Posted on 07/06/2012 5:39:13 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER
This small mountain of gear leads to two very frightening thoughts. Firstly, there’s no ending in sight; one keeps accumulating more and more equipment in order to keep pushing the edge of what’s possible both from a compositional and artistic standpoint, as well as from an image quality standpoint. You’ve either got to have a great day job and very deep pockets, or some good recurring clients.
The second thought is around obsolescence. In the film days, the camera body and lenses lasted a long time; you invested in glass, got a decent body – one that fulfilled your personal needs as a photographer – and then picked the right film for the job. In that sense, image quality differences between brands were down to the lenses and the photographer. This is to say that if you put the same film in every camera, the difference in sharpness or acuity or color or whatever would be down to the lens only. If you wanted more image quality, you went for a bigger format – and thus a larger sensor. The digital equivalent to this would be having only one photo site design of a fixed pixel pitch; say around 4.9 microns, which would get you 16MP at APS-C, 36MP at FX, about 60MP on 645, and something silly on large format. For an equivalent size print, the larger format would definitely outdo the smaller format by an amount proportional to the difference in resolution.
IS on the Sony is in the body. I’ve got a combination monopod/tripod if I need to use a slow shutter.
“the lens system won’t give you a better image than that anyway, no matter how high you go in megapixels.”
Some imagers are getting so good that there’s talk of (if not already) mapping out the lens’ flaws so the image processor can correct for imperfections.
I have 90,000+ shudder activations on my Nikon D70s (2005 technology) and it is still going strong despite being dropped down a rocky canyon.
Just keep shooting and sharing!!
SS, Yes, I knew what you meant with the IS being in the body. I had a little Canon S2 IS that was like that, think they've gotten better. I gave it to one of my (older) grandkids and naturally it didn't last long. I bought it hoping the zoom was long enough that I could get around buying the 100-400. On the long end it was so blurry I couldn't find the target very fast. I guess it happens with the 100-400 too but I'm a little better with that one except birds in flight that are receding or in the distance, I can't track them at all.
I only use the tripod for night photos because it's heavy to lug around and set up. But the monopod I've used for macro shots and a parade. The bad thing is if I want to go portrait mode, I have to turn the whole "stick" or unsnap it which slows me down too much. The good thing is that I don't have to turn off IS. I haven't tried my car window tripod yet but when I can get out again, it will be limiting but I won't have to get so cold, etc. Drive by shooting lol. I got it at bh and can't remember the brand name, under $100 Giotto or something like that.
Just finished frosting some cupcakes and am tired. I think I'll take a photo of them later ha ha. It's a lot of work but people love cupcakes.
Thanks for sharing; especially about the tattoo. That is SO cool.
The camera business is starting to get really interesting. I used to have a cheap pocket point-and-shoot for when I didn’t want to lug the DSLR around; as of the iPhone 4, I don’t carry a cheap PAS any more.
The best cell phone camera isn’t yet on par with a $250 point-and-shoot, but they’ll give anything under $100 a run for its money. I’d be happier if they could shoehorn a bigger sensor and lens into the case, though.
I think the sub-$100 PAS cameras are becoming something for kids, like the 110 Instamatics of my youth or the unlamented disk camera. The high end of PAS is fighting it out with the low end of Micro Four-Thirds and other “mirrorless” systems, which are almost as pocketable and a lot more versatile. At the other end of the scale, the high-end mirrorless is a pretty attractive alternative to a lower-end DSLR. Meanwhile, Lytro (http://www.lytro.com/) isn’t quite ready for prime time, but the technology behind it is eventually going to shake things up.
I would love to be able to trumpet my old-school photography fred, but I am definitely a product of the digital era. I learn best by trial and error, and I would never be able to afford the film and processing for the number of shots I’ve run through since getting my Canon DSLR seven years ago. I think I could get solid shots with a 35mm now, but it’s taken a lot of free shooting and instant feedback to get me there.
I go through digital cameras like pistachios. I use them for my job. From my experience, they last as long as the flash lasts. The cost to replace the flash is nearly as much as a new camera, so guess what? I get maybe a year or two out of them. I give my “dead” cameras to my granddaughter to play with. They still work fine in broad daylight or wherever a flash isn’t needed.
I still shoot a lot with my Canon 1dM3 which is about 8 years old. The thing’s taken loads of abuse too.
Little story/quandry..
I’ve got a Canon XSi, 12 mp. 18-55mm, 55-250mm kit quality lenses.
Went to the camera store yesterday to get a wireless remote to catch a fox lurking in my yard at night.
I’ve been jonesing an L zoom tele lens as the kit lenses are soft.
Anyway, the salesman drags down the new Sony A-57 and A-65 cameras.
Wow. they do it all! Internal panorama stitching, up to 12 Frames/sec. 1080p movies. The mirror doesn’t move, it’s semi-coated and works kinda like a teleprompter. Advantage is you can see through the lens when other makes lock the mirror up, multi shots, etc.
16 and 24 mp respectively. Internal stabilization so you can use lenses w/o.
Can use any Minolta auto focus lens from yrs. past.(I don’t have any though)
So for about the same money I could switch brands.
I’ve been a Canon man since my Rebel G days. It gathers dust now. Haven’t used it since going digital.
Decisions, decisions.
I bought the Sony because it was a really good deal. It turned out to be a really good camera too.
Thanks, will check it out to see if it will fit my Fuji.
|
Hope you're not back to the glug, glug, glug. |
Happy, joyous and free here, Boxie Boy. But, give more about the tats. Take some pics with that fancy camera and let us all admire.
|
You're a pretty insecure man. |
> “Some imagers are getting so good that there’s talk of (if not already) mapping out the lens’ flaws so the image processor can correct for imperfections.”
I design imaging devices (chips not not lenses) for a living. All image sensors use corrections for the imperfections, it’s called fixed pattern defect correction and it’s been around for decades.
So, I guess that's a "No" on showing the tats? Are you ashamed of them?
|
|
I’ve read of some procedures that can remove those embarrassing tattos. If you start a “help me” thread on that, please ping me to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.