Talk:Travel photography/Full systems
Too much detail?
I'm thinking this may need some fairly heavy trimming because it now has too much detail for a travel guide. Part of the problem is stuff I added myself. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmm... I've added a bunch of the stuff too. You do have a point. Still, I wouldn't go deleting stuff right away... some readers may not even be aware of the complications involved in assembling a system. There needs to be some thought in editing, both on the adding and deleting ends. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I just deleted this text:
- Canon EF-S lenses will just not mount on Canon's full-frame and now-discontinued APS-H bodies (APS-H is a sensor size between APS-C and full-frame). Nikon DX lenses will mount on full-frame bodies, but will not produce a good image across all of the larger sensor. All Nikon full-frame bodies default to a "crop" mode when they detect that a DX lens is mounted. However, using the crop mode is less than desirable for other reasons. First, the image will not be captured using the entire sensor, but only in an APS-C sized "frame" in the middle of the sensor, with about 40% less linear resolution. Also, the method that the specific body uses to indicate DX mode may cause issues for some shooters. Some bodies electronically "black out" the portion of the viewfinder that lies outside the DX frame, which may be disconcerting to some shooters. Other bodies only add frame lines around the DX frame; some shooters may forget that they are in DX mode and thus wind up missing a shot because a key part of the image lies outside the DX frame.
- There can be other complications. All Canon APS-C cameras produced since 2003 when the EF-S mount was introduced will accept both EF and EF-S lenses, but models from before 2003 will accept only EF lenses. Some older Nikons, and even recent low-end models, do not support all features available in the lenses. Most significantly for Nikon shooters, low-end bodies (currently, the D3xxx and D5xxx) do not have autofocus motors—meaning that autofocus is only available if the lens has a built-in autofocus motor ("AF-S" for Nikon-brand lenses).
- I later restored some of this, moving it to a "complications" infobox at Travel_photography/Full_systems#Mixing_systems and leaving out most brand-specific details. Pashley (talk) 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Guide and FTT?
Another quite extensive article, so extensive that even some of it has been deleted (per above). Are there some important things still missing before the article can be promoted to guide status and nominated for FTT? --Ypsilon (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
- I'd say it is pretty much ready, but I'd like to hear more opinions.
- Does it matter that the main travel photography article has already been FTT? Pashley (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
@Bigpeteb: If 10 Mpixels is enough for an A4, how would 20 Mpix be enough for a billboard? With the same number of pixels per inch, you'd get just an A3. You might look at that billboard from a greater distance, but then you are comparing apples to oranges, as you would have half a billboard with the cheap camera.
I'd instead concentrate on the quality of the pixels: on the cheap camera they might be smaller on the sensor, such as if you compare a 10 Mpix 48 mm² sensor to a 20 Mpix μ43, or they may just be of lesser quality (pixels or what you get on them or out of them).
With sensor size and sensor quality given, then number of pixels is a design trade off, with a greater number not necessarily any better at all. And that's the real point.
- 10 MP is enough to print an A4/letter size picture at 300 dpi, which is the maximum you need for arm's length viewing. Billboards are viewed from hundreds of meters away, and don't need anywhere near such resolution. I was trying to avoid bring dpi into the explanation, but I guess what I wrote wasn't clear enough. (Also, I borrowed the billboard comparison from another site that mentioned it, but maybe it's a confusing non sequitur.) Keeping the same 300dpi, 20MP is enough for a 12"x18" or slightly larger than A3 print. But if you wanted, say, a 1-meter print to put above your fireplace that would be viewed from several meters away, you could do that even with 10MP and certainly with 20MP.
- The main thing I wanted to emphasize is that unlike 15-20 years ago, pixel count has plateaued, and "more is better" is no longer an assumption average consumers should use for shopping. --Bigpeteb (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
- For online use, the highest resolution monitors that are at all common are 3840x2160 which is about 8Mpixel. Allow some for cropping & you might need 12 Mp. That's for photos or videos that will be viewed full screen. My guess is that 90+% of photos posted online need less than 4 Mp.
- For printing, it depends on resolution. For 200 dpi, which is enough for almost anything viewed beyond arm's length & which I use to make the math easy, you have 40 Kp per square inch & a megapixel does a 5x5" square, so 16x20" needs about 14Mp. Poster size is 24x36", round to 25x40" & it needs 40 Mp.
- I know a semi-pro who says her 16 Mp Nikon D4 does everything she needs. Pashley (talk) 06:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)