What camera to buy? (1 Viewer)

"...[W]hich makes the point that the content of the image has a huge impact on how well it can tolerate being enlarged."

An oft forgotten point, Jay, I fear. It does seem to me that on the Yahoo forum especially there are a few contributors who seem more interested in technical data than the content of the photo itself. Style over content is the way the world's moving, though, that's a fact.

scampo said:

"...[W]hich makes the point that the content of the image has a huge impact on how well it can tolerate being enlarged."

An oft forgotten point, Jay, I fear. It does seem to me that on the Yahoo forum especially there are a few contributors who seem more interested in technical data than the content of the photo itself. Style over content is the way the world's moving, though, that's a fact.

Click to expand...

Which is when you have to ask yourself 'why am I taking these pictures?'

Depends whether your hobby is birdwatching or photography! I suspect that for most people on here it would be birdwatching, with photography and computing thrown in. I love both hobbies and would love to combine the two. When I photograph a bird I would love to see all the feather detail and colours come out. (I have not achieved that yet I hasten to add!!) Most guys will be perfectly happy with a bird sat on an out of focus twig! Thats fine.

I agree with Jay though that focus and detail are very much in the eye of the beholder. What makes a good photograph for me would be quite different from you or him.

I also am a bit of a techno freak. I like things with lots of buttons and features. Not for me these shiney plastic things that do everything for you!! I like proper cameras with lots of settings and gadgets, even if I can't understand what they are all for!!! They will all come in handy one day. Won't they???

I have a friend who really infuriates me, by just carrying everything in an old gas mask case. His telescope is about 50 yrs old, his binoculars came off the ark, and he doesn't even use a tripod. He uses a battered old bean bag. He has just bought a digital camera for around a hundred pounds and takes pictures by pressing it against the eyepiece............. And his pictures are much better than mine. Must be beginners luck. It can't hold out!!!!!!!! He should be barred from the RSPB immediatly for his shoddy equipment!!

We all have a friend like that, Mick - they're a pain bacasue they often look so relaxed to the point of smugness... but who can blame them?

I've been a birder since before I knew it was a 'hobby' as a kid, and took up photography as a young teenager. I've only just begun 'digiscoping', though and just haven't yet been able to find the time for it despite buying the kit!

I'm not sure I agree that sharpness and detail are subjective, though - nor did Jay say that, did he? Certainly, composure and exposure are the keys to a good photograph for me rather than having a zillion pixels to brag about.

scampo said:

I'm not sure I agree that sharpness and detail are subjective, though - nor did Jay say that, did he? Certainly, composure and exposure are the keys to a good photograph for me rather than having a zillion pixels to brag about.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that. But I do believe that the perception of sharpness is - to some extent at least - subjective. The test image I mentioned demonstrated that to me. They were of the very same subject (a house) but were framed almost identically. But they were taken at different days in the year and at different times of day. The extra resolution offered by the CP5000 was obvious to me, but I figured to get an outside view. My friend, a partner in our 3D graphics studio and a person who often has a more critical eye than me chose the CP995 image as the image that looked better. When I pointed out specific areas where it was clear that the CP5000 image held detail better, he agreed. But nonetheless, when simply viewing the large images (printed as large as I could fit using my Epson 1280 on A3 paper), the lower resolution image had more visual "pop" and seemed the clearer and sharper image.

BTW, you can replicate the test yourself by downloading the pics here. I'm pretty sure I used the house images from the "far field test".

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C5000/FULLRES/C50FARLF.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/C995/FULLRES/C9XFARGF.HTM

And while having a zillion pixels won't make a photo good, I can't imagine how having a bunch could ever make a picture worse. There is an investing concept that I think applies here as well. "Quantity has a quality all its own."
This can be seen to some extent in large format pictures. While I'm not thrilled with the composition I'm very happy with other aspects of my attempt to go a bit nuts on the quantity side of things with this composite image.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woodpeckers/GilaWide_SM.jpg (350KB)

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woodpeckers/GilaWide.jpg (1MB)

So this might make an interesting very large print, but won't be nearly as interesting at 10" wide - which is why I've made the images available at sizes so large that you'll probably have to scroll the image to view it all. And this brings us full circle to Mick's opening point. Its important to ask yourself why it is that you are taking a particular picture. That is a huge help in deciding what kind of approach to take.

""Quantity has a quality all its own."

I like that - sounds very American to me. I have an image of lots and lots of lovely doallars, Jay! But pounds will do for me...

Those are cracking pictures Jay, I like it/them a lot. Although I think this probably proves a point, which is in my estimation the smaller picture appears to my eyes much clearer and sharper. The larger one, because the bird and flowers are much enlarged, highlights the depth of field more. Making the buds at the back seem more out of focus. Which isn't so apparent in the smaller of the two.

Which I think is the point I wanted to make. If you are looking only at the bird, its a cracking picture and the bird pin sharp and a credit to any photographer. Thats wearing my birdwatchers hat. If I were being more critical and looking with a photographers hat on, I would probably criticise the overall sharpness including the cactus and flower. QED

Anyway I think somehow we are (or I have) led us away from the original topic of which camera he should buy...... hehehe. Poor chap must have now gone away completely dumbfounded!

Bye the way is that a dead pixel or a fly???

Jay Turberville said:

While I'm not thrilled with the composition I'm very happy with other aspects of my attempt to go a bit nuts on the quantity side of things with this composite image.

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woodpeckers/GilaWide_SM.jpg (350KB)

http://www.jayandwanda.com/birds/woodpeckers/GilaWide.jpg (1MB)

Click to expand...

Great picture Jay!

I am interested in how you took that picture. Composite... do you mean that you took the cactus part on the right after you took the pic of the bird and then stitched the images together?
Did you use your Rubinar Maksutov for this picture?
Maybe this should split into another thread...

Cheers, Jens.

scampo said:

""Quantity has a quality all its own."

I like that - sounds very American to me. I have an image of lots and lots of lovely doallars, Jay! But pounds will do for me...

Click to expand...

Well your comment got me wondering. It never occured to me that the statement was particularly American. So I did a little web research and found that I was very wrong on the origins of that statement. I somehow confused the context but remembered the quote. The original statement was from Stalin to Lenin regarding Russian tanks. Apparenlty their WWII tanks weren't particularly good, but they did have a lot of them.

jebir said:

Great picture Jay!

I am interested in how you took that picture. Composite... do you mean that you took the cactus part on the right after you took the pic of the bird and then stitched the images together?
Did you use your Rubinar Maksutov for this picture?
Maybe this should split into another thread...

Cheers, Jens.

Click to expand...

Basically it was three strips. One high, one middle and one low. Images were taken on the left and on the right side of the bird. The final image is 8000 pixels wide and used 10 images. The process is basically the same as the process that many people have been doing for some time with panoramic/landscape images. The image still needs some work.

Jay Turberville said:

Basically it was three strips. One high, one middle and one low. Images were taken on the left and on the right side of the bird. The final image is 8000 pixels wide and used 10 images. The process is basically the same as the process that many people have been doing for some time with panoramic/landscape images. The image still needs some work.

Click to expand...

Thanks Jay,

you have some incredible detail in the flowers and the bird but the out of focus cactus spikes looks "fringy". Did you use the Astro Rubinar for the shots? I am consedering a 500/8 macro Rubinar to adapt to my C5050 but I have no idea of how well it may perform. I was also thinking it might be handy if I ever upgrade to a dSLR.

Cheers, Jens.

jebir said:

Did you use the Astro Rubinar for the shots? I am consedering a 500/8 macro Rubinar to adapt to my C5050 but I have no idea of how well it may perform.

Click to expand...

The images that make up the "panorama" were taken with the Swarovski ATS80HD and 20-60x eyepiece. This combo does exhibit color fringing in out of focus elements. The fringing can be so pronounced as to create the appearance of double images, though it usually isn't that much of a problem. Lately I've been cycling back and forth between the two "scopes". Each has its strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the Rubinar is virtually free from any chromatic aberration. But the ATS80HD seems to have a bit more "pop" to its images (and is a superior birding scope, of course).

If it were me, I'd look at the 500/5.6. Its larger, but I'd guess the larger aperture will give you better contrast.