Digital Photography (2nd Edition)

[markyap]

---

Wooden Expression
[img width=333 height=500]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/markyap/IMG_0431.jpg[/img]
20D with 70-300 DO @120mm
ISO1600 1/25 handheld...this is canon's IS hard at work hehehe

[janutok]

Wooden Expression
[img width=333 height=500]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y42/markyap/IMG_0431.jpg[/img]
20D with 70-300 DO @120mmÂ*
ISO1600 1/25 handheld...this is canon's IS hard at work hehehe

The wooden subject is still, you can always get a tripod & get a good photo after. IS does not stop action, too high ISO such as ASA 1600 which is also available in Fuji S9000 is never recommendable for still subjects. ASA 100 is best for almost all applications.

Do you know that when you enlarge a foto you need to compensate for sharpness ? When you sharpen a high-ISO file you will see all the noise pop-out from nowhere. Again, do not use High ISO on STILL subjects - go get a tripod you end up being able to enlarge & sharpen your foto to a greater degree w/c you didn't think was possible.

[janutok]

So why buy an EOS 5d & not a point-n-shoot camera when it's all the same to a certain extent depending on usage. Hobbyist are not into commercial applications so point-n-shoot is the way to go. Fuji S 9000 9 megapixel camera is I think the best in terms of enjoyment & R.O.I. for some people but not for everyone.

There are a lot of pros and cons to consider when choosing between a digital compact (point&shoot) and a dSLR. Â*One major consideration is the digital sensor. Â*In theory, say two 5mp sensors from a compact and a dSLR should produce the same digital picture. Â*They’re the same number of pixels so why not? Â*So with that thought in mind we should go with smaller sensors which would mean we can use smaller lenses and in turn have smaller cameras.

But in reality size does matter. Â*And I’m not just talking about the 35mm crop factor in lenses.

The sensor in a dSLR is larger in size so it gives more space between each pixel. Â*When pixels get closer and closer together the sometimes tend to interfere with one another. Â*In the digital picture this comes out as noise. Â*Especially when you want to use higher film speeds (iso). Â*To make film more sensitive to light manufacturers use bigger grains. Â*In digital, to make the sensor more sensitive to light we increase gain. Â*Meaning more power is drawn into each individual pixel. Â*More power creates more interference and more noise. Â*That’s why in many compacts high iso pictures come out very grainy.

The space allotted between each pixel in a dSLR helps lessen that interference producing cleaner, high quality pictures even at high film speeds.

Another factor in the great point&shoot vs. dSLR debate is shutter lag. Â*The time it takes for the camera to actually take the picture after the shutter is pressed. Â*In old digital compacts shutter lag was an annoying several seconds. Â*With new cameras shutter lag is getting quite faster. Â*Though not fast enough in terms of shooting sports, fashion shows, and children. Â*In dSLRs, it’s near instantaneous.

For everyday use I’d love to have the convenience of a compact. Â*But when there’s a need for clean high quality pictures, shut up and give me a dSLR

Definitely DSLR is the champion but when you talk about a certain budget then it is not a hero. I will stick to fotos which is suitable to my equipment & produce the best of what it can do. In the past there was no AUTOFocus & flexiblilty to shift ISOs but you can see great works or art like the Masters Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Helmut Newton, Richard Avedon, Neil Leifer, Alred Eisenstaedt. These people are legends in the Photography world but non of them was using high-tech equipment we have today but look at their photos & you will know that you can create good fotos if you know what your equipment can do & what you can do. Dee Vaaaa ?

[janutok]

Crayons in Black and White

[img width=500 height=400]http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/6862/crayonswebbw26qf.jpg[/img]

Not complicated but it's such a nice work

[arnoldsa]

So why buy an EOS 5d & not a point-n-shoot camera when it's all the same to a certain extent depending on usage. Hobbyist are not into commercial applications so point-n-shoot is the way to go. Fuji S 9000 9 megapixel camera is I think the best in terms of enjoyment & R.O.I. for some people but not for everyone.

dude by far its not all the same aside from the fact that they take digital photos hehehe...
iba talaga ang kuha sa DSLR compared to any point and shoot camera.

a good 6mp dslr has better photoquality than ANY 8mp or 9mp PNS digicams
ive been there...believe me...its more than just the megapixel and what not....
there's a lot more to it that you know...

anyways, both have pros and cons like PNS are cheaper and smaller and lighter etc.
it ultimatly depends on the user dude...goodluck in ur hunt for the s9000!

BTW, u talk of Hobbyist then ROI?! why would a hobbyist think about ROI...when there shouldnt be any...
it shouldnt be a factor! what investment is there to return when you are not making money (commercial application) out of this diba?

also enjoyment is subjective...IT ALL DEPENDS

It's in the manipulation of the lens that has a great factor with regards to photo quality... Mark's right.... a 6mp dSLR can beat even an 8mp Point and Shoot...

6mp or 8mp with CCD Sensor-- it doesn't matter if your printing a 4R picture, even if you go as big as 8x11.... they'll just produce the same picture.... But with a dSLR's lens that can be attached with filters, manual focus or autofocus, aperture, zoom in/out..... it will matter na....

[arnoldsa]

...

[janutok]

So why buy an EOS 5d & not a point-n-shoot camera when it's all the same to a certain extent depending on usage. Hobbyist are not into commercial applications so point-n-shoot is the way to go. Fuji S 9000 9 megapixel camera is I think the best in terms of enjoyment & R.O.I. for some people but not for everyone.

dude by far its not all the same aside from the fact that they take digital photos hehehe...
iba talaga ang kuha sa DSLR compared to any point and shoot camera.

a good 6mp dslr has better photoquality than ANY 8mp or 9mp PNS digicams
ive been there...believe me...its more than just the megapixel and what not....
there's a lot more to it that you know...

anyways, both have pros and cons like PNS are cheaper and smaller and lighter etc.
it ultimatly depends on the user dude...goodluck in ur hunt for the s9000!

BTW, u talk of Hobbyist then ROI?! why would a hobbyist think about ROI...when there shouldnt be any...
it shouldnt be a factor! what investment is there to return when you are not making money (commercial application) out of this diba?

also enjoyment is subjective...IT ALL DEPENDS

It's in the manipulation of the lens that has a great factor with regards to photo quality... Mark's right.... a 6mp dSLR can beat even an 8mp Point and Shoot...

6mp or 8mp with CCD Sensor-- it doesn't matter if your printing a 4R picture, even if you go as big as 8x11.... they'll just produce the same picture.... But with a dSLR's lens that can be attached with filters, manual focus or autofocus, aperture, zoom in/out..... it will matter na....

Yeah that's why a DSLR will put a big hole in your wallet, I know at ISO100 & a good dslr-like point-n-shoot could produce same results using jpeg (of course w/ limitations that's why it cost less), but then again my applications are limited also because i spend less so i get less, but that less can be good if use wisely (fuji s9000 is unlike the other pns it's closer to SLR but using EVF). bow!

[pnoize]

moderator's note

janutok:

bai, a friendly suggestion. get a camera, shoot and post your work before you start criticizing other people's work technically. while you may have done a good amount of reading on the technicalities of photography, getting on the field is totally different.

some people who post their work here have been into photography for years and to have someone who admits on not having a camera and has not done anything yet in photography may invite some unwanted attention. while criticism is always welcome here, we still have to remain tactful, to make the criticism constructive. after all we are all friends here.

[kolz]

@janutok

Sakto si pnoize bay. Lahi ra gyud when you're out there taking photographs. Your criticizisms are welcome though, pero nindot pud if you can also understand the drama before one presses the shutter.

If you're planning to buy a camera, I suggest you go for a DSLR na lang gyud. I also own a pro-sumer digital cam (sony F717), and from experience, I have a lot more keepers from my 300D than the F717. I suggest you go for a 300D with the kit lens and get the cheap 50mm F1.8 prime. Malingaw na ka ani ... I think this gear cost a lot less than the Fuji you were referring to. I bought my 300D 2nd hand refurbished last year for $400, and got the sigma 24-70mm for another $320, gamay ra difference if you'll get that Fuji for $699.95 at B&H.

[abortretryfail]

that you can create good fotos if you know what your equipment can do & what you can do. Dee Vaaaa ?

If you've been reading our past posts in this and the other photography forums you will find that this is what we've been advocating all along.

And why the sudden shift from lenses and sensors?

Ansel Adams died in 1984 and Henri Cartier-Bresson stopped being a photographer in 1975. So it’s quite obvious they don't use any of today's technology.

Though Adams was known to experimentation and used a number of different cameras. It's quite possible that he'd go digital if still alive today.

The two photographers stressed technical perfection in photographs and together with a few other photographers founded the f/64 group that advocates straight photography that was purely technical... not creative and artistic in process.

At the time f/64 was considered the smallest aperture available so it would give the deepest depth of field.

Adams later developed the popular zone system for exposure which is used by many digital photographers today.

Like Adams and Cartier-Bresson, Helmut Newton was also known for his black and white photographs... of mostly nude women! He was considered more of an artist and that was where his genius was… aside from his love for women

Oh, and one reason why he shot mainly in black and white was due to the fact he was colorblind.