Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Birds of a Feather  (Read 1623 times)
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8874


« on: November 27, 2012, 09:07:36 AM »
ReplyReply

It's interesting that Michael's gone back to displaying shots from his first Canon digital camera, the 3mp D30, Birds of a Feather.

It was taken with an expensive camera for the times, around $6,000, and an even more expensive lens, and it is of course an impressive shot.

I can't help speculating that my D800E with Nikkor 24-120/F4 zoom would have given me even better results, if I'd been there. How camera technology has progressed during the past 10 or 12 years. It's amazing!
Logged
JackWinberg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #1 on: November 27, 2012, 02:40:36 PM »
ReplyReply

As I recall, it was this equipment that brought Michael to encourage photographers to embrace the digital idiom as having really arrived.  After warily considering the whole matter, I finally acquired a D30 about a year later (paying under $3000, as I recall), and that led to my finally abandoning my film bodies a few years later, with nostalgia and regret.  Ah, how time marches on, who would have dreamed of the startling transformations in both hardware and software that has occurred.  The limiting factor now is US!  I like that very much.  We live in exciting times.   Smiley
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4788



« Reply #2 on: November 28, 2012, 08:47:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I also remember how I was vilified on the forums at DPReview for even suggesting that a 3MP digital file could match and even exceed scanned film at smaller print sizes.

Orthodoxy vs the evidence of ones own eyes.

Michael
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2626


« Reply #3 on: November 28, 2012, 08:58:23 AM »
ReplyReply

In my camera club days I used to take 3MP digital files and get them converted to slides and enter them into slide competitions. Nobody new which - apart from myself - were which - and they were judged to be as good - quality wise - as the slides from a film camera and I won a couple of competitions.
Logged

mvsoske
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 28, 2012, 01:51:32 PM »
ReplyReply

In 1999, I took a trip to Nepal with only a Kodak DC260 - a 1.2MP camera.  With today's technology and using LR/ACR, it is amazing what you can get out of those small, noisy, artifact-laden jpegs and making prints up to 8x10

Mark
Logged

DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 29, 2012, 02:21:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I remember when Michael took this image and also remember the review of the 400mm DO.

In fact I bought one to based on the review and still use it today. A great "portable" 400mm f4.  Smiley

Logged

Rick Popham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 124


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 01, 2012, 02:15:03 PM »
ReplyReply

I also remember how I was vilified on the forums at DPReview for even suggesting that a 3MP digital file could match and even exceed scanned film at smaller print sizes.

Orthodoxy vs the evidence of ones own eyes.

Michael


I remember that too.  That discussion really got me thinking about moving to digital.  I knew it would simplify my workflow since I was already scanning my film and printing with Epson printers, but I didn't think I would be happy with 3 megapixels.  When Nikon released the 6 megapixel D70 I bought one just to see if I liked shooting with digital.  I still have some film in my freezer that I never bothered to use after getting that camera.

Rick
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad