General photography thread [img heavy]

What you see is what you get, including photography, displays, and video equipment.

Moderators: Dposcorp, SpotTheCat

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:40 pm

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?
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:53 pm

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.
. . . this is the digital projection of your mental self. . . .

Darth Lex-idius vs. Obi Lex kanobi
lex-ington
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:56 pm

A quick analysis of photography terms:

The most important thing in photography is the amount of light that gets exposed on the sensor (the 'film' in a digital camera).

ISO: 'film' speed. The higher the number of the ISO, the more sensative the sensor is to light. In daylight, you should use 50-100 ISO. Indoors at night, 200-400 ISO might be necessary.

Aperture: There's a circular opening in front of the sensor that can be large (have a large diameter to the opening) or small (a small diameter to the opening). Higher numbered apertures (i.e. f/16) keep the aperture opening relatively small to let in a small amount of light. Wide apertures (i.e. f/3.5) keep the aperture opened wide to let lots of light in.

Shutter speed: This is the amount of time that the sensor is "exposed" to light, i.e. the scene you're photographing. Longer shutter speeds (i.e. 1/4 of a second or 1 second) expose the sensor ("keep the shutter opened") for a longer period of time and allow lots of light in, but if objects in the scene move during that split second, the image will appear blurred in the photograph. Shorter shutter speeds (i.e. 1/100 or 1/250 of a second) only expose the sensor ("open the shutter") for a short time letting less light in, but ensuring that moving objects blur less in the photograph.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:58 pm

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?!?! :-?


yeah all those numbers and stats are meant to confuse us newbs...

my camera also states:

Digital zoom: 4X (Max.) (12X zoom range with optical zoom)
Camera sensitivity: Auto, ISO 50, 100, 200 equivalent
Shutter speeds: 1 - 1/1250 seconds


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?
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:06 pm

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?


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

which exactly means WHAT?


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.


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?!?! :-?


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.


See my previous post to answer this.

For both of you, check this page out. These are pics taken with the Canon S2 IS camera with some lens converters. Note how the wide angle 27mm lens (top right) yields more viewing area than the stock 36mm lens (top left). Likewise, The telephoto adapter 648mm lens yields less field of view (but more zoom) than the standard 432mm zoom.

EDIT:

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?


Macro photography is when you take pictures REALLY close up. If your lens is opened wide, the lens is able to focus on objects 3.9 inches from the front of the lens. If you're zoomed in all the way, the lens can only focus on things as close as 15.7 inches.

If you want to get REALLY close to your subject, you can set it to super-macro mode which will allow you to focus, probably at full wide, at things as close as 2 inches from the lens.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:11 pm

lex-ington wrote: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.
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.
...
mattsteg
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 15755
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:16 pm

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?!?! :-?
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.

Think of it this way - if you've got a perfect lens and a perfect 8 megapixel sensor, you could cut out a 3 megapixel chunk of it with just as much detail as you'd get from a 3 megapixel camera zoomed in. Of course, sensors aren't equal, high megapixel consumer cameras make tradeoffs to get their pixel count, and the ultimate proof is in the picture you take. Forget comparing camera stats, compare pictures.
...
mattsteg
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 15755
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Applauding the new/old variable width forums

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:21 pm

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.


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?
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:23 pm

I am going to printout this page of explanations and study them, then go picture object hunting on the weekend.
. . . this is the digital projection of your mental self. . . .

Darth Lex-idius vs. Obi Lex kanobi
lex-ington
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:39 pm

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 groups



lex-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?


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 lens, more than three times the zoom capability of your lens.

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.
Last edited by FireGryphon on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 1:43 pm

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.


THANK YOU! finally an awesome answer! thank you thank you.
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 2:26 pm

I HAVE to second gleek's thank you's. The explanations given are really clear.

THANKS GUYS!!
. . . this is the digital projection of your mental self. . . .

Darth Lex-idius vs. Obi Lex kanobi
lex-ington
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postposted on Mon Jan 09, 2006 8:16 pm

I figured I'll throw in the couple more I think is 'kinda' worth putting up here.

I dont know what these are, but they're cool:
Image

Don't know what this one is either:
Image

Moon over Scarborough
Image

Pansies?
Image

I can't wait to go to the Bahamas in July for my family reunion. I'll be getting that waterproof casing for my camera.
. . . this is the digital projection of your mental self. . . .

Darth Lex-idius vs. Obi Lex kanobi
lex-ington
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2920
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:59 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Postposted on Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:32 am

A few Sony R1 shots I put on my site:
Image

This was with ISO1600, and she moved a little:
Image

This image just shows the quality of the optics and sensor pair.
Image

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
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 10:49 am
Location: New York

Postposted on Tue Jan 10, 2006 8:15 am

liquidsquid wrote: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
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.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/bokeh.shtml
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:04 pm

took some pix of dinner at a cuban bistro recently... here's two:

Image
carne asada: mojo marinated grilled hanger steak with rice and chimichurri

Image
tostones: fried plantains with mojo
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:53 pm

My first hack at astrophotography:

Image

Taken with:
4.5" Newtonian telescope
20mm eyepiece with 3x barlow lens
Canon S230 held up to the eyepiece
10 photos stacked together with RegiStax http://registax.astronomy.net/
Naito
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:24 pm

Postposted on Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:26 pm

Cool astronomy shots! Tough to get a photo of Saturn's rings without atmospheric distortion taking over. It must have been fantastic conditions!

Here is a night shot taken with the Sony R1:
Image
liquidsquid
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 10:49 am
Location: New York

Postposted on Sun Jan 15, 2006 10:02 pm

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?
Image
thegleek
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7360
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postposted on Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:34 am

Nah, it's great. If we could reach up and touch Saturn, we'd probably say, "metallic hydrogen, meh" and continue playing Unreal Tournament 2004. :wink:
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:24 am

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?


thanks guys =)
sky was amazingly clear that day, but it was totally freezing....completely worth it tho!

looking thru the scope it seems even more "just out of reach". It was amazing just seeing it hanging there in the sky, like some kind of cosmic fruit ripe for plucking, so close yet so far.

I'll try take more pics when I get a proper mount for the camera instead of just free handing it over the eyepiece =)
Naito
Gerbil First Class
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2003 4:24 pm

Postposted on Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:33 am

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 =)


The cold air temperature can work to your benefit. The colder the sensor in the camera is, the less noise will be visible on a long exposure. Keep that in mind the next time you go out.

That's a remarkable shot for handheld. Astrophotography ftw! Keep up the good work.
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:54 am

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
Sheep Rustlers in the sky! <S> Slapt | <S> FUI | Air Warrior II/III
FireGryphon
Darth Gerbil
Gold subscriber
 
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 7:53 pm
Location: the abyss into which you gaze

Postposted on Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:15 am

All you need is to be able to hook up something that recieves noise and convert that into a burst from your flash (quicker than any shutter actuation)... possibly quite simple since most digital cameras can be hooked up to a PC now.
smakkythecamel
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:16 am

On another note, I've just finished setting up my Gallery, so feel free to check it out.

http://owen.ausphotos.com
smakkythecamel
Graphmaster Gerbil
 
Posts: 1190
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:00 pm

Postposted on Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:56 am

FireGryphon wrote: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
Quite easily. Open shutter, do stuff and detect doing stuff and fire a flash. The hard part is timing the event to the flash.

Usually with shooting something, you can use a normal delay circuit and just have a piece of conducting foil touch something when the bullet passes through it. To fire the flash after that. Timing can either be done by match, or trial and error.

I was thinking of doing some neat stuff when i get my bow up and running again. Shooting arrows at stuff would be fun methinks.
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Wed Jan 18, 2006 7:54 pm

smakkythecamel wrote:On another note, I've just finished setting up my Gallery, so feel free to check it out.

http://owen.ausphotos.com

Those are pretty impressive 8)
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 21294
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postposted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:24 am

Time for a few more shots i think. Havent done much photography this winter as its dark when i go from home, and dark when i get back. Also been sick and stuff like that.

Woke up yesterdat with the sun shining in through the window halv forcing me to take a couple of shots. First time in ages i felt some joy in photography. Theres still something odd with ACR compared to C1 though. I got much better results from C1 without any hassle, probably a profiling issue.

Anyway, here is the results. If you have the time, a comment is always welcome. Couldnt decide if i liked it best in color or black and white.

Image
ACR-Version


Image
ACR-Version


Image
Aphasia
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
 
Posts: 3424
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Solna/Sweden

Postposted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 2:30 am

Dell had a deal on the Canon a620, and my hallmate wanted a new camera, so I now have an a620 headed my way and the a520 will head across the hall to a new owner (with a Benjamin Franklin in return).
Woohoo, 7.1 MP of photographic goodness. I'm excited.


Aphasia, I like the B&W best, personally. At a friend of mine's wedding:
Image
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
 
Posts: 21294
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postposted on Mon Jan 23, 2006 8:48 am

Apahsia, wow, you can see the individual cells n the leaves glinting. You lost me in what your were talking about though, ACR?

BTW I am 90% happy with the R1, but I was hoping for 95%. I get some focusing issues (auto-focuses too far in front) which is annoying since the lens is so darned sharp, and the weird noise in high ISO shots is almost impossible to remove since it is more like hot-pixels. It is a tool that takes a lot of getting used to, but I am reminded constantly by pros how nice this is to have the favorite "walk about lens" attached to a decent body.

I will post a few examples a little later... must get back to work.
liquidsquid
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
 
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 10:49 am
Location: New York

PreviousNext

Return to Visual Haven

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests