 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> > I have owned Photoshop since CS2... The first purchase cost less than my
> > first serious telephoto zoom lens :)
>
> OK, those really *are* expensive!
>
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
I think it's well worth it, but still amusing anyway! :)
> > And I'm mostly normal :)
>
> You're in povray.off-topic and you seriously expect us to believe you're
> *normal*?? :-P
Bingo! :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 09:07:22 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>>> the
>>>>> thing I can't figure out is how a normal human manages to get near a
>>>>> copy of Photoshop in the first place.
>>>> £361.58 on buy.com.
>>> I thought it was a lot more than that. Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of the
>>> whole "creative suite" rather than just Photoshop.
>>
>> That was the pricing on Creative Suite 4. Photoshop on its own is less
>> expensive - I figured you were thinking of the most expensive option,
>> so that's what I looked for (the most expensive version of Photoshop I
>> could find).
>>
>> How much did you think it was?
>
> ebuyer.com, Adobe Creative Suite 4, Complete Package, Windows: £1,502.62
That's what happens if you don't shop around - you end up paying a
ridiculous price for a product. ;-)
> If that doesn't make you feel slightly dizzy, I don't know what will...
I know I'd feel kinda dumb if I paid that much for it knowing that I
could get it for £361.58.
> (Weirdly enough, I can't seem to see a price for just Photoshop by
> itself, only Photoshop Elements is listed - or student versions, which
> obviously has totally different pricing.)
Yeah, I noticed that as well.
>>>> Windows Server 2008 by comparison is £631.22 on buy.com for a 5-user
>>>> CAL.
>>> Fortunately, unless you run a server, you don't need this product. (In
>>> other words, your employer is going to pay for it, not you.)
>>
>> That's frequently the case for users of Adobe Photoshop as well -
>> especially CS: The people who tend to use it are the pros, not the
>> hobbiest user.
>
> Well, yeah, there is that. It's not the package I'd choose to go out and
> buy. Then again, Mike apparently did...
Well, yeah, I have PhotoShop Elements, but it doesn't really run well
under WINE. I prefer the GIMP anyways.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
makes for poor quality photos.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:59:06 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>> (It still amuses me that I can buy a £200 camera and attach a £7,000
>> lense to it... as if it'll be worth it!)
>
> Actually, my understanding from many professional photographers is that
> that actually does make sense. The mechanics of a camera are pretty
> simple, but the lens is what focuses the light and a poor quality lens
> makes for poor quality photos.
Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio just
to record the sound of a broken music box?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not at
tach
> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Woul
dn't
> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio jus
t
> to record the sound of a broken music box?
No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then view
ed
from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
to
take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour eac
h
day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that aren't
motion-blurred, or etc.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Well, sure, but if you're going to pay £7k for a lense, why not attach
>> it to a 20 megapixel camera? Why a £200 one that's only 3 MP? Wouldn't
>> that be kind of like setting up a state of the art recording studio
>> just to record the sound of a broken music box?
>
> No, because the megapixels don't make or break the image. Unless you're
> taking photos intended to be blown up to beyond poster size and then
> viewed from inches away, the pixel count is irrelevant.
>
> The lens, however, lets you take pictures you wouldn't otherwise be able
> to take. Even a small quality change in the lens adds or removes an hour
> each day that you can take natural light pictures, or pictures that
> aren't motion-blurred, or etc.
I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k
to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
with it?
(And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom lense.
Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The
normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that
expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:53 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Mostly, it is because the sensor in your camera is much larger than the
one in hers. Sensor size matters a lot; pixel density not so much. The
focal length of the lens is not in any way a reliable indicator of
quality; the lens in her camera is smaller because the tiny sensor does
not require a larger lens.
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
Again, sensor size is what matters most. For a given sensor format, the
difference in sensor "quality" between the low and high ends of the price
range is quite small.
Sensor size is very much a determining factor for the price of a camera
though.
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth.
Better controls/ergonomics, more accurate & sophisticated auto-focus,
better build quality, weather-proofing, and so on and so forth.
> possible camera to go with it?
buy "pro" type cameras.
> zoom lense.
"zoom" means "variable focal length". I think the term you are looking for
is "tele-photo".
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800622963-USE/Canon_2527A001_Super_Telephoto_1200mm_f_5_6L.html
Note that this is the price for a *used* lens.
> Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia.
I do not think that is even theoretically possible. Maybe if you climb
Mount Kilimanjaro; I am too lazy to do the math...
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> I realise the lense is important. My mum has an 8 MP camera, and it
> takes crap pictures compared to my lowly 3 MP camera. I'm sure it's
> because hime has a 45 mm lense and hers has a 4.5 mm lense.
Exactly. And 45mm is a *small* lens for a good camera.
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £
7k
> to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
> with it?
People often do. It depends what they need, tho. The less you spend on a
camera body, the more you can spend on the lenses. ;-)
> (And anyway, the £7k lense is only expensive because it's a zoom l
ense.
> Like, you can be in Africa and take photos of stuff in Austalia. The
> normal lenses for photographing everyday stuff aren't nearly that
> expensive - although they aren't cheap either...)
Yep.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 14:49:41 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> People often do. It depends what they need, tho. The less you spend on a
> camera body, the more you can spend on the lenses. ;-)
Yep, and with standardization of attachments, if you start out with a
cheap body, you can upgrade the body and use the lenses you purchased for
the lower resolution camera.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Still, the higher model cameras have presumably superior image sensors,
> more sophisticated controls, and so on and so forth. If you've got £7k
> to spend on a mere lense, why not buy the most possible camera to go
> with it?
You presume that, but in my experience what you get are 5 to 10 cameras
in a range that all have the same sensor and image quality but have a
few 'neat' features tacked on each progressive model for more cash. The
base model might shoot at up to 1/2000s or ISO 1600, but jump up in
price and you get higher speeds that most people will not use. The real
high end models do use different sensors than the lower price ones, but
again you have a range of cameras that have the same physical body and
sensor and shutter, with some minor variation in button color, lcd
screen, or options made available to the user. And, in some cases, the
terms of the MPEG license attached to the camera.
That, and the lens is going to last longer than the camera body. A seven
grand lens is going to continue to work when you find that you really
need ISO 3200, or 1/8000s shutter speed, or finally have the money to
upgrade to a full-frame sensor*. Heck, if you stay with the same brand
camera the lens may last longer than the format it was designed for. I
have old Minolta lenses that still work just fine on a new Sony Alpha. A
teleconverter is needed for the older full manual to auto-focus mount,
but that is all. Nikon and Pentax, I am told, hasn't changed their lens
mount 50 years or so.
*Assuming the lens is not designed as an APS-C crop with 'equivalent
focus range' and a circular image on a larger sensor.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
