OT: 6 megapixels best format for your woodworking pictures?

[Leon]

While I am sure you are happy with your results and yours having a good brand lens, I would be willing to bet that the lens on your camera is much slower, has a much higher number F-Stop on the low/wide open end than the

35mm camera lens your are compairing to. This will result in the need for longer exposure times for proper exposure and can distort the recording.

My digital goes to something like 325 mm as a comparison and will focus to .4 inches but is still no comparison to any of my Canon 35mm film cameras and their cheaper lenses. The 35 mm camera telephoto lenses simply let in tons more light.

[Leon]

Ahh! you too read the article. LOL. I never realized how tiny those CCD's were on those small cameras.

[Leon]

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.

[Leon]

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. ;~)

[Robatoy]

It's the "More=3DBetter" mindset that keeps screwing us over. It's when my little 4 banger used to chew the arse out of the 'big metal' in this neighbourhood, people would at first get all pissed off, then they wanted to learn. "Where's the nitrous?" NO frickin nitrous.....

Hell, even in the late 60's my 1275 CooperS would make many people sit up and take notice. Sure they'd catch me at the top end, but I tell you, that little grey (and 5 other body colours) thing was talked about a LOT. It became a local joke trying to beat Rob through the park... nobody ever did. At a local Show 'N Shine, I attended as a visitor and parked nearby. When I had walked around to look at all the beauties I returned to where I had parked, and there were people all over that thing.

[Andrew Erickson]

While J. Clarke didn't specify the exact camera model he has, most or all of the Panasonic big-zoom cameras have pretty fast lenses, some models being constant f2.8 across the zoom range and others ranging to f2.8 at the wide end to f3.8 or so at the telephoto end.

Many similar camera models other brands aren't quite so fast, but still at least as fast as low-end 35mm lenses with equivalent fields of view.

I definitely agree that more megapixels on tiny sensors don't generally improve actual image quality, though. It's quickly getting to the point where diffraction effects are the limiting factor on image resolution even at fairly wide apertures, so having more and more pixels can't even capture more detail (but does result in more noise and larger files to deal with). It's also worth observing that the linear resolution of an image increases with with the square of the number of pixels, so the width or height increase when going from, say, 6 megapixels to 10 megapixels is only a factor of about 1.3.

[Robatoy]

[snipped for brevity]

Again, hits the nail on the head. The 'big' number increase, is in fact grossly overblown in its significance. The numbers game is a crock of shit. "Oh my... he was shot between the eyes with a .458 magnum, he'd be a lot less dead if he was shot with a .357!!!"

"I got 455 horses under the hood, now howcome that rascal with only

200 is whooping my ass?"

I got a 3 HP tablesaw and I'm a frickin' idiot, howcome I can't build a decent footstool?

Don't get me started....

[J. Clarke]

Which model are you thinking of? The FZ7 (which I have) has been discontinued in favor of the FZ8, which is an 8 megapixel camera. Neither is sold under the "Leica" brand, only the "Panasonic" brand. There's a new addition to that model range, the FZ-18, also 8 MP, which goes both longer and wider.

[J. Clarke]

There's another little issue. A 400mm f/2.8 lens for an SLR costs $6500 and weighs 12 pounds. Lot of factors go into deciding whether I use the SLR, the Panasonic, or the Coolpix 990 for a given shot. All have their uses and their limitations.

Slower on the other hand has two meanings in digital camera comparisons. One is the aperture of the lens, while the other is what in shooting firearms would be called the "lock time"--in that area the Panasonic is indeed slower than the SLR--there are things you can do to improve the situation but it's still there and for action photography it means more missed shots. On the other hand most woodworking pictures are more akin to studio photography so that's not an issue. But that is another area in which the Panasonic has a limitation--there's no way to connect an off-axis flash to it. Not a big problem--it will trigger a peanut slave just fine (which the Coolpix 990 won't for some reason)--but still less convenient than being able to plug in a PC cable. For woodworking photography I'd recommend the FZ50 over the FZ8 or 18 for that reason.

If I wasn't up to my ass in alligators right now I'd do some comparison shots between the FZ7 and the 30D.

[Swingman]

"Robatoy" wrote

LOL ... replace color with frequency and we've got an audio (control room monitor) discussion going.

"The mix/scene sounded/looked great in the studio/lens, but ...."

;)

[J. Clarke]

Gal I used to date always drove Honda Civics (the sporty version, not the basic econobox--I forget the suffix). Her teenager used to sneer at them. One day one of his buddies with an overpowered Mustang pissed her off and she chased him down to "discuss" the matter. Her kid quit sneering after that.

You speak as if you aren't aware that the Mini Cooper is considered to be one of the great sports cars.

[Leon]

That is truely pretty fast for a telephoto on a digital that is not 35mm.

Most that I have taken a glance at are in the 4.5 and higher range expecially when the length of the telephoto goes up. I am sure the better higher dollar cameras have the faster lenses.

[Leon]

It's the "More=Better" mindset that keeps screwing us over. It's when my little 4 banger used to chew the arse out of the 'big metal' in this neighbourhood, people would at first get all pissed off, then they wanted to learn. "Where's the nitrous?" NO frickin nitrous.....

Or the 18 volt drill over the 9.6 or 12 volt. Typically the biggest difference you notice is in the weight.

[Doug Winterburn]

Maybe, but viewing some of the first pics I took with the Ricoh vs the Canon, the recent ones just look better. Maybe the bits the old pics pixels are stored on are fading ;-)

[John Grossbohlin]

[snipped for brevity]

...

You obviously need a 1/2 megapixal camera then so you cannot see the flaws in the footstool. ;~)

I like my 6.3 megapixal Fuji S7000.... that PS CS, and taking lots pictures in the quest for some good ones works for me!

John

[Michael Dombrowski]

D3. Supposedly fantastic

Mike

[J. Clarke]

It oughta be, it took 'em long enough.

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Dave Balderstone]

Here's a good primer on megapixels, and why in isolation it's a useless measurement in most cases.

[DGDevin]

Yes, that makes sense, a bigger sensor seems to be part of a successful equation. A pal of mine just got a Nikon digital SLR with the same size sensor as they put in their pro models at several times the price, looks like a smart way to go. However, given two models with the same sensor I'd go with the one with more pixels.