PIXLES?!?

[Larre]

HI!

cristmas is closing up... I really want a good camera to photograf my minis... but how many pixles is reguired to get the best result ???

and some thing that really dont have any ting to do with the post or this forum to do is how do I show in what location I am? it use to stand below the avatar (my pic)

// Larre

 

[Sand Rat]

Mega pixels are important, but getting a camera with macro feature is just as important -

 

[Larre]

what differance does the marco ability do?

 

[airhead]

A high MP camera is not a necessity for web based work The monitor controls the resolution (in this case, the site does at 600 pixels wide.) More is better for print work, but for web word, ultimately, you are going to average out all of them to a reduced image for the web.

 

[OrkBoy]

Macro is used to photograph small objects - in your case minis! If you dont use it the picture is unfocused and blurry, the macro feature allows you to focus on small things...

Hope that helped!

Cheers,
Tom

 

[flynn]

Macro lenses usually have very short focal lengths, which is what makes it possible to focus on small objects. You can get really close to your subject with a macro.

With my normal telephoto lens, the closest I can get and still be in focus is about 1.5 metres. This is not good for photographing minis. With a macro, I\'ve been able to get as close as about 5 centimetres (not that I\'d want to).

 

[RuneBrush]

One benefit from having a camera that will take large pics (i.e. has high mega-pixels), is that you can reduce the size of the image down. The light setup that I\'ve got is quite poor until I buy some lamps, which results in a grainey picture. However, after a autobalance in photoshop and resizing to 25%, there is no trace of the grain anymore.

 

[jimbo1634]

MegaPixels basicly have more to do with the original size of the picture taken. I shoot local high school and college sports for a newspaper with a 6.1 MP Nikon D50. With this camera body I can produce prints up to 8x10 of very good quality. Much bigger than that and I have to do some photoshop tricks to get a good output. Where I have my money spent is in lenses. My slower but longer lens is a 70-300 4-5.6f. I can get very good results with this outside but inside I had to get a faster 80-200 2.8f lens. The 70-300 is $350 and the 80-200 goes for $1,000. The camera body only goes for $600. Main point is the picture quality between the kit lens and the other two lenses are night and day. The important part (If you have a camera that you can change lenses) is the clarity and quality of the glass in your lens as far as weather or not you will get nice clear pics. $100 to $200 will not get you a nice quality macro lens. $300-$500 is what you should expect to spend on a good quality lens. And if your looking for something in the professional range $1,000 - $1,500 is easy to spend.

Originally posted by flynn
Macro lenses usually have very short focal lengths, which is what makes it possible to focus on small objects. You can get really close to your subject with a macro.

With my normal telephoto lens, the closest I can get and still be in focus is about 1.5 metres. This is not good for photographing minis. With a macro, I\'ve been able to get as close as about 5 centimetres (not that I\'d want to).

That in a nutshell is what macro stands for. You can get closer to the subject and still be able to focus. A macro lens will function like any other lens as far as taking regular pictures. It is just that when you need to get in closer to your subject you can. Most lenses have information on their minimum focal lengths and you with note much shorter distances on any macro lens.