Heeelllllllpppppppp!!!!!!
- Thread starter Aleman
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
A T
Regular.
Hold on, it's a camera and it takes pictures, right? 2 grand and all it does is take pictures? Am i missing something here? :wha:
Vossy1
Landlord.
A .....24+million pixels.....where do we stop :wha:
At some point these are going to have to come with a disclaimer saying if your eyesight aint xx/xx you wont see the benefit
At some point these are going to have to come with a disclaimer saying if your eyesight aint xx/xx you wont see the benefit
Vossy1 said:A .....24+million pixels.....where do we stop :wha:
At some point these are going to have to come with a disclaimer saying if your eyesight aint xx/xx you wont see the benefit
When you print images at 3 feet by 4 feet, the more pixels the better. In many ways one of the things that still disappoints me with digital is big prints. I can do a partial enlargement of a 35mm negative, and get great quality, but interpolating from my 10MP camera does not get me anywhere close, and don't get me started on the quality of 5 by 4. . . . . In fact there's an idea I can get a Scanning Back for the 5 by 4 - 150MP!! . . . only snag is that it takes 2 minutes to take an exposure.
Vossy, Hasselblad have just produced a new back for their digital Medium Format which has 50MP, and Phase One have a 35MP back for a Mamiya 645 - If you have to ask you can't afford it
AT - yes all it does is take pictures . . . . And it does it really well. If all you are doing is looking at them on a computer monitor then all you need is a 1.2MP phone camera, but try printing that 1.2MP image at 3 feet by 4 feet and you need something a bit more specialised. Couple the A900 with the 85mm f1.4 Lens, and I can shoot Hand held at 1/8 - 1/15th Sec, and get noise free (more or less) images in near darkness . . . can't do that with a mobile phone cam . . . Which is good for theatre work and 'Atmospheric' arty shots like this
shot at 1/8th @ ISO 800, and the original colour image has an incredible amount of 'noise' . . . I'd really love to be able to shoot this sort of thing at ISO 100, but that would mean a 1 second exposure . . . and it wouldn't be sharp (the blur in that picture was deliberately added by the way
)You NEED that cam Aleman. Don't fool yourself thinking that you don't because you do. In fact i'm surprised you haven't internally combusted or something. Go buy it right now, if you rush you just may get it in time to save yourself. There's simply no point in saying you want it when you really really NEED it.
Hey! Shush. SWMBO might be listening and i've been banned from using those two characters together in our house. :lol:
The D3 gives me a woody. To be fair so does the sony Alpha 900. I reckon they'll bring out a D3 with more pixels though. They use sony's sensor anyway. The only issue i have with the D3 is the weight. My kit is heavy enough with my telephoto's, wide angle's, filters etc. The D3 would make it even heavier. Which isn't an issue with studio work but i do nature photography and light is good. Heavy is bad. SWMBO had a fit when i purchased a manfotto carbon tripod just recently. To be fair she had a good arguement-when was the last time we spent money on her. I couldn't actually remember.
The D3 gives me a woody. To be fair so does the sony Alpha 900. I reckon they'll bring out a D3 with more pixels though. They use sony's sensor anyway. The only issue i have with the D3 is the weight. My kit is heavy enough with my telephoto's, wide angle's, filters etc. The D3 would make it even heavier. Which isn't an issue with studio work but i do nature photography and light is good. Heavy is bad. SWMBO had a fit when i purchased a manfotto carbon tripod just recently. To be fair she had a good arguement-when was the last time we spent money on her. I couldn't actually remember.
Vossy1
Landlord.
Good point, but you'll have to help me out next time by saying you make very large images :lol:
