Megapixels and Prints

[DocFrankenstein]

How can you shoot with AE-1 and not know what those numbers mean?

Get D50 or 300D with ONE kit lens. 18-55 would do nicely.

Shoot enough to figure out how to expose properly, how to use the histogram and how different metering modes work in your camera, what "those numbers on the lens mean" and then you'll be ready for the next lens.

 

[mcoppadge]

How can you shoot with AE-1 and not know what those numbers mean?

Get D50 or 300D with ONE kit lens. 18-55 would do nicely.

Shoot enough to figure out how to expose properly, how to use the histogram and how different metering modes work in your camera, what "those numbers on the lens mean" and then you'll be ready for the next lens.

I've done all that. I'm guessing by your surprise that the numbers are f-stops? It seems a very small interval of f-stops, considering both lenses for my AE-1 have intervals of f/3.5-22 (one is 28-55mm, the other a 70-210mm).

 

[mcoppadge]

The reason I don't know much of this is because I've never actually shopped to find camera equipment that I'm going to need. It's just taking the information that I know from knowing what's on the lenses/cameras I already have and understanding what to look for on what I'm trying to find.

 

[woodsac]

I've done all that. I'm guessing by your surprise that the numbers are f-stops? It seems a very small interval of f-stops, considering both lenses for my AE-1 have intervals of f/3.5-22 (one is 28-55mm, the other a 70-210mm).

They are f/stops for that lens. But the first number is at the wide end and the second at the long end of the lens. I'm sure they both go to at least f/22 maybe as far as f/32? You'd have to check stats for those particular lenses.

 

[Digital Matt]

I have no clue what the two things in bold mean, so if anybody knows, please inform me.

Those numbers refer to the maximum aperture, and because it's a cheap zoom, the maximum aperture is smaller at the telephoto end.

A more expensive zoom will maintian a constant aperture, like a 24-70mm f/2.8.

I lack camera technical education.

Might be a good thing to get a hold on, before you spend thousands of dollars on equipment you will likely be sticking with for years to come.

 

[mcoppadge]

Might be a good thing to get a hold on, before you spend thousands of dollars on equipment you will likely be sticking with for years to come.

The reason for my asking. I appreciate all the info I've received.

 

[jstuedle]

I could not agree more that it's the quality of the pixel, not the quantity of pixels. I have shot a 5.47 MP DSLR for almost 4 years. I have sold numerous 36" X 54" prints. I have a couple of older 2.7 MP DSLR's and sold 11" X 14"s without complaint. The color saturation and sharpness of the pixel is key to large images, along with good software.

 

[Mumfandc]

I like that one mostly because it has 10.2 megapixels, which is enough to create larger-sized prints. However, the D200 is expensive, maybe more than I can afford.

Get the Sony DSC-R1...it's a (10 MP) FIXED-LENS camera with a sensor which is about the same size as most prosumer DSLRs.

If you see the reviews of this camera at dcresource.com and imaging resource...both sites conclude that $3,000-4,000 in prosumer DSLR bodies + lenses would be needed to equal the lens and image quality of the Sony DSC-R1 (@ $999)

Lots of DSLR owners are already bashing it (without ever trying one) however because they're pissed off a Sony consumer camera is rivaling their Canons and Nikons.

Although, if you're in the market for a camera for fast-action shots...stick with Canon and Nikons.

 

[JodieO]

Don't even think about megapixels - it's really not an issue. Just think about the features, the handling, the feel... what's important to you?

ITA (I totally agree)... I have a D2X (12 MP) but the majority of my site is the D70 (6.1 MP). I've blown up both to 30x40s with amazing quality! By the way, the professional lab I use takes care of enlarging/interpolation without me worrying about the resolution...

 

[Mumfandc]

Like Matt said, it's a matter of personal taste in terms of print quality.

I've used the Canon 20D, but I for one wouldn't go past 11x14 prints with it.

I'm a bit biased because I scan medium format negatives on a regular basis using film scanners (at school and where I intern). For me, digital cameras can't rival what I see in these scans.

Here's a good link: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/photoshoptip/tip25.html

 

[DocFrankenstein]

I'm a bit biased because I scan medium format negatives on a regular basis using film scanners (at school and where I intern). For me, digital cameras can't rival what I see in these scans.

can you post a full size sample please?

I've never seen a good MF scan.

 

[jstuedle]

If you see the reviews of this camera at dcresource.com and imaging resource...both sites conclude that $3,000-4,000 in prosumer DSLR bodies + lenses would be needed to equal the lens and image quality of the Sony DSC-R1 (@ $999)

I won' bash it, Sony make a lot of sensor chips for Nikon, Canon and most other DSLR's. I just find the lack of flexibility too limiting. I enjoy my prime lenses, extra long lenses, extra wide lenses, and have my share of wide range zooms for walking around. I have had a few P&S digitals, but never use them. I always grab one of my DSLR's when I want to go shooting. Also, CZ makes good glass, but you must realize the lens on the Sony is CZ designed, but manufactured under license. So the decision is based on what you want and how far you would like to take your craft.

 

[Marctwo]

I'm afraid that link does nothing for me. It doesn't take interpolation into account and I really can't imagine any serious photographer doing a photo quality print without maintaining their prefered dpi. If you didn't interpolate your images then I'm not surprised you didn't want to go beyond 11 x 14 - I'm even surprised that you were happy with those.

 

[Mumfandc]

can you post a full size sample please?

I've never seen a good MF scan.

It's funny you say you've never seen a good MF scan. Where have you been??? There are hundreds of top quality photo and art books, fashion magazines and such, with scans from medium format. LONG before digital cameras came into the mainstream. And some publications still today won't take images not scanned from film.

Well, I have one here. It's a picture of one of the many beaded Huichol jaguar heads I collect. It's from a 6x7 transparency I took with the Mamiya RZ67. Kodak E100VS. Scanned with the Nikon 9000 ED scanner (which scans @ 4000 dpi optical...the 6x7cm scan I took is 9449x11024 pixels around 104 MP).

The whole image:

This is an 8x10 inch crop from the 4000 dpi optical scan resampled in PS to 300 dpi (lowered to 72 dpi for web). This allows the 6x7cm scan to print at around 30x20 inches @ 300 dpi NON-interpolated:

 

[Mumfandc]

Also, CZ makes good glass, but you must realize the lens on the Sony is CZ designed, but manufactured under license. So the decision is based on what you want and how far you would like to take your craft.

That's actually one of the reasons I bought a Sony digi-cam...the Zeiss glass. I guess Panasonic equipped their digital cameras with Leica glass in competition with Sony.

I've owned Zeiss lenses for my Contax and Hasselblad, so I kinda lean towards them. (Though some say the Sony lenses aren't "genuine Zeiss", since they say they are Japanese made...then I heard other stories saying they are German). I guess I have to admit I don't care really and that I just like to own anything that says Zeiss!

I just bought my Sony DSC-V3 last Tuesday, brought it to school...my friend (a photo major/Canon fan) said to me "I'm surprised anyone would buy a Sony camera". I owned the Sony F717 a long time ago...it was one of the best 5MP back then, and the lens really performed. This new V3 of mine is like a digital Contax G rangefinder. So far it's pretty good.