The Photography Thread

[MetroSonus]

and to ctrl c - ctrl v

just give us the grand tour.. how it differs from say cameras in our phones or a better quality point and shoot..

[Jyoti]

*deeeeeep breath*

There are two main differences - the size of the image sensor and the quality of the lenses. Note that I say size, not pixel count. One of the things that drives me barmy is when people equate pixel count with quality. It's basic physics that if you jam more sensors into the same area, the noise returned increases. Thus, my aged Canon 10D (6Mp) is vastly superior in terms of image smoothness and noise in dark areas to a P&S with 12Mp. It has a larger sensor area and the size of its individual sensor buckets is much larger.

Also, bigger sensor = more area to gather light which (usually) equals less noisy / smoother pix.

Then, DSLRs have detachable lenses. If you're buying a lens that costs three times what an entire P&S camera costs, there's a good chance that money has gone into superior optics. Less fringing, sharper images, less chromatic aberration all add up to "better" images. Old-school shutterbugs see a camera body as something you hang off the back of a nice lens. I've got loads of Canon lenses now - I won't be buying new ones as they're high quality. Any future camera will either have to fit them or I'll buy an adaptor ring. Think of lenses as like your studio monitors: tech may advance in softsynths, DSPs, audio convertors etc. but a great set of speakers will remain a great set of speakers. They're a worthwhile investment.

GENERALISING ENORMOUSLY people seem to like the shallow depth of field that you can get with a DSLR + right lens + right settings. The pictures seem more 3D to us and the photog can choose where s/he concentrates our attention. In most camera phones and p&s, DOF is not so easily controllable or even possible. This gives us flat images where everything is in focus. Great for landscapes or macros, maybe, not so pretty for portraits or creative effects.

Here's a good linky about DOF.

These two main differences add up to why DSLRs are lovely: they offer the photographer greater control of the image-making process. It's kind of like the difference between a home keyboard and a synth.


*phew*

Is that okay as a little intro?

[MetroSonus]

When I read the Wikkipedia article, one of the first things I noticed was the difference in sensor size. My first digital camera was a 25$ job from walmart or something, but it was only 4 megapixels. However it too the richest pictures i've ever seen in a digital camera. They must have let something good slide through in that one.

Where does the MP rating come in then? Is that the resolution per sensor?

Lenses would be the obvious advantage with the DSLRs.. although understanding them seems to be a science unto themselves. Although I wouldn't mind learning..

[Jyoti]

It can be confusing as we have to say whether by 'sensor' we mean the entire area of image capture (equivalent to the frame of 35mm film) or the individual light-sensing pit. It's not really a pixel, of course, but each micro-sensor equates to a pixel in the captured pic (unless there's some weird Fuji shit going on) so it'll do, I guess. So, yeah, Mpx count is the number of individual light-gathering pits per sensor array? The problem is that as the pits become tinier and tinier, they also gather more noise.

This thread explains a bit better than my rambling.

As for lenses - try googling stuff like 'circle of confusion' and 'mtf.' That'll learn ya!

[MetroSonus]

oh we know about that here.. at least a couple of us anyway

artsy types

[MetroSonus]

This thread explains a bit better than my rambling.

egads! that sounds like gear nuts arguing.

Ok so where is the intersects between sensor size and MP? I know with audio, there's a line that no matter how many samples you get, you aren't going to tell the difference.

So I'm assuming the key is a bigger sensor, a good processor and how many pixels before you compromise the noise floor of the sensor?

[Jyoti]

Oh god, the camera forums are worse than any audio forum. I stopped going on any because they were full of people arguing about mtfs and focussing errors (measurebators) rather than taking pics.

I cannot give you a scientific answer because this is art. Here is a photo I shot with my Canon 10D:



And here's one with my 5D mk2:



The first is 6Mpx, the second 21.1Mpx. That means I could print the second one out larger but I never print anything anyway. Why did I buy the new cam? It's got better low-light, HD film mode, quicker startup and it's a full-frame sensor (the 10D is a 1.6x crop, not 35mm size).

You could pick up a 10D on Ebay for around £120. That's a lot less than some new p&ses.

And that's where photography, like music, is not just about the gear. My fave thing I saw on a forum is when someone was saying how they hate it when they show someone a pic and they go, "ooh, you must have a great camera." The same as if, after a particularly wonderful meal, the guest were to compliment the chef on the quality of his pans.

[MetroSonus]

yea that's a good point.

I wouldn't voyaging into printing though as I had quite a backlog of photos off line I wouldn't mind doing up for a gallery showing one day or something.

[Jyoti]

I do books occasionally, just in iPhoto. They come out pretty nicely!

[Plink Floyd]

Shutterbugs are nerdy? I can't believe they spend time arguing about gear rather then making musi... I mean taking pics.

THANKS, Jyoti, for the nfo. And for the renewed GAS. See, I already have EOF lenses and stuff that would fit right on a new DSLR back, but I've been able to resist because I've sort of lost interest in still pix. But now that the new cams have such great vid specs, I really really want one. Even the Canon Rebel Ti series (~$800) are better vidcams than expensive dedicated camcorders from a few years ago. With a short lens, a new DSLR would even fit on my homemade steadycam and 20 ft jib crane with power pan/tilt head.

[Jyoti]

With a short lens, a new DSLR would even fit on my homemade steadycam and 20 ft jib crane with power pan/tilt head.

WOAH! That's excellent!

[Plink Floyd]

Thanks! It's ugly but it really really works! I'll have to get some pics of my DIY jib crane when I find the time.

[MetroSonus]

And pray tell dear sir, what the hell do you use that rig for? whale watching?

[Plink Floyd]

And pray tell dear sir, what the hell do you use that rig for? whale watching?

Why, for the lulz, my good man.

If I ever go whale watching, it'll be a fluke.

[ElectricPuppy]

If I ever go whale watching, it'll be a fluke.

[Plink Floyd]

digicamsters don't print their pix

I have an $80 canon bubble printer that kicks ass. It's resolution is amazing, it prints on any paper or transparency, even printable CD/DVDs. It's easily as good as the $1000 dye sub printers of ten years ago.

But I can't be arsed with buying ink for it when WankMart prints are just as good for 10¢. Occasionally I print an 8 X 10, but the cartridges usually dry up between those events.

[ElectricPuppy]

It's easily as good as the $1000 dye sub printers of ten years ago.

You take that back! YOU TAKE THAT BACK!!!

(I wrote drivers for those things. They wuz Serious Hardware at the time. I also wrote drivers for film recorders, LARGE format raster plotters, wax printers... fun times.)

[Plink Floyd]

I was actually in a 'club' for joint ownership of a dye-sub printer 10 or 12 years ago. I finally opted out when, for the second or third time, I went to make some prints and the other bastards used all the ink & wouldn't own up.

btw, anyone use JASC (now Corel) Paint Shop Pro? I was a beta tester in the 90s. Great program, imo. Nintey percent of the functionality of PhotoShop for ten percent of the price™.

I have PhotoShop just because it came with Adobe CreativeSweet, but I still reach for the familiar old PSP.

[Plink Floyd]

Wut's a wax printer?

[ElectricPuppy]

Naw, I used to use an app from Micrografx called.... uhhh.... crap. I can't remember. I used their Designer app since forever, and they put out a rather nice photo editor, and now it's name eludes me.

oh well.


This is now a nostalgia thread.








Oh, I meant "thermal transfer" printer. Used page-sized ink ribbons like dye-sub, but wasn't continuous tone like dye-sub.


And just to thoroughly put this thread in confused misery: Monkeys. Lot's of 'em.