OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

Page 7 of 8  
Robatoy wrote:

I dunno.
Santa dropped a Cannon A720is under our tree. It's an 8MP vs the old 2.3MP Ricoh RDC5300 that preceded it. So far, I like the pictures from it much better than the Ricoh. The flash seems to be much better as well as the 6x optical zoom vs the 3x of the Ricoh. I also like the anti blur and the movie/sound capabilities. I put a 4GB card in it (max 32GB) as opposed to the 64MB max card I have in the Ricoh. It takes two AA batteries vs the 4 AAs for the ricoh and doesn't appear to eat them at anywhere near the rate the Ricoh does. It's also much faster on powerup and between shots.
Also, the price of $185 (Amazon) vs the $550 for the Ricoh in '99 made Santa feel good.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Something to think about, I wonder if you compared the 2 cameras together but both being new would have any effect on the results. A CCD with 8 years of wear may not perform as good as one that is brand new. This is of course discounting all the bells and whistles that the new one has over the old one. ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old pics pixels are stored on are fading ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

More likely the in-camera processing is different between the two. Or the program defaults are different. Might be possible to adjust the Ricoh to give results similar to the Canon, might not, depends on how much adjustment it allows.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

That could well be - they both have more options/settings than I can comprehend without the manual in hand, and by then, the picture opportunity is long gone :-( In the olden days, one reading of this stuff and it was imprinted, but now-a-daze I have to get the book out to set the alarm clock.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

However, considering the photos are going to be viewed on a computer screen, which is normally set to 96 dpi, even a 1 Mp camera will manage that job well. Otherwise, with a hi-pixel count, you're going to have to be throwing away pixels anyway to get the thing down to a viewable size. Now if you'r talking about printing pictures, especially enlarging them, the the higher Mpixel ratings can be a help, but come on; what good is a 3' x 4' photograph? I've only used high pixels once; when I wanted to get some individual faces out of a photograph and wanted to keep their detail. In addition, 6 megapixels doesn't necessarily mean there will be 6 megapixels in the photo; for that info you have to research and dig into the camera specs a little deeper. Multiple pixels can be defined/used in different ways semantically and synctacticly.
HTH
Pop`
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've got two of them up on my walls right now. Actually, only 2' x 3', but what the hell...I'd have the larger if I could afford the prints.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

I was looking at some framed wildflower prints in the "guest room" the other day, ones that I took a few years back with one of the first Sony Mavica's with an optical zoom lens. This camera had to be less than 1 MP, but the prints were framed for a good reason ... they are excellent "photographs" ... I keep thinking of the old saying in the recording biz: "I'd rather listen to a bad recording of a good song, than a good recording of a bad song".
... that's the whole story, and all you really need to know. :)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As with anything these days and the introduction of more technology, the old cameras and their lenses were higher quality and I highly suspect that with older technology the CCD's were larger also. Really and truly, the more megapixels are good if you want huge blow ups or to blow up small parts of an image. Past that you would never tell the difference unless the lens was crappy, which I suspect also is the case today vs. 5 years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pushing more pixels into the same chip area just gives you more noise.
This guy does a lot of writing about DP and image sensors.
http://db.tidbits.com/article/9364
-Bruce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a blast from the past. Except, I used a Contax. I pushed the Tri-X to 650 and gave it a bit more time in the old Microdol or D-76. I had a Leitz enlarger with a Nikon EL Nikkor lens ( all the rage back then) Then I printed onto a variety of Ilford papers. I have many of those shots and each and every one means something to this day. Considering many are close to 40 years old, the archival quality is simply amazing.
As a hobby, carving with light was very satisfying and could be intense with the dodging and burning and getting the contrast/mood 'just right'...

I miss it sometimes. The ritual. The mixing of the chemicals, the smells..feeling a bit like The Wizard Of Id.
These days, my HP 9800 13" x 19" borderless with a photo-grey cartridge on watercolour paper, gives me some that back. Costs about $ 5.00 per print. Nice paper is expensive.
It reminds me of the machine gunner vs the sniper analogy. Squeezing off 100 shots without consequences isn't the same as that one shot opportunity. Mind you, I have taken group shots and moved heads around between frames to get optimum results..LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The part I really don't miss. I felt more like a mad scientist.

Epson R1800. Lousy black and white, but gorgeous color. Next time around, the R3800 (hoping my wife isn't looking, because IIRC, it runs about $1,300..refurb probably $900).

The old Canon would give me about a four shot blast, maybe five, while a particular scene was in focus--manual focus, remember? Actually, through about '99, I found manual focus far more effective than autofocus, but Pentax's current version is decent, though it tends to hunt in low light with some lenses. The buffer fills at about nine raw shots, which is twice what the manual Canon would do--nearly 40 years ago.
But there's another point in favor of the DSLR: weight. The camera itself is a tad heavier than the old F1, I think, but overall, whenyou add the motor drive and bulk back, the Canon outweighed the K10D by about four to one. That doesn't count the need for a changing bag and another sealed tin with another 50' of film ready to load. And zooms back then were one step up from useless, at least for publishing, so to be fully equipped, you needed a 28mm, a 50mm, a 100 or 135mm, a 180mm or 200mm, and, if your back would take it, a 300mm.
I am now WAY too old for that. Half the time now, I leave the second camera at home, and keep my fingers crossed. Not really: I leave it on the golf cart, where I can usually reach it in 10 minutes at most. It might get stolen, but so far, not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh how we envied the pros with the trackside photo passes, the bulk film loaders, and motordrives. Anyone can come up with a handful of magazine-worthy photos with that combination (so we thought). I actually fanagled a photographer's pass for the '74 Canadian GP at Mosport through a local short track rag here in Houston. I was still stuck with my SRT-101 (match needle!). The future article never developed and it went nowhere but for just once in my life . . . ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Somewhere in my attic I might still have those Tri-X proof sheets.
--
NuWave Dave in Houston

BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You don't need the contacts. You do need the negs. Have some fun and scan them in and fool with them in PSP or another lower cost program. I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11, but it does handle the K10D raw files without an itnermediary program. It also locks up about every other time it is used.
I might shoot film again, if someone loans me a camera and loads it for me, and there's someplace to get it all processed, and put on CD or DVD. I sold all my film gear, including darkroom equipment, years ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote

Another nail in the coffin of value and substance when Corel took over JASC ... I'm using PSP 6 until no OS will run it.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I shot JPEG heavily, I'd still be there with you. Unfortunately, shooting raw requires a convertor in the computer, sincne I'm not using the one in the camera. I may change from raw to raw+JPEG, though that means my 8 GB card will hold only about 385 photos.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> :> BTW, how much do you miss film? Or, put another way; do you think :> you'll ever shoot film again?" :> Just kidding. : You don't need the contacts. You do need the negs. Have some fun and : scan them in and fool with them in PSP or another lower cost program. : I use PSP 12 right now: it is not as good in some ways as PSP 11, but : it does handle the K10D raw files without an itnermediary program. It : also locks up about every other time it is used.
: I might shoot film again, if someone loans me a camera and loads it : for me, and there's someplace to get it all processed, and put on CD : or DVD. I sold all my film gear, including darkroom equipment, years : ago.
Do you do much B&W with digital? What equipment (both camera and printer) do yuo recommend?
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Almost no black and white. No editor wants much of it these days...my next book will be all color, something that never used to happen...and they can convert if needed. Like most people, I'd recommend what I use, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really is the best for you. I use a Pentax K10D, and an Epson R1800 (buy a refurb from Epson and you can save a remarkable amount, with a one year replacement warranty if it quits working). Given the budget, I'd have opted for the R3800, but that, I hope, is this year's second big purchase. The first will be a K20D (or whatever the model number is), when that comes out.
I can tell you that if you're interested in black and white, you do NOT want the R1800. The R2400 is fine, as is the R3800, but every blinking B&W I've printed, without going to sepia in the computer, has a bluish cast. With a couple of recent deaths in my wife's family (her parents), I've been scanning and printing numerous old photos. I'm going to start sending them to WalMart on a CD instead, I think. Cheaper, for one thing. Better B&W, for another.
The K10D has a filter feature, processing done in camera, that allows you to reproduce JPEGs in B&W, sepia, and a variety of colors, in addiiton to a straight shot. It also has a couple of junk "filters," a slimming filter, and one for softening photos (presumably for shooting faces like mine with plenty of lines: I worked for these damned lines, pits and scars, and I want to see them).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Charlie Self" wrote

It's funny, the difference in generations ... be it noted that the pendulum may be swinging the other way:
I think of text messaging as a PITA, while my 22 year old daughter prefers it over all other means of communication, including voice ... IOW, these kids twist technology to suit their tastes, and set trends in doing so.
Bought her a Canon Power Shot (don't recall the model) for her birthday last summer and noticed the other day that she ONLY shoots in black and white. Had to insist, as the designated photographer for family Christmas this year, that she shoot in color. Her roommate, the staff photographer for the college rag, does the same, as do the other kids who hang around here during vacation time.
Apparently black and white is far from dead, and seems to be preferable, as far as these youngsters are concerned.
(and if you can't beat'em ... I texted all my "Happy New Years" Last night!)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nothing dies. Check out flare pants, which came back a few years ago, though in a much goofier form. Extreme seems to be what today's trend setters are all about. Maybe that's what they always were, but we didn't notice, because the trends didn't seem extreme at the time. Today, hot music from the '50s, say Bill Haley and the Comets playing "Skokian", would never make it. There was a recognizable beat and theme and no cussing.
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.