Bob Pan said:
I'm greedy, I'd like more DR, MP, ISO and less noise, oh and if someone could do something about the cost of the equipment while they are at it, that would be nice.
I think Bob's on to something here . . .
where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
No offense taken, studio. Hopefully it's obvious from the rest of what I say on the forum that I don't only care about megapixels. Honestly, because I only rarely print above 11x14", I don't need more megapixels.
None meant, of course! I'm so lame, I didn't even read your first post--I saw the thread title, and immediately began typing willy nilly! I think you make good and valid points. Can't wait to get my copies of CS5 and Lightroom 3 myself!
@ studio 460 Well I sure have pursued large format and caution you to be very careful there. I owned what some companies regarded as the most impressive camera fleets owned in the USA. Looking back on it I regard one place, the Fuji GX 617 as a great and fast scenery camera. I owned all the lens panels and in fact pushed Fuji to make the longer ones. Fast forward to today. Large format will teach you discipline. It will teach you how to frame a scene. You can make prints as large as a barn. But you had better realize what you are getting into. Personally I would get a D700 replacement when it comes out. The D700 is amazing. But I think my D90 will do as good as the D300 or D700 much of the time. I sold all of my Hassys, Maymias, Linhoffs, etc. when I did comparative prints from the same scene with my Nikon F5 and superb Nikkor glass. Now I still walk thru public places once in awhile and see one of my large photos or one taken with a camera I sold to the photographer who took the picture. I frankly never miss those days, not at all!! I could point out pro landscape books done with 35mm. William Henry Jackson took great photos with a 16x20! But that was then and this is now. A d700 or even a D300 will get a different photo than the big rigs. Save your money. patience, marriage, sanity, and health and stay with 35mm DSLR!
@Johnny Apple: On my Apple Cinemas or Samsung LED HD TV there is a big difference between film and digital. I own more scanning gear than i care to admit. Scanning does not give me what I want or need. Frankly there are more scanning artifacts than I can tolerate. I am not talking amateur scanners. I prefer digital period!! On a slide sound show digital is the way to go!
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said anything, Davey, considering I have very little experience with film at all and even less experience with scanning.
I occasionally put together slide shows, if that's still what you would call them now. I used to do it with actual slides—my dad had a three-projector setup and I was pretty good with a hardware/software control system called TopHat. It's incredible what you can do today with just a few dollars invested and digital images. This weekend I put together a really short one of my sister's wedding (photos by me and another sister):
Oh, and I prefer digital, too, though it means less coming from me who have only once tried any format bigger than 35mm.
Yes, in DX 16Mp and in FF 18-20 leaning towards 20.
I need more megapixels... in my monitor.
I'm stunned how much better my Blurry iPhone pictures look on my 300ppi phone than they do identically sized on my monitor (or even at 100%). I took a shot of sweet baby the other day and it looked great on my iPhone... emailed it to myself and now it kind of looks like crap.
What's interesting about this is that if I look at shots at 100% on my computer, they rarely ever are as sharp as I like them, but still print out great. I want a full sized monitor that looks like my prints would look... is that to much to ask?
You are asking a lot willis! There is something about a printed picture that a monitor will never be able to replace I think. we can get pretty attached to a printed photo and with age the creases and fading just makes the bond stronger.
BTW Congrats and welcome to the over 1K posters!!
I would much rather have smaller pixels, but still full frame, We can still keep the 4256x2832 12mp size for say a d3s, but pack twice the number of pixels within that given space.
I've shot composites with my d3s to form a larger image. For example, I've shot a anywhere from a 72mp equivalent to a 477mp equivalent image of various subject matter, to try and get a higher resolution and larger image than I normally would with 12mp, but when I zoom into my subject matter, I'm still facing the usual resolution issue, due to a given pixel size. Check my page, http://www.focusarkansas.net, and you will see.
If you look at what's going on, bigger sensors, are needing bigger cameras, and larger appropriate lenses. I've had my d3s next to a hasselblad h4d, and the size of the h4d lens compared to a similar focal length lens for my nikon was bigger.
It's got to cover a bigger image circle for medium format, ar_d3s. I'm not sure what you mean about keeping 12MP but have smaller pixels in the same space.
to be honest I don't want more mega pixel ,but sometimes I feel little more will be better as I can crop when there are situations which are real tight but 12mp is more than enough for me .
You must log in to post.