Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
lex-ington wrote:I thought the quality of the picture is based on the quality of the lens, not the amount of megapixels, and that the megapixels was for the size of the print and how much info you can fit in that said size?!?!
thegleek wrote:yeah but lex's camera is only 3 measly megapixels.. mine is 8.3+
so i can take that same photo inside of toronto at 3264x2448. wouldnt
that mean my pic would turn out better and high resolution and it would
fit more into the pic as well?
and my camera is rated with this:
Lens 7.7 - 23.1 mm (35 mm format equivalent: 37 - 111 mm), f / 3.5 - f / 3.8; 12 elements in 10 groups
which exactly means WHAT?
lex-ington wrote:I thought the quality of the picture is based on the quality of the lens, not the amount of megapixels, and that the megapixels was for the size of the print and how much info you can fit in that said size?!?!
I know tyhe camera I have has Focal Length: 5.8 (W) – 58.0 (T)mm zoom lens
(35mm film equivalent: 38 (W) – 380 (T)mm) and aperture of f/2.8 (W) – 3.1(T) and shutter speeds of 15 – 1/2,000 sec. How they all work together I guess is the key to taking really good pics.
thegleek wrote:and more importantly:
Focusing range:
Wide-angle: 0.1 m (3.9 inches) to infinity, Telephoto:0.4m(15.7 inches) to infinity
Super macro mode: 0.05 m (2.0 inches) to infinity (from the front of the camera)
which means what exactly?
lex-ington wrote:Your photos are nice evidence that even simple cameras on full-auto can produce damn nice images if the person doing the photographing has a nice eye.That's the stuff I don't understand. What the ISO numbers mean and stuff like that.
The camear has a number of manual settings, but for dodo's like me - it like talking to a chicken - in COW.
lex-ington wrote:Both. A lens captures a given amount of data. It's up to the sensor to sense and store that data. If the lens only produces say 3 megapixels worth of detail, an 8 megapixel camera's not going to gain anything. With a nice lens and a good quality sensor, more megapixels can mean more detail, but only within the limits of the rest of the camera's capabilities.I thought the quality of the picture is based on the quality of the lens, not the amount of megapixels, and that the megapixels was for the size of the print and how much info you can fit in that said size?!?!
FireGryphon wrote:Gleek, you'd get more detail in your pic, but the "area" that you see in the final photograph is a function of the focal length of the lens. A wider lens will yield a larger area no matter the MP count.and my camera is rated with this:
Lens 7.7 - 23.1 mm (35 mm format equivalent: 37 - 111 mm), f / 3.5 - f / 3.8; 12 elements in 10 groups
you have a lens that opens as wide as 37mm with a widest aperture of f/3.5. At telephoto, your lens aperture opens as wide as f/3.8. elements and such refers to the optics between the image and the sensor.
That's correct, in a sense. MP gives you more detail in a frame, but a wider lens will yield more "area".I know tyhe camera I have has Focal Length: 5.8 (W) – 58.0 (T)mm zoom lens
(35mm film equivalent: 38 (W) – 380 (T)mm) and aperture of f/2.8 (W) – 3.1(T) and shutter speeds of 15 – 1/2,000 sec. How they all work together I guess is the key to taking really good pics.
thegleek wrote:and my camera is rated with this:
Lens 7.7 - 23.1 mm (35 mm format equivalent: 37 - 111 mm), f / 3.5 - f / 3.8; 12 elements in 10 groupslex-ington wrote:I know tyhe camera I have has Focal Length: 5.8 (W) – 58.0 (T)mm zoom lens
(35mm film equivalent: 38 (W) – 380 (T)mm) and aperture of f/2.8 (W) – 3.1(T) and shutter speeds of 15 – 1/2,000 sec. How they all work together I guess is the key to taking really good pics.
ok.
now comparing my stats with his stats.
would my camera be able to take the same photo as he did if we were
sitting right next to each other using the same settings?
FireGryphon wrote:Gleek's camera: 37mm-111mm, f/3.5-3.8
lex-ington's camera: 38mm-380mm, f/2.8-3.1
Your lens opens a tad wider, though the difference is probably unnoticable. He has a wider maximum aperture (f/2.8 is wider than f/3.5) so he can shoot pictures in lower light situations than you can (i.e. he can probably take pictures at concerts, whereas your pictures will be darker than his, or more blurred than his). Both cameras have decent telephoto capability, but lex-ington can zoom in much closer with his 380mm zoom.
You can theoretically set your cameras to the same settings (as long as those settings don't exceed 111mm zoom or go under f/3.5). Given similar settings, your sensor at 8+ megapixels will be able to capture more detail than lex-ington's 3+ megapixel sensor. That level of detail will, for all intents and purposes, only be noticable if you take the final photograph and try to print it at a very large size.
The optics (lens) that each camera uses is important, too. In order to really let the sensor capture as much detail as it can, the lens optics have to be very high quality. It's possible that a 3MP camera with good optics can take a cleaner picture than an 8MP camera with bad optics, though one would assume a camera with such a large sensor would be paired with a high quality lens.
So, there's a range where your two cameras can take the same picture, but there's a tradeoff: your camera can capture more detail, but lex-ington has the more versatile implement that can zoom in more and operate in lower light.
liquidsquid wrote:Thats a pretty fair description if how bokeh works. If you want to hurt your brain even a little more you can also add this article to the one above.However if you want to hurt your brain a little, look up "bokeh" which is the label given to how images look when they are out of focus. A "perfect lens", which the R1 has, has poor bokeh, but an imperfect, not as sharp lens can have desirable bokeh.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
liquidsquid wrote:Cool astronomy shots! Tough to get a photo of Saturn's rings without atmospheric distortion taking over. It must have been fantastic conditions!
thegleek wrote:liquidsquid wrote:Cool astronomy shots! Tough to get a photo of Saturn's rings without atmospheric distortion taking over. It must have been fantastic conditions!
yeah, sigh.
doesnt that kinda stuff simply amaze you ppl?
i mean so far away. something so intangible we'll never get to touch
in our lifetimes... yet it seems so physical. so close. sucks eh?
Naito wrote:thanks guys =)
sky was amazingly clear that day, but it was totally freezing....completely worth it tho!
...
I'll try take more pics when I get a proper mount for the camera instead of just free handing it over the eyepiece =)
FireGryphon wrote:Quite easily. Open shutter, do stuff and detect doing stuff and fire a flash. The hard part is timing the event to the flash.Check out these very fast action shots. I wonder how easily pics like these can be taken with a regular camera.
http://my.opera.com/SerbianFighter/albu ... 0&id=27686
smakkythecamel wrote:On another note, I've just finished setting up my Gallery, so feel free to check it out.
http://owen.ausphotos.com