 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 04 May 2010 21:12:53 +0200, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> terms of the MPEG license attached to the camera.
You'd be surprised.
> have old Minolta lenses that still work just fine on a new Sony Alpha.
Yeah, actually, I wound up with a camera that was slightly more expensive
and a bit heavier than I needed because it supported lenses that were older
than I am, which I obviously don't own. Had I understood that, I would have
gone the next body down.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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?
Maybe you just want to take sports photos for the web? Like this one:
http://freefootballstreaming.com/goal.jpg
That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound lens
to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright compared
to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you need a
*really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 17:15:55 +0100, Mike Raiford
<"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> did spake thusly:
> On 5/4/2010 5:43 AM, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>> And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:35:47 +0100, Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> did
>> spake thusly:
>>
>>> What *does* annoy me is software which is both expensive *and*
>>> defective...
>>
>> and on that note I just flicked to a webcomic in which the author states
>> it was the first time he'd done one entirely with CS5 and it crashed
>> five times.
>
> Yeah... I'm expecting an update soon. It appears to hemorrhage memory
> like mad. Though it hasn't crashed. I sat down the other morning to a
> very angry Windows 7 complaining that Photoshop needed to be closed to
> free some memory.
>
> I popped over to process explorer and took a look: Private Bytes: 11
> Gig...
>
> so, now I restart it occasionally while working with it. ;)
Might be my quirk, but a little tickle in my head suggests that memory
management has often been a problem with the first releases of Photoshop.
> I will say with regard to hobby that Photoshop and Visual studio are
> probably used pretty frequently by serious hobbyists in their respective
> fields.
I suppose the path is Windows own 'editor', then Photoshop Elements, then
Photoshop depending on how serious you are. Still when you consider you
can get the latest Paint Shop Pro for under £80 and Elements for under £55
jumping up to £644 for Photoshop is a chasm.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> 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. ;-)
No, I'm pretty sure that's what it actually costs.
OK, let's try Insight. (Sure, they're not the cheapest people around...)
Adobe Photoshop CS4: £587
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Master Collection: £2,420
Adobe Creative Suite 4 Production Premium: £1,815
I'm not making these numbers up!
(Photoshop Elements, however, is only £60 - which matches other prices
I've seen around.)
>> 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.
I cannot believe it's the same product. Not for 1/3rd of the price. It
can't be.
Then again, you said you got the price from a US website? Last time I
checked [back when £1 = $2], Adobe Acrobat 8 Professional was £400 in
the UK and $400 in the US. (IOW, the UK version was 2x the price.) I
don't know if that's still the case...
>> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> That is under 2 MP yet you would absolutely need a multi-thousand pound
> lens to get that shot (purely because flood lights are not that bright
> compared to daylight, and when you're zoomed in that much on action you
> need a *really* fast shutter speed to avoid motion blur).
Hell, *my* 3 MP camera would never, ever take a picture like that, no
matter how perfect the lighting or how close up you were. The sensor
just isn't of high enough quality.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
And here I was thinking that a larger lense lets more light in...
> Better controls/ergonomics, more accurate & sophisticated auto-focus,
> better build quality, weather-proofing, and so on and so forth.
From what I've seen, if you buy an expensive camera, you get all kinds
of crazy things like external flash, external exposure control (i.e.,
you can have a 2-hour exposure if you want), software remote control,
more colour balance settings than any sane person could possibly need,
and so on.
>> possible camera to go with it?
>
> buy "pro" type cameras.
Which is what I was trying to say. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
