How many megapixels?

Alex_B · Dec 16, 2006

jwkwd said:
can someone send a donation, since I don't have sponsors giving me equiptment.

I guess many people on this forum are in your situation, me included :lmao:

Digital Matt · Dec 16, 2006

I've always thought Ken Rockwell was full of it. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Imho, if you want to go to a website to get INFORMED opinions, and good technical info about photography, go to www.luminous-landscape.com

markc · Dec 16, 2006

Alex_B said:
at least it inspires thinking

Unfortunately the only thing that article inspired in me is an acidy burn in my throat.

There is a good point in that you can take good images with cheap equipment, but his logic/methodology behind it is so flawed that I think he does more harm that good with that rant.

Alex_B · Dec 16, 2006

markc said:
Unfortunately the only thing that article inspired in me is an acidy burn in my throat.

oh, and i thought in my case that was to much carbohydrates and fat

no, honestly, now that i investigated his site a bit more I am slightly confused and I wonder what he wants to tell the world ... I do not know.

Don Simon · Dec 17, 2006

Mostly I suspect he wants to tell the world that the sun shines out of the back end of Ken Rockwell.

I also think the Luminous Landscape is a better source of general info and opinions, and if it's specifically Nikon gear you're interested in then Thom Hogan's site is way more helpful and better designed.

Alex_B · Dec 17, 2006

well, luminous landscape was one of the first webpages i came across when going digital in terms of photography. and it was the only website i sort of stuck to.

even though the webdesign is horrible

but it is the content which counts

darich · Dec 18, 2006

fmw said:
"I prefer the image from the $150 camera because it's exposed better. The 5D can get the same results, I just goofed on the exposure. This wasn't intentional, and emphasizes why the photographer is far more important than the camera"

What an idiot! The whole point of this article was that the image from a $150 camera can be the same or better than one from a $5000 camera. Then he says this. It goes to show you, take what you read from the internet with a grain of salt. Some of it is good and some of it is garbage. This fellow has no credibility with me, I'm afraid. Garbage.

I agree completely - quote from Ken's site - "I set the exposure compensation to -1.0 on the A530 to get the correct exposure. I guessed wrong on the 5D and left it at my usual -2/3 setting. The large amount of shadows in this scene caused each camera to give too much exposure to the bright parts, which washed out the color"
In other words he exposed wrongly on the 5D then says that the A530 can produce better images....sure it can Ken if you set great camera up wrongly then anything can take better images!!

Alex_B · Dec 18, 2006

if you insist i can post a horrible image from my 5 D, totally out of focus, totally overexposed with a totally wrong white balance. Oh, what is even worse, composition was also totally stupid and my camera did not warn me about it!

think I should not have bought this camera ...

Mad_Gnome · Dec 18, 2006

Digital Matt said:
I've always thought Ken Rockwell was full of it. I'm glad I'm not the only one. Imho, if you want to go to a website to get INFORMED opinions, and good technical info about photography, go to www.luminous-landscape.com

If you want to go to a website to get informed opinions or good technical info about photography, you're already on it.