Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 30, 11:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote: On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble *wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too. BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff which would be enlarged to poster sizes. Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur) and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best lenses). I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Cheers, Jake The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors. It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit. Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result. -- Regards, Martin Brown Indeed............PAS camera's have plenty of silly "features" related far more closely to marketing, than anything linked to providing good pictures! This is something thats worth looking at quite closely by anyone even vaguely interested in taking anything other than snapshots. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
ORCHARD BLOOMS CAMERA - CAMERA.jpg (1/1) | Garden Photos | |||
OTish - Good nature camera recommendations? | United Kingdom | |||
New Camera, New Phal, Name??? | Orchid Photos | |||
New Camera, New Phal, Name??? | Orchid Photos | |||
OTish snake story | Ponds |