digital photog. equip.
Cliff. Johnston
one time I used to do a substantial amount of amateur photography and
had a fairly substantial darkroom setup. My favorite camera was a
Miranda Sensorex 35mm., in spite of its mechanical shortcomings (ca.
1974). It's lenses were dynamite (still got it, but it's down again -
film advance this time).
I don't want to go back to the darkroom era, so I am contemplating a
digital setup. I anticipate that most of the shooting will be portrait
or still life.
Over the years I've had many cameras: Leica, Miranda, Kodak, Minolta,
Canon, and the best of the group for needing the least of repairs -
Nikon. I've had several professional photog. friends (newspaper) and
they all seem to gravitate to Nikon exclusivity. I've been trying to
keep tabs on the digital market for the past few years. It has been
changing rapidly with many participants, and the cost/mega-pixel has
been coming down. Is Nikon holding up as well in the digital market as
in the 35mm. market or does someone else have an edge? It is one thing
to read a camera review in a magazine (they all seem to be great, don't
they?); however, a review in a magazine often falls far short of what
one experiences during field use. Some cameras are just better than
others, and it's not easy to tell which is which from magazines. I've
talked with both Nikon and Sony digital camera users. They all seem
pleased.
Does anyone have any recommendations as to the mega-pixels needed to get
excellent quality 8x10's, etc., etc., etc.? I've been gravitating
toward 5-6 mega-pixels from what I've been reading.
Thanks in advance,
Cliff. Johnston
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Ron Andrews
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations as to the mega-pixels needed to get
> excellent quality 8x10's, etc., etc., etc.? I've been gravitating
> toward 5-6 mega-pixels from what I've been reading.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Cliff. Johnston
First the disclaimers: Pixel count is not the only factor. Lens
resolution, pixel size, and algorithms for interpolation and compression are
all important. As for pixel count, I come back to a rule of thumb that says
300 pixels per inch is as much as any of us can appreciate *(see note
below). For an 8x10, you would need 2400x3000 pixels or 7.2 MegaPixels. The
5-6 MP range you've been looking at is close enough for many purposes.
The bottom line is to judge the final images for yourself.
You didn't ask for comment on your proposed business, but I'm curious
about your comments about "portrait or still life" work. That strikes me
like a baseball player saying he would like to either pitch or catch. They
are both baseball positions, but I've never heard of a pro who did both. The
portrait business runs the gamut from school photographers to those who
produce fine art portraits of celebrities. There is always room for someone
with talent. Still life on the other hand means either fine art photography
or product illustration work. Both are very tough ways to earn a buck even
for the most talented.
* The 300 pixel per inch rule assumes sufficient bit depth of at least 24
bits per pixel. Greater bit depths will not allow fewer pixels, but lesser
bit depths will require more pixels.
Ric Trexell
Cliff. Johnston <dryb...@granbury.com> wrote in message
news:ef458d9212022a1f096...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> >
> I don't want to go back to the darkroom era, so I am contemplating a
> digital setup. I anticipate that most of the shooting will be portrait
> or still life.
Cliff: My comment has nothing to do with what you asked, but since you
mention still life, I don't know if you would have any reason to use a wide
angle lense but I think I read in Outdoor Photographer that wide angles
don't work too good in digital. I don't know anything about this but just
thought I'd pass it on. Ric in Wisconsin.