OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

Page 3 of 8  


How big a market is there for a $5,000 to $8,000 camera body?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Well, let's see, it's big enough to keep Canon and Leica interested. Canon's full frame digitals are in their third generation.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nikon's interested, too, with the D3 now out, but the fact remains, the market is limited in comparison to entry level DSLRs, which is a limited market compared to P&S cameras which outsell all other kinds by mulitple millions of units. Leica has been a niche camera since its inception, and today's versions remain so. I've never understood the passion, or, in fact, the interest, beyond the fact that it's lightweight. Forty some years ago, I had a little Mamiya rangefinder that gave me results well beyond what many editors wanted, though it wasn't worth squat, just like the Leica, when it came to fast action photos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Big bright finder, could see beyond the frame (very useful for journalists--if something develops out of frame you're less likely to miss it), interchangeable lenses (unusual in a rangefinder), some of them hideously fast, less shutter lag than an SLR (not that that's really much of an issue) and relatively quiet.
Really ought to see about selling my M3. I hardly ever use it anymore.

I'm surprised that you find that the Leica wasn't good for action photography. That's one of the places where in the hands of an expert Leica user it shined.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lenses are too short. IIRC, the longest available lens was 135mm or 200mm. That may work for most NASCAR stuff, but on road races, motocross, enduros, it's way too short. I never once saw any photographer at any event with a Leica. Parallax problems. It might work niicely for indoor sports, and even football, where you're close to the action and reasonably safe, but with cars and motorcycles, uh, uh.
Of course, most of us back then were more into the Canon F1, with motor drive, bulk back on occasion, and lenses generally starting at 28mm and going to 300mm. Nikon also did well, and in fact was preferred by a good number, but I never cared for the way it handled.
A lot is in what you get used to, but if you're able to turn out great photos with $2000 to $3000 worth of gear (remember, nearly 40 years ago), no one buying his own equipment was going to spend $4500 to $7000. That was, and is, another big strike against Leica: it offers too little adaptability for the money, IMO.
My biggest bitch about rangefinders in general was the lack of WYSIWYG. The viewfinder over the lens isn't a fantastic help when a bike or car is passing you at 85-100 mph in an arc you couldn't predict (lots of pre-focus back in the days of manual focus).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

Parallax problems are only an issue for close ups, not with teles.

By that time the Japanese era was well advanced.

That was a strike against all the German optical manufacturers. Anything Nikon could do, Zeiss could do better, but Nikon was good enough for a lot less money. And then Nikon and Canon got big enough that they could do more R&D than Zeiss.

I'm not sure I understand why this is a problem? Leicas are parallax corrected to point of focus--if the images are coincident and the subject is in the frame then that's what's going on the film. In any case the actual parallax is less than the width of your hand, so I can't see how it would be an issue photographing a moving car or motorcycle that fills the frame.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Which is why I was all over the Japanese bodies with Zeiss (genuine, at first) lenses sold as Contax.

That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens. That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy. Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should have NEVER sold. Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well. Memories.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Memories, yes, and oddly enough, about the only film cameras that anyone is interested in today. MF and LF. I find myself tempted by 4x5 at times, but the start-up cost for even light duty studio stuff (and it's really suited for car beauty photos, too: jeez, those 4x5 transparencies!) is rough. A friend sent me a Rollei twin lens to use for a bit something like 25 years ago. Wonderful camera. I used it twice and sent it back. I bought a more affordable (and MUCH more fragile) Yashicamat 124 a couple, three times. Winders break like crazy, but the camera turns out good photos: in fact, the shot of me on the OSSA on my web site was taken with a Yashicamat 124G in July 1972 (the rainsuit was killing me with the heat, but it wasn't as bad as the leathers I had to wear for a later, long gone, photo).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

If you have to have the latest and greatest, but 4x5 isn't consumer electronics--what worked 30 years ago still works (give or take a leaky bellows or a sticky shutter, both of which can be repaired), and can often be found on ebay or in local auctions for not too terrible prices.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I still have a few packs of 4 x 5 film holders and at least 4 rubber processing tanks with hangers. Yes, transparancies are great, but the darkroom is DARK when processing. I long ago sold my Paquin 4 x 5 enlarger. That think leaked so much light that every time I turned it on the darkroom looked like a Spielberg set. I even attempted Cibachrome with it, but it was just a waste of time. That worked fine in 35 mm though. But what a great and satisfying hobby that was. If I ever was able to free up the time, I would build a 8 x 10 camera. Nice piece of woodwork. Brass thingies, fold your own bellows...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is what Rollei's Twin-Eye opened trapdoor 'sports finder' was for. 120 film AND a Zeiss lens. That was the 'shoot with both eyes open' philosophy. Those were great deals back then. Now there is one camera I should have NEVER sold. Oh.. and I should have hung onto my Graflex 4x5 as well. Memories.
Make me an offer, Rob! I gots a Rolleicord twins-lens though, alas, it has the Schneider-Kreuznach 3.5/75 glass. I probably have not fiddled with it in 20 years; FIL used to drag it around with him through So. Texas when he was a claims agent for the railroad, gave to me at some point long after 35mm becme the standard issue. If I look around I may even find some Ectachrome slides I took though mostly I got film prints and mostly from backpacking jaunts (Big Bend, maybe the Smokies). Never could make myself pull the trigger on a projector that would handle the slides though.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

WAY tempting, but I also know that I would have to set up a darkroom again. I just don't have the time with all that's going on around here. When I retire (for real, next time) I will take a hard look at that hobby again.
BUT.. I think I'm in love:
http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html
Is that too sweet, or what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the Nikon is the D3.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Again, all good on paper but if the recorded image sucks because of a lens that is not up to the task you can never get a good image.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Also, I should add that you might not be able to get close enough to your subject. More pixel density enables you to 'zoom in' (crop) on your subject without an expensive telephoto zoom lense. If you have enough pixel density (MegaPixels), you can get away with zooming/cropping without losing image sharpness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
GarageWoodworks wrote:

However the smaller the pixel the higher the noise. This is why an APS-C camera can get usable images in much less light than a compact with the same pixel count.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Exactly right.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Exactly right.
Exactly, and I thought it was silly thinking that fewer pixels would be a lesser quality. Now I don't. I usta develope my own film and enlarge my own prints.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

It sure doesn't look any worse. This is definitely a case of "if a little is good, a lot is better."
--
NuWave Dave in Houston



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yup, it was no different with film, it was always best to use the finest-grain film lighting conditions permitted so cropping and enlarging didn't result in a grainy print. Having more data in your image than you need is easy to live with, not enough is a different matter.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.