WTB a Camera

[RTN_H8ter]

Na its gotta be on your end probably a PC thing.  Those pictures are fine I can blow them up to over 22inchs wide and they are still clear as a bell.  But then again, I'm using a little larger monitor than most and by far a better computer.

LOL Not a PC thing, as I am not useing a pc. Mickis photos in her thread are the same, its the forum, its compressing the images. Same on my 24" iMac, Mini with a 21" viewsonic, Mini on a 60" DLP, and my crappy Acer running Vista.

Did they look ok when you saved them?

I'm just trying to help him display the images as good as possible. Maybe I am a little Anal abotu image quality.

[slandis3]

LOL Not a PC thing, as I am not useing a pc. Mickis photos in her thread are the same, its the forum, its compressing the images. Same on my 24" iMac, Mini with a 21" viewsonic, Mini on a 60" DLP, and my crappy Acer running Vista.

Did they look ok when you saved them?

I'm just trying to help him display the images as good as possible. Maybe I am a little Anal abotu image quality.

You seem like a fairly technical guy. Maybe you should host a meeting showing us how to crop pictures and post them so they look better. I know I could use some help. 

[RTN_H8ter]

You seem like a fairly technical guy. Maybe you should host a meeting showing us how to crop pictures and post them so they look better. I know I could use some help. 

I am a Technical Guy, not like I used to be though. I would love to meet you in person, maybe in a month or so we can all meet up!

[slandis3]

We are still looking for a host for December's meeting.

[rayk]

Microsoft Live.COM has 25 gig of space for free, and you can load whatever size image you want.  It will resize if you want, but you can load the full size if desired.

~Rayk

[Seano Hermano]

Maybe becuase the d40 and d50 are their lower end products? But still no excuse for that on a camera of that price. My inlaws have a d70 and d90. I love both and they hold up really well. Are far are canon bs nikon. Usualy it's just prefernce, then once you amass a lens collection you are locked into that brand.

Yes actually. The smaller numbers are the lower quality/cheaper cameras. The high numbers are the better, usually more expensive ones.

[kattz]

I just happened to notice this thread...  I shoot with a Nikon D2H and a D2Hs.  Both are 4.3 Mp cameras.  I enjoy watching the "experts" on DPreview talk about Canon vs. Nikon, and about megapixel counts.  Both of my cameras take excellent pictures, and I'd put my images up against anyone with the latest Nikon or Canon product.  The LBCAST sensor in the D2H and D2Hs had the best color accuracy and pixel quality / performance of a Nikon imaging chip in any generation until the Nikon D3 came out.  However, the camera is very noisy at higher ISO settings.I can't comment on Canon, as I don't use their product.  My wife shoots with a D70.  I can tell you that one of the semi-pros in the Cincy area put my Nikon up against his Canon (full frame, not sure of the model), as I let him use it for a wedding shoot over a weekend.  He now shoots with a D3 due to color rendition, flexibility of the Nikon Lighting System, and ease of controls over whatever he had; this is his opinion, not mine.   Today's cameras are awesome.  But the picture is only as good as the person behind the camera and the post-processing activities.  My $0.02 worth.  BTW, both of my camera bodies are up for sale to help me afford a refurb'd D3.  I've shot with Nikon and Mamiya since I was about 8 years old.  For the price of a digital back for my Mamiya RZ-67 I used to own, I could afford a mid-90's Porsche 911.  So the RZ is loooong gone.

Kev

[TechGuy]

I just happened to notice this thread...  I shoot with a Nikon D2H and a D2Hs.  Both are 4.3 Mp cameras.  I enjoy watching the "experts" on DPreview talk about Canon vs. Nikon, and about megapixel counts.  Both of my cameras take excellent pictures, and I'd put my images up against anyone with the latest Nikon or Canon product.  The LBCAST sensor in the D2H and D2Hs had the best color accuracy and pixel quality / performance of a Nikon imaging chip in any generation until the Nikon D3 came out.  However, the camera is very noisy at higher ISO settings.I can't comment on Canon, as I don't use their product.  My wife shoots with a D70.  I can tell you that one of the semi-pros in the Cincy area put my Nikon up against his Canon (full frame, not sure of the model), as I let him use it for a wedding shoot over a weekend.  He now shoots with a D3 due to color rendition, flexibility of the Nikon Lighting System, and ease of controls over whatever he had; this is his opinion, not mine.   Today's cameras are awesome.  But the picture is only as good as the person behind the camera and the post-processing activities.  My $0.02 worth.  BTW, both of my camera bodies are up for sale to help me afford a refurb'd D3.  I've shot with Nikon and Mamiya since I was about 8 years old.  For the price of a digital back for my Mamiya RZ-67 I used to own, I could afford a mid-90's Porsche 911.  So the RZ is loooong gone.

Kev

I'll give you one thing, the Canons color rendition in saturated environments, sucks. And bad. All of my coral pics require a touch up, and its annoying. I can't speak for the older Nikons, but the newer Nikons I have used (D70, D40) suck. Slow to focus, soft focus, poor focus, poor metering. Just bad all around, and not just with the kit lense. 

MP does matter, and greatly in certain situations. It sounds like you have pixel envy :p. But seriously, its easier to crop a high res photo. It gives me the option of not zooming quite so much, so I can crop, and straighten a photo. Plus anyone who thinks an 8x10 @ less than 8MP looks good, well, get some reading glasses. My shots are ALWAYS level, but the subjects aren't always level. The last wedding I shot was a perfect example. I spent hours fixing photos because it was outdoors, and the altar was a -1.5 degrees off.

As far as High ISO noise, they are all noisy. Canons post processing is great though, although it is ridiculously slow.

I enjoy all the "Pros" who are stuck on film Nikons (which rocked Canons socks!), trying to adjust to the new all digital world. When I took photography we used 35MM Nikons, and wow, just wow. Great bodies 10 years ago.

The key here is this. Its not an Apples to Apples comparison in my "pro" (pro-sumer?) experience. Everyone looking for a new pro, or SLR should go out and try all the offerings. Several places rent bodies, some with ridiculous prices (and deposits) some without. Do some research on the lense you will need for the type of photography you will do most, rent both bodies, and lenses. cameralenserental.com is awesome, and fairly local. I use them all the time. My last rental was for a 28-70 f/2.0, and 70-200 f/2.0 IS, one week for $155 shipped both ways.

[kattz]

Yeah, Chris, the IS lenses are great pieces of glass, and in my opinion, maybe better than the Nikon ED glass.  Actually, I don't have pixel envy at all.  I've always been a voracious defender of the LBCAST sensor; the D2X used a horrible sensor.  The LBCAST pixels are larger than the higher megapixel CMOS units in Nikon's later offerings.  My wife's D70 shoots great snapshots, but is slow and the user interface just sucks the hind mammary unit something awful.  Focusing and metering run at a snail's pace. 

Both of my D2-series units run at 8 fps, and the focusing is lightning fast.  The Matrix metering on the D2Hs is better than the D2H, and both cameras are highly-intuitive to use.  I love the full weather-seal on the bodies.  Plus, IMO they fit the hand better than the Canon offerings. 

I generally don't print at anything larger than 13 X 19, so my cameras work fine.  If I'm going larger, like for a photo contest, then I use Genuine Fractals, and it works out great.  I just wish I could shoot at the ultra-high ISO's with the low noise levels that the D3 runs at.

I miss the film cameras sometimes. I started out with a Mamiya 32B 35mm cloth shutter SLR, and then went to the F1; used, built like a brick outhouse.  I had an F3HP, an F4s, an F5, and used an F100 as a throwdown until I went digital.  I started out in medium-format using a Rolleicord TLR, then a Rollieflex, then moved to the Mamiya M645, followed by the RB- and then the RZ67.  Medium format was too expensive and I couldn't support the costs, so they all went in the closet.  Out of all of these cameras, including my Nikon glass, the Mamiya-Sekor lenses were just... superb.

These days, I often see people shooting with high-end DSLR's, and don't even know what an f-stop or depth of field even is.  They just bought it 'coz they were jonesing.  You know the type.

We outta get together and talk cameras someday.  BTW, I don't shoot for a living or to make money, and avoid taking pics of people.  Don't like it.  I prefer nature and architecture.

Kev