On Photography

Oct 12, 2012 20:47


Read more... )

Leave a comment

zebrallama October 13 2012, 08:25:49 UTC
"it's amazing how quickly the digital age puts a 2, 3, 4 year old camera to shame"

Are you sure? I've got a Canon 40D, which is pretty damn old these days, and I can't see a single thing I'd like to upgrade about it. Well, except that I'd quite like one that takes videos. So maybe I've just ruined my own point.

Reply

rinalia October 13 2012, 16:15:36 UTC
Well maybe "to shame" wasn't quite fair - I imagine it depends on what you want in a camera.

I have the EOS 40D and 20D. I'd like a full frame camera (I miss that) and I'd like more megapixels and I'd like HD video. So the EOS 6D and better are what I want, but not what I can afford right now.

I still love my cameras, but I don't feel film cameras advanced annually the way digital ones seem to do...which could be seen as either positive or negative! :)

Reply

zebrallama October 13 2012, 21:29:42 UTC
I totally get your comparison with film cameras, where the technology was more stable.

More pixels? REALLY? I've NEVER missed having more pixels on my 40D. (I've also got a 50D but I prefer the 40D.) All the reviews I've read say that more pixels give you no improvement in image quality at all unless you've got a $5,000 lens. As for full frame, I'll have to take your word for that. And I do understand wanting video.

If you sold both your 40D and your 20D, that would just about pay for a second-hand 7D (APS-C + video), which is what I'm aiming for.

Reply

rinalia October 13 2012, 21:52:03 UTC
Yep, really! I have to translate my photos to poster-size and larger. More megapixels help with that. That's been my personal experience, anyways. I don't want a Mark III because it has a bazillion megapixels, though.

For most of my what I do, no, having more pixels than my 40D or even my 20D isn't going to IMPROVE my photography...but it would give me more flexibility with what my organization can DO with my photos.

Full frame (35 mm) is nice, especially for appropriate wide angle shots...and their ability to work better at higher ISO (which is helpful for photographing rescues and the animals in lower light/in barns/etc w/o flash). I've played with a Mark II and loved it.

I'm at a place where I really need two cameras. I've gummed up my lenses and my camera sensor too much by having to remove and change in the field. Having two cameras is great when I'm outdoors trying to get a landscape and a portrait of an excited calf, kicking up dirt.

I'll get there someday.

Reply

zebrallama October 14 2012, 10:29:47 UTC
Interesting. Thanks. Now I understand why you need two cameras. And why more pixels might be better for you ... although I still think that the 50D's photos are no better than the 40D's, no matter how much you enlarge them. But that might not extrapolate to other cameras.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up