sptHappy?
I was never unhappy thanks; merely attempting to clarify an issue raised in this thread. I stand by what I wrote, which was similar to the explanation offered by Robbo amongst others, but with the qualification below.
Magnify: to make (a thing) appear larger than it is, as with a lens.
A photographic example of magnification as defined above might be enlarging a 35mm negative to print from it. The print image is physically and apparently larger than the negative. It has been magnified.
However, consider a 400mm lens that may be mounted on both a 35mm camera body and a DSLR. The image it projects on the film plane or sensor plane is the same size in either case. What is different is the area of image recorded. Therefore, a subject such as an aircraft, will fill more of the sensor recorded image area than the film recorded image area. Thus it will appear larger in the sensor recorded image and is thus magnified by the terms of the definition above. It is however in reality, no larger physically than the same subject in the film recorded image. Only the cropping effect of the smaller sensor makes the subject appear larger.
This works in reverse with a medium format image. If the same 400mm lens could be mounted on a medium format body and brought to focus, the same subject would appear smaller because it occupies proportionally less of the larger image area, although in reality it is still the same size as in the examples above.
So the magnifying effect of a typical consumer DSLR is real but is a product of our visual perception of the image, not of a physical increase in size of the image, hence my use of the word apparent.
sptThe current 1DS2 is widely regarded as superior even to medium format film:
I have never seen any reference to the 1DS2 being superior to medium format apart from in Canon advertising (I think), but thanks for the link. I will follow it up. I regularly visit this site but must have missed this!
As to such an assertion in Canon advertising; excuse my cynicism, but they would say that! Anything that can help a potential customer rationalise parting with £6000 for a 35mm style camera body, that is not a ‘collectable’ Leica, and from the evidence of some of the other posts on this thread may not even prove to be that reliable anyway, has got to be worth a try!! £6000 will, after all, buy some good medium format film kit.
While I can understand that the absence of grain in an image from this camera may be on a par with a medium format film image, I find it hard to believe that it can compete with the subtlety of tonal gradation that medium format film yields, and that it can give the detail possible from medium format. I would be of the opinion that the sensor size is too small for those medium format qualities. However, I am open to convincing, so thanks again for the link.
To get back on thread; equipment and technique are the essential tools to make good images and there is some sound advice posted here. If I can offer anything else, it would be to practise, and to practise more, and more….and to constantly look at other photographers work. Not just pictures of aeroplanes either. Try to appreciate why some images appeal and ‘work’ for you, while others do not and put what you learn from this appreciation into your images.
Be your own harshest critic too. Do not accept second best; only show what you consider to be your very best work, but do try to work out what went wrong with images that you reject. It is also often helpful in this process to review images some months after they were taken. The passage of time reduces the emotional link with the event photographed and makes objective decisions about successful and unsuccessful images much easier.
Hope this is some help.
sptAs for adding to your shutter speeds to go along with the ‘zoom’ factor, that makes sense for the simple reason that DSLRs produce images that exceed the level of detail found in negative film, so minor shake that wouldn’t show up on film can do on digital. A little extra safety on the speeds does not therefore go amiss.
Huh? Surely this cannot be the case? Granted the new 16MP Canon is probably close to film quality images (and so it ought to be at the price!!!), but from evidence I have seen, the typical consumer DSLR is some way short of film quality images. My 4 year old film scanner can yield 25MB 8 bit, or 50+Mb 16 bit, images from a 35mm frame and is good enough to resolve the patina and texture of the paint on an aircraft if the image is properly focussed. I have yet to see images from a DSLR that can do that.
Also, as I understand, the typical DSLR sensor is of the Bayer type and uses four pixels to resolve one detail point of a particular RGB colour value (one red, one blue and two green sensitive pixels, if I remember correctly?) Thus the true resolution of a 6MP sensor is actually 1.5MP in terms of the actual discrete points of detail that can be resolved. Film on the other hand is a continuous tone imaging medium and the limiting factor on resolution of detail is more to do with the resolving power of the lens and the quality of the subsequent processing and printing.
Screen images from a DSLR undoubtedly look better than the average machine print from negative, but this is down to the generally poor standard of mass market machine printing and not because consumer a DSLR yields more detailed images. I also think that JPG files sharpened in camera probably give an illusion of better detail because of the way the sharpening accentuates dominant detail in an image; e.g. aircraft panel lines. Any actual advantage of consumer DSLR image quality over film image quality is only in the minds of marketing departments (they want you to buy the camera remember!), and in the perfectly natural tendency for the new digital camera owner to want to believe that their new expensive toy is better than the old one.
I await the brickbats!!!!
sptRobbo,
Not if you are using a 400mm fixed focal length lens in both cases.
I still think it’s same picture, less periphery. I know when you zoom, you cut out this periphery, but on a fixed 400mm, the ‘Spitfire’ you are shooting will be the same size in both cases – (I agree on the digital it will have less perifery and will give the impression of a zooming effect!)
Regards
Michael (Ludite in photographic terminology!)
Yes this is correct. The typical DSLR sensor is smaller in area than a frame of 35mm film. Therefore, at a particular focal length the a DSLR sensor effectively crops an image compared with the same image on 35mm frame. Thus, a subject such as an aircraft appears to fill the image frame better at a given distance from the camera with a DSLR, than with a 35mm SLR, assuming both have the same focal length lens. Exactly the same effect can be achieved by cropping the 35mm frame. The magnification effect is apparent, not actual.
This also explains why DSLRs need a good quality lens. The resolving power of the lens has to be good because the apparent larger size of the subject invites closer inspection and thus the failings of a lesser quality budget lens are more apparent (and, of course, cheap machine printing of 35mm tends to mask such shortcomings too).
sptDespite further stringent defence budget cuts, deliveries of the Eurofighter Typhoon finally start……
sptI also for various reasons would never recommend anybody touch an Epson printing product, unless – and it’s a big unless – it’s one of their big professional multi-thousand pound jobs.
The cheaper end of their range are very prone to blockages in particular, and don’t like being used infrequently.
As I understand, the technology in the large professional market Epson printers is broadly the same as in their consumer market printers. I suspect the only reason that printing results differ is because of the user. Professional users will have a colour managed workflow; home users frequently do not and often do not appreciate the need for such. No inkjet is quite the simple turn key printing solution for the amateur user that manufacturers would suggest, although some are better than others in this respect.
An appropriate analogy might be that the photo quality inkjet is equivalent to a colour darkroom set up. It is ideal for the committed serious photographer who wants control of the whole image making process, who is prepared to invest time and money in learning how to get the best results, and who’s aim is a relatively small portfolio of high quality prints.
However an inkjet is not a device for churning out lots of snaps. In this role it is expensive, often slow, and demanding of a good deal more time and knowledge than the average user is prepared to commit just to print a few pictures. Far better to take the camera memory card, or a CD of images, to a lab and let them do the printing.
I have experience of a number of Epson printers; Photo Stylus 700, Photo 1270 and Photo1290. All are capable of giving superb results, far better than the bog standard lab machine print. I have not had any particular problem with head blockages, but then I only use Epson OEM inks. Incidentally, never ever buy these from ‘high street’ stores; far too expensive! On line retailers are significantly cheaper. Neither have I had any problems arising from infrequency of use apart from ink consumption. If used only occasionally, Epson printers go through a head charging routine when switched on. This consumes ink. I doubt that the ink evaporates. Any apparent loss of ink is probably down to this head charging.
Oh yes, and for what it’s worth, I would recommend an Epson printer….. on the basis of my experience and from the knowledge that a lot of other serious amateur photographers and professional photographers also rate them highly. We can’t all be wrong? There are other technical reasons too. I’ll ignore these for now, but I’m happy to set them out in a follow up reply if there is any interest.
sptA vote for the erstwhile opposition-almost anything WW1 and German. Here’s one that is missed….. 🙁
sptA little late I’m afraid, but this film stuff takes more time than digital capture! Hope it looks OK.
I would echo the sentiments above about the display of the aircraft at Shuttleworth. An excellent display and the highlight of the day for me.
Sign In
