What Camera to Buy

[Colin Southern]

The Leica or any other MF camera cost a lot more but will not necessarily render much better images than that of the D800, for the specific application. The Nikon will allow much more freedom of use than a MF camera. Combined with 14-24 F2.8 and 24-70 F2.8 lenses Vyas should be able to do a very decent job.

+1 to that!

Not tooooo long ago I compared some key specifications between a 35mm DSLR and a medium format DSLR (usual stuff like ISO ranges, dynamic range, shutter speeds, AF performance) and to be honest, it was actually quite shocking at how under-whelming the medium format camera was. My conclusion was that in most areas the 35mm DSLR absolutely hammered it, and in only a few areas (like pixel count and colour depth) did the MF camera excel - and I suspect that 99.9% of people would see any real-world advantage from those few areas. To me it summed up as "an awful lot more money for something that in most real-world / general photography areas would actually produce an inferior result to a 35mm DSLR.

Edit - Just for fun, I compared a D800 with a Hasselblad and a PhaseOne (don't know how current or old the two MF cameras are, but I suspect that the latest wouldn't be THAT much better)

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compa...___792_585_456

[Inkanyezi]

I will make an attempt to visualise the relatively small impact that mediocre image quality has on an image viewed from 7 metres distance by showing one that I once upsampled in order to demonstrate the ability to put very large images on a webpage with severe constraints. On that page it is not possible to upload images larger than 2 MB, while compressed jpegs of full size from a camera mostly are from 3.5 MB. This image is 48 megapixels, but saved in a destructive format, jpeg, with low quality, in order to fit into the constraints. On a screen with 0.25 mm pixel pitch, as most of our screens, when it is displayed in 100 %, it is two metres wide. The image is 8000x6000 pixels.

So if you open it in its own window or tab in your browser, you will see the entire image in small format on the screen, inside your browser. By clicking it with the enlarger symbol, it will be displayed in pixel-peeping mode, at 100 %. You will then only see a small portion of the image on the screen, as the entire image will be 2m x 1.5 m. It will have 16 pixels per square millimetre, just as your screen, which is about 100 PPI, a reasonable printing resolution for this size of image. You may also download it and display it with any program that shows jpegs. To open in its own window or tab, right-click and choose "Open link in new window/tab". Then to download, right-click and choose "Save image as". You can also right-click in the thread and choose "Save link as".

There is not a lot of detail in this image, as it could not have much detail to be constrained to 2 MB. The part of the image that will show you most might be the little coffee cup with flowers. If you look closely at it, you will find that there are also small bubbles where the coffee surface meets the wall of the cup, and those will hardly be seen from seven metres when the image is displayed at 100 %.

I think the best part where to see what image quality to expect from an image like this, severely lossy compression and upsampled from 12 megapixels, would be the flowers on the little cup. The easiest way to get them 100 % is to put the mouse over that part and click. Most browsers then centre the full size image where you had the mouse.

So you will see what a 12 megapixel camera does even with hands tied behind its back, and if you look at the 100 % image from seven metres distance, you see what quality it would make printed two metres wide. Don't evaluate the 100 % image at normal viewing distance for the computer screen, but back off to seven metres, and see if the flowers look reasonably sharp as well as smooth. A full frame camera does a better job, any full frame camera. A good printer and less compression of lossy type (or no compression) also enhance quality. I still believe that any full frame camera will produce a satisfactory result.

Would you like a cup of coffee? :-)

[jcuknz]

LOL Colin .... end of a hard day in the workshop and my brain mistook feet for metres Hard day for me is all of three hours drilling and tapping holes .....
I am sure the engineer is laughing too and it makes the situation much better for him The answer is correct but the item is wrong ... no wonder Nikon is so good
reworking gives me 35Mp for the area.
I saw your idea of a moving light as a solution for lighting an auditorium, it worked well, and wonder if you have any examples of using it ... my experience is long ago with the USAF plane and flash so I have two possible problems ... reflections off a car from stationary light sources and the build-up of noise with longer exposures. That fourty minute exposure you made and showed us recently ... was that digital or film?

[Colin Southern]

I saw your idea of a moving light as a solution for lighting an auditorium, it worked well, and wonder if you have any examples of using it

I tried it once with the director of a movie I was shooting stills for; from a lighting perspective it was OK, but not one of the shots we ultimately ran with.

The first shot here is with the regular studio strobes/softboxes, and the latter just with the torch.

That fourty minute exposure you made and showed us recently ... was that digital or film?

Digital all the way for me.

[BUGSBUNNYBOSS]

I am astonished by the way this thread has gone. When starting the thread, I honestly never thought it would be so helpful. thanks mainly to the members of this forum. Really appreciate everyone's comment (cannot mention all the names!).

I had a long discussion with my boss, portraying the points shared in this forum. The result - he is almost convinced to use a professional now.

If not for the company, I have decided to learn photography for myself. With a good community like this, I think it should make my life easier. I'll start posting my photos soon, and with your C&C, I think I should do fine.

[Manfred M]

I am astonished by the way this thread has gone. When starting the thread, I honestly never thought it would be so helpful. thanks mainly to the members of this forum. Really appreciate everyone's comment (cannot mention all the names!).

I had a long discussion with my boss, portraying the points shared in this forum. The result - he is almost convinced to use a professional now.

If not for the company, I have decided to learn photography for myself. With a good community like this, I think it should make my life easier. I'll start posting my photos soon, and with your C&C, I think I should do fine.

That suggestion makes the most sense. Get someone who knows what they are doing and you will have much better results that from someone just learning photography. A signed non-disclosure agreement and transfering all of the photographer's work to the company as the terms and conditions of the contract will protect any trade secrets.

[Colin Southern]

That suggestion makes the most sense. Get someone who knows what they are doing and you will have much better results that from someone just learning photography. A signed non-disclosure agreement and transfering all of the photographer's work to the company as the terms and conditions of the contract will protect any trade secrets.

+1 to that.

Just a caveat to that though, "take the time to seek out the RIGHT professional". Some of the "professionals" I know of I wouldn't trust to even do drivers licences. So be sure to check out their work thoroughly beforehand.