Digital wishlist

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by JohnR66, Nov 13, 2005.

  1. JohnR66

    JohnR66 Guest

    The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
    years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    them will be realized in a few years:

    1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
    2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
    with good 3 or 4x zoom.
    3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
    (and cost a small fortune).
    3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
    (AA, AAA) may be used.
    4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
    darn easy in digital.

    Well, That's it for now.
    John
    JohnR66, Nov 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. JohnR66

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <K_vdf.49119$>,
    JohnR66 <> wrote:
    >The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
    >years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    >them will be realized in a few years:
    >
    >1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
    >2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
    >with good 3 or 4x zoom.
    >3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
    >(and cost a small fortune).
    >3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
    >(AA, AAA) may be used.
    >4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
    >darn easy in digital.


    :=)

    good enough, cheap, right now. pick two.

    Santa says that if you get the 16MP camera with improved dynamic range
    (i.e. 16 bits) you'll immediatly be asking for a $8,000 quad-CPU 64
    bit system with 10krpm disks to be able to crunch those raw images.

    IMO there is a point of image print quality beyond which the consumer
    mass market won't spend *any* money and it becomes a rush to the price
    floor. The fact that I can buy an 8MP camera for a few hundred
    dollars is becasue there is a mass market demand.

    The kind of camera you propose is so far above the requirements that
    Mom and Pop need that it will *always* be expensive, at least for a
    while.

    Maybe you are a pro and tired of schleping your current rig, a
    digi-back 6x7 and a Macintosh laptop costing $20k all up.

    it's all relative.






    --
    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.
    Al Dykes, Nov 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <> wrote:
    > The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
    > years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    > them will be realized in a few years:


    > 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
    > with good 3 or 4x zoom.


    I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
    APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Nov 13, 2005
    #3
  4. "Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <> wrote:
    >> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last
    >> few
    >> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    >> them will be realized in a few years:

    >
    >> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized
    >> perhaps)
    >> with good 3 or 4x zoom.

    >
    > I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
    > APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.
    >
    > -dms
    >


    Then maybe #2 should be further qualified..."produced by a camera
    manufacturer, not a spyware proliferator and malware enabler".

    Boycott sony.
    Yukon Cornelius, Nov 13, 2005
    #4
  5. JohnR66 wrote:

    > 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
    > darn easy in digital.


    What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
    5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
    5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
    have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

    Roger
    Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > JohnR66 wrote:
    >
    >> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts.
    >> Highlights blow darn easy in digital.

    >
    > What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
    > 5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
    > 5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
    > have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

    I hear this bandied around all the time, that digital has 10+ stops of
    image detail. Perhaps it does (I have my doubts), but the extra detail
    is all in the shadow area of the image. Film is not real great at
    recording shadows, digital generally seems to have a quite an edge on it
    in that area. But even with digital, noise increases as you get closer
    to black. I will agree though that usually it is considerably better at
    recording shadow than film is.
    But the more practical difference between film and digital occurs at the
    highlights. It isn't always possible to put the brightest part of your
    image at zone 9, thus avoiding blown highlights completely. To do so
    would quite often result in the subject being lost in the muddy/noisy
    world of shadows. With digital, the bright areas will linearly approach
    bright white, once they get there, everything from then on is pure
    white. No detail is recorded at all, and you are left with an ugly white
    splotch on the image. A blown highlight is far more noticeably than a
    jet black shadow. Film however, has a non-linear response when it starts
    to overexpose, and while ultimately you will lose the detail as a blown
    highlight, you do get more of a graduated entry into the highlight.
    Overall it appears nicer when it does this. Even slide film with it's
    susceptibility to overexposure will handle it better than digital.
    Typical photos that show this up are where items have the bright part of
    the sky behind them, or where an object has sun reflecting off something
    shiny. Night photos will also often have extra bright components that
    blow the highlights. While film will still lose the highlights, it
    manages to do so in a more graceful manner than digital.
    >
    > Roger
    > Photos, digital info at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Graham Fountain wrote:
    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >> JohnR66 wrote:
    >>
    >>> 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts.
    >>> Highlights blow darn easy in digital.

    >>
    >>
    >> What? 10+ stops isn't good enough for you? Film has only
    >> 5 (slide) 7 (negative) stops? You can only print about
    >> 5 or 6 stops. DSLRs have tremendous dynamic range. You just
    >> have to learn to use your light meter correctly.

    >
    > I hear this bandied around all the time, that digital has 10+ stops of
    > image detail. Perhaps it does (I have my doubts), but the extra detail
    > is all in the shadow area of the image. Film is not real great at
    > recording shadows, digital generally seems to have a quite an edge on it
    > in that area. But even with digital, noise increases as you get closer
    > to black. I will agree though that usually it is considerably better at
    > recording shadow than film is.
    > But the more practical difference between film and digital occurs at the
    > highlights. It isn't always possible to put the brightest part of your
    > image at zone 9, thus avoiding blown highlights completely. To do so
    > would quite often result in the subject being lost in the muddy/noisy
    > world of shadows. With digital, the bright areas will linearly approach
    > bright white, once they get there, everything from then on is pure
    > white. No detail is recorded at all, and you are left with an ugly white
    > splotch on the image. A blown highlight is far more noticeably than a
    > jet black shadow. Film however, has a non-linear response when it starts
    > to overexpose, and while ultimately you will lose the detail as a blown
    > highlight, you do get more of a graduated entry into the highlight.
    > Overall it appears nicer when it does this. Even slide film with it's
    > susceptibility to overexposure will handle it better than digital.
    > Typical photos that show this up are where items have the bright part of
    > the sky behind them, or where an object has sun reflecting off something
    > shiny. Night photos will also often have extra bright components that
    > blow the highlights. While film will still lose the highlights, it
    > manages to do so in a more graceful manner than digital.


    Look at Figure 8 on this page:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
    It shows the transfer function of a digital camera matches
    the characteristics curve of color negative film very closely,
    right up to the highlights. Note also the scatter in the data
    from film compared to digital. DSLRs, which their much better
    signal-to-noise ratios produce smoother (more noise free)
    images than film at ALL levels. Again, you just need to know
    how to use your light meter correctly. Just like one
    must meter differently for negative versus positive slide
    film, one must meter differently with digital. And when one
    meters correctly, one get superior results.

    See also:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    for tables with dynamic ranges of different sensors.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 13, 2005
    #7
  8. JohnR66

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:56:41 GMT, "Yukon Cornelius"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Daniel Silevitch" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:43:22 GMT, JohnR66 <> wrote:
    >>> The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last
    >>> few
    >>> years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    >>> them will be realized in a few years:

    >>
    >>> 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized
    >>> perhaps)
    >>> with good 3 or 4x zoom.

    >>
    >> I'm not sure I'd call it a compact, but the Sony DSC-R1 fits this bill.
    >> APS sensor, 10 MP, 5x zoom.
    >>
    >> -dms
    >>

    >
    >Then maybe #2 should be further qualified..."produced by a camera
    >manufacturer, not a spyware proliferator and malware enabler".
    >
    >Boycott sony.
    >


    For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.
    That Sony's BMG is stupid doesn't alter the facts about cameras.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Nov 13, 2005
    #8
  9. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Bill Funk <> writes:
    > For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    > their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    > require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    > use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.


    What requirements and why don't the apply to the pocket sized Elph
    series which use APS film, APS-sized by definition? For that matter
    there's also tons of pocket sized 35mm full frame point-and-shoot film
    cameras. I'm missing the reason digicams of similar size can't be
    made with the same size sensors.
    Paul Rubin, Nov 13, 2005
    #9
  10. JohnR66

    Guest

    JohnR66 wrote:

    > The progress of digital photography has been amazing to me over the last few
    > years. There are, however, improvements that I wish for. I'm sure most of
    > them will be realized in a few years:
    >
    > 1) Full frame 13-16 MP DSLR - under $1,000!
    > 2) 8-10 MP compact digital with larger sensor (APS or sub APS sized perhaps)
    > with good 3 or 4x zoom.
    > 3) Li-ion rechargable batteries that don't weaken or quit after 2 or 3 years
    > (and cost a small fortune).
    > 3a) Better yet, reduce power requirements so that standard akaline batteries
    > (AA, AAA) may be used.
    > 4) Improved dynamic range for DSLRs and especially compacts. Highlights blow
    > darn easy in digital.
    >
    > Well, That's it for now.
    > John


    For 10x digital zoom cameras
    # A camera (not a camera phone) where you can set password protection.
    # Ditto for the memory card.
    # User replaceable sealed unit sensors with flagged serial numbers for
    the firmware upgrade.
    # An evf which doesn't instantly compensate as the polarizing filter is
    being rotated.
    # A *proper* manual focus function, for instance split screen where you
    can use the evf brightening function.
    # Distance and DOF markings and ability to set hyperfocal distance.
    # Lenses which stop down to F32, (there is still a DOF problem in super
    macro).
    # Portable monitor screens, say 4 ins, which can attach to a flash
    bracket and connect via the camera's a/v out socket.
    # Fuji to stop pissing about and provide rational software that will
    allow adjustments *before conversion* of the their RAF files.
    # Single button auto camouflage function which turns the camera into a
    hardback copy of, 'Why I love my Government' when there are police
    officers about.

    T Ritchie (Sr)
    enddone comes before at
    , Nov 13, 2005
    #10
  11. JohnR66

    Bill Funk Guest

    On 13 Nov 2005 09:33:08 -0800, Paul Rubin
    <http://> wrote:

    >Bill Funk <> writes:
    >> For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    >> their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    >> require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    >> use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.

    >
    >What requirements and why don't the apply to the pocket sized Elph
    >series which use APS film, APS-sized by definition? For that matter
    >there's also tons of pocket sized 35mm full frame point-and-shoot film
    >cameras. I'm missing the reason digicams of similar size can't be
    >made with the same size sensors.


    If you want to compare P&S cameras with SLR-type cameras, OK.
    I can see the difference, and I think you can too.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Nov 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > Bill Funk <> writes:
    >> For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    >> their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    >> require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    >> use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.

    >
    > What requirements and why don't the apply to the pocket sized Elph
    > series which use APS film, APS-sized by definition? For that matter
    > there's also tons of pocket sized 35mm full frame point-and-shoot film
    > cameras. I'm missing the reason digicams of similar size can't be
    > made with the same size sensors.

    Most of the film zoom compacts have very slow lenses, in the order of
    F8-F11 at maximum aperture at full zoom. Most of the digital zooms have
    lenses in the order of F2.8-F3.5 at full zoom. This makes a huge
    difference to their usability. To make a fast lens to cover the big
    sensor areas means making big lenses. If you want a small lens, you have
    2 options - a slow lens or a small sensor.
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    > Graham Fountain wrote:
    >> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    >
    > Look at Figure 8 on this page:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
    > It shows the transfer function of a digital camera matches
    > the characteristics curve of color negative film very closely,
    > right up to the highlights.

    They will be close together until they hit the peak. But the roll-over
    into blown highlights takes a completely different form. Film does it
    considerably more gracefully. Look at a print with blown highlights from
    either one and the film print looks nicer.
    >Note also the scatter in the data
    > from film compared to digital. DSLRs, which their much better
    > signal-to-noise ratios produce smoother (more noise free)
    > images than film at ALL levels.

    I agree there, and the difference is greater in shadows - digital
    shadows are quite a bit better than film shadows. But digital's noise
    does become progressively worse the darker the image becomes, precluding
    the option of putting the desired part of the image into the shadows.
    Dark/lost shadows look better on a print than blown highlights do.
    >Again, you just need to know
    > how to use your light meter correctly. Just like one
    > must meter differently for negative versus positive slide
    > film, one must meter differently with digital. And when one
    > meters correctly, one get superior results.

    But it isn't always possible to eliminate blown highlights. Some scenes
    don't suit that type of metering at all. For some scenes, metering in
    this fashion will put the scene that you want to record down into the
    noisy shadows and will give a worse image than blowing the highlights
    would have done. Night shots or broad daylight shots are a couple of
    examples of photos with extreme range of lighting variations. Some
    scenes can be metered by lowering exposure, some can't. This sometimes
    happens regardless of if you are using negative, slide, b&w or digital.
    I agree that you have to meter differently for different mediums, but
    sometimes you can't help blown highlights. When this happens film looks
    better than digital.
    >
    > See also:
    > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    > for tables with dynamic ranges of different sensors.
    >
    > Roger
    Graham Fountain, Nov 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Graham Fountain wrote:

    > Paul Rubin wrote:
    >
    >> Bill Funk <> writes:
    >>
    >>> For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    >>> their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    >>> require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    >>> use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.

    >>
    >>
    >> What requirements and why don't the apply to the pocket sized Elph
    >> series which use APS film, APS-sized by definition? For that matter
    >> there's also tons of pocket sized 35mm full frame point-and-shoot film
    >> cameras. I'm missing the reason digicams of similar size can't be
    >> made with the same size sensors.

    >
    > Most of the film zoom compacts have very slow lenses, in the order of
    > F8-F11 at maximum aperture at full zoom. Most of the digital zooms have
    > lenses in the order of F2.8-F3.5 at full zoom. This makes a huge
    > difference to their usability. To make a fast lens to cover the big
    > sensor areas means making big lenses. If you want a small lens, you have
    > 2 options - a slow lens or a small sensor.


    Double the pixel size and the area goes up 4x, so you gain 2 stops
    in number of photons collected, all other things being equal.
    Then an f/2.8 lens with a small sensor equals an f/5.6 lens on
    a 2x (linear) larger sensor. Add to that, the fact that the diffraction
    spot diameter for green light is about 5.2 microns at f/4, larger
    pixels than 2.3 microns (typical large pixel count P&S cameras now)
    are sorely needed.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 13, 2005
    #14
  15. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Graham Fountain <> writes:
    > Most of the film zoom compacts have very slow lenses, in the order of
    > F8-F11 at maximum aperture at full zoom. Most of the digital zooms
    > have lenses in the order of F2.8-F3.5 at full zoom. This makes a huge
    > difference to their usability. To make a fast lens to cover the big
    > sensor areas means making big lenses. If you want a small lens, you
    > have 2 options - a slow lens or a small sensor.


    Another way is with a low zoom ratio or even a non-zoom. The
    aforementioned Elph Jr. had a 24/2.8 lens that was quite sharp. I
    seem to remember my old Nikon Zoom Touch (midsize P/S, not tiny)
    having a 35-70/3.5-4.5 or something like that, but could be off by a
    little.
    Paul Rubin, Nov 13, 2005
    #15
  16. >
    >For an APS size sensor, look at the DRebel XT and 20D; then look at
    >their lenses. There are certain requirements for such a system that
    >require the physical size of those lenses. This would preclude their
    >use on a "compact caqmera" with an APS size sensor.
    >That Sony's BMG is stupid doesn't alter the facts about cameras.



    I have opted to not buy ANY Sony product due to there including
    features that adversely effect my PC! We need to send a message to
    business that my PS is not there PC. Washington is doing far too
    little to protect us from the abusive behavior of corporate titans and
    it's time we tell them we've had enough.

    Do not buy ANYTHING from Sony!

    Brian
    Brian Stirling, Nov 14, 2005
    #16
  17. Graham Fountain wrote:

    > Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
    >
    >> Graham Fountain wrote:
    >>
    >>> Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >> Look at Figure 8 on this page:
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2
    >> It shows the transfer function of a digital camera matches
    >> the characteristics curve of color negative film very closely,
    >> right up to the highlights.

    >
    > They will be close together until they hit the peak. But the roll-over
    > into blown highlights takes a completely different form. Film does it
    > considerably more gracefully. Look at a print with blown highlights from
    > either one and the film print looks nicer.


    Look at Figure 8, above. The reason your digital blown highlights
    look bad is because of poor metering, NOT because of digital
    limits. Read the paragraph above Figure 3. The data in the high
    end of the test was within 4% of each other. While film is rolling over,
    and showing poor tonality in the high end, the digital sensor's
    response remains linear and shows far better tonality. If you
    meter correctly for digital's characteristic curve, you do
    much better than film at all levels, including all the way up
    to and including film's complete saturation. So, again,
    the poor print with blown highlights reflects poor metering
    for the medium, not inherent limitations in that medium.
    >
    >> Note also the scatter in the data
    >> from film compared to digital. DSLRs, which their much better
    >> signal-to-noise ratios produce smoother (more noise free)
    >> images than film at ALL levels.

    >
    > I agree there, and the difference is greater in shadows - digital
    > shadows are quite a bit better than film shadows. But digital's noise
    > does become progressively worse the darker the image becomes, precluding
    > the option of putting the desired part of the image into the shadows.
    > Dark/lost shadows look better on a print than blown highlights do.
    >
    >> Again, you just need to know
    >> how to use your light meter correctly. Just like one
    >> must meter differently for negative versus positive slide
    >> film, one must meter differently with digital. And when one
    >> meters correctly, one get superior results.

    >
    > But it isn't always possible to eliminate blown highlights. Some scenes
    > don't suit that type of metering at all. For some scenes, metering in
    > this fashion will put the scene that you want to record down into the
    > noisy shadows and will give a worse image than blowing the highlights
    > would have done. Night shots or broad daylight shots are a couple of
    > examples of photos with extreme range of lighting variations. Some
    > scenes can be metered by lowering exposure, some can't. This sometimes
    > happens regardless of if you are using negative, slide, b&w or digital.
    > I agree that you have to meter differently for different mediums, but
    > sometimes you can't help blown highlights. When this happens film looks
    > better than digital.


    Look at the data! The dynamic range is 10+ stops for digital and
    about 7 for negative and 5 for slide film. And digital has HIGHER
    signal to noise AT ALL LEVELS than film. So, if you can't get
    the scene's intensities within range with digital, you can't
    do it with film either. Again, you cite blown highlights
    and film looking better. Again, I would say you simply didn't know
    how to meter the digital correctly for that situation. Because if
    you did, you could do a better job than with any film because
    digital has higher signal to noise, higher tonality, and higher
    dynamic range than film.

    >>
    >> See also:
    >> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.signal.to.noise
    >> for tables with dynamic ranges of different sensors.
    >>
    >> Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 14, 2005
    #17
  18. JohnR66

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:
    > Look at the data! The dynamic range is 10+ stops for digital and
    > about 7 for negative and 5 for slide film. And digital has HIGHER
    > signal to noise AT ALL LEVELS than film. So, if you can't get
    > the scene's intensities within range with digital, you can't
    > do it with film either.


    So do the autoexposure systems of current digicams/DSLR's do a good
    job of this? It sounds like digital at a given ISO setting should be
    underexposed compared to film of similar ISO.
    Paul Rubin, Nov 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <> writes:
    >
    >>Look at the data! The dynamic range is 10+ stops for digital and
    >>about 7 for negative and 5 for slide film. And digital has HIGHER
    >>signal to noise AT ALL LEVELS than film. So, if you can't get
    >>the scene's intensities within range with digital, you can't
    >>do it with film either.

    >
    >
    > So do the autoexposure systems of current digicams/DSLR's do a good
    > job of this? It sounds like digital at a given ISO setting should be
    > underexposed compared to film of similar ISO.


    Just like each film is different, each digital camera is different.
    Some people shoot Velvia 50 at ISO 40, for example.
    In the test on my web page, the slide film went to
    saturation at the metered level, the digital at +0.3 stop,
    and the print film at +1.0 stop. With my 10D shooting jpeg,
    the same saturation point would occur at meter -0.7 stop,
    but raw would be +0.3 stop. Many variables. Everyone
    needs to learn their camera. Many photo books tell you to
    go out and shoot film a various stops to learn your meter.
    Same with digital. Unfortunately people these days simply
    look at the histogram as a crutch and really don't learn
    their camera's meter and what the digital sensor can record.
    Thus the many misconceptions which seem to become urban myths.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Nov 14, 2005
    #19
    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. Newbie4Ever

    FireFox wishlist - add

    Newbie4Ever, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,412
    Ralph Fox
    Sep 26, 2005
  2. Splibbilla
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    690
    Splibbilla
    Nov 13, 2005
  3. Silverstrand

    "Holiday Wishlist 2006" at XYZ Computing

    Silverstrand, Nov 18, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    685
    unholy
    Nov 21, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
  5. =?iso-8859-1?q?Philip__Dyg=E9us?=

    Any digital compact that meets my wishlist??

    =?iso-8859-1?q?Philip__Dyg=E9us?=, Jun 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    519
    J. Clarke
    Jun 24, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page