The OFFICIAL non official BANG SHIFT CAMERA THREAD !

[ls7gto]

Nice TC, and Im not talking about the Pinion.

[ls7gto]

Ok Im gonna open up a HUGE can of worms....and I may be incorrect but thats what were here for. were gonna talk about mega-pixals and sensor size. I got on this topic when researching TCs camera, since it looks a bit different.

Everybody thinks more is better when It comes to Pixels. But some people disagree. Lets look at this..



it shows the relative sizes of full frame 35mm, reduced frame 1.5X such as the Canon 10D, the Sony F828, and a typical pocket-sized digicam's sensor (white).
( red ) Full Frame 35mm = 24 X 36mm
( green ) Reduced Frame 1.5X Digital = 15.1 X 22.7mm
(blue) Sony F828 = 6.6 X 8.8mm
(White) Typical pocket digicam = 3.5 X 4.5mm
The next thing to consider is the size of each individual pixel or, as they are most commonly called each photo site. Larger imaging chips, such as those used on 1.5X and full-frame DSLRs have photo sites that are about 7The next thing to consider is the size of each individual pixel or, as they are most commonly called each photo site. Larger imaging chips, such as those used on 1.5X and full-frame DSLRs have photo sites that are about 7 — 8 microns in size. A micron is one millionth of a meter. The Sony F828 has photo sites that are 2.7 microns in size.

Now we see how the F828 is able to put 8 million pixels into a chip that is significantly smaller than those in a 6 megapixels DSLR. They've made the pixels smaller — about 2.5X smaller.

So, good for them, you say. What's wrong with that? Potentially the problem is what we used to call grain (when dealing with film), which we now call noise, and which is better described as signal to noise ratio (S/N). S/N is exactly what it says — the ratio of the signal (that which carries information) to noise (that which carries no information but which is there regardless).

The law of physics are such that the smaller the individual pixel the fewer the number of photons that can reach it. 2.7 microns is incredibly small, and this means that except in brightly lit situations (in fact even in such situations) the number of photons that can reach the bottom of the photo site can be such that the noise overwhelms it, and we end up with unacceptably noisy images. Where does this noise come from? Part of it from the system's electronics, part from the random motion of atoms within the silicon, part from cosmic rays and so forth. So, the lower the signal the higher the S/N, and the noisier the image. This is the challenge that Sony faced when designing an 8 megapixel chip with 2.7 Micron pixels. A considerable challenge.

[Joe Grippo]

This is what I want to work on. I need to learn about dark, fast action settings and flash stuff...things that the auto setting doesn't do very well...


7-11_GEEZERS-MAPLEGROVE_404 by Joe Grippo, on Flickr

[ls7gto]

sorry about the mumbo jumbo, but I thought it make sense. A larger sensor can have larger pixels, therefore a large sensor camera ( full frame) with 12mp, should have less noise than a 12mp point and shoot.
That being said , it probably only really matters when your enlarging the pic.

[ls7gto]

its a slippery slope, then you want to learn about white balance , aperture , shutter speed it wont end LOL. I know nothing, but I enjoy it immensely !

[Joe Grippo]

That being said , it probably only really matters when your enlarging the pic.

That's what I always had heard. Anything over, say, 10 megapixels is big dick marketing. Unless you routinely do poster size enlargements. I only print stuff occasionally anymore, so most of my stuff is viewed on the computer and resized in Fotki and such.
Though I could be totally off base...

[ls7gto]

joe, I know you you different Picture hosting sites, which do you like the most, and why? ( sounds like Im interviewing you LOL)

[DNut]

This is what I want to work on. I need to learn about dark, fast action settings and flash stuff...things that the auto setting doesn't do very well...

What modes do you have access to besides auto?

If the camera has a light meter and you can control the shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc manually that would be best, although it takes some trial and error before you can feel out what settings will work and by that time you'll have lost a bunch of good photo opportunities...

My suggestion would be to first turn off the built-in flash, as it's really not helping you at that distance.

I'm really bad at shooting in the dark as well, but from what I've been told by people who actually can shoot successfully in the dark, here's a couple of things you'll want to look into:

- Raise the ISO to the highest level possible while still giving you acceptable signal to noise
- Invest in a tripod (Which will allow you to lower the ISO) or practice holding the camera to avoid camera shake
- Use faster shutter speeds to avoid blur and as open (Lower number) aperture as possible to compensate for the shorter exposure time
- Shoot in RAW format as opposed to JPEG if possible to allow for more flexibility in "fixing" the photo after it's on your computer

[ls7gto]

Couldnt have said it any better Dnut.

[ls7gto]

so do you guys think it would be ok in listing camera gear we want to sell or swap ? Would kinda suck having to post it in the real want adds.
I understand that its really up to Brian and Chad.

[Thumpin455]

I have a Powershot S3, its an older 6mp and not DSLR, but it works for most stuff. I want a better Cannon DSLR, something in the 13mp+ range that I can do some astrophotography as well as automotive stuff. This one does ok for the car stuff, but it sucks for lunar and shooting the stars/planets.

Im not a fan of Nikon, I have had great experiences with Cannon, and so has my bud who is a pro photographer in Waco Ne. I dont need a high zoot shooter, I just need something with good detail that can handle low light, long exposures, and macro while not costing more than the last engine I built. Seriously considering an EOS, but not a Rebel.

[Joe Grippo]

joe, I know you you different Picture hosting sites, which do you like the most, and why? ( sounds like Im interviewing you LOL)

I have three accounts for photo hosting, Fotki, Flickr and Photobucket each has it's own purpose for my use. The photobucket acct. was the first one I opened years ago. I only really use it now for hosting images I find on the web. It is very easy to use and is about $25 per year.

As for Flickr vs Fotki, I like and use them both. Similar pricing, about $25 a year each. Fotki has a selling feature which is cool they do all printing and fulfilment, you set your price and they take a fee then you can paypal or request a check for payment. I use that to pay for all three sites.

I use flickr more for organization and photo posting/linking, I'm such a wierdo, I made up "sets" to put stuff into catagories...GEEK! With the sets, tagging and description features it provides it makes it really easy for me to find specific shots. Flickr is part of Yahoo! and you can set up a limited account for free, though I pay for the Pro level for unlimited storage.

As for Fotki I use that specifically for event coverage, keeping each one in it's own album newest at the top in decending order throughout the year. Brian uses this to create the galleries of my stuff for the Blog, he can always find the latest right at the top.

Another thing I like about these sites is they act as a de facto back-up in case of the untimely loss of your original files. I burn everything to a disc also, I need to be more diligent in this area as I am always way behind. A neat thing with both sites is they allow photo commenting and they keep track of views and stats. I dig sharing this stuff and it's a bit of a cool ego stroke reading the comments and knowing that people are enjoying the pictures...

[DNut]

Joe, have you looked at Smugmug?

I just started using it about a year or so ago and really like it.

[Joe Grippo]

Joe, have you looked at Smugmug?

I just started using it about a year or so ago and really like it.

I checked them out also but with all the stuff I have already uploaded I am sorta' committed to what I have been using. Which is cool, because I am completley satisfied with the performance and features they offer. Is it safe to assume Smugmug operates the same as Fotki and Flickr? They certainly look similar...I know some local photogs that use Smugmug....

[ls7gto]

Thanks Joe.
Ps , we had to walk right past each other this past weekend. we have some of the same people in the backgrounds! I send mine to Brian, how many times can people look at the same cars?