Entry Level Digital SLR
- Thread starter mack
- Start date
you can print billboards with a quality 4 MP exposure (admittedly a deceptive/cheap example since ppi is really low for billboards since viewing distance is huge). problem is that small cams will not make said quality exposures in low light conditions without flash...
Well, i would like one of the big 100+mm lenses. Most of the stuff that I photograph is out west when im hiking. Usually its wildlife that is far away and i have to digital zoom on the target. The one time you see some Elk on the top of a ridge and your camera cant capture them.
EDIT: my school does have a photography course, but im already taking 8 classes next year...
All Honors. Balls. 
EDIT: my school does have a photography course, but im already taking 8 classes next year...
All Honors. Balls. 
Digital zoom sucks. But you've probably figured that out. Zoom lenses are expensive (at least if they're worth their salt).mack said:
-S.S.-
I've got an 8x10 sitting on my desk at home, printed a couple days ago, with no noticable grain at all. It could easily printed larger if I had a printer that would do it.Kornphlake said:
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller1895.htmlmack said:
That's why. A reseller rating of 1.86 out of 10.
I've gotten decent 16x20 prints from 35mm (b/w iso 100). With 5mp, I think 11x14 is about as big as you can go without it looking too pixelated. You might be able to go 16x20. I have yet to do a size test with my 5mp.Kornphlake said:
I wouldnt go more than prolly 8x10 with a 4 MP
mine will do 15x10 but its 6.1mp
i've gotten great results from my 4MP w/ that size print. it's the largest my bubblejet can go, so i haven't tested it any larger.merrrrjig said:
Just something to bear in mind, the difference between 4mp (2240x1680) and 6mp (3032x2008) is less tha 800 pixels on one side, and less than 400 pixels on the other. That can translate into a slightly improved print, but we're not talking about a huge difference.
Generally, you could say that when you start to push the limits of a 4mp image, the 6mp will give you a halfway decent print, but you're not going to get a significantly better image. A dSLR will give you better prints due to reduced noise and better resolving power, not because of more megapixels.
B&H photo claims a 5mp image will produce a "very good" 16"x20" print.
Generally, you could say that when you start to push the limits of a 4mp image, the 6mp will give you a halfway decent print, but you're not going to get a significantly better image. A dSLR will give you better prints due to reduced noise and better resolving power, not because of more megapixels.
B&H photo claims a 5mp image will produce a "very good" 16"x20" print.
By the way, OPTICS are much more important than your sensor's resolution... Think of the resolution as the quality of your film. Important, and critical with professional work, but unless you're using a lens that can make the most of it (ie, pro SLR stuff and very high-end compact stuff), it's the least of your concerns.
Just wait and save up until you have 3-400 more $$. Then you can get something nice. Or try to get lucky on ebay.
where the hell is toshi?
I got to play with both the new Rebel XT and Canon 20D last week (and this weekend).
Ergonomically, the 20D wins hand down - especially if you like to shoot in Manual Mode.
I would love to own a 20D but thats a lot of mola since I already own a nice Canon G6 point-shoot.
If I had to do it all over again, I would get a 20D AND a super small compact camera to carry on rides.
Ergonomically, the 20D wins hand down - especially if you like to shoot in Manual Mode.
I would love to own a 20D but thats a lot of mola since I already own a nice Canon G6 point-shoot.
If I had to do it all over again, I would get a 20D AND a super small compact camera to carry on rides.
I just thought I'd jump in on this one... When I started out in photography I was really into all of the technological crap, and ended up starting with a Canon EOS Elan 7e with two Sigma macro lenses (28-80 and 70-300, both with worthless apertures). I would have been perfectly fine shooting on this setup if I had continued just having my prints done at the local drugstore. After taking several photography classes at my local community college, where I learned and became fairly skilled at doing quality prints, I eventually started to realize that my current setup wasn't going to get me anywhere.
As said before, even on manual mode, the canon is still a no-brainer. I found myself using the zoom to be lazy much too often, and all of the technology only made my negs and prints suffer because of hurried images and poor lens quality. I stopped using the canon (I'm still trying to sell it, BTW) and recently picked up a mint Leica R4 with the 50/2.0 summicron lens. I would have picked up an MP if I had the money, to be a total purist, but they are just way too much. Even still, the "limiting factors" of the Leica, such as the availability of only one focal length have done nothing but improve my photography through more time spent with composition and consideration. The vastly improved lens quality, combined with some Ilford Pan F+ film (I used Tri-X before) have done wonders.
My words of advice. If you want a camera where you can snap off 200 shots in an hour, then thumb through them to pick out your "lucky" ones, go with the dSLR. If you want to learn to make consistent quality images, start off with the bare bones 35mm SLR with a 50/2.0 lens and take some classes. You will end up with a lot of skill, and completely handmade prints that you can be very proud of. You wont regret it.
Everyone should show off some images from his own setup. These photos were shot on my canon, Kodak Tri-X 400, printed on Ilford MGIV RC 8x10. They came out a bit darker once scanned than they are in real life. Could just be my monitor though. I havent gotten a chance to scan any of the Leica prints yet.
As said before, even on manual mode, the canon is still a no-brainer. I found myself using the zoom to be lazy much too often, and all of the technology only made my negs and prints suffer because of hurried images and poor lens quality. I stopped using the canon (I'm still trying to sell it, BTW) and recently picked up a mint Leica R4 with the 50/2.0 summicron lens. I would have picked up an MP if I had the money, to be a total purist, but they are just way too much. Even still, the "limiting factors" of the Leica, such as the availability of only one focal length have done nothing but improve my photography through more time spent with composition and consideration. The vastly improved lens quality, combined with some Ilford Pan F+ film (I used Tri-X before) have done wonders.
My words of advice. If you want a camera where you can snap off 200 shots in an hour, then thumb through them to pick out your "lucky" ones, go with the dSLR. If you want to learn to make consistent quality images, start off with the bare bones 35mm SLR with a 50/2.0 lens and take some classes. You will end up with a lot of skill, and completely handmade prints that you can be very proud of. You wont regret it.
Everyone should show off some images from his own setup. These photos were shot on my canon, Kodak Tri-X 400, printed on Ilford MGIV RC 8x10. They came out a bit darker once scanned than they are in real life. Could just be my monitor though. I havent gotten a chance to scan any of the Leica prints yet.
Attachments
yeah I shouldn't of bought the G6 and I shouldn't of played with that 20D last weekToshi said:i already posted...
Acadian, i agree with you: 20D + super compact for trail rides is the ticket. i shouldn't have given away my old S30 to my ungrateful older sisterheh
The 20D is a great camera. We have one at work and I borrowed it the other weekend. Its so cool, my daughter wanted it:
