Re: A simple question...


"What?" <eh@?.net> wrote in message news:21t0cu.dv3.19.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Nothing much has changed, anything above a base ISO is problematic,
sometimes you have no choice, but if you think that the full ISO range
that you can dial up are actually valid then you are deluded. Just about
all reports for anything less than full top shelf professional cameras
mention ISO noise problems. Read some reviews.

In a sense, yes. My FZ50 gets bad above about ISO 200. The Nikon is
supposed to be excellent up 800 and not bad up to 3200.
No it doesn't, the FZ30 is eight and the FZ50 is ten.

That's right. I was thinking of the lenses (both are 12x Leica zooms) and
said megapixels instead. My bad.

But not really usable ISO settings.

I shot some stuff at 3200 and it wasn't terrible.

With the D60's kit lenses?

With the 18-55 VR, yes.

Why? If you noticed a huge difference between the FZ50 and the Nikon D80
with a couple of kit lenses you must be a pretty poor photographer.
Having a D3 won't make you a better one, look at the crap RitaRded puts
out.

Huh? I am talking about the overall sharpness of the pictures. I agree, a
better camera does not make a better photographer. I am not talking about
anything other than resolution. I can see a significant, noticeable
improvement in detail. That has nothing to do with my skills.

You seem to be one of these wannabe photographers who thinks photography
is about the equipment. It isn't, it is about the photographer. If you
couldn't take high quality photos with an FZ30 or FZ50 then you will
never take good photos.

Again, I was talking specifically about resolutuon and detail.

Read this and maybe you'll learn something:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

He makes some good points, but misses some others. For example, how many,
if any, of those trying to reproduce Ansel Adams' work were shooting with a
large format view camera like he did? I know that a better camera will not
improve things like composition. The larger sensor does make a difference
in things like depth of field.

Ironically, what Rockwell says is not unlike what I have said to others.
But equipment does make a difference.

--
Jennifer Usher


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Has anybody compared 350D to 20D?
    ... I've never thought the results from my 20D at ISO 1600 needed ... > None of the guests bothered to ask why I threw that big black camera ... for a while, and a few Olympus 35mm cameras over the years and a film Rebel, ... crappy photographer, not because the camera is lame. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: D3 vs D700
    ... Your camera doesn't matter a bit when it comes to seeing a photograph, ... A great photographer *can* make a great image with any camera, ... Limitations like shutter and mirror noise that scares wildlife so you only ... Investing a small fortune in lenses and then ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: D3 vs D700
    ... Your camera doesn't matter a bit when it comes to seeing a photograph, ... A great photographer *can* make a great image with any camera, ... Limitations like shutter and mirror noise that scares wildlife so you only ... Online psychotics are like that, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: A beginner question
    ... of calculating exposure times of astronomical objects ... ISO values with dim astronomical targets is rarely advantageous. ... because the important components of noise are amplified at the same rate ... When I looked at the question concerning a magnitude 5.8 object on a terrestrial camera, I had no scale to equate this to daytime photography. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Camera Choice for Sailing
    ... than the higher ISO in the Fuji! ... Hammacher Schlemmer over there because they sell a Fuji and have ... I use common sense to keep the camera dry, ... That superb lens on the Pana ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
Quantcast