Things look different when shown from the sky
http://www.biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=824
Nice find.
Amazing photos!
Picture of my cat! http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=293906555&size=l
Ya Thorin, some of those pictures are pretty amazing. The first time I saw them I believe was on a blog done by the actual photographer. He was one of those guys who flew in a news chopper and over his career he captured them. A different perspective for sure.
Quote from: Shayne on November 22, 2006, 09:29:04 AM
Picture of my cat! http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=293906555&size=l
Ya Thorin, some of those pictures are pretty amazing. The first time I saw them I believe was on a blog done by the actual photographer. He was one of those guys who flew in a news chopper and over his career he captured them. A different perspective for sure.
Haha, that's one sleepy kitty!
Quote from: Mr. Analog on November 22, 2006, 09:38:07 AMHaha, that's one sleepy kitty!
Ha Ha, ya, I'm sure he was less then impressed. I have been experimenting a lot with my new camera. Don't want to take many crappy pictures while in the Dominican Republic.
Picture of my cat!
(http://www.strangesoft.net/jasper2.jpg)
Favorite picture I ever took with my little 250$ 3.2MP camera. Too bad the old roomate stole it.
Ahh. Mine was with a $1500 10.2MP DSLR :P
And you can't tell the difference ::) Just kidding... it's very crisp.
Yeah, that picture of Shayne's is quite nice. Though could you tell the diff (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/) if mine was taken with a 5MP or 8MP camera?
Uh, its more about sensor size, and i would be willing to be my sensor is MASSIVE in comparison to the little 3.2. While an 8MP compact and a 5MP compact with the same sensor the differences might be nil, a compact to my DSLR is extremely large :)
Tell you the truth, I was very pleased at the clarity I got with my camera in that picture. Of course my camera made it a little difficult sometimes as its auto focus and tracking couldn't be turned off. but hey, I got some nice pictures out of it till a couple of my HDs died, took most of my photos with them, and my last roomate stole my camera.
I have no doubt. I have taken some fantastic pictures with my Sony 5.1 that i picked up 2 years ago:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=227396372&context=set-72057594064086714&size=l
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=99482881&context=set-72057594064086714&size=l
I just got to a point when taking pictures that I was no longer being limited by my skill or my eye but the equipment I was using.
I can totally believe it.
Those are some nice pictures :) I didn't get much actual photographing in sadly. I really wanted to do more. And I ended up loosing the pictures I did take :(
Quote from: Tom on November 23, 2006, 06:10:15 PM
Yeah, that picture of Shayne's is quite nice. Though could you tell the diff (http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/21pogues-posts-2/) if mine was taken with a 5MP or 8MP camera?
Mr. Pogue tells-it-like-it-is, tech-wise.
Quote
...five megapixels is plenty for prints up to smallish poster size.
Now, every time I write that, I hear from furious or baffled readers. "I don't get it," wrote one. "A ten-megapixel camera produces photos about 3640 pixels wide -- enough to make a 12-inch print at 300 dpi (dots per inch) on a good printer. Sure, you can go lower, but quality is sacrificed; you can't make an 11?14 print, let alone anything bigger."
I have to say, the math sounds right. But I also have to say that he's wrong.
On the show, we did a test. We blew up a photograph to 16 x 24 inches at a professional photg lab. One print had 13-megapixel resolution; one had 8; the third had 5. Same exact photo, down-rezzed twice, all three printed at the same poster size. I wanted to hang them all on a wall in Times Square and challenge passersby to see if they could tell the difference.
Even the technician at the photo lab told me that I was crazy, that there'd be a huge difference between 5 megapixels and 13.
...we ran the test for about 45 minutes. Dozens of people stopped to take the test; a little crowd gathered. About 95 percent of the volunteers gave up, announcing that there was no possible way to tell the difference, even when mashing their faces right up against the prints. A handful of them attempted guesses -- but were wrong. Only one person correctly ranked the prints in megapixel order, although (a) she was a photography professor, and (b) I believe she just got lucky.
I'm telling you, there was NO DIFFERENCE.
This post is going to get a lot of people riled up, I know, because in THEORY, you should be able to see a difference. But you can't.
And I'm hoping this little test can save you some bucks the next time you're shopping for a camera.
PS: :o 312 comments on this baby! Controversial subject, megapixel count is.
What you really should be looking at is sensor size. My Sony DSC-W1 has a pretty respectable sensor for a point and shoot at 7.18 x 5.32 mm compared to my Nikon D80's 23.6 x 15.8 mm
Quote from: Shayne on November 24, 2006, 10:52:45 AM
What you really should be looking at is sensor size. My Sony DSC-W1 has a pretty respectable sensor for a point and shoot at 7.18 x 5.32 mm compared to my Nikon D80's 23.6 x 15.8 mm
Agreed, here's that Dan's Data article (http://www.dansdata.com/gz059.htm) about megapixels and sensor size.
You also have to look at what you're doing with the camera. My Coolpix 990 took some very nice daytime landscape shots, owing to it descent size sensor. However, it lacks image stabilization and a good ISO rating (only 400), so taking night or low light shots without the flash was nearly impossible, and even with the flash they weren't always the best. Plus, as Shayne pointed out to me, the camera was bulky, which made it difficult to take into clubs reguarly. So you have to look at multiple factors and see what fits you.