Which camera do I want?

[Cunt]

I was quite happy with film cameras. Mine were manual with built in meter. F stop, shutter speed, zoom, focus. I would shoot three in important situations. Overexposed, underexposed and on the meter at the center.

If you can scan such a trio in, you could use modern tech to create an 'HDR' (high dynamic range) photo. They can be quite breathtaking.

I was quite happy with film cameras. Mine were manual with built in meter. F stop, shutter speed, zoom, focus. I would shoot three in important situations. Overexposed, underexposed and on the meter at the center.

I shoot dozens of shots and keep the one or two I want. I'm loving this DLSR era. With the price of buy and developing 120 and 200 film, I'm good with a 16 gig SD chip.

You are likely right about the chip, but consider doing a price study. You may well find that four 4gb chips are the same price, or cheaper, and remember the thing about eggs and baskets...

I just got a 64gb chip for my birthday, and it has a failure problem. It is quite rare, but my camera writes the odd bad file with the SDXC format. Also, I have had 2 cards fail (over my whole experience, that isn't bad). If you have only one card, a failure can stop you cold.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have decided. http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-7D-28-1 ... 27&sr=1-21

[Tyrannical]

Looks like a nice camera.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Looks like a nice camera.

It would be a harsh task master. If I didn't I'd never get my money's worth from it. But I've read a lot of really nice reviews and I want to own one camera that is right on the leading edge, so it's this one or something like it if the accident money makes it possible.

[FBM]

Don't know if this is relevant to your selection criteria, 'zilla, but I thought this was very interesting and informative: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

It links in the story to two other very intersting pieces: http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/ ... s-posts-2/

and http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/techn ... gewanted=2

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Interesting. I'll get deeper into that one when the coffee soaks in. Film cameras have a resolution equal to ~180 MP, IIRC. The articles points to a 6 MP collection, but they don't discuss how much the artist could work with the material. If he's damn good to start with, a 6 MP upper limit is no problem. I like to be able to take sub-pix out of an original, so having a "big canvas" is nice. Plus my "job" requires blow-ups of a ridiculous amount at time. That's where a 500 MP CCD is nice.

[FBM]

Yeah, once you read all the articles, you'll probably see how much difference pixel count makes to being able to crop photos. It matters, but not as much as the cameral sellers would have you believe. I read another article after I linked the ones above that said about 1 pic in a million would benefit from having over 10 mp. I didn't save the link. They were talking a lot of numbers and sensor jargon that I'm too dim to wade through, anyway.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, once you read all the articles, you'll probably see how much difference pixel count makes to being able to crop photos. It matters, but not as much as the cameral sellers would have you believe. I read another article after I linked the ones above that said about 1 pic in a million would benefit from having over 10 mp. I didn't save the link. They were talking a lot of numbers and sensor jargon that I'm too dim to wade through, anyway.

That's what this guy says anyway.

Anyway, I just noticed the MP count on that camera, it was not a selling point for me. I hope to be taking some serious action shots of the wolves in the near future, they're talking about making me #2 shooter (after one of the Directors).

[Robert_S]

Yeah, once you read all the articles, you'll probably see how much difference pixel count makes to being able to crop photos. It matters, but not as much as the cameral sellers would have you believe. I read another article after I linked the ones above that said about 1 pic in a million would benefit from having over 10 mp. I didn't save the link. They were talking a lot of numbers and sensor jargon that I'm too dim to wade through, anyway.

I could more see more MP being good for close cropping of small details, but with a lower number of larger photocells in the same sized sensor, you won't have to boost the signal so much and you should get less noise for comparable ISOs.

[FBM]

It sounds to me that up to about 6 mp, the count makes a significant difference in sharpness. As the pixil counts get higher, the significance starts dropping off to the point that the noise produced by smaller, more densely packed photocells, which is insignificant usually, starts to outweigh any positive visible effects, and is only justifiable for those shots that have to be cropped down to something like 5% of the original size. Or something like that.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It sounds to me that up to about 6 mp, the count makes a significant difference in sharpness. As the pixil counts get higher, the significance starts dropping off to the point that the noise produced by smaller, more densely packed photocells, which is insignificant usually, starts to outweigh any positive visible effects, and is only justifiable for those shots that have to be cropped down to something like 5% of the original size. Or something like that.

That leaves out the noise correction software/hardware aspect, doesn't it?

[FBM]

It sounds to me that up to about 6 mp, the count makes a significant difference in sharpness. As the pixil counts get higher, the significance starts dropping off to the point that the noise produced by smaller, more densely packed photocells, which is insignificant usually, starts to outweigh any positive visible effects, and is only justifiable for those shots that have to be cropped down to something like 5% of the original size. Or something like that.

That leaves out the noise correction software/hardware aspect, doesn't it?

It makes buying, studying and using them necessary in exchange for an expensive pixel count that makes a usually unnoticeable difference in image quality.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It sounds to me that up to about 6 mp, the count makes a significant difference in sharpness. As the pixil counts get higher, the significance starts dropping off to the point that the noise produced by smaller, more densely packed photocells, which is insignificant usually, starts to outweigh any positive visible effects, and is only justifiable for those shots that have to be cropped down to something like 5% of the original size. Or something like that.

That leaves out the noise correction software/hardware aspect, doesn't it?

It makes buying, studying and using them necessary.

Canon EOS Rebel XS 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera with 18-55mm IS Lens $399.00 Amazon is trolling me hard.

[FBM]

Beware. I don't think you can change lenses on those. Your zooming would be very limited. I was looking at similar ones earlier today and got excited about the price until I noticed that you're committed to the lens it comes with...

[Robert_S]

It sounds to me that up to about 6 mp, the count makes a significant difference in sharpness. As the pixil counts get higher, the significance starts dropping off to the point that the noise produced by smaller, more densely packed photocells, which is insignificant usually, starts to outweigh any positive visible effects, and is only justifiable for those shots that have to be cropped down to something like 5% of the original size. Or something like that.

I had an 8mp compact Canon that was always great at 1:1 if I had the DOF and camera shake under control. And then I had a 10mp that I had to shrink to 80% of the original size to get the same quality usually. My 10mp Nikon D40X sensor gives me good sharp pics expanded to 120%. The 6 MP D40, I don't know about, but it's "native" ISO is 200. So, it should have roughly half the noise at the higher ISOs, that would let you a quicker shutter speed in low light conditions.