Megapixels

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by CircuitConcepts, Nov 4, 2005.

  1. I'm sure many megapixel questions bounce around, why wouldn't they

    I'm currently shooting on an N75 with my array of lenses (all Nikon mind you), blah blah. But I do a large array of things while shooting: sports, photojournalism, modeling, art etc

    My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.

    Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like

    I'm wanting to bump up to a digital body for my next purchase. There's really only one other lens I could have use for (a zoom with f2.8, something from 70-200), but I can get a body for less than that (those lenses run roughly for $900 on from bnh)

    Well, I digress. My confusion is megapixels. I get them, I probably know more than the average person, but I was having a conversation about them with another

    They're square functions he told me, well yes, 1 million per square inch. He said that wasn't what he meant, he was implying that since they are that some numbers are the same. Implying that there's no need for a 6megapixel when you can get a 3.1 or so and do just as fine. I beieve he said 3megapixels are the same as 6 or some other odd number. I have a small thought that he may have heard part of this, and had to fill in the rest for himself. But can somebody clarify about megapixel values being the same from number to number

    --
    CircuitConcepts

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    View this thread: http://www.photographytalk.net/viewtopic-162610.htm

    Send from http://www.photographytalk.ne
     
    CircuitConcepts, Nov 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 00:38:36 +0100, CircuitConcepts
    <> wrote:

    >Well, I digress. My confusion is megapixels. I get them, I probably know more than the average person, but I was having a conversation about them with another.
    >
    >They're square functions he told me, well yes, 1 million per square inch. He said that wasn't what he meant, he was implying that since they are that some numbers are the same. Implying that there's no need for a 6megapixel when you can get a 3.1 or so and do just as fine. I beieve he said 3megapixels are the same as 6 or some other odd number. I have a small thought that he may have heard part of this, and had to fill in the rest for himself. But can somebody clarify about megapixel values being the same from number to number?


    Well, that's a fairly incoherent description. ;-)

    It depends on what you're doing. If you're viewing pictures on-screen,
    few screens have more than 1.3 megapixels, so a 3 Mp will give as good
    results as a 6 Mp - other things being equal. Much the same is true if
    you're doing postcard-sized prints. If however you are doing substantial
    enlargements, then 3 Mp is certainly not the same as 6 Mp. It's not
    however just the number of pixels that matter, but also the size of the
    pixels (bigger is better), the quality of the lens etc. You can search
    the archive of this group for many discussions of the subject.

    --
    Stephen Poley
     
    Stephen Poley, Nov 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. CircuitConcepts wrote:
    > I'm sure many megapixel questions bounce around, why wouldn't they?
    >
    > I'm currently shooting on an N75 with my array of lenses (all Nikon mind you), blah blah. But I do a large array of things while shooting: sports, photojournalism, modeling, art etc.
    >
    > My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    >
    > Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    >


    I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.

    But thats just my experience. Others might to be able to draw more
    mileage from the LCDs.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 5, 2005
    #3
  4. On 5 Nov 2005 05:49:19 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    <> wrote:

    >CircuitConcepts wrote:


    >> My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    >>
    >> Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    >>

    >
    >I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    >doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    >you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    >is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    >you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.


    IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    And you can certainly see (with my camera anyway) if the exposure is
    significantly off the mark, even without the histogram; if it's only a
    little off you can correct it on the computer. Judging sharpness (focus
    or camera shake) is indeed more difficult, though if you zoom in on the
    image you can at least get some idea.

    --
    Stephen Poley
     
    Stephen Poley, Nov 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Stephen Poley wrote:
    > On 5 Nov 2005 05:49:19 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >CircuitConcepts wrote:

    >
    > >> My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    > >>
    > >> Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    > >>

    > >
    > >I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    > >doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    > >you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    > >is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    > >you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.

    >
    > IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    > subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    > And you can certainly see (with my camera anyway) if the exposure is
    > significantly off the mark, even without the histogram; if it's only a
    > little off you can correct it on the computer. Judging sharpness (focus
    > or camera shake) is indeed more difficult, though if you zoom in on the
    > image you can at least get some idea.
    >
    > --
    > Stephen Poley



    When shooting rapidly moving subjects, do you pause in between each
    shot and review your work or do you shoot the rapidly passing subjects?
    ;-)

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 5, 2005
    #5
  6. CircuitConcepts

    Matt Ion Guest

    Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > Stephen Poley wrote:
    >
    >>On 5 Nov 2005 05:49:19 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>CircuitConcepts wrote:

    >>
    >>>>My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    >>>>
    >>>>Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    >>>doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    >>>you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    >>>is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    >>>you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.

    >>
    >>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    >>And you can certainly see (with my camera anyway) if the exposure is
    >>significantly off the mark, even without the histogram; if it's only a
    >>little off you can correct it on the computer. Judging sharpness (focus
    >>or camera shake) is indeed more difficult, though if you zoom in on the
    >>image you can at least get some idea.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Stephen Poley

    >
    >
    >
    > When shooting rapidly moving subjects, do you pause in between each
    > shot and review your work or do you shoot the rapidly passing subjects?


    No, but it's still nice to be able to review once you're done shooting
    the sequence... if your settings aren't working, seeing that lets you
    compensate in time for the next sequence.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0544-8, 11/04/2005
    Tested on: 11/5/2005 10:17:37 AM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Matt Ion wrote:
    > Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    > > Stephen Poley wrote:
    > >
    > >>On 5 Nov 2005 05:49:19 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    > >><> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>CircuitConcepts wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>>My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>>I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    > >>>doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    > >>>you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    > >>>is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    > >>>you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.
    > >>
    > >>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    > >>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    > >>And you can certainly see (with my camera anyway) if the exposure is
    > >>significantly off the mark, even without the histogram; if it's only a
    > >>little off you can correct it on the computer. Judging sharpness (focus
    > >>or camera shake) is indeed more difficult, though if you zoom in on the
    > >>image you can at least get some idea.
    > >>
    > >>--
    > >>Stephen Poley

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > When shooting rapidly moving subjects, do you pause in between each
    > > shot and review your work or do you shoot the rapidly passing subjects?

    >
    > No, but it's still nice to be able to review once you're done shooting
    > the sequence... if your settings aren't working, seeing that lets you
    > compensate in time for the next sequence.
    >
    >
    > ---
    > avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    > Virus Database (VPS): 0544-8, 11/04/2005
    > Tested on: 11/5/2005 10:17:37 AM
    > avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    > http://www.avast.com


    True. I guess a lot depends on how much time you have to review your
    work. If its a sports event of some sort where there is a practise
    session before the start then you can use that to work on your
    settings. But then there are several other times like shooting children
    or other subjects which won't be in the same state again that you need
    to get it right in one shot.

    But maybe the OP, coming from film SLR world, is already good at
    getting it right in the first shot especially if he's been shooting
    slide film.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 5, 2005
    #7
  8. CircuitConcepts

    Monty Bonner Guest

    "CircuitConcepts" <> wrote
    in message news:...
    >
    > I'm sure many megapixel questions bounce around, why wouldn't they?
    >
    > I'm currently shooting on an N75 with my array of lenses (all Nikon mind
    > you), blah blah. But I do a large array of things while shooting: sports,
    > photojournalism, modeling, art etc.
    >
    > My film camera is nice, but it isn't always what I need. Sports I can
    > work, I just got a new lens (f1.4 50mm) and my new flash (sb-800) so it's
    > not an issue of blurring/developing, but rather seeing what I'm doing.
    >
    > Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    >
    > I'm wanting to bump up to a digital body for my next purchase. There's
    > really only one other lens I could have use for (a zoom with f2.8,
    > something from 70-200), but I can get a body for less than that (those
    > lenses run roughly for $900 on from bnh).
    >
    > Well, I digress. My confusion is megapixels. I get them, I probably know
    > more than the average person, but I was having a conversation about them
    > with another.
    >
    > They're square functions he told me, well yes, 1 million per square inch.
    > He said that wasn't what he meant, he was implying that since they are
    > that some numbers are the same. Implying that there's no need for a
    > 6megapixel when you can get a 3.1 or so and do just as fine. I beieve he
    > said 3megapixels are the same as 6 or some other odd number. I have a
    > small thought that he may have heard part of this, and had to fill in the
    > rest for himself. But can somebody clarify about megapixel values being
    > the same from number to number?
    >
    >
    > --
    > CircuitConcepts


    Hello - sorry to be long winded!

    What I believe you are trying to ask is are more mega-pixels better. It's a
    subjective answer sort of, here is why.

    On the camera lets say the D70s, the LCD is only 2 inches square about.
    It's very hard to see any detail of the picture using a small screen like
    that, the histogram is a much better description of how the picture looks,
    but you need "to see the picture" to really know what needs to be fixed or
    if you even like the picture anyway. The LCD is going to let you see some
    of that detail, but a monitor is much better so you can see the finer detail
    of the shot.

    What screen you view the picture on is of more importance, and I certainly
    am not an expert concerning photography, however I have been in the computer
    industry for 20 some odd years so I sort of know that business. Monitors
    RGB, are the cheapest and most reliable, however the technology is old but
    proven, flat panel is best. Sony used to have the best RGB (for picture
    quality) monitor a couple of years back, but stopped production of it. NEC
    now has the best 21+ inch RGB display in glass (tube type). The higher
    resolution the monitor can handle along with the refresh rate and horizontal
    Hertz rate are indications of what it's capable of, the bigger numbers are
    better.

    Samsung makes a lot of the OEM LCD screens currently being used by many end
    manufacturers, they do a very good job on the LCD manufacturing, so it's a
    matter of the specifications of the end product. Lower refresh numbers are
    important, i.e.8ns and below is quite fast. However, a glass front panel is
    a plus for ease of cleaning and it sharpens the picture a little I think,
    which makes what you see clearer. The downside is glare behind or above you
    reflecting off the glass surface. Something to consider. See
    www.newegg.com for various LCDs and Monitors if you need a good source in
    the USA. I currently have a Rosewill R912E and it is a great LCD at 8NS
    refresh rate and came with no dead pixels. There are other brands out
    there, however, hear again, Sony looks good on the surface, but personally I
    have had a VCR and a Big Screen TV of their brand go out and needed either
    replacement or repair. I currently have a 21 Inch Sony monitor on another
    computer and I think it's having a problem, and these problems seem to occur
    right when the warranty is going out. Their quality in my opinion is not as
    good as it used to be, and getting service I have heard is difficult. I
    don't recommend them because I have not been happy with the product.
    Panasonic on the other hand is tops. My friend is still using the VCR she
    purchased over ten years ago, and I am using mine still which is close to 5
    years old. So look at that brand of Computer displays to see if you like
    them.

    A good video card is necessary as well, it's a toss up which is better on
    the high end ATI or NVIDIA, but I like NVIDIA.

    Now back to cameras. The advantage of the digital camera over the film
    camera is you see what you take immediately, which is good, and if the
    picture needs adjustment you can do that on a PC using a variety of software
    packages, even on the camera using the Histogram and LCD. One feature I
    know the Nikon has is you can tell the camera to take a number (you select
    the number) shots and it will lower or raise the f-stop and shutter speed
    appropriately so you can see the difference immediately. The Nikon D70s;
    D200(just announced); D2H and the D2X are all great cameras for the
    professional or semi professional. For the work I read you seem to do, the
    D50 is not one you should consider. The D70s is a 6 MP camera, the D200 is
    a 10.4 MP; the D2H is 4.1 and the D2X is 12.4MP. The pixel size within the
    CCD may be the same, however, the end results from each camera will be
    different because of the "more is better" analogy. The more information you
    can store on the CCD, the more information that can be manipulated to
    enhance the final product which is the picture. How the camera stores the
    picture information and gets to the final product is of some concern,
    because different types of memory is easier to work, more reliable, and more
    common place, i.e. easier to replace or purchase more if you are in the
    field. One rule of thumb is always by more camera than you use currently,
    because you have room to grow. That is balanced with the rule - the better
    it is/bigger it is, the more it costs, so your budget needs to balance out
    that for you. I would recommend the D200 or D2X, if your budget will stand
    the strain based on what I read about the type of Photographer you are. I
    personally have the D70s and still learning how it operates and how to take
    good pictures, as so far I am not satisfied with what I have taken, but that
    is because I don't know how to use it correctly yet. It takes great
    pictures if I leave it in Auto, but I like more control, so don't use that
    mode.

    Will a 4x6 picture taken with the D70s look different than one taken with
    the D200 or D2X, if all other things are the same, i.e. lens, monitor for
    viewing, time of day, f-stop, shutter speed, subject,etc. I believe they
    will be close enough that the many persons cannot tell the difference. The
    difference then becomes the other features the D200 and D2X have that you
    will use to your advantage and if the current lenses you have will fit those
    bodies.

    You have some research to accomplish between the different models, and first
    I would make sure the lenses you currently have will fit either of those
    bodies and the auto-focus and TTL metering will work with them, second see
    which features of each model will be something you need or will use, and
    then balance those against your budget. You will come up with the answer.

    A word of caution, many here are Canon users, which is a good thing, they
    will suggest a model made that you should consider, you are not asking about
    specific cameras (although I have led the discussion that way because I am
    more familiar with that model line and the size of the CCD's) just about
    mega pixels, keep that in mind. This should not evolve into a "which one is
    better debate" this is about the final product and how you like the end
    result. So, in my opinion, more mega-pixels are better, but that is because
    you actually have more data to play around with if it needs to be played
    with at all. Also bigger prints can be made with a larger CCD than a small
    one. Currently in a DSLR I think 6MP is the smallest size I would consider
    and I would have gone to the D200 had I known it was coming out this soon.
    I did hold and feel both the Canon and the Nikon bodies, I felt the Nikon
    was easier to hold, plus I have a friend who has one and we can share lenses
    when we go and shoot pictures when we are camping. She likes the film
    camera she has, I like the digital for the speed and you see what you get
    now feature. I used to have film, and it's still "richer in color and
    depth" I think than digital, but that is a subjective, because of the
    developing process and every lab is different.

    I won't bring up Full Frame CCD's because I don't understand what the
    brew-ha-ha is all about. I also won't get into the printing part of it,
    because I won't recommend HP for anything especially printers because the
    inks and paper is way more expensive than everybody else. That leaves Canon
    and Epson, here reviews are pretty much even on them, the inks-refills seem
    to be a tad cheaper for the Epson, but here again, that is also subjective,
    print out is good for this in one, and good for that in another, so it's
    again, what is important for your end result, not mine or anyone else's.

    Hope this helps.

    Monty
     
    Monty Bonner, Nov 5, 2005
    #8
  9. CircuitConcepts

    jimn Guest

    Matt Ion <> wrote
    >Siddhartha Jain wrote:
    >> Stephen Poley wrote:
    >>
    >>>On 5 Nov 2005 05:49:19 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>CircuitConcepts wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Seeing what I'm doing as I go is really something I would like.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>I am not sure if moving to digital will help you with "seeing what I am
    >>>>doing". The relatively tiny LCDs on a digital camera's back don't tell
    >>>>you much about exposure or focus. The only thing you can probably judge
    >>>>is composition (which you should anyway see from the viewfinder) and if
    >>>>you get a RGB histogram then to an extent exposure.
    >>>
    >>>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    >>>And you can certainly see (with my camera anyway) if the exposure is
    >>>significantly off the mark, even without the histogram; if it's only a
    >>>little off you can correct it on the computer. Judging sharpness (focus
    >>>or camera shake) is indeed more difficult, though if you zoom in on the
    >>>image you can at least get some idea.
    >>>
    >>>--
    >>>Stephen Poley

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> When shooting rapidly moving subjects, do you pause in between each
    >> shot and review your work or do you shoot the rapidly passing subjects?

    >
    >No, but it's still nice to be able to review once you're done shooting
    >the sequence... if your settings aren't working, seeing that lets you
    >compensate in time for the next sequence.



    Definitely not. Check when you have time and compensate if obviou
    errors. I don't check after every shot even when shooting "stills" Thos
    screens are really too small to evaluate anything other than gros
    errors in composition and I suppose histograms. I delete later on th
    computer when I can examine the image in detail. It is exactly the sam
    process as when I shoot film. Get the slides back, put on a ligh
    table, toss the obvious gross errors, examine the remaining ones with
    loupe, toss the bad ones, scan the remainder. I was at wedding recently,
    and noticed the official wedding photographer check each photo she took.
    whilst missing the next shot. Better to concentrate on getting the shot and evaluate later.

    Jim

    >
    >---
    >avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    >Virus Database (VPS): 0544-8, 11/04/2005
    >Tested on: 11/5/2005 10:17:37 AM
    >avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    >http://www.avast.com
    >
    >




    --
    Ji
     
    jimn, Nov 6, 2005
    #9
  10. CircuitConcepts

    Skip M Guest

    "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    >
    > IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    > subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.

    <snipped>
    >

    If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when shooting
    rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to rectify your
    mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject has probably
    rapidly moved on...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 6, 2005
    #10
  11. CircuitConcepts

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:12:45 -0800, Skip M wrote:

    >> IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >> subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.

    > <snipped>
    >
    > If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when
    > shooting rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to
    > rectify your mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject
    > has probably rapidly moved on...


    It depends on the situation. One of probably many counterexamples
    would be a photographer taking pictures of the lead cars on a closed
    circuit racing course. Several pictures can be taken in rapid
    succession, with time to review the results, looking for obvious
    mistakes after the lead pack passes. By the time the pack returns
    on the next lap, the photographer can be ready and waiting. Of
    course you'd be correct to avoid reviewing the shots in many other
    situations where that type of opportunity doesn't present itself.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 6, 2005
    #11
  12. CircuitConcepts

    Skip M Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:12:45 -0800, Skip M wrote:
    >
    >>> IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>> subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.

    >> <snipped>
    >>
    >> If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when
    >> shooting rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to
    >> rectify your mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject
    >> has probably rapidly moved on...

    >
    > It depends on the situation. One of probably many counterexamples
    > would be a photographer taking pictures of the lead cars on a closed
    > circuit racing course. Several pictures can be taken in rapid
    > succession, with time to review the results, looking for obvious
    > mistakes after the lead pack passes. By the time the pack returns
    > on the next lap, the photographer can be ready and waiting. Of
    > course you'd be correct to avoid reviewing the shots in many other
    > situations where that type of opportunity doesn't present itself.
    >

    Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD... When I am
    at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe the straights
    that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during practice or a pace
    lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong. Reviewing between laps can
    make you miss an important shot, like when I did that very thing during an
    Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron it sounds...) hydro race, and one
    of the back markers did a spectacular back flip. I missed all but the
    landing...

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 7, 2005
    #12
  13. CircuitConcepts

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 18:26:57 -0800, Skip M wrote:

    > Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    > something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD..


    Changing positions shouldn't pose any problems, and it only takes
    a lap or two at the beginning to know how much time you'll have to
    be prepared for when the leaders return.

    > When I am at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe
    > the straights that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during
    > practice or a pace lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong.
    > Reviewing between laps can make you miss an important shot, like when
    > I did that very thing during an Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron
    > it sounds...) hydro race, and one of the back markers did a spectacular
    > back flip. I missed all but the landing...


    Had you brought two cameras and handed one to your tall assistant
    Igor ("eye-gore") to ready the last shot for reviewing you wouldn't
    have missed most of the back flip. But Igor would have been so
    startled by the noise that he would have dropped the camera on an
    unforgiving rock. Best to carry on as you did, with a single
    camera. The last race I took photos at was some time during the
    late 60's in New York. Glen something and I believe the winner was
    a Brazilian driver. At least I remember that much. Most of the
    roughly 20 others there with me probably only remember the mud, if
    that. Mucho, mucho mud! Ah, it just came back. Watkins Glen, '69
    or '70, and the winner was Emerson Fittipaldi.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 7, 2005
    #13
  14. CircuitConcepts

    Matt Ion Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >
    >>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.

    >
    > <snipped>
    >
    > If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when shooting
    > rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to rectify your
    > mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject has probably
    > rapidly moved on...


    But if you're talking about sports, said subject is probably going to
    come around several more times... any sort of auto racing, for example,
    gives plenty of time between laps to shoot, check your results, and
    adjust for the next pass. Games like football, hockey, soccer, while
    the exact play won't happen again, there will be plenty more going by
    during the course of the game.


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0544-8, 11/04/2005
    Tested on: 11/6/2005 9:28:28 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 7, 2005
    #14
  15. CircuitConcepts

    Matt Ion Guest

    Skip M wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:12:45 -0800, Skip M wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>>>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    >>>
    >>><snipped>
    >>>
    >>>If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when
    >>>shooting rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to
    >>>rectify your mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject
    >>>has probably rapidly moved on...

    >>
    >> It depends on the situation. One of probably many counterexamples
    >>would be a photographer taking pictures of the lead cars on a closed
    >>circuit racing course. Several pictures can be taken in rapid
    >>succession, with time to review the results, looking for obvious
    >>mistakes after the lead pack passes. By the time the pack returns
    >>on the next lap, the photographer can be ready and waiting. Of
    >>course you'd be correct to avoid reviewing the shots in many other
    >>situations where that type of opportunity doesn't present itself.
    >>

    >
    > Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    > something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD... When I am
    > at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe the straights
    > that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during practice or a pace
    > lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong. Reviewing between laps can
    > make you miss an important shot, like when I did that very thing during an
    > Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron it sounds...) hydro race, and one
    > of the back markers did a spectacular back flip. I missed all but the
    > landing...


    And without the ability to immediately review your shots, you could
    happily shoot away all day, and only discover after the whole thing is
    over that something was set wrong and NONE of the shots turned out...


    ---
    avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
    Virus Database (VPS): 0544-8, 11/04/2005
    Tested on: 11/6/2005 9:30:36 PM
    avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
    http://www.avast.com
     
    Matt Ion, Nov 7, 2005
    #15
  16. Skip M wrote:
    > "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:12:45 -0800, Skip M wrote:
    > >
    > >>> IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    > >>> subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    > >> <snipped>
    > >>
    > >> If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when
    > >> shooting rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to
    > >> rectify your mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject
    > >> has probably rapidly moved on...

    > >
    > > It depends on the situation. One of probably many counterexamples
    > > would be a photographer taking pictures of the lead cars on a closed
    > > circuit racing course. Several pictures can be taken in rapid
    > > succession, with time to review the results, looking for obvious
    > > mistakes after the lead pack passes. By the time the pack returns
    > > on the next lap, the photographer can be ready and waiting. Of
    > > course you'd be correct to avoid reviewing the shots in many other
    > > situations where that type of opportunity doesn't present itself.
    > >

    > Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    > something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD... When I am
    > at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe the straights
    > that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during practice or a pace
    > lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong. Reviewing between laps can
    > make you miss an important shot, like when I did that very thing during an
    > Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron it sounds...) hydro race, and one
    > of the back markers did a spectacular back flip. I missed all but the
    > landing...
    >
    > --
    > Skip Middleton
    > http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com


    Do any cameras have a feature where you can connect the camera to an
    external LCD (not a PC/laptop) while shooting? I think that'd be a
    great feature. Then, I can carry a relatively larger LCD, like a 7",
    and review my work more closely as I shoot. Or, provide for an external
    storage option whereby I can connect an external USB storage device to
    the camera and all the shots get stored on that device. Just wondering.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Nov 7, 2005
    #16
  17. Siddhartha Jain <> wrote:

    : Do any cameras have a feature where you can connect the camera to an
    : external LCD (not a PC/laptop) while shooting? I think that'd be a
    : great feature. Then, I can carry a relatively larger LCD, like a 7",
    : and review my work more closely as I shoot.

    I would expect most (if not all) P&S cameras with a video out plug would
    allow real time viewing. One situation where this option would be valuable
    (that I can think of) is when you want to position your camera in a place
    well away from your eye. For example at a parade where you wish to
    position your camera above the crowd standing infront of you. Puting your
    camera on a monopod, with a pocket TV hung around you neck on your chest
    and a cabled remote shutter release you could put the monopod foot in your
    front pants pocket, holding the camera well above the crowd, and frame the
    shots in the TV and snap the shots with the remote. :) The one problem
    with such a rig is the camera and TV will dry up the batteries quickly, so
    you may want to also have a large external power supply for both hanging
    from your belt. :)

    Randy

    ==========
    Randy Berbaum
    Champaign, IL
     
    Randy Berbaum, Nov 7, 2005
    #17
  18. CircuitConcepts

    Skip M Guest

    "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 18:26:57 -0800, Skip M wrote:
    >
    >> Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    >> something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD..

    >
    > Changing positions shouldn't pose any problems, and it only takes
    > a lap or two at the beginning to know how much time you'll have to
    > be prepared for when the leaders return.
    >
    >> When I am at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe
    >> the straights that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during
    >> practice or a pace lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong.
    >> Reviewing between laps can make you miss an important shot, like when
    >> I did that very thing during an Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron
    >> it sounds...) hydro race, and one of the back markers did a spectacular
    >> back flip. I missed all but the landing...

    >
    > Had you brought two cameras and handed one to your tall assistant
    > Igor ("eye-gore") to ready the last shot for reviewing you wouldn't
    > have missed most of the back flip. But Igor would have been so
    > startled by the noise that he would have dropped the camera on an
    > unforgiving rock. Best to carry on as you did, with a single
    > camera. The last race I took photos at was some time during the
    > late 60's in New York. Glen something and I believe the winner was
    > a Brazilian driver. At least I remember that much. Most of the
    > roughly 20 others there with me probably only remember the mud, if
    > that. Mucho, mucho mud! Ah, it just came back. Watkins Glen, '69
    > or '70, and the winner was Emerson Fittipaldi.
    >

    Ah, yes, "The Bog..."

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 7, 2005
    #18
  19. CircuitConcepts

    Skip M Guest

    "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    news:dEBbf.435966$tl2.194550@pd7tw3no...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >> "ASAAR" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:12:45 -0800, Skip M wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>>>>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.
    >>>>
    >>>><snipped>
    >>>>
    >>>>If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when
    >>>>shooting rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to
    >>>>rectify your mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject
    >>>>has probably rapidly moved on...
    >>>
    >>> It depends on the situation. One of probably many counterexamples
    >>>would be a photographer taking pictures of the lead cars on a closed
    >>>circuit racing course. Several pictures can be taken in rapid
    >>>succession, with time to review the results, looking for obvious
    >>>mistakes after the lead pack passes. By the time the pack returns
    >>>on the next lap, the photographer can be ready and waiting. Of
    >>>course you'd be correct to avoid reviewing the shots in many other
    >>>situations where that type of opportunity doesn't present itself.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Of course, having done that, they come around in a different order, or
    >> something important happened while you were reviewing the LCD... When I
    >> am at a race, I generally stick to a couple of corners, and maybe the
    >> straights that connect them. One shot, reviewed, usually during practice
    >> or a pace lap, tells me what I'm doing is right or wrong. Reviewing
    >> between laps can make you miss an important shot, like when I did that
    >> very thing during an Unlimited Lights (not really the oxymoron it
    >> sounds...) hydro race, and one of the back markers did a spectacular back
    >> flip. I missed all but the landing...

    >
    > And without the ability to immediately review your shots, you could
    > happily shoot away all day, and only discover after the whole thing is
    > over that something was set wrong and NONE of the shots turned out...
    >
    >


    But, ya know what? That's happened to me once. In twenty years. And
    reviewing after every lap, which was the subject, or every shot, isn't the
    same thing as taking one quick look on the pace lap, which is what I said.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 7, 2005
    #19
  20. CircuitConcepts

    Skip M Guest

    "Matt Ion" <> wrote in message
    news:eCBbf.428568$1i.52010@pd7tw2no...
    > Skip M wrote:
    >> "Stephen Poley" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>
    >>>IMHO that's being a bit negative. When photographing rapidly-moving
    >>>subjects it's very useful to be able to quickly review the composition.

    >>
    >> <snipped>
    >>
    >> If you take the time to review your composition in the LCD when shooting
    >> rapidly moving subjects, you've missed the opportunity to rectify your
    >> mistake, since the aforementioned rapidly moving subject has probably
    >> rapidly moved on...

    >
    > But if you're talking about sports, said subject is probably going to come
    > around several more times... any sort of auto racing, for example, gives
    > plenty of time between laps to shoot, check your results, and adjust for
    > the next pass. Games like football, hockey, soccer, while the exact play
    > won't happen again, there will be plenty more going by during the course
    > of the game.
    >
    >


    Sure, it's going to come around, several more times. IF it doesn't hit a
    wall, expire from engine failure, get passed, or actually get the corner
    right this time, so that the hairy slide you missed the first time doesn't
    happen again. Or that spectacular catch the running back made is the only
    one he made all day. See what I mean? Just because an action is, in
    general, repeated, doesn't mean the action is the same, every time. At the
    Long Beach GP, I got a great shot of one of the Target/Chip Ganassi cars
    closely following the other. Only time it happened in that corner, all day.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Nov 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. DarkMan

    more megapixels: better resolution?

    DarkMan, Jul 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    809
    ArtKramr
    Aug 1, 2003
  2. David Kassnoff

    More megapixels=digital burnout?

    David Kassnoff, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    456
    Michael Meissner
    Aug 18, 2003
  3. Bill Hilton

    39 megapixels? 31 megapixels? Get 'em here ...

    Bill Hilton, Jul 16, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    367
    Bill Hilton
    Jul 18, 2005
  4. jdanield
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
    jdanield
    Oct 17, 2012
  5. Rob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    410
Loading...

Share This Page