The question is how many megapixels do you really need? Might be interested to read this. https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buying/how-many-megapixels-do-you-really-need/
Last edited by a moderator:
The question is how many megapixels do you really need? Might be interested to read this. https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buying/how-many-megapixels-do-you-really-need/
Well, it’s either a sign of a “rank amateur”, or pretty much every wildlife photographer ever.From the later referenced article, here:
"Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. But reducing a 4608 x 3456 pixel image to 2400 x 1800 pixels actually discards three quarters of the pixels, which reduces image quality."
Says heaps IMO.
True, Chris.Well, it’s either a sign of a “rank amateur”, or pretty much every wildlife photographer ever.
Well, it’s either a sign of a “rank amateur”, or pretty much every wildlife photographer ever.
And many event shooters trying to get candid shots across a reception. It was the main reason my 70-200 was on my D800 while the 24-70 was on my D750.True, Chris.i
Part of the reason for going with a higher MP body was also to contrast my other gear, not to replace it.Over and done with - and with a great outcome as far as I can see. In my experience, having the count available in a body that helps handling it is always a plus - and the Z 7 II makes shooting at full resolution a breeze. For everyday photography, I rarely miss the higher resolution, but for a once-in-a-lifetime occasion, I'd definitely bring my own Z 7 II.
In fact, I've recently used it as a minimal travel setup with the Z 26mm f/2.8 pancake - and it made for a surprisingly pleasant, very capable combo. It's worth it.
.....
I fully understand those scenarios, David.And many event shooters trying to get candid shots across a reception. It was the main reason my 70-200 was on my D800 while the 24-70 was on my D750.
It also ignores when You can't get closer or may not have the option to compose a shot completely; shooting over your head or at ground level for example.
Are there those that might fall into the "just lazy"? Sure. But I personally find statements that make such blanket generalizations insulting.
Well, it allows one to choose one lens from a huge selection to keep on the camera all the time!The question needs to be asked "What is the purpose of an interchangeable lens camera, if one never changes the lens?".
And an advantage of this is no dust bunnies!Well, it allows one to choose one lens from a huge selection to keep on the camera all the time!
Charles, that's why my 12-100 (or 8-25 ... ) lives on my E-M1 MkII ; my 12-50 macro lives on my E-M1 MkI; and my 14-42 EZ lives on my E-PM2, and it lives in my car.Well, it allows one to choose one lens from a huge selection to keep on the camera all the time!
I've changed lenses in all sorts of bad places.And an advantage of this is no dust bunnies!
"Heavy cropping is a sign of a rank amateur who is too lazy to compose shots in the viewfinder. These shooters often use wider-than-optimal focal lengths and then attempt to correct compositions by cropping away parts of the subject they don’t want. But reducing a 4608 x 3456 pixel image to 2400 x 1800 pixels actually discards three quarters of the pixels, which reduces image quality."The question is how many megapixels do you really need? Might be interested to read this. https://www.photoreview.com.au/tips/buying/how-many-megapixels-do-you-really-need/
When you’re paid to shoot an event with a required shot list. Self discipline is meaningless. Getting the shots the best you can in the quality you are known for is all that matters. Same with wildlife shooters, as well as others.Each to their own, @Brian.
I believe that the practice of self discipline improves ones own photography.
To this:Each to their own, @Brian.
I believe that the practice of self discipline improves ones own photography.
When you’re paid to shoot an event with a required shot list. Self discipline is meaningless. Getting the shots the best you can in the quality you are known for is all that matters. Same with wildlife shooters, as well as others.
I never knew until recently the extent to which Henri Cartier Bresson's "Man Leaping Over A Puddle" (which seems to have legendary status whether or not we think it's a good image) was manipulated from what came out of his film roll to what was eventually presented.Last time I read my books on photo techniques, cropping, Perspective control (placing the easel at an angle to the enlarger), polycontrast filters, dodging and burning were all techniques used in the Darkroom. They now have Digital equivalents. Some of us used such techniques 50 years ago in the Darkroom, and will use them today where required. Stating that cropping is a tool for amateurs is showing a lack of knowledge about making an image on the part of the author.
As a landscape photographer, I am very aware of how intensely St Adams of the Ansel relied on his darkroom technique. His negative for the justly famous "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico" is insanely difficult to print and because the light was changing so fast he was not able to get a second image. Instead, every print he ever made from that negative was different.Last time I read my books on photo techniques, cropping, Perspective control (placing the easel at an angle to the enlarger), polycontrast filters, dodging and burning were all techniques used in the Darkroom. They now have Digital equivalents. Some of us used such techniques 50 years ago in the Darkroom, and will use them today where required. Stating that cropping is a tool for amateurs is showing a lack of knowledge about making an image on the part of the author.