Need advice. Digital SLR Camera

[noworries]

Protection from dropping is not an issue as a drop hard enough to damage the protection filter will cause other damage that will probably affect the lens.

I've got a brand new paperweight with a cracked UV filter that will now neither focus nor zoom. The Canon XTi body survived the mishap unscathed.

[raythompson]

"Mega pixel wars" were relevant with respect to quality up to and including about 10MP... Look at a shot with a 1.1, 3, 5, 6 and 10MP. Look at them in 3X5, 8X10, 16X20. Nope not hype at all, buta war with respect to quality. That war is largely over. Yes, we agree I think that the sensor war is here and will be waged.

I think that once you got to 5 megapixels on consumer cameras, especially the P&S type, that you were at the limit for consumer use. Most consumers would not print beyond a 4x6, a few 5x7, and some 8x10. A 5 megapixel 8x10 actually looks quite nice. A P&S camera with the limited and folded optics is exceeding the ability of the glass to render the image when you get above 5 megapixels. That is the megapixel war that I am addressing.

For pro cameras you can get all the way to 24 megapixels for about the cost of new boat. How many pros even need that? Few. When you start sliding down the scale the needs become even less. Having 10 megapixels in a P&S is pure marketing hype and will do little to enhance the image for the consumer unless significant cropping is done. If the cropping is done the image quality will suffer markedly because of the resolving power of the optics.

A 2560x1920 is just a just a hair shy of 5 megapixels. Printed at 4x6, 300 dpi, you only need 1,200x1800 which is a 2.1 megapixel sensor. An 8x10 at 300 dpi only requires a 7.2 megapixel sensor. With a 5 megapixel sensor you can still print at 256 dpi which will produce an image that you will not be able to see the pixels. A 10 megapixel sensor, 3648x2736, can produce a 12x9 image at 300 dpi. You can easily blow this image up to 30x20 and get a very nice image. Unless you want to view that image at a distance of 3 inches.

.3% of light loss - 99.7% pass thru. Can you see that? Can anyone see that? Can you see the degradation of image quality? Can anyone else? A computer can see that - that's about it.

That was in response to your statement that the filter did not affect the image. It does. 0.3% is not much that is true. It does all add up and does represent a loss of resolving quality. Any glass you add to a lens affects the image.

With the auto white balance of todays cameras you will also not see any difference in a picture taken with a UV filter or without a UV filter. The lenses in the cameras along with the coatings all block UV. They also have to provide an infared filter as the sensors are sensitive to infared. The sensors are not as sensitive as film to UV on the opposite end of the visible light spectrum.

Do a test image and see if you can see the difference. You may be surprised.

Therefore it is statistically irrelevant for everyone. peoples: protect your glass and also end up with better pictures.

For most people it may irrelevant. In my opinion you are better off using a lens hood to protect the front of the lens. You get an additional benefit of avoiding light striking the lens from the side. You also get better impact protection. Drop a lens with a filter and you may protect the lens surface, but you have probably jammed the filter on the lens making it almost impossible to remove. You also run the risk of any broken filter glass doing significant damage to the front element from the sharp glass. I have seen dropped lenses and the filter did nothing to protect. The other damage to the lens was severe enough to render the lens useless. Scratches were the least of the problem as internal elements were misaligned.

Your analogy about glasses being scratched is not relevant. Vision lenses do not have the same level of coating. You also do not lay your lens on the table or insert and remove the lens from your pocket multiple times in a day. Nor do you (or your not supposed to) clean the camera lenses with the kitchen towel or your shirt.

People can use the true UV filter if they desire. In my opinion it is an expensive accessory that serves little purpose other than to line the pockets of the dealers. I think a flash bracket and an off camera cable will do more to improve pictures than any UV filter. Money is better spent on this accessory than a piece of glass.

[raythompson]

I've got a brand new paperweight with a cracked UV filter that will now neither focus nor zoom. The Canon XTi body survived the mishap unscathed.

I also have a lens that works (manual) that survived a drop. But the UV filter that I once used cannot be removed by mere mortals without metal cutting. After that I quit using UV filters and use a lens hood instead.

You see I once bought into the hype and have since mended my ways.

[G-MONEY]

BTW where is the head spinning smiley.....


But seriously thanks for all the great info on cameras.

I have learned more about cameras on a wakeboat from then I think i could on a camera fourm.

[raythompson]

As you can see this is the same girl. One picture is without live view and the other is with live view. It makes all the difference worth the money as you can see.

Well, I never realized what a difference it could make. My live view certainly did not do that well. What camera model were you able to accomplish such amazing results.

I could say I need to try that on my wife but I really don't want to die.

[G-MONEY]

G,

As you can see this is the same girl. One picture is without live view and the other is with live view. It makes all the difference worth the money as you can see.






I will stop highjacking now.

Can I get live view for my eyes??? Well maby not bucause then I would think fat ugly girls a hotties.... that would suck.

[Domsz06]

that's awesome g!!

[raythompson]

Can I get live view for my eyes??? Well maby not bucause then I would think fat ugly girls a hotties.... that would suck.

Just use a large UV filter.

[jwanck11]

Even in the face of someone on here talking about an lens scratch (which happen all the time) the fight is still fought - and defiantly justified with the afficianado having "mended their ways!" I seriously don't get it, but

A UV (best option) or skylight filter will protect your biggest investment. It will not affect your image quality. It will enhance your images. I recommend buying one immediately with each lens purchase and putting it on for good.

Several hundred dollar lens
20-30 dollar filter
each will scratch - and do.
The choice to me is pretty simple.

[G-MONEY]

Ray if I don't get the filter like you recommend and my lens get scratched will you buy me a new lens??

[NICKYPOO]

I just wanna take some pictures man.

[G-MONEY]

I just wanna take some pictures man.

Me too.....

[jwanck11]

I think that once you got to 5 megapixels on consumer cameras, especially the P&S type, that you were at the limit for consumer use. Most consumers would not print beyond a 4x6, a few 5x7, and some 8x10. A 5 megapixel 8x10 actually looks quite nice. A P&S camera with the limited and folded optics is exceeding the ability of the glass to render the image when you get above 5 megapixels. That is the megapixel war that I am addressing.

For pro cameras you can get all the way to 24 megapixels for about the cost of new boat. How many pros even need that? Few. When you start sliding down the scale the needs become even less. Having 10 megapixels in a P&S is pure marketing hype and will do little to enhance the image for the consumer unless significant cropping is done. If the cropping is done the image quality will suffer markedly because of the resolving power of the optics.

A 2560x1920 is just a just a hair shy of 5 megapixels. Printed at 4x6, 300 dpi, you only need 1,200x1800 which is a 2.1 megapixel sensor. An 8x10 at 300 dpi only requires a 7.2 megapixel sensor. With a 5 megapixel sensor you can still print at 256 dpi which will produce an image that you will not be able to see the pixels. A 10 megapixel sensor, 3648x2736, can produce a 12x9 image at 300 dpi. You can easily blow this image up to 30x20 and get a very nice image. Unless you want to view that image at a distance of 3 inches.
That was in response to your statement that the filter did not affect the image. It does. 0.3% is not much that is true. It does all add up and does represent a loss of resolving quality. Any glass you add to a lens affects the image.

With the auto white balance of todays cameras you will also not see any difference in a picture taken with a UV filter or without a UV filter. The lenses in the cameras along with the coatings all block UV. They also have to provide an infared filter as the sensors are sensitive to infared. The sensors are not as sensitive as film to UV on the opposite end of the visible light spectrum.

Do a test image and see if you can see the difference. You may be surprised.For most people it may irrelevant. In my opinion you are better off using a lens hood to protect the front of the lens. You get an additional benefit of avoiding light striking the lens from the side. You also get better impact protection. Drop a lens with a filter and you may protect the lens surface, but you have probably jammed the filter on the lens making it almost impossible to remove. You also run the risk of any broken filter glass doing significant damage to the front element from the sharp glass. I have seen dropped lenses and the filter did nothing to protect. The other damage to the lens was severe enough to render the lens useless. Scratches were the least of the problem as internal elements were misaligned.

Your analogy about glasses being scratched is not relevant. Vision lenses do not have the same level of coating. You also do not lay your lens on the table or insert and remove the lens from your pocket multiple times in a day. Nor do you (or your not supposed to) clean the camera lenses with the kitchen towel or your shirt.

People can use the true UV filter if they desire. In my opinion it is an expensive accessory that serves little purpose other than to line the pockets of the dealers. I think a flash bracket and an off camera cable will do more to improve pictures than any UV filter. Money is better spent on this accessory than a piece of glass.

this post is all over the place.

Not sure where you are headed with megapixel war and why it needs to be a horse to be slayed? Do all horses have to be slayed?

O well... its kinda fun.

printing at 300dpi - who does that?

"Most consumers would not print beyond a 4x6" Do you have statistics on this or hot air? From my experience, it seems printing at 8X10 and above is more common than smaller images. Most of my prints are bought at 8X10 and larger. Does anyone print at 4X6??? Shoot, who prints at 5X7? I would suggest that almost all printing is at 8X10 - the "standard size" of paper.

As for UV effect and WB - I suggest arguing with Ken Rockwell and those on his level of competence and knowledge. I know you'll beat him too! I am glad though that we agree that the effect on optical quality is not relevant - at all. I was going to have a hard time getting up tomorrow knowing that my protective filters that have beneficial effects on my photographs (which has been tested by me and many many test stations easily searchable on the internets) that cover my ~5K worth of lenses was only letting past 99.7% light. PHEW! I can tell you that I sleep better knowing my lenses are protected!

Pushing a flash bracket on a family shooter is silly. Most have no idea how to properly use a flash in the first place and many pros (even those that think of themselves as very good with light) are just as clueless. Forget the flash bracket. I think it is best to help a family shooter get a great set up that will meet needs and not spend money on things that they will never use.

Dropped lenses and filters - HUH? No correlation really. A filter at least has the chance of taking some of the damage while protecting the lens. Dropped lenses are likely to be damaged regardless. Jammed filters can be removed by a vice in extreme cases.

Family shooters tend to have a camera around their neck. It is actually fun to watch folks completely not care about the expensive DSLR that they are weilding. It is just the way it is.

[jwanck11]

I just wanna take some pictures man.

Nickypoo... you take some of the best pictures I have seen. Whether you know it or not (or care), your shots have awesome compostion time and again.

[jwanck11]

Well I went to costco last night and they had the Nikon with 2 VR's
and now they have the Canon with 2 IS's a 18-55 and 55-250 and both come with a camera case and a 2 GB card. The Nikon is still $100 less at $750 and the Canon is $850.


I'm am leaning toward the Nikon, I don't think the Canon is worth the $100 extra just to use the live view LCD and .5 pix per sec faster.

I read up on the stuff G and it seems that the nikon is a good bet for the money especially of you do not care about the live view.

Either will be a winner - especially with the 2 VR/IS lenses.