namelesstavern.net

oh mindia you can be so frustrating sometimes ><

Hey, I just done want to see somebody throw their money away on a shitty camera. That was the bottom line to my whole side of the argument. No harm, no foul.

but a camera with a midrange megapixel count doesn't automatically equal a shitty camera, see?

Sure I see that. I'm just saying... oh nm. Anyway, for $300 he will be able to get a nice camera. I just urge him (or anyone) to compare them well before buying so they get the most bang for the buck and not sacrifice image quality.

Get an old Holga or Diana & learn how to use 120mm film.

-Adam

ps. Mindia, stop backsliding & read the articles you post so definitely as proof.

did you even read the shit you quoted?

A couple things to keep in mind. People get nuts about megapixels, but more isn't always better.

Mindia wrote:Just pick one that has the highest megapixels that you can afford.

just admit that you were wrong, or backpedal and say that's not what you meant

Tikker wrote:did you even read the shit you quoted?

A couple things to keep in mind. People get nuts about megapixels, but more isn't always better.

Mindia wrote:Just pick one that has the highest megapixels that you can afford.

just admit that you were wrong, or backpedal and say that's not what you meant

Did you forget to read the part about more megapixels = better? Retard. STFU.

your argument about megapixels is fucking retarded


it's like having a 5" 1080p television

Do you realize everything you made bold is what I said in the beginning the higher the MP rating the bigger you can PRINT said pic. I seriously doubt anyone here will EVER print anything over an 8x10. FYI a 3MP camera can create a photo quality 8x10.

Eldred wrote:Do you realize everything you made bold is what I said in the beginning the higher the MP rating the bigger you can PRINT said pic. I seriously doubt anyone here will EVER print anything over an 8x10. FYI a 3MP camera can create a photo quality 8x10.

The only argument that can really be made is that being able to take a much higher resolution pic gives you the opportunity for cropping out crap and focusing in on the subject that you may not have seen the first time.

I cropped the following from a 5.1 megapixel image that I took the other day. It is roughly 1/6th the total image.

-Adam

Eldred wrote:Do you realize everything you made bold is what I said in the beginning the higher the MP rating the bigger you can PRINT said pic. I seriously doubt anyone here will EVER print anything over an 8x10. FYI a 3MP camera can create a photo quality 8x10.

i made pretty nice 8x12 prints with my old d1h (2.5mp), and now that i traded in for a d1x (5.8mp) i'm going to aim for 16x20

here are some photos i took with the d1h

anyway, to add to the argument: flink, i'd suggest you get something affordable with 3-5mp and put in some hard work. get out there and practice. maybe take a class or something. plenty of practice as well as the knowledge and "feel" of being able to take advantage of the environment to put together a great shot will get you much further than an expensive camera with 9mp ever will. and if you start to get somewhere and really get into it, that's when you'll know it's time to save up and get yourself a nice SLR camera. if you don't get into it, hey-- at least you have a decent camera that will do nice 8x10 photos!

Really nice stuff Brin I wish I could afford a DH1 myself. I like your composition a lot. What lenses do you primarily use? I mainly shoot on my N90s w/ a sigma 50mm f2.4 1:1 macro lens. And the Nikkor 28-135 f3.5-5.6 lens. I also wish I could afford better lenses.

My problem with digital cameras is the horrible indoor picture quality if only using the flash or ambient room lighting. Even my old 2.1MP Canon takes awesome outdoor photos but anything indoor and I have to alter the photo afterwards so much in order to get a decent pic that it hardly resembles the pic I started with. Not many digital cams that I have used can take decent indoor pics.

Eldred wrote:Really nice stuff Brin I wish I could afford a DH1 myself. I like your composition a lot. What lenses do you primarily use? I mainly shoot on my N90s w/ a sigma 50mm f2.4 1:1 macro lens. And the Nikkor 28-135 f3.5-5.6 lens. I also wish I could afford better lenses.

thanks, always nice to hear compliments from a peer

ummmm as for lenses i have 3, my favorite is an 80-200mm 1:2.8, and i also use a 20mm 1:2.8 and a 50mm 1:1.8 (all nikkor)

i would like to invest in a nice nikkor macro (that means really close up right?)

i am 90% uneducated in art and art theory, but i will be minoring in studio art when i return to the U next month. hopefully those classes will help!

Here's my Plain Jane assessment of megapixels and digital cameras, since we've been looking for one for years.

We have two ANCIENT digital cameras, one is 0.3 megapixels on my Treo 600 (yes, zero point three mp). Picture quality is fairly crappy but it was the first one I had so I used it a lot. It worked great for what I used it for, which was mostly documenting (i.e., survey photos for a survey I was working on; pics of the Star Wars Exhibit at the museum; who was in attendance at an event; etc). Prints are grainy unless they are tiny, but you can still tell what is the subject of my picture.

Our other camera is circa 1998 Olympus 1.3 megapixel point and shoot. Picture quality is actually quite good. I print 4x6 prints for use primarily in greeting cards and scrapbooks. My few complaints about this camera do not have anything to do with its low megapixel count: It is HUGE; It has a lens cover that needs to be moved aside to use it; Its lens extends out from the camera when in use; it goes through 4x AA batteries faster than I'd like (we use rechargeables, of course); and the digital media needed to use as "film" is no longer made - must be 128 megs or less or something silly. That said, the media cards each hold 300 photos or something which is PLENTY for me. It doesn't do video either, of course. It has 3x optical zoom, which has been plenty for me. It says it has 2x digital tele, i have no idea what that means. It came with a SERIAL cable to hook up to my computer, which simply doesn't work with my current computers (or alternatively, i'm too computer stupid to make it work, which is entirely possible! It makes the connection but then it just hangs before downloading any pictures at all). I gave up on that and use my USB card reader, works great.

So as a casual photographer, I'd look for something small that fits in my purse (I carry a very small purse), with a BIG screen to use as a viewfinder, with a zoom, and that takes passable videos. My brother and dad have cameras that take video and I'm very jealous of that feature. I also want it to have a USB cable to hook directly to my computer. I have a bazillion-in-one cardreader, so alternatively I'd want my new camera to have media that works with that already, OR I'd buy a USB reader to match when I get the camera. I am pretty sure that any new digital camera will come with a USB cable, though. I'd also like the controls to be a bit more intuitive. And, if it had a way to recharge the batteries IN the camera, that would rock!

I never buy the latest and greatest technology. My two digital cameras were gifts from people who didn't need them anymore cuz they got the latest and greatest (I LOVE my super generous techie friends!). In general, I like to find a very basic, low cost model of whatever new thing I think I need, and then decide which features I'd actually use, or which ones I wish I had.

So there's my assessment of What I Wish I Had in a digital camera. As you can see, none of it has anything to do with megapixels. If you are a truly casual photographer like me, I hope this helps you!

megapixels MEANS nothing other than file and print size. period end of story that is all
it has almost NOTHING to do with picture quality above 3mp other then if you want to zoom in a certain area of the pic, anyone who says otherwise is trying to sell you a crappy 10mp camera that takes pics that look like shit. 90% of the population want nothing more than a wallet size or 4x6 and almost every camera does ok for snapshots
With a 3-megapixel camera, you can take a higher-resolution picture than most computer monitors can display

here are the things that are important

lens quality and optical zoom. beware of digital zoom it looks like crap. kodak hp and myriad other cameras have low quality lenses, some are even plastic. there is a reason why canon is the best and it is the lens

digital processing chip. this is the bit that translates your picture into an image.
canon sony and fuji have this part down cold. nikon only gets good in the slr range so dont bother with them.

image stabelization, this is nice if you have shaky hands. i turn this off for more control with a tripod

raw image : if you want maximum control of your pictures look for raw image proccessing. if you dont photoshop this isnt important (usually slr only)

speaking of SLR, do not bother unless you either have 5 grand to spend on camera and a couple lenses, or you want to take professional quality photos.

features. the general marketing is the more is better, but as you are already aware people are retarded so look for something simple

other things like focal length aperture and shutter speed are important only if you want a slr

when it comes down to it the best cameras on the market are canon. the G series being the best digital cameras money can buy (that are not SLR) sony surprisingly does a fantastic job and so does fuji. pretty much avoid anything else. if you buy a hp camera i mock your retarded plastic lens and crappy ccd processing chip.

if the most important thing is price. buy a kodak, for 200 bucks you can get "good enough" but dont freak out if the colors dont looks good or if some images are blurry.

Went for a hike today and didn't even bother playing around with settings much on my Canon Powershot A95. I just set the shutterspeed as low as I could without doing timelapse, pinholed the f-stop, & tried my best to freehand pics.

Looking at some of them, I rather enjoyed the effect when I didn't bounce it around too much (no anti-jitter on my camera unfortunately... ruined about 50 good shots because of it).

I also was propositioned to trade my Xbox360 for a friend's Sony A100 + 10x optic lens(I forget all the details) & standard accessories. Tempted. Thoughts? I can only say that I will probably miss using the flip out screen on my current camera, however I'll be back to a SLR... I learned using a Pentax K1000 SE that was older than me. I'd like to get back into doing more macro work + learning all the nooks & crannies of Photoshop.

-Adam
All of the following images are scaled down tremendously. They started at 5 megapixel shots(2592x1944), but that is just a ridiculous size.

Beautiful shots, 10sun. I wish we lived near some places like that to hike through.

I use a Sony Cybershot, which I've been very happy with. Takes decent photos, the refresh time between shots is pretty quick, and it's easy to use.

I do, however, have a picture I found online once that cracked me up and I've been dying to share, and since it's pertinent to the conversation, here goes!

you should be shot for that

altho, it's pretty rare you get to use double entendre here

I still maintain it's a clever image and it makes me laugh

LOL@maeya