precision and high speed, natural
    > color reproduction including high-saturation, bright subjects, improved
    > auto white balance, along with increased white balance correction
    > control and white balance bracketing. In addition to image quality
    > improvements, DIGIC II speeds up the camera's start up time to an
    > amazing 0.2 seconds - ten times faster than the Digital Rebel. It also
    > reduces the shutter release time lag from ~120 milliseconds to 100
    > milliseconds, reduces viewfinder blackout time from ~225 milliseconds
    > to 170 milliseconds, and yields CF card data-writing speed
    > approximately 3.5 times faster than the Digital Rebel. And capturing
    > the action is no problem with the ability to shoot up to 14 consecutive
    > Large/Fine (8.0 megapixel) JPEGs, five RAW files, or four RAW +
    > Large/Fine JPEGs at a rate of up to three frames-per-second"
    >
    > Isn't reading that a good start for making an owner of a 300D(Digital
    > Rebel)feel that he is losing out by not upgrading to it's successor?!


    Speaking as an owner of a 300D, no. Not at all. Last August, a friend
    and I shot the photos at my sister's wedding. She used a Digital Rebel
    XT and I used a Digital Rebel. I have both sets of photos on my
    computer. The quality of our photos from our different cameras is
    indistinguishable. What's much more important is lens quality and the
    ability of the person using the camera.

    The XT does not offer enough of a boost in image quality to warrant me
    buying one. In addition, the XT just does not fit my hands well. Canon
    made the XT lighter and smaller than its predecessor, which has its
    advantages, but in my hands, the XT feels like a toy due to its small
    right hand grip.
     
    Shawn Hirn, Dec 7, 2005
    #12
  13. lens crack

    Dirty Harry Guest

    "lens crack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Serious question - let me explain.
    >
    > We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    > gadgets of every shape and size.
    >
    > We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours, and
    > always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can

    just
    > get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more body

    with
    > a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last camera I
    > buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    >
    > But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line

    hosting
    > sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite fantastic - as

    sharp
    > as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or dreamy bokeh, or stunning
    > colours, the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely satisfied
    > with a few years ago. and a great many of these images were produced on

    2,
    > 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    >
    > So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and

    the
    > monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the

    highest
    > quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been downsized
    > for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even better!
    >
    > What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the

    very
    > best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we need
    > 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >
    > Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys

    love
    > toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three thousand
    > pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >
    > I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    > digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much money
    > I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.



    I guess you've never had a client ask for a 20x30 inch print....
     
    Dirty Harry, Dec 7, 2005
    #13
  14. lens crack

    lens crack Guest

    "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    news:mpxlf.60616$Eq5.12198@pd7tw1no...
    >
    > "lens crack" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Serious question - let me explain.
    >>
    >> We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    >> gadgets of every shape and size.
    >>
    >> We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours,
    >> and
    >> always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can

    > just
    >> get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more body

    > with
    >> a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last camera I
    >> buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    >>
    >> But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line

    > hosting
    >> sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite fantastic - as

    > sharp
    >> as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or dreamy bokeh, or stunning
    >> colours, the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely satisfied
    >> with a few years ago. and a great many of these images were produced on

    > 2,
    >> 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    >>
    >> So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and

    > the
    >> monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the

    > highest
    >> quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been downsized
    >> for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even better!
    >>
    >> What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the

    > very
    >> best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we need
    >> 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >>
    >> Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys

    > love
    >> toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
    >> thousand
    >> pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >>
    >> I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    >> digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much
    >> money
    >> I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.

    >
    >
    > I guess you've never had a client ask for a 20x30 inch print....<<



    No, of course not - and if I needed to print photo's for a living I'd buy
    the best stuff I could afford.

    My point is that 99% of people seldom print anything (and then only A4 max)
    and prefer to view images on monitors and TV screens - for which purpose
    their expensive dslr's are ridiculously over-qualified.

    As an example, I recently converted some RAW files to .tiff (about 17mb) and
    then converted some of the .tiff files to jpg - but inadvertently compressed
    them to about 800 -900 kb. viewed on screen with no 'zooming' there was no
    discernible difference between the 17mb and 800kb files.

    Which begs the question, why start with 6mp images in the first place?
     
    lens crack, Dec 7, 2005
    #14
  15. lens crack

    Bruce Hoult Guest

    In article <>,
    "lens crack" <> wrote:

    > We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours, and
    > always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can just
    > get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more body with
    > a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last camera I
    > buy for, oh, five years....honest....


    Speak for youself :)

    I just bought my first DSLR, a D70s, and fully intend to be using it for
    a *long* time. It's the second SLR I've bought, after a now rather
    well-used OM-10 in December 1983. I fixed my sights on 6 MP as a good
    resolution for a DSLR many years ago, and decided to buy the first minor
    update of the first affordable but not-crippled one. I'm sure I'll be
    using it for a very long time.


    In between those, I've bought two P&S film cameras and two P&S digital
    cameras -- an Olympus Mju in 1991, a Fuji DL Super Mini Zoom (28-56) in
    Jan 1999, a horrid 2 MP Kodak in 2002, and a 4 MP Fuji e500 (28-90 zoom)
    earlier this year. All except the Kodak were/are wonderful cameras and
    I will never again buy any P&S that will not do 28mm or wider. Thank
    god Fuji seems to appreciate people like me!

    --
    Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
    Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------
     
    Bruce Hoult, Dec 7, 2005
    #15
  16. lens crack

    Jon B Guest

    lens crack <> wrote:

    > "Dirty Harry" <> wrote in message
    > news:mpxlf.60616$Eq5.12198@pd7tw1no...
    > >
    > >
    > > I guess you've never had a client ask for a 20x30 inch print....<<

    >
    >
    > No, of course not - and if I needed to print photo's for a living I'd buy
    > the best stuff I could afford.
    >
    > My point is that 99% of people seldom print anything (and then only A4 max)
    > and prefer to view images on monitors and TV screens - for which purpose
    > their expensive dslr's are ridiculously over-qualified.
    >
    > As an example, I recently converted some RAW files to .tiff (about 17mb) and
    > then converted some of the .tiff files to jpg - but inadvertently compressed
    > them to about 800 -900 kb. viewed on screen with no 'zooming' there was no
    > discernible difference between the 17mb and 800kb files.
    >
    > Which begs the question, why start with 6mp images in the first place?


    For when you run out of zoom and want to do a digi crop, shoot at 1mp
    and try a digi crop and it tends to look pretty crap even on the
    monitor, so the same crop on a 4mp shot and it looks fine. Also for when
    monitor resolutions etc do increase otherwise all the old stuff will
    look horendous (take a 800x600 desktop for eg and drop on a 1600x1200
    screen). Come home with the best shots possible on the card, and if you
    want to drop the res, that is fine, bit harder to go the other way if
    you need to.

    In the main I'm with you though, which is why this year I've bought 2001
    spec prosumer compact and Dslr, a Canon G2 and a Canon D30. Total cost,
    less than the price of a new new Canon G6 or Pro1. I don't do huge
    prints, in fact I rarely do prints at all, so for my current needs they
    do more than adequately.

    I do intend to upgrade to one of the newer big beasties in a few years,
    but I'll wait until a) either the market has settled at a max resolution
    b) todays £1-2k beasts are a couple of hundred quid ;)
    --
    Jon B
    real email to usenet at jonbradbury dot com
     
    Jon B, Dec 7, 2005
    #16
  17. lens crack

    JimKramer Guest

    Are you a market rep for the new Foveon 1 pixel camera, "nearly
    infinite color and very very sharp"?

    But slightly more seriously, why did you spend the money? What did
    you think you were going to get?

    Now for the painful question: If you were only going to post web shots
    why wouldn't you just capture images from a digital video camera?

    Why a DSLR? Shutter lag.

    Why more Megapixels? I like big prints, and I like to crop.

    Jim
     
    JimKramer, Dec 7, 2005
    #17
  18. lens crack

    Skip M Guest

    "lens crack" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Serious question - let me explain.
    >
    > We love dslr's, we love lenses, flashguns, tripods, monopods, bags, and
    > gadgets of every shape and size.
    >
    > We spend (most of us) more than we can afford on this passion of ours, and
    > always,it seems, the Holy Grail is almost within our grasp - if we can
    > just get just one more lens with better CA & flare control, or one more
    > body with a higher resolution sensor.......next year's model will the last
    > camera I buy for, oh, five years....honest....
    >
    > But (and here's the irony) a quick look through some of the on-line
    > hosting sites will produce a thousand pictures that look quite fantastic -
    > as sharp as you could wish for, with terrific detail, or dreamy bokeh, or
    > stunning colours, the sort of pictures that we would have been immensely
    > satisfied with a few years ago. and a great many of these images were
    > produced on 2, 3, 4, and 5 megapixel 'compacts'!
    >
    > So why do they look so good? - because we view them on our monitors, and
    > the monitor lends a brilliance and luminescence unachievable in even the
    > highest quality print, and remember that those on-line images have been
    > downsized for the web - on their owner's computers they will look even
    > better!
    >
    > What's more, most people (myself included) don't print any, except the
    > very best, of our images - we look at them on our monitors, so why do we
    > need 10mp (or even 6mp) cameras to produce our shots?
    >
    > Because we've been taught to be in love with technology?, because boys
    > love toys?, because it flatters our vanity to cart around two or three
    > thousand pound/dollars worth of equipment?
    >
    > I dunno - but I do know that looking at old images taken on the sort of
    > digital cameras that we despise today makes me realise just how much money
    > I'm forking out for comparatively little extra return.
    >
    >
    >

    I don't know about you, but I can tell the difference in my own photographs.
    I was just going through a bunch of old files, I'm putting together a DVD of
    the last 10 years worth of nudes, and I can see the difference, on my
    monitor, between what I shot with my old D30 3mp Canon and my 20D. It's
    harder to tell the difference between what I shot with my 20D and with the
    5D, however.
    Prints are another, larger, issue!

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Dec 7, 2005
    #18
  19. lens crack

    Paul J Gans Guest

    Andy Williams <> wrote:
    >lens crack wrote:


    >> What the manufacturers seem to have successfully done is to make buyers
    >> forget that they are buying a 'digital' camera - and are applying the rules
    >> (and prices!) of high-end 35mm photography to an imaging system that simply
    >> doesn't need that level of quality - in the end, we are governed by the
    >> resolution of the monitors on which we view our images and the 10mp monitor
    >> is a long way off!


    >Until you get a once-in-a-lifetime shot and want an A3 (or bigger)
    >print. I have twenty at home and a half dozen at the office. I want
    >all the megapixels I can get in that situation.


    That's fine. But how many megapixels do most of us NEED?

    I like grab shots. But I'm not carrying my dSLR around all
    day all the time on the chance that something will turn up.
    So I splurged on a Canon SD450 just to have with me all the
    time.

    Works for me. Something else works for you and something
    quite different for other folks.

    ----- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Dec 7, 2005
    #19
  20. lens crack

    Paul J Gans Guest

    wrote:
    >Reviews of newly laaunched cameras play their part in creating
    >dissatisfaction with what we have: the following is an excerpt from a
    >review of the Canon EOS 350D(Digital Rebel XT)on Steve's Digicams - an
    >excellent website for authoratitive reviews:


    >"The Digital Rebel XT may be an "entry-level" camera but it's quite the
    >performer thanks to Canon's most powerful SLR imaging engine. The
    >DIGIC II processor provides high-precision and high speed, natural
    >color reproduction including high-saturation, bright subjects, improved
    >auto white balance, along with increased white balance correction
    >control and white balance bracketing. In addition to image quality
    >improvements, DIGIC II speeds up the camera's start up time to an
    >amazing 0.2 seconds - ten times faster than the Digital Rebel. It also
    >reduces the shutter release time lag from ~120 milliseconds to 100
    >milliseconds, reduces viewfinder blackout time from ~225 milliseconds
    >to 170 milliseconds, and yields CF card data-writing speed
    >approximately 3.5 times faster than the Digital Rebel. And capturing
    >the action is no problem with the ability to shoot up to 14 consecutive
    >Large/Fine (8.0 megapixel) JPEGs, five RAW files, or four RAW +
    >Large/Fine JPEGs at a rate of up to three frames-per-second"


    >Isn't reading that a good start for making an owner of a 300D(Digital
    >Rebel)feel that he is losing out by not upgrading to it's successor?!


    Yup. But as a Rebel (not XT) owner I didn't. I'm spending
    the money on better glass.

    ---- Paul J. Gans
     
    Paul J Gans, Dec 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. George Orwell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    374
    George Orwell
    Dec 13, 2006
  2. George Orwell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    420
    George Orwell
    Dec 13, 2006
  3. msyjsy

    All Mail being listed as 1kb

    msyjsy, Feb 8, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    369
    Budweiser
    Feb 8, 2006
  4. Bucky Breeder

    ![Oof Topix] All McCain, All Flip-Flop, All the Time

    Bucky Breeder, Sep 27, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    634
    HEMI-Powered
    Sep 27, 2008
  5. Ablang

    Don't Get Suckered By Cheap Netbook Offers

    Ablang, Mar 16, 2009, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    529
    gnu / linux
    Mar 18, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page