mark_richards

The bit about the legacy glass made me giggle...

 

On a more serious note, the difference between the latest Canon & Nikon DSLRs is quite small now. I've just bought a 400D because I see myself buying more Canon _lenses_ in the future; the D80 is a better camera in several ways, but it is irrelevant because I don't want to buy into the Nikon system.

Btw, you can get adapters that allow you to use SD cards in cameras with CF slots.

The D80 is a better camera (albeit a bit more expensive), but the answer to this question depends on which system you want to buy into to/which lenses you want to acquire in the future.

I'm sure Scott will turn up if the Macheads (G. V. etc.) keep posting their usual nonsense.

 

If you can, find someone with a Mac and have a play with the OS etc. and see which one you prefer. You can't rely on other people to make that decision for you.

http://computer.howstuffworks.com/question406.htm

 

You cannot get rid of the lines, but they are there for a good reason.

But it's still just a metal box with the usual bits & pieces inc. a couple of 3 GHz Core 2 Duo chips with whatever allows them to work in tandem (that is all the Xeon label indicates) running Apple's OS - it isn't the Second Coming of Big J.

If you can, try and find out which panel is used in LCD monitor X instead or assuming that brand X will be good. Also do some research on the various types of panels - IPS/S-IPS panels are the best for displaying colours, but contrast/display of black might not be as good as a decent PVA/MVA panel. The one thing that you don't want for colour work is a TN+Film panel (as used in most 17" panels and some 19" ones).

I dunno, Scott & Andrew R seem to be like Yin & Yang.

 

In answer to your (Barry's) question:

 

The three versions (laptop, desktop, and server/workstation) of Intel's latest processor family (Intel Core Microarchitecture) are more or less the same (server chips/Xeons/whatever are not magic or anything; they just have minor tweaks that allow them to work in 2/4/8 CPU motherboards). Woodcrest is the code name for the server/workstation version (aka Xeon 5100 - the processor used in the Mac Pro). Conroe is the code name for the desktop version, and Merom is the code name for the laptop version (both are aka Core 2 Duo).

 

Chips with a clock speed of 2.40 GHz and higher have a shared (between the two cores) 4MB L2 cache whereas chips with a clock speed of 2.13 GHz and lower have a shared (ditto) 2MB L2 Cache.

 

I think Scott is arguing that a box with a single 3Ghz dual-core chip would either be faster than or not significantly slower than a box with two dual-core chips running at a lower clock speed (e.g. the 2.66 GHz chips in the mid-range Mac Pro [there are 2Ghz and 3Ghz versions available]). I'm not convinced about the faster than/raping thing, but a Mac Pro with just one (dual-core) chip would probably represent better value for money (and there are other things to consider with Macs like the limited range of graphics cards available etc.)

I don't know how anyone can this question to be honest. What I prefer (PC*) may not be suitable for you, and a Mac might not be suitable for you either. These threads just end up turning into (mild) flame wars between Windows & OSX evangelists with the associated nonsense.

 

(I have nothing against Macs; I just don't need one for what I do. Mac users can be ****ing idiots though. I've built a dozen computers for people, but I've never had to use a soldering iron...)

Scott is correct.

 

The Intel P4 is being phased out. You can get P4 derivatives for bargain prices at the moment, but they will run hot/use a lot of power.

 

The AMD64/X2 is a much better chip (and would have been the obvious choice a few months ago), but the soon-to-be-available Intel Conroe (marketed as Core 2 Duo) is even better (don't be confused by the Core Duo/Core 2 Duo labeling: Conroe/Core 2 is a brand new design).

 

If I was on a tight budget, I would buy an AMD64/X2. If I had the money, I would buy the 2.4 Ghz/4MB cache/E6600 version of the Conroe/Core 2 Duo (the best value-for-money version I think). It should be priced between $300-350.

Another (related) question:

 

If I use a 50mm lens to take a head & shoulders portrait with a 1.6x DSLR and an 80mm lens to take a head & shoulders portrait with a FF DSLR (i.e. subject-camera distance is not the same), how will the two images differ?

Yep - lack of noise at medium/high ISOs is more important to me than the pixel count (and people seem to want 5Ds/full frame because of the better viewfinder [and hopefully more accurate autofocus] more than anything else; the extra resolution is a bonus). The resolution of the 4/3 sensor isn't really limiting, but the noise definitely is.

I know, but picture elements are picture elements, whether they are tiles in a mosaic, molecules of paint on a canvas, pixels of an computer screen, or dots of ink on paper.

 

The important thing is that photographic paper is capable of displaying a much higher density of data than a computer screen, which is why we need cameras with lots of megapixels (which aren't just useful for printing).

The pixels on photographic paper can be much smaller than the lcd elements/phosphor dots on a typical computer screen, which is why you can have 300dpi and higher prints whereas the best monitors are limited to a resolution of 100 or so ppi (which explains the similarity [although not exact] between the 60 and 160 ppi images on that daft link).

 

I suspect that I have fallen for a troll though...

I am indifferent to most of the images in the top-rated gallery, but I think it has more to with my dislike of contrived/selective compositions (e.g. tree in the middle of a landscape photo, and everything else converging on the tree) and crazy colours instead of a dislike of aesthetics.<p>

Boredom has something to do with it (seen it all before etc.), but I think it has more to with the lack of information and/or ambiguity in such photographs than anything else. I value information above all else, which is why I like wildlife photographs so much (even the ones with naff compositions and/or anthropomorphic elements); if you want to learn about/draw/model/etc. eagles, then Miguel Lasa's photos are a fantastic reference.<p>

The narrow aesthetic preferences of most artistic photographers can be very annoying for people whose main use of photographs is reference etc.; I watched a TV programme that featured the Taj Mahal last week, but it took me ages to find a photo of the thing that wasn't taken from the normal viewpoint. I wish there was more documentary work in the top-rated gallery, but I'm obviously in the minority.<p>

To close, here is a photograph which I think is pretty and interesting ; others may think it is boring (as I find their preferences boring), but I think it is an honest/unpretentious and nicely ambiguous/mysterious <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3234449">potrait</a> (I'm not keen on the rest of the images in the folder though)

Heh - porn snobs are funny...

 

With porn, things like a good rapport between the model and the photographer are more important than an exacting approach to lighting etc.; you are trying to produce sexually arousing images instead of asexual images which emphases light, texture and form etc. Porn is also about series of images instead of single images; it's a narrative thing.

 

I often look at artistic nude images and wish that the photographer had tried to make the results more sexy, but that wasn't their intention so it's a daft complaint.

I used to get headaches etc. (and I had epilepsy when I was a child too) with my 21" CRT monitor, but then I found out that (for some weird reason) windows had locked the refresh to 60Hz. I had got used to it, so it took the horrified reaction of another family member to make me realise what was going on. The refresh rate is at 85Hz now.

 

LCDs monitors can give me headaches too, but that is because they are potentially much brighter than CRT monitors; if you make sure that they aren't the primary light source in the room (i.e. don't use them in the dark), then you should be fine.

Heh @ Bob.

 

However, the last comment on that article is very interesting; would a 6-8 megapixel full frame sensor be able to produce noise free images at ISO 6400?

Just for the record, one British newspaper (The Mirror) was hoaxed into publishing staged photographs depicting abuse of prisoners/civilians/etc. last year.

 

However, these photographs ARE genuine.

Not necessarily - I have a digital P&S, and it is useless in low light and/or subjects that are not sitting still. Clean & sharp 1 megapixel images from a good DLSR with a good lens will always be much better than those from a digicam. I rarely make prints too, but the quality of my JPEGs are crap compared to the DSLR ones on photo.net.

 

Brian will only notice the difference with a 20D if he does lots of shooting at ISO 800/1600/3200 etc. However, if those images are always optimised or reduced in size etc., then the 10D plus noise reduction software is probably a better solution.

Another off-topic kind of question...

 

Those shots from the 85/1.2 are incredible, but how does the narrower field of view on a 1.6x DSLR (equiv. to 135mm on a full-frame 35mm camera) affect things like perspective and compression/distortion of facial features etc?

 

I suspect that there would be little difference (an 85mm lens is always an 85mm lens etc.), but the narrower FOV means that you have to put more distance between yourself and the subject.

I don't want start an operating system debate, but the main benefit of the NT based OSes (Win2K & XP) is a protected kernel which prevents the resource conflicts that often happen with win9x OSes (95, 98, 98SE, and ME); they are much more stable, and the increased memory limit is useful IF (as I do) you have applications that need it.

 

I hate XP (Win2K diehard etc.), but Win2K (sadly) is on the way out. I'm not sure what I recommend for an OS upgrade at the moment; Win XP x64 will be the final nail in Win2K's coffin.

Win2K (and XP) can take 2GB of RAM (and possibly more - my [cheap] motherboard can take up to 3GB]). However, the limits of 32 bit addressing means that only 2GB of RAM (virtual and/or physical) can be allocated to any one process (this is why several CPUs now have 64bit addressing and a 64bit version of Windows is in pre-release/trial stage).

The images from my 4 megapixel digicam are roughly 10x8 inches in size when viewed on my 21 inch monitor at 50% scaling (which equates to about 80-90 pixels per inch). My monitor screen is 48 inches away from my eyes.

 

That view is deceptive because a) it is only 80-90 ppi and any prints will have a resolution of at least double that (I only make 7.XX by 5.XX inch prints from this particular camera [300dpi]), and b) scaling routines and monitor faults (esp. convergence) emphasise any problems (esp. colour fringing) and give misleading results. 100% magnification is the only way you are going to get WYSIWYG, even if it equates to looking at a print at the wrong (i.e. much too close) viewing distance; when we have displays with 300+ ppi capabilities, there will be less of a need to do this.

 

Your question wasn't about printing though, and I agree with you about the camera being something of an irrelevance if you like the print. I've seen some great prints from digicams, but their usefulness is limited to specific situations (lots of light, slowish subjects etc.)

 

However, I still think direct comparisons (of cameras and esp. lenses) using 100% crops are useful. We can't compare prints on the .net, and the limitations of current monitors etc. means that comparing full sized images in full resolution (instead of meaningless re-scaled miniatures) isn't possible either. This why we have 100% crops with equate to silly viewing distances; we wouldn't gain anything from anything else.

 

(Btw, I'll put my hand up and confess to gaining much pleasure from looking at 100% crops. For me, photos are about information/reference [for art, 3D models, textures for 3D models etc.], so I want as much fine detail as possible. I rarely print anything because prints are useless to me [and most consumer level inkjet printers are bleurgh] Large digital photos allow me to scrutinize the world without ruining my eyes.)

I don't think it has anything do with lenses out resolving cameras or vice-versa. It has more to do with the 1Ds Mark II having a h/v resolution of 138ish pixels per mm (or 69 line pairs per mm); soso lenses (e.g. consumer glass and possibly some L zooms) and bad technique (e.g. no tripod) will throw a significant portion of that resolution away.