Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Photo Critiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Apr 17, 2005, 10:18 AM   #11
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

photosbyvito wrote:
Quote:
but it does have more MPs, which equal more detail to work with...and from my experience, you can't beat a dSLR RAW image..and, if you have it, why not use it?
FWIW, for macro work, sometimes a digicam is a great choice. That's one of the areas that they tend to excel in.

Of course, it depends on the size of your subject, what kind of lens you have, etc.

If your subject isn't too small, and you've got a decent macro lens (i.e, 1:1, etc.), then the DSLR can capture a lot of detail.

But, for very small subjects, a digicam can be better.

To explain... Let's suppose you're taking a photo of an object that you can "fill the frame" with using a 2 Megapixel Digicam with a great macro mode.

If you have to take that photowhere it only fills half the frame with your DSLR/Lens combination, you'd need 4 times the resolution to capture the same amount of detail in pixels per inch with your DSLR versus the Digicam. IOW, you'd need 8 Megapixels with the DSLR, just to match the 2 Megapixels of the Digicam in this scenario.

Why? Because resolution, like area, is computed by multiplying width x height. So,if you crop an image to make it look like twice as much optical zoom is used (or you were half the distance to your subject), you end up with 1/4 the original resolution.

In addition. because of their smaller sensors (allowing much shorter focal length lenses), you have far greater depth of field for any given aperture, subject distance and 35mm equivalent focal length. This makes it much easier to get what you want in focus without the need to stop down your apertureso much.

That's probably one of the reasons Steve uses Nikon Coolpix series cameras to take product photos for reviews (even though he's got a DSLR). They'regreat forcloseups.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...amp;forum_id=2

Of course, depending on how much background blur you want/need, the size of your subject/portion of the frame you need it to occupy, the lenses you have available, etc., you just pick the best tool you have for the scene (and for many smaller subjects, that may be the digicam versus the DSLR).

Heck, after seeing all of these flower photos, I decided to charge a set of batteries I've got for an old Coolpix 950, so I can get out and take some myself (I put them in the charger a little while ago).

I've kept this camera over the years (even though I'vesold a number of other cameras I've owned), just for macro work. It can "fill the frame" with a subject that is less than 3/4" across with virtually no distortion, since the macro "sweet spot" is at around half zoom.

It may be lower resolution, and itdoesn't shoot inRAW, but it's my tool of choice for closeups.

Heck, I don't even own a DSLR right now. I prefer the size and weight of smaller cameras. When I *really* need the benefits of an SLR, I use film (and that's not very often for my shooting needs). The last time I used an SLR was for a friend's wedding. Even then,I got tired luggingthe cameras and lenses around after the ceremony and switched to a little Konica digicam I've got for many of the photos I took at the reception.

Now that I've got that off my chest (sorry for the speech :-) ), I agree that RAW is better for exposure purposes, and if your subject size isn't too large for lens you've got available (so that you don't need to croptoo much, and in this case, it was probably fine), then sure, the DSLR is best.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2005, 10:45 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

photosbyvito wrote:
Quote:
but it does have more MPs, which equal more detail to work with...and from my experience, you can't beat a dSLR RAW image..and, if you have it, why not use it?

i don't really think downsizing should be an excuse for soft images...

that's what USM is for...

just my opinion..

Vito


Vito take no offense here, but why does everyone seem to want to have sharp images of flowers, some of my shots I have deliberately made softer for the effect. However it seems to be seen as a fault in the photo.
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2005, 10:56 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

hey jim...that's true...but i'm not talking about macro capabilities..

i have a canon powershot G2 and a 300D...and, looking back at the images from my G2...i'm dissapointed with the quality...and it's only 2 MP difference..

it's the sensor size that effects my definition of sharpness (not edge contrast, but visible discernable detail)

i may not have used the good prosumers...but what i have used, there was more noise than detail..

julie...soft-focus macros are nice...but i don't think that's what rodney was going for here...

if he was, than i'll take back my comments..

Vito


photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2005, 11:04 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

I was not really referring to Rodney's shot, it's just an observation that people seem to think a flower must be sharp, thats all:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 18, 2005, 1:51 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
RodneyBlair's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 966
Default

photosbyvito wrote:
Quote:
hey jim...that's true...but i'm not talking about macro capabilities..

i have a canon powershot G2 and a 300D...and, looking back at the images from my G2...i'm dissapointed with the quality...and it's only 2 MP difference..

it's the sensor size that effects my definition of sharpness (not edge contrast, but visible discernable detail)

i may not have used the good prosumers...but what i have used, there was more noise than detail..

julie...soft-focus macros are nice...but i don't think that's what rodney was going for here...

if he was, than i'll take back my comments..

Vito
Wake-up, Vito! I run a softening action in post on most of my flower shots. LOL

The overall image here is a bit soft because I wanted it that way, but the detail is there. The petal edges are sharp and defined. As much detail in the flower can be seen as I intended. This little flower has very little detail to begin with. If I were to make any adjustments, I'd increase the contrast for more clarity. Otherwise, it is exactly what I was after.

I'm a people photographer...That is what I am paid to do. I have no interest in shooting flowers. I'm shooting flowers for compositional practice only so it isn't likely I'll render an award winning image. Bad weather has prevented many attempts with the early spring flowers so now I'm waiting for the tulips.

Rodney

Rodney
RodneyBlair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2008, 3:14 AM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2
Default

HI
Just got a old Canon G2 as a hand Me down. My 1st digicam. Any help ful hints/tips?...I know it's an old cam, but got it for free so any advice would be welcome. thanks. YaSin
YaSin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 4, 2008, 7:53 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 136
Default

Rodney, glad to see you around! What about those portrait and composition advice or minilessons you were bringing to us?

It is interesting your posting of this flower since it stirs debate. I've seen wonderful pictures of flowers in your gallery..and you posted this one precisely? Haha, I think you are an excellent motivator!
artmustel is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 5:33 PM.