Lol, I wasn't expecting to jump into the forums so fast. Still reading tons of threads while I wait for my tank to arrive
. However photography is near and dear to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkoD
mega pixels and image stabilization are unrelated. image stabilization is important when the light is low and you need to use a longer shutter speed.
also image stabilization is useless for any kind action photography. generally when shooting action a high shutter speed is used. and any shutter speed thats higher than 1/focal length makes the stabilization useless and could even work against you if you're panning
|
Very true.
When IS/VR was first becoming more mainstream (incorporated into more lenses and bodies) I used to get a chuckle at the marketing ads. They often portrayed moving subjects and the "claim" clearer/sharper images. The one I remember most was of a dog (Border Collie I think) jumping into the air and the shooter capturing the hang time
No "IS" sample showed an image of a leaping dog suffering motion blur
With "IS" sample showed a tack sharp dog.
wonderful marketing
play to peoples heart strings to open their purse strings. I hope that marketing exec got a good bonus that year
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ross
I agree except for the 1/focal length.
For those not using full frame sensors, it's 1/(focal length * multiplication factor)
(1.6 on canon and 1.5 on nikons)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkoD
Yeah the crop factor is the focal lenth.
100mm lens on a 1.6 is 160mm focal length. So 1/160
|
Not "technically" accurate but yes true enough. The resulting image gives you the "same" field of view as though shot with a focal length of 160mm, which isn't quite the same as if it were shot at 160mm. If your at the back of a room, 30 feet from a large window (full frame sensor) and someone then removes the larger window and installs a window half the size (a smaller sensor) all thats changed is how much you see through the window (hence "cropped")...the window itself is still 30feet away. A crop sensor really just has a smaller frame and doesn't "increase" focal length in the most common understanding ("magnification")
To the original comment by Ryan.
Depending on the body itself, it could very well be newer technology as to why it takes as good or better images. Too many people get caught up in MP counts. Canon (and I believe Nikon as well) have finally come to realize that more isn't always better. The flagship "PnS" the G series, they've reduced the MPs from 12MP (G10 I believe) back to 10MP (G11) understanding that there are limits and that you can get a cleaner/better image, especially when dealing with even smaller sensors as found in PnSs.
While not entirely accurate (there are subtle benefits to more MP) for the most part, the average person really doesn't need more than 8MP. Ive got 19x13 prints from my "old" 8MP 1Dmkii that stand up very well against my 17MP files. For the average person who would most likely most often print nothing larger than 8.5x11 and 8MP file is plenty. I have more covers shot with my MKii (8MP) than I do with my mkiv (17MP).