Jump to content

glennpollockphotography

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    125

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by glennpollockphotography

    NEED HELP from Photogs who OWNS the OMD EM5

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Congrats on the EM5, it's a superb camera! I have had mine for only a couple months and bought it with the 12-50mm lens which I love. I highly recommend this lens as it covers the 35mm equivalent of 24-100mm which covers a lot of territory from wide to portrait and a bit beyond. Since I enjoy wildlife photography, I am waiting to purchase the new M Zuiko 75-300mm which will cover up to a 600mm! equivalent. Lens selection is all about what you plan to shoot and, of course, how many dollars you want to part with!</p>

    NEED HELP from Photogs who OWNS the OMD EM5

    in Olympus

    Posted

    <p>Congrats on the EM5, it's a superb camera! I have had mine for only a couple months and bought it with the 12-50mm lens which I love. I highly recommend this lens as it covers the 35mm equivalent of 24-100mm which covers a lot of territory from wide to portrait and a bit beyond. Since I enjoy wildlife photography, I am waiting to purchase the new M Zuiko 75-300mm which will cover up to a 600mm! equivalent. Lens selection is all about what you plan to shoot and, of course, how many dollars you want to part with!</p>

    Sony Nex 7

    in Sony/Minolta

    Posted

    <p>I too have an NEX-7 and I use it primarily with the Tamron e-mount 18-200mm lens. I have none of the problems that you are mentioning. I'm waiting for some new additions to the e-mount line from Sony in the future, but for now, the Tamron is a superb lens IMO.</p>

    Should I upgrade to A77

    in Sony/Minolta

    Posted

    <p>In a word, Yes, upgrade! You will love the a77, and as far as image quality goes, the a77 will match or exceed anything that Canon and Nikon will do under the 'normal' circumstances. I am getting really tired of the experts reviewing extremely high ISO pics or pics under highly strange conditions and then comparing. I understand why they do it, but in real life and for the 99% of us that don't routinely shoot at insanely high ISO's, the a77 is a fabulous camera. I own a Nikon D700 and a Canon 5D MkII as well as an a77 and I find myself reaching for my Sony more often than not. Yes, my other cameras are full frame, and yes, they are great studio instruments and yes they have very high ISO capabilities, but like I said, I prefer my a77 for all but the most extreme shoots. With innovations like Handheld Twilight Mode and Multi Frame Noise Reduction, the a77 is rapidly closing the high ISO noise gap where Nikon and Canon have an edge. When you start comparing prices, the Nikon and Canon edge gets even smaller. As you already know, there can be thousands of dollars in price differential. Go with the a77 and don't look back! You will love it!</p>

    17-40 buyer suggestions?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Save yourself a couple hundred bucks and get the <a id="ttl_170800801313" title="Tokina AT-X Pro 17-35 mm F/4.0 FX Lens For Canon NEW with Hoya UV Filter" href="http://www.ebay.com/itm/170800801313?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1555.l2649">Tokina AT-X Pro 17-35 mm F/4.0 FX Lens</a><br>

    It is a superb lens that meets or exceeds Canon's 17-40, IMHO.<br>

    I have been using one for months now and find it's sharpness, lack of distortion, and overall IQ simply outstanding!</p>

    Where's the issue with MP?

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>I agree with you Damian; more MP is not necessarily a good thing. Here's a little primer on what MP counts you really need:<br>

    <strong>It seems intuitive enough. More megapixels is better, right?</strong><br>

    <strong>But, as with most things electronic, the magic number just seems to keep on growing… 2, 5, 8, 11, 15, 18, 21?!? How many megapixels do you really need?</strong></p>

    <h3>Approximate Resolution of Various Output Types</h3>

    <p>One way to think about this question is to estimate how many pixels (and therefore the number of megapixels) it takes to effectively render a few different common output formats.<br>

    <strong>Facebook.</strong> Let’s say you want to share a picture over the Internet. If you’re on <a href="http://digital-photography-howto.com/what-is-the-max-image-size-on-facebook/">Facebook, the largest possible image size</a> is 720 pixel x 720 pixels. That’s 518,400 pixels… or a whopping 0.5 megapixels.<br>

    <strong>Other Web Sharing. </strong>Let’s say you just want to share some pictures over the web and look at them on your computer. While the upper limit on the resolution will vary, it will be limited by the size/resolution of your monitor. My 19″ flat panel and video card on my desktop support a resolution of 1440 x 900 pixels. That’s a total of 1,296,000 pixels, or 1.3 megapixels. Hmm… now we’re getting closer to modern times.<br>

    <strong>Basic 4×6 Print.</strong> Ok, let’s up the ante and contemplate a print product. Typical print resolution is 300 ppi (pixels per inch). That means that a 4 inch by 6 inch picture will require approximatley 1200 pixels by 1800 pixels. That’s 2,160,000 pixels, or a shade over 2 megapixels.<br>

    <strong>Large 8×10 Print.</strong> Want something bigger? How about a nice 8×10 print that can fit in a matted 11×14 frame. At 300 ppi, that requires 2400 x 3000 pixels. That’s 7.2 megapixels. Now we’ve actually entered the realm of modern cameras. But, still, most consumer level digital point and shoot cameras deliver at least 7 or 8 megapixels.<br>

    <strong>Uber-Large Poster Print (24 x 30 inches).</strong> And now for something obscene. Let’s make a really big poster print. At Costco, I can print an image at 24×30 inches for $8.99. That would require 7200 x 9000 pixels or 64,800,000 pixels. So, a full 300 ppi image would take, umm, 65 megapixels. Oops. They actually look pretty good at ~12-15 megapixels as long as you don’t hold your nose an inch from the picture.<br>

    In other words, pretty much every conceivable <strong>normal</strong> output format (from web images to an 8×10 print) requires less than 8 megapixels. If you’re a professional photographer creating movie posters, large print ads, or the like, you could probably benefit from a higher resolution. And there are some reasons why you’d like to have a little extra resolution to spare. But, while more is better, that doesn’t mean it’s necessary…</p>

    <h3>Food for Thought</h3>

    <p>In 2004, Canon’s flagship camera was the <a title="Canon EOS 1D Mark II on Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_II_N#EOS-1D_Mark_II_N">EOS 1D Mark II</a>. That camera, near the top of the line of professional Canon dSLR, offered 8.2 megapixels. It’s successor, the EOS 1D Mark II N also topped out at 8.2 megapixels, and the flagship line didn’t increase until the <a title="EOS 1D Mark III on Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS-1D_Mark_III">EOS-1D Mark III</a> was introduced in 2007 with 10 megapixels.<br>

    Up until a few years ago, 8-10 megapixels was enough for professional photographers the world round. So, although today’s flagship camera offers 16 megapixels and the more recent <a title="Canon 5D Mark II on Wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_5D_Mark_II">5D MK II</a> offers 21 megapixels, these aren’t exactly necessary. It’s nice, but it’s something of a luxury, and often times it’s entirely unnecessary.<br>

    Does that mean you should turn away a high megapixel camera? No, not really… but you can find some few-years-old digital bodies in good used condition for a decent price. If there’s no other reason for you to choose the newer body, you can save yourself hundreds of dollars by buying a slightly less-than-modern camera that offers less-but-enough megapixels.</p>

    High Megapixel Full Frame Camera

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>The megapixel count is a ruse. Unless you plan on blowing pics up big enough to paste on the side of a city bus, there is virtually no advantage to higher MP sensors. If you are printing at sizes around 24" x 36" or smaller, 15 MP is plenty. If you actually read the data and do the research on this topic, you'll find this is true. As a matter of fact, many photo experts are now saying huge MP sensor arrays can be detrimental if you're not careful in your post-processing. Also, there are enormous differences in pixel counts whether you're shooting RAW vs JPEG.<br>

    Don't let pixel counts influence your decisions. My best advice is to take the time to read the research on the cameras you are considering and act accordingly.</p>

    High Megapixel Full Frame Camera

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>The megapixel count is a ruse. Unless you plan on blowing pics up big enough to paste on the side of a city bus, there is virtually no advantage to higher MP sensors. If you are printing at sizes around 24" x 36" or smaller, 15 MP is plenty. If you actually read the data and do the research on this topic, you'll find this is true. As a matter of fact, many photo experts are now saying huge MP sensor arrays can be detrimental if you're not careful in your post-processing. Also, there are enormous differences in pixel counts whether you're shooting RAW vs JPEG.<br>

    Don't let pixel counts influence your decisions. My best advice is to take the time to read the research on the cameras you are considering and act accordingly.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...