raspberry pi noir

On 12/5/2014 6:27 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:09:53 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer unless you spend a fortune on equipment.


Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely be a good
photographer.


--
PeterN

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR camera.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which includes the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being able to comptete.


Here is one that has done very well in competitions, taken with an 8 MP

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg

Also see the Ducks comments.

--
PeterN

In article 2014120504330569940-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Whisky-dave:
But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer
unless you spend a fortune on equipment.

PeterN:
Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely
be a good photographer.

-- PeterN

Whisky-dave:
Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera
and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if
you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR
camera.

Now you sound like a megapixelist. Here are a couple of shots from
my very first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix E775 which shot images
using a 2.1 MP sensor.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0701A.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0250A.jpg

Well, to be fair, those are two pretty crappy photos, but that's hardly due
to the camera being only 2.1MP

Here's a shot from the, at the time, professional D1 that has a 2.8MP
sensor:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/horton/130556120/

Outstanding? Perhaps not. But fear not, the Coolpix 775 could take some
amazing shots as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/angela7/80779353/

I think most of the problem with the Coolpix is the pretty poor dynamic
range and poor contrast. Shots needs some post loving

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer unless
you spend a fortune on equipment.

PeterN:
Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely be
a good photographer.

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera
and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if
you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR
camera.

Bull****. 5MP is good enough for any competition. It's not the pixel count
that makes a camera good, it's the sensor.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which
includes the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being
able to comptete.

Neither do I, but that's hardly due to the megapixel count.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-12-08 13:52:53 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2014120504330569940-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Whisky-dave:
But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer
unless you spend a fortune on equipment.

PeterN:
Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely
be a good photographer.

-- PeterN

Whisky-dave:
Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera
and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if
you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR
camera.

Now you sound like a megapixelist. Here are a couple of shots from
my very first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix E775 which shot images
using a 2.1 MP sensor.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0701A.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0250A.jpg

Well, to be fair, those are two pretty crappy photos, but that's hardly due
to the camera being only 2.1MP

They are what they are, a couple of snapshots. There is no attempt at
photographic artistry.

Here's a shot from the, at the time, professional D1 that has a 2.8MP
sensor:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/horton/130556120/

Not exactly an apples vs apples comparison. Two very different cameras
with very different sensors and glass.

Outstanding? Perhaps not. But fear not, the Coolpix 775 could take some
amazing shots as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/angela7/80779353/

She has done a nice job there. My point was, the E775 could capture
useable images with a small sensor of questionable quality and budget
glass.

I think most of the problem with the Coolpix is the pretty poor dynamic
range and poor contrast. Shots needs some post loving

No kidding.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera
and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if
you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR
camera.

Bull****. 5MP is good enough for any competition. It's not the pixel count
that makes a camera good, it's the sensor.

it's the photographer, not the equipment.

these days, some competitions require 6-8 mp or more. stock photo
companies certainly do.

that won't guarantee a good photo but it rules out anything with a low
technical quality only suitable for viewing on a phone.

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Now you sound like a megapixelist. Here are a couple of shots from
my very first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix E775 which shot images
using a 2.1 MP sensor.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0701A.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0250A.jpg

Well, to be fair, those are two pretty crappy photos, but that's hardly due
to the camera being only 2.1MP

Here's a shot from the, at the time, professional D1 that has a 2.8MP
sensor:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/horton/130556120/

actually the d1 had a 10.8 megapixel sensor that binned 4 sensels per
pixel.

the page at nikon's site is no longer there but wikipedia summarizes it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_D1
In a later "behind the scenes" interview published on the Nikon
website[7] it was revealed by the General Manager of Nikon's Imaging
Development Management Department that the sensor developed for and
used in the D1, and subsequently the D1H, actually used 10.8 million
photosites rather than the 2.7 million that had previously been
suggested. This allowed multiple photosites to be grouped together
into units that formed the final pixels in the image, contributing to
the sensor's high sensitivity and excellent signal-to-noise ratio.

Outstanding? Perhaps not. But fear not, the Coolpix 775 could take some
amazing shots as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/angela7/80779353/

cameras don't take the shots. photographers do.

all the camera does is affect the technical quality, not whether a shot
is amazing or not.

I think most of the problem with the Coolpix is the pretty poor dynamic
range and poor contrast. Shots needs some post loving

small sensors have lower dynamic range than larger sensors, all other
things being equal. it's basic physics. there's no getting around that.

In article 2014120807273769610-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a
5meg pixel camera and think of the size of the actual sensor,
you'd be laughed at if you entered in to a competition up
against even the average DLSR camera.

Savageduck:
Now you sound like a megapixelist. Here are a couple of shots
from my very first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix E775 which
shot images using a 2.1 MP sensor.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0701A.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0250A.jpg

Sandman:
Well, to be fair, those are two pretty crappy photos, but that's
hardly due to the camera being only 2.1MP

They are what they are, a couple of snapshots. There is no attempt
at photographic artistry.

Sandman:
Here's a shot from the, at the time, professional D1 that has a
2.8MP sensor: https://www.flickr.com/photos/horton/130556120/

Not exactly an apples vs apples comparison. Two very different
cameras with very different sensors and glass.

Indeed - and below 5MP, which is what drunk Dave was talking about. I
posted the above to support your claim that a low-resolution camera can
take awesome shots.

Sandman:
Outstanding? Perhaps not. But fear not, the Coolpix 775 could take
some amazing shots as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/angela7/80779353/

She has done a nice job there. My point was, the E775 could capture
useable images with a small sensor of questionable quality and
budget glass.

Indeed.




--
Sandman[.net]

On 2014-12-08 15:37:10 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2014120807273769610-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a
5meg pixel camera and think of the size of the actual sensor,
you'd be laughed at if you entered in to a competition up
against even the average DLSR camera.

Savageduck:
Now you sound like a megapixelist. Here are a couple of shots
from my very first digital camera, a Nikon CoolPix E775 which
shot images using a 2.1 MP sensor.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0701A.jpg
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0250A.jpg

Sandman:
Well, to be fair, those are two pretty crappy photos, but that's
hardly due to the camera being only 2.1MP

They are what they are, a couple of snapshots. There is no attempt
at photographic artistry.

Sandman:
Here's a shot from the, at the time, professional D1 that has a
2.8MP sensor: https://www.flickr.com/photos/horton/130556120/

Not exactly an apples vs apples comparison. Two very different
cameras with very different sensors and glass.

Indeed - and below 5MP, which is what drunk Dave was talking about. I
posted the above to support your claim that a low-resolution camera can
take awesome shots.

Sandman:
Outstanding? Perhaps not. But fear not, the Coolpix 775 could take
some amazing shots as well:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/angela7/80779353/

She has done a nice job there. My point was, the E775 could capture
useable images with a small sensor of questionable quality and
budget glass.

Indeed.

Back then the E775 was for me a novelty, and I didn't have an
understanding of many of the issues relating to digital imaging. Most
of my photograph at the time was done with a Yashica Electro 35(I loved
that camera which I had since 1968
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yashica_Electro_35), and a Pentax K1000.
My wife was using a single focus Pentax compact, which did surprisingly
well for what it was.

The convenience of having that pocketable E775 handy, and not having to
deal with film processing was for me revolutionary.
....and even then cars were a target. ;-)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/DSCN0690.jpg

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 12/8/14 PDT, 7:33 AM, nospam wrote:

cameras don't take the shots. photographers do.

all the camera does is affect the technical quality, not whether a shot
is amazing or not.

While the photographer is far more important than the equipment, some
shots are simply not possible without good equipment.

Technical quality comprises some to maybe most of a photo's appeal.

I think most of the problem with the Coolpix is the pretty poor dynamic
range and poor contrast. Shots needs some post loving

small sensors have lower dynamic range than larger sensors, all other
things being equal. it's basic physics. there's no getting around that.

Yeah, you can't beat Mother Nature in the physics class!

On 12/8/2014 8:45 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 5 December 2014 17:24:43 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 12/5/2014 6:27 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 4 December 2014 19:09:53 UTC, PeterN wrote:
On 12/4/2014 8:39 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


But going by some on the NG you can;t be a p[hotographer unless you spend a fortune on equipment.


Very few would say that. And IMHO, few who might, would rarely be a good
photographer.


--
PeterN

Well how can you get a 'good' photo with just a 5meg pixel camera and think of the size of the actual sensor, you'd be laughed at if you entered in to a competition up against even the average DLSR camera.

I really don;t see the quality of a pi camera at 17 quid which includes the lens, sensor is fixed focus and fixed aperature being able to comptete.


Here is one that has done very well in competitions, taken with an 8 MP

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/clark%20gardens.jpg

and that proves what exactly ?


Your claim about 5mp cameras not making decent images is without
foundation in fact.

Have you used a pi camera in such a setting ?



Also see the Ducks comments.

--
PeterN



--
PeterN