Mark: That is your best photo to date. How many images did you use? I need some help with the program for some unknown reason the final photo is a blurred image of the individual shots even though the camera is on a tripod and I'm using an automatic cable release. Stay cool and run steam.....
I think this one was 4 images. I then brightened it a drop or two with the editor. BOB- What did we do on the phone, I didn't write it down on using the lariat.
Mark: What phone.... We right clicked the "whatever" and you could paint with it. I can't get four images to form a composite photo. All I have are four blurred images stacked. That's using a tripod and automatic cable release.. Stay cool and run steam....
This photo is using all the features of PaintShop Pro 10 to enhance the image using the Coolpix 4300 and a 13.4 "f" stop. Stay cool and run steam.....
It is a very nice picture, but please don't compare it to the image of mine. That was a snapshot(Actually four), no tripod, no shutter release, no special lighting. The picture was taken not using highest resolution of the camera, and even the resolution it was taken at was dumbed down to make it web friendly. If you notice it is Roughly 30% larger and the file size 30% smaller then the one you posted. The quality tends to suffer somewhat when going through the transformation. This thread was never meant to call into question the quality of the output of a DSLR. It was more to question the reasons for buying a DSLR. I think I have pointed out that most of the features available on a DSLR are now available on good quality Point and shoots, leaving the picture quality as the only deciding factor. Now don't get me wrong for some applications this is the only thing that matters, but if all you are going to do is post internet pictures and web work then maybe you don't really need to spend $2000, hence the question why buy a DSLR?
"It is a very nice picture, but please don't compare it to the image of mine." Mr. Crowley- You're the best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan, You are 100% correct that a DSLR is overkill for typical Web work. Those of us who have more demanding work are literally forced into the DSLR world these days. Everything's digital--if I shot film, I'd just have to have it digitized. But some images demand film-like quality. I directed a shoot recently with the decontamination foam used to clean buildings after anthrax exposure--how many shades of white can you capture? This is D2X territory. I directed the shoot, so the photographer had the D2X. I don't need to go there yet. This movement to digital is OK by me, as my equipment paid for itself almost immediately. And it's OK for the serious photo hobbyist--the so-called prosumer--because they appreciate the results. My problem right now is that I can't justify buying a Lumix or Canon to take shots of my railroad! There are places on my layout where a DSLR won't fit, but a smaller camera would. I wish I'd never sold my Minox! I highly recommend this new breed of camera for all but the most demanding applications.
I certainly never meant the remark to sound like that. I feel your image is very good and much softer then the image I displayed. My remark was made to imply it would not be fair to judge the Lumix image with what I posted. Taken out of context my remark is quite distasteful. I apologise to you and others who took my remark this way. It was not meant to be arrogant, I was actually justifying why the image color and texture of my picture seemed much harsher then the image you posted. I truly believe the image you posted had a much better look to it then what I had done. I should have been more careful how I worded that. I didn't think somebody would take it out of context like that, and spin it on me. It was certainly not meant to be delivered that way Cheers.
Dan: Unfortunately that's the way that sentence came across to anyone who read your post. Stay cool and run steam.....
Dan- I appreciate what you wrote and my shattered ego has now been reconstructed. All is again well in Peaceful Valley. What I should have done is written to you directly about the above and not used my tongue (fingers) as my sword.
My comments were written poorly and came across 180 degrees from the intent. PSG has confirmed this as he took it the same way you did. it should have read "It is a very nice picture, but please don't compare it to the image of mine, because my image was taken hastily, and the output of the camera dumbed down to make the image web friendly." My picture is a poor example of what the Lumix is capable of. That was the intent of my response. I am glad we got that straightened out.!!!!
My reason for a DSLR is the lenses. I need macro capability, long telephoto capbility, and fast indoor capability. I can't find a non interchangeable lense camera that can meet those needs. What's more, over time the technology change is in the sensor, not in the lense. I've got $1000 in camera, and $2500 in lenses. When I buy my next $1000 camera (which will have 10 times the resolution et all) I can reuse those $2500 in lenses, and not have to junk them because they are "integrated". Canon and Nikon have used the same mounts for 10's of years, where even the point and shoots with interchangeable lenses often only use the same lense for a model or two. Now, if only I could find an excuse to buy that D5...
Leo: I can't use the $2500 worth of Canon lens I've had for years in a new Canon DSLR camera. They totally incompatible. Stay cool and run steam....
Bob- You can use most, if not all, of your old Nikon lenses, but they will not have any of the automatic functions that are on the D70s. They will work fine in manual mode, though. That is what the book with the camera states.
Mark: I don't have any Nikon lenses. I have many Canon lenses going back quite a few years. The best lens is a 1:1 macro lens with a ring and point light. It's rendered useless with the new DSLR technology. Stay cool and run steam.....
What kind of lenses do you have? Canon switched to the current EF mount in 1987, so that's 18 years ago. Any EF lense works on the current bodies, although some have reduced auto focus capabilities for the older lenses. Even before that, the FD lenses can work on an EOS body. No autofocus, but the lenses didn't have that then, that gets you back all the way to the early 1970's.
Leo: All my Canon lenses from macro 1:1 to telephoto lenses all have the FD mounting. Stay cool and run steam........
Ok, this is getting far afield, but.... FD's are old, very old. I don't mean that in disrespect, but nothing lasts forever, no matter how much you spend on it. As good as they were at the time there is much better out now for much cheaper, such is life. But, all is not lost. There are ways to mount FD's to EOS bodies. Basically, there are two types of adapters. There's a non-optical adaptor ring, which is easy to find on ebay (search FD EOS) that generally runs $20-$40. You lose infinity focus, but for macro that's rarely an issue. There's also a number of "teleconverter" (I think it's like 1.3:1) optical adaptors. They work only with some FD lenses (they interfear with some), but retain infinity focus. You can also find them on ebay (same search), but they are much more rare, and might set you back up to $100. There's a useful faq at http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/ Now, all that said, I'll come back to my previous post. No lense will last forever. Doesn't work that way. What I'm trying to do is move away from single use (normal point and shoot) or maybe 2-3 use (some of the more advanced point and shoot) lenses to something I will use significantly longer. I expect to get 10-20 years from my current EF lenses. I own a Rebel today. I think I may by an Elan to play with film. One day I will own a 5D (or later full frame senor > 12MP model). Will they last forever? No. I'm sure in my lifetime I'll have to junk them and start over....but I think I'll still get more bang for the buck over all. Of course, if all you care about is film, and don't care about the latest auto focus enhancements you're FD's continue to work fine on your old bodies. You can use them for another 40 years probably, 35mm film will be around forever. So in that sense you're still getting your monies worth. My advice, buy a new Rebel XT kit, and start collect EF lenses. I suspect within 10 years we'll see 20MP under $1k, which means at home you can take a digital image which is magazine (full page) quality. Really, what more do you need? I think EF (or, Nikon w/Nikkor lenses) will get us there no problem. Will there be a follow on? No question, but you can use it for years after they introduce such a thing.
