 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 04 May 2010 20:52:05 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson
<fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> did spake thusly:
> 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.
Tooting my horn I did an entire 4 part guide to digital cameras last year.
http://flipc.blogspot.com/2009/03/digital-camera-guide-part-1.html
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Tooting my horn I did an entire 4 part guide to digital cameras last year.
Heh. And perhaps you remember me remarking at the time that you can
apparently buy a £200 Nikon D40 (?) and attach a £7,000 telephoto lense
to it - as if you'd want to. ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
If it was bright enough and you were a metre or two away from the action
then even a cheap consumer digital camera should give a pretty decent image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/visithra/321853035/
That one was taken with a Canon A620.
The most obvious difference to the pro photo is that the background doesn't
get blurred (due to the small sensor size and low focal length).
And of course you can't always stand 2 metres from the action and ask for
daylight :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Heh. And perhaps you remember me remarking at the time that you can
> apparently buy a £200 Nikon D40 (?) and attach a £7,000 telephoto lense to
> it - as if you'd want to. ;-)
A friend of mine borrowed a 7K (or similar) telephoto lens to put on his old
Canon 300D body when he went to watch an air show. The photos are
absolutely stunning, and I don't think if he had used a more expensive body
the photos would have been *much* better (but on the other hand, without the
big lens they would have been rubbish).
If you want to take action photos of things from far away under dodgy light,
then even the cheapest dSLR body will be fine, just get the biggest lens you
can afford.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
