Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

David · 7th September 2006, 03:49 AM

OK, it looks like this is becoming the Camera Corner. Definitely a good conversation to have. I do apologize to Pusaka for the theft of this thread, but no one seems to be adding anymore material to the original question.
I agree with PART of what both Alan and Bill are saying. NO, most of you don't need to spend $2000 (or $5000

) for a camera just to take good pictures of keris. But i wouldn't trade my D2X for your Panasonic, Bill, not on your life. First of all, it will take better pictures than the Panasonic because it IS 12.4 mb, so comparing it at a lesser resolution doesn't make much sense to me. But even shot somewhere near the resolution of the 5mb camera i would bet i could tell the difference. You would no doubt have to enlarge and print the image to see it though. There are aspects of depth, density and contrast differences between the two clips which must be taken into account. An even greater advange not only to the D2X, but to any of the SLRs is the whole range of lenses open to you. And nothing will give you better macro shots than a good macro lens, no matter how well built the fixed zoom of your Panasonic may be. I don't mean to dimiss your camera. I know you are able to take great pictures with it. But it all depends on what you are going to do with them. If you are going to print them or use them in publication i would pick the Nikon (or a Canon) SLR anytime.
Bill wrote:
My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports.
Certainly no truer words were ever stated. And a good photographer can take good picture with just about anything. But a nice camera doesn't hurt.

Alan, as for which camera took which picture, this test, with pictures at this size, this is not really a fair or accurate one. If i saw both pictures at the same size they came out of the camera i might be able to tell you more. But i am not even sure if both these shots have been reduced to the same resolution. There are not the same dimensions either. And 75dpi (dots per inch) is not a very good screen resolution for making comparisions anyway (but that's pretty much all computer screens will show you). I would also say that both these shots look a bit over toned (sharpness, color). This doesn't need to be post work, it could just be the camera's default settings.
But if pressed i would say the shot on the right is the D70 pic.

7th September 2006, 03:49 AM	#38
David Keris forum moderator Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Nova Scotia Posts: 7,027	OK, it looks like this is becoming the Camera Corner. Definitely a good conversation to have. I do apologize to Pusaka for the theft of this thread, but no one seems to be adding anymore material to the original question. I agree with PART of what both Alan and Bill are saying. NO, most of you don't need to spend $2000 (or $5000 ) for a camera just to take good pictures of keris. But i wouldn't trade my D2X for your Panasonic, Bill, not on your life. First of all, it will take better pictures than the Panasonic because it IS 12.4 mb, so comparing it at a lesser resolution doesn't make much sense to me. But even shot somewhere near the resolution of the 5mb camera i would bet i could tell the difference. You would no doubt have to enlarge and print the image to see it though. There are aspects of depth, density and contrast differences between the two clips which must be taken into account. An even greater advange not only to the D2X, but to any of the SLRs is the whole range of lenses open to you. And nothing will give you better macro shots than a good macro lens, no matter how well built the fixed zoom of your Panasonic may be. I don't mean to dimiss your camera. I know you are able to take great pictures with it. But it all depends on what you are going to do with them. If you are going to print them or use them in publication i would pick the Nikon (or a Canon) SLR anytime. Bill wrote: My bottom line is that good photographers take good pictures. If you spend more time taking pictures and learning how light, focus, angle and timing impacts your media, you will become a better photographer than if you spend the rest of your life poring over technical reports. Certainly no truer words were ever stated. And a good photographer can take good picture with just about anything. But a nice camera doesn't hurt. Alan, as for which camera took which picture, this test, with pictures at this size, this is not really a fair or accurate one. If i saw both pictures at the same size they came out of the camera i might be able to tell you more. But i am not even sure if both these shots have been reduced to the same resolution. There are not the same dimensions either. And 75dpi (dots per inch) is not a very good screen resolution for making comparisions anyway (but that's pretty much all computer screens will show you). I would also say that both these shots look a bit over toned (sharpness, color). This doesn't need to be post work, it could just be the camera's default settings. But if pressed i would say the shot on the right is the D70 pic.