Not that expensive. IR filter can range from 40 to 200 but it can be time consuming during pp.
DNP0i$onou$ Clubh0us3 - TCSS Thread XVII
- Thread starter ZerocoolAstra
- Start date
Not that expensive. IR filter can range from 40 to 200 but it can be time consuming during pp.
kriegs, I printed an 18" x 12" (slightly larger than A3) image from a full-res CMI shot (or near enough to full size after some slight cropping).
Looks pretty sharp
cost me abt $20.
That's cool! Nice to know that it is still pretty sharp. Btw, I did pop this question to the pros on sat... you know what they told me? 4MP for A3 size is already enough... :sweat:
To me, 4MP seems insufficient.
I guess the lesson of the day is that "enough" is a very subjective word
To me, 4MP seems insufficient.
I guess the lesson of the day is that "enough" is a very subjective word
You tell me! Adds more fuel to the confusion...
You tell me! Adds more fuel to the confusion...
The target audience determines the requirement I guess
1) somewhere in the deep recesses of your HDD
2) 4R print
3) A4 print
4) A3 print
5) banner
To me, 4MP seems insufficient.
I guess the lesson of the day is that "enough" is a very subjective word
You tell me! Adds more fuel to the confusion...
The target audience determines the requirement I guess
1) somewhere in the deep recesses of your HDD
2) 4R print
3) A4 print
4) A3 print
5) banner
hahah.. in theory wise.. anything more than 3MP is more than enough for normal photo print.
But then this all depends on what is your likings.. Person preference and taste. Each different holds a different opinion of clear, sharp or nice of photos, banner, advertisement etc. Generally, most people are not aware that MP for normal print up to A5 is actually more than enough thus camera making take this chance to smoke all of them into thinking the more MP the better it is. But how many times would you really need to super enlarge ur photo to a large extend. The answer is usually no unless you are working in advertising company, printing company or your work needs it.
Been said that 3MP is more than enough, majority of the population do not know these technical aspect so people have the mindset that the more MP the better it is. But its not really a need for majority of us. Most of the time its because of what we wanted. Like our grandparents, handphone photos are super sharp and nice to them but to us we view it differently. On the pc itself, we see it quite sharp but there are people who are anal about it will zoom past 100% to see it and they will start complaining about not sharp, grainly etc.
All these boils down to each and every one of our opinion of Sufficient or "enough" like what Kevin has mentioned. Ooops.. i think i type too much.. =X kinda of naggy..
icicix.. but camera body is a factor to consider if according to what some of you say pertaining to light sensitively right? so if your camera body cannot shoot well in IR. there might be a need to buy another body or certain stuff to cater to it. o.0??
Lunch break isit? So eng.... :bsmilie: Just ribbing ya.
Yeah it boils down to individual preferences ultimately... But having a larger MP isn't a crime... imaging you don't have a super zoom... but your subject is so far away... it helps doesn't it? After cropping, you might end up with 4MP worth of data... (hopefully still usable)... :bsmilie:
Yeah it boils down to individual preferences ultimately... But having a larger MP isn't a crime... imaging you don't have a super zoom... but your subject is so far away... it helps doesn't it? After cropping, you might end up with 4MP worth of data... (hopefully still usable)... :bsmilie:
lolx.. ya lunch break.. heheh..
yap.. no harm having more MP. Like i say, depends on what you do lor. Majority of the population won't do cropping or enlarging so end up always kena chop by camera company. hahahha...:bsmilie:
we different ma, we also got crop, stretch all these, MP does matter to us. to the common people it does not really matters.. this is wad i think..
Let me just add one pt..
1. Depend on Size of Print, there is a mini number of pixels that will be required (this will also depends on the DPI/PPI requirements)
2. (the Pt) After you have the minimum number of pixels or megapixels, any increase in the megapixels DO NOT HELP if your LENS/SENSOR do not have the optical quality/resolution to fully optimise/utilise those extra pixels.. which is why there is a difference between the image quality of a 10Mpixels simple Compact & a 10Mpixels DSLR.
Here's what I've learn from the lesson I've attended... It's best that you shoot with a wider angle (landscape) than zooming all the way in without any need for cropping... For the former, you can have your way of cropping exactly what you need, even if it's down to 4MP from 12MP worth of image - it's still usable... As for the latter, sure you can zoom in to exactly what you want. But there is a bigger risk that you might unintentionally crop off more than what you can chew... (signboard in the background cropped, finger tips, feet end, hands, etc)... As such... larger MP here helps without a need for too close a zoom/tele. So for a football match... 200 to 300mm is just nice for the FOV...
Last edited:
Yeah... the critical point here is Sensor size.... of course, when we talk about MPs here, I think it's safe to assume that we're refering to DSLRs alone... Normal PnS??... If they can even handle speed and background bokeh control with ease...
Last edited:
Sounds like a good mantra to follow
For me, I would say without hesitation that 8 or even 6 MP is sufficient for my needs.
What I'm more interested in is colours, tones, dynamic range, and details.
High ISO performance is a bonus though I rarely require it.
Sounds like a good mantra to follow
For me, I would say without hesitation that 8 or even 6 MP is sufficient for my needs.
What I'm more interested in is colours, tones, dynamic range, and details.
High ISO performance is a bonus though I rarely require it.
Well, the "very pros" may have a different mantra to follow altogether... :bsmilie: If you are able to capture exactly what you want (even closely cropped), then what's stopping you from doing just that? What I've heard maybe more appropriate for the newbies / those who are just barely starting out / not completely pro yet...
Well, yes - I'm greedy for high ISO performance, but for the moment I need to compromise. No point having a high performance body when you don't have a good-enough tele/zoom to boot. Might as well, concentrate on getting a good close-up image first, then fund a good tele/zoom... THEN finally a good FF body... Which is why I'm reverting back to a crop body...
High FPS for me isn't really that critical now either... What counts is perfecting the timing! I rather have more usable shots at the end of the day than having to go through zillions of shots just to pick out the usable ones...
Last edited:
Meaning to say, you need more reach than what your bamboo can offer on a crop body, with TC too?
I would advise against getting another crop body, if your ultimate intention is to go for a FX body. Just more $ loss along the way. Unless you really feel that your D90 CMI for what you are trying to achieve...
Question, is there anyway one can obtain higher focusing speed even with the TC on? I find AF-ing with TC a-okay with D90, just that for even faster actions - it would help if AF is dramatically improved. Will getting a better body achieve that?
Once you mount the TC, your max aperture is affected, right? i think the loss of light affects the AF system.
really not sure if a more high-end body will help.
sure why not? But there aren't any fast-moving objects inside NSC
Once you mount the TC, your max aperture is affected, right? i think the loss of light affects the AF system.
really not sure if a more high-end body will help.
sure why not? But there aren't any fast-moving objects inside NSC
The slower AF using TX was expected, no surprise to me. Okay for normal sporting events. But a bit slow for ultra fast moving objects.
Just wondering the extra boost of fps from using bat packs on higher end bodies would translate to extra power into the lens motor.
Good point about lack of fast moving objs maybe should reroute to it show for testing. Pan moving people lolz.
ultra fast-moving? You mean F1 cars?
I think they don't expect the camera's AF to keep up with the car's speed ba.
Someone once said that he pre-focused (yes... MF) to a spot on the track where he wants to photograph the car. Then track the movement and 'bam!' when the car is at the spot.
I think they don't expect the camera's AF to keep up with the car's speed ba.
Someone once said that he pre-focused (yes... MF) to a spot on the track where he wants to photograph the car. Then track the movement and 'bam!' when the car is at the spot.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
