my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » 6MP digital camera for on the road (Page 3)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Author Topic: 6MP digital camera for on the road Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-31-2007 09:50 AM                        All this chatter, yet nobody has posted any pictures! Isn't anyone going to show off? Would those pictures belong here or on the random pictures thread?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-31-2007 10:07 AM                     There's really no point on putting hi-rez photos here with the 200kb file size alloted to posting. I could post some on my Yahoo photos site though and you can see those at full rez. All we can say is that it works.... And the dog musta been dam cold since this was yesterday in Farmington Canyon!  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-31-2007 01:34 PM                     Mark, did you shoot the picture of your dog in the creek using the kit lens or your EF 28-135mm? Which primes are you considering? I may get a couple for lower light indoor use, such as the EF 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8. The choice is a little tricky using a camera with a 1.6x crop factor in the sensor. Canon has a couple f/1.2L primes, but damn they're expensive. I hear a lot of good things about the EF 135mm f/2.0L lens. Some say it is the sharpest lens Canon makes. I am also trying to make up my mind on a couple other zooms, the EF-S 10-22 ultra wide angle zoom and the EF 100-400. Both serve very different purposes. Neither is anywhere near as fast as the two f/2.8L zooms I already have for the 24mm thru 200mm range. The 100-400 is especially slow (f/5.6 at 400mm), but a lot of people like it and it is image stabilized. That's the bad thing about D-SLR camera. You wind up spending a ton on lenses. It's a good thing the lenses hold their value a lot better than the camera bodies. quote: Greg Anderson All this chatter, yet nobody has posted any pictures! Isn't anyone going to show off? Would those pictures belong here or on the random pictures thread? I agree with Mark. Even if the F-T server would allow high res files to be shown, a 3888 X 2592 image saved in JPEG from the camera can run 2MB-4MB pretty easy. RAW files are huge. Also the model of camera body isn't going to mean as much to image quality as these two things: #1. The glass attached to the front of the camera body. #2. The photographer using the equipment. Camera bodies can make a difference in certain areas. High end models shoot faster frame rates. Some are weather sealed (but that's only good if the lens you're using is also weather sealed). The high end models have more points of control in auto focus and can maintain auto focus stopped down to tighter apertures -that can be an issue when using 1.4x and 2x lens extenders. If trade-offs have to be made I think it is better to spend more on a good lens and less on a camera body than the other way around. The only significant thing the Digital Rebel XTi lacks (compared to bodies like the EOS 30D and 5D) is spot metering. There's ways to overcome that limitation (bracketing, getting E-TTL help from an external flash, etc.). I uploaded three photos onto a personal Panoramio page, all taken with the Digital Rebel XTi (but also using lenses that cost significantly more than the camera body itself). I'm going to upload more scenic shots from around my part of Oklahoma soon. The "original" images viewable there aren't 10.1 megapixel, but are high enough in res to fill a decent computer monitor. http://www.panoramio.com/user/267183  |  IP: Logged Greg Anderson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 766 From: Ogden Valley, Utah Registered: Nov 1999 posted 03-31-2007 04:36 PM                        Yes, it would be nice to see full-resolution pictures (or even screen-filling pictures) from all of you with your fancy cameras. But I still enjoy looking at small pictures. I get a lot of great ideas just seeing pretty snapshots. So... here's what I shot yesterday with my Nikon Coolpix 8700. It's bigger than your average point-and-shoot and has an 8x optical zoom, but it's not an SLR. I've decided that it strikes a good balance between cost and quality... although I'd get an SLR if this thing suddenly stopped working. Of course, I'll claim that this picture is breathtaking in a screen-filling version.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 03-31-2007 05:42 PM                     Come on guys, do what various photography websites do. Post a picture reduced to 550 pixels wide, then below it post a 550 pixel wide "clip" of that image at full resolution. That way we can not only see the picture as a whole, but we can also nitpick the details.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-31-2007 05:58 PM                     I have a few posted in the "wallpaper" thread. My last few laptop wallpapers have all been from stuff taken with my D-SLR. I was nervous taking this photo. I was standing on a man made path extending out into a lake of freezing water. The path was coated with 2"-3" of slippery ice. And I was holding $2000 worth of camera gear. Mike Heenan's comment: Naturally, the word balloon from the prairie dog was later added in Photoshop. Yes, it did look like he had some shit hanging from his face. The debris is highly visible in the full res photo.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 03-31-2007 10:34 PM                     The dog was shot with the Kit Lens. Its not as bad as they say. Two complaints I have about it are at wide angle there is some barrel distortion or bending of horizon if it is near the edge of the frame and its entire barrel is made of plastic... but its also VERY light, the 28-135 is over a pound by itself. I consider the kit lens a throw away... You only actually pay about 55.00 for it! I'll use it down in mines and places that damage might come easy. I was out at a friends mine claim in the west desert today and took these photos. One thing I am going to be set on is to record all my stuff just as RAW images. The flexibility of that file type is beyond belief and conversion to JPEG is fast and easy. One of the most amazing parts of this camera is the built in flash... Its eveness of coverage at the 18mm focal length setting that all these photos were taken at is exemplary. These were all done in Program Mode. Also I used only the center AF sensor to shoot these so I could aim the camera at the subject of interest and have that in focus. With the small tunnels and such the side walls would have driven the sensor crazy and most photos would have been out of focus.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 03-31-2007 11:23 PM                     Those are pretty good mine photos. I'm surprised the built in flash on the XTi gave you that much coverage. Were you running at ISO 100 or did you have the gain cranked up any? The 18-55mm kit lens is not a bad lens at all for the money. Factoring in the 1.6x crop factor it actually works like a 28-88mm zoom, which isn't bad for a general purpose walk-around lens. The only problems I have with the kit lens is the barrel distortion at the wide end and that it is prone to chromatic aberration when shooting some high contrast subject matter, such as bare tree branches against a bright sky. For anyone looking to buy a Digital Rebel, I normally recommend getting the package which includes the kit lens. The only decent justification I can see for avoiding the kit lens is if a Digital Rebel buyer is going to buy a much better lens covering that focal length. Specifically, the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is THAT lens. It costs $1000. It is image stabilized and often compared to two "L" class Canon lenses in terms of quality (the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS). The EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a truly great zoom lens, but it is not compatible with high end Canon EOS "full frame sensor" bodies.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-01-2007 06:53 AM                        Well, I took this highly artistic image of "ghost trees" on Pebble Beach, CA (between Monterey and Carmel) yesterday. The liquid stuff in the background is the Pacific Ocean. I shot it with my new Canon camera. But, of course, the camera is only the tool, the artistic eye and mind of the operator is what counts. You can order handsigned prints of this impressive picture from me. The price is $175 for each print (without frame).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-01-2007 07:46 AM                     quote: Bobby Henderson The only significant thing the Digital Rebel XTi lacks (compared to bodies like the EOS 30D and 5D) is spot metering. The XTi does have three metering modes and one is a center weighted mode....I feel its the most useful mode and its similar to what I am used to in my other SLR's. BTW: I came up with a good way to protect the camera while I was down there... take an extra large plastic zip lock bag and pole a large hole for the lens to stick through. Put the camers in the bag and seal it. Tahe a rubber band and gather up excess bag at the back of the lens and secure with a rubber band. It won't keep it dry if it hits deep water... but it wull keep dust off the camera body. Ya know Michael... I saw a tree similar to that near Green River Lakes in Wyoming last Summer . I don't know what on earth causes trees to become squashed down like that..... lots of snow on top of it year after year I guess... Also, I didn't have to Photoshop in the water in the background like you did.....  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 04-02-2007 07:07 AM                        No, no photoshopping, all that water was really there. Like I said, they call it the "Pacific Ocean", and allegedly, if you keep going in that direction, you get to Hawaii. I couldn't see any of that from where I was standing, though. So I have no idea if it's true, and I didn't want to swim or boat out to check - that's much too dangerous, I would be afraid of following off the edge of the world. I have no idea why these trees are so flat. I doubt it's because of snow, though. That doesn't really happen in that area. I think the trees just come like that. This is the "lone cypress", the symbol of Pebble Beach on the Monterey peninsula. Inside the bay on the left is Carmel By The Sea (yes, where Clint Eastwood was mayor).  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 04-02-2007 04:54 PM                     Michael, You must have known that I was just pulling your leg there. I know that tree too. My tree was definately compressed with Photoshop but the water was also there.... spring fed and very clear and cold too. Mark  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.