digital combinations

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. You guys have been a great help to me and I am sure other lost sheep.
    When a screen was not big enough I would show them on a wall.
    you take one with your 200mm lens.

    Yes a direct comparison would be helpful.
    be printed commercially for a magazine aim for more).
    dots per inch. There's a massive difference!
    make up your monitor screen.

    1280x854, which should be 854 pixels divided by the width of the
    screen.
    number of pixels below a few screenfulls so I have room to crop.

    I take from this that I am trying to crop down to a final that has more
    pixels than my viewing screen.

    It looks like the web site resolution is greater than most screens so I
    guess I could shoot for a cropped size of about 100 dots per inch to
    leave a little cushion.

    With screens now being offered at 2560 by 1600, no telling what they
    will be in the next few years.
     
    -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-, Dec 7, 2004
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. As for the example with prints. I must confess I never use them. You
    For a good 15" computer screen, you'll need 1280x1024 or for a really
    good screen 1600x1200. Even with the really good screen, you still
    only need 2 Megapixels. Anything beyond that will increase the
    clarity of the picture only minimally (if that, depending on
    software).

    So if you shoot full frame with the same lens and take two pictures,
    one at 3Mpix and one at 4Mpix, they will look the same.

    Alternately, if you have an 8Mpix camera, you can use roughly the
    middle third and still get as a good a shot as possible.

    This should help you figure out when you need an optical zoom and when
    you can crop the picture afterwards.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 15, 2004
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. The cheapest Apple monitor is 1680x1050 - the high end is 2560x1600
    pixels native resolution = 4 Mpixels (30 inch)

    Don't think Apple is as bad as the PC world, they are a market
    leader, at least in innovation and best products.
    I do not agree. On a standard PC screen (1600x1200 unless you
    got a cheap LCD at 1280x1024) it will make a difference if you
    scale a picture to 2/3 or to 1/2 of original size. Generally, the
    more you resize down (with the sharper algorithm in Photoshop), the
    better the small picture will be.
    Wrong. Resizing down helps a lot.
    The important thing is still the lense and the sensor size.
    The big sensor size of dSLR gives less grain than film at high
    ISOs. Compact cams are worse than film.

    I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 15, 2004
    #23
  4. I mostly use my dSLR and CanonL / Sigma EX lenses for hobby usage.

    Do you find that the added quality of the L lens makes a difference
    with the DRebel? My guess is that the quality difference between the
    mid-line Canon lenses and their high-end lenses is masked by the
    limitations of the sensor, but I'd like to know for sure.

    Any experience one way or the other?

    Thanks.

    -Joel
     
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Dec 18, 2004
    #24
  5. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    JC Dill Guest

    I can only compare with Canon lenses, but I saw a large jump in image
    quality when I went from the 75-300 lens to the 70-200 L lens on my
    300D.

    jc
     
    JC Dill, Dec 19, 2004
    #25
  6. Went from Canon 75-300mm to Sigma EX 100-300mm f/4 HSM. What I got was
    a bigger heavier lens, but no purple fringing, not even on an antenna
    against bright skies. Clearly sharper images with more details. Very
    fast auto-focus. Got rid of my 75-300mm. I thought of keeping it for
    travel (size/weight issues) but decided I would not be happy with the
    quality.

    6 Mpixels is about as good or better than most film cameras will
    be able to give you.

    Recently upgraded to the 20D.
    Side by side there is lots of difference, and especially with tele
    lenses. The cheap 18-55mm from Canon is ok at f/8, so I am not
    sure it was worth it for me to get the Canon 17-40 f/4L. But
    I have not used it much yet, so a decision is still to be made.
    I would like more WA, like Sigma EX 15-30, 12-24 or maybe the
    Canon 10-22mm (which I do not really like because of bad corners)
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 19, 2004
    #26
  7. -oo0-GoldTrader-0oo-

    JPS Guest

    In message <F9Ywd.3209$>,
    1) If the camera is the main resolution bottleneck, then a teleconverter
    get get more out of the optics, if you desire a narrower field of
    view.

    2) Even if the lens itself can resolve more line pairs per unit of
    measure than the sensor can deliver, such sharpness can be
    appreciated in terms of the contrast of the highest resolution the
    sensor itself can resolve. The higher the contrast, the snappier the
    images, and the less sharpening that is needed, sharpening the noise
    in the image less, as well.

    3) Many of the non-L lenses (and even some of the L lenses) are the main
    limiting factor of resolution, especially wide-open, and/or at the
    unoptimized end of a zoom range.
    --
     
    JPS, Dec 23, 2004
    #27
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.