Need advice. Digital SLR Camera

[raythompson]

Perhaps.

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

You bet. But you have to find me first.

Maybe it is just the way that I use cameras and how careful I am with the lenses. I have never in 35+ years never had a scratched lens without a filter. I used to use a filter on my 55mm f1.2 because it had a lot of glass in front. After dropping a lens with a filter on it and seeing the damage I just removed the filters from the rest of the lenses. That was about 20 years ago.

Now with the new digital lenses, harder coatings, etc. I have not seen a scratch on a lens. And a couple of those lenses get very heavy use.

If a UV or skylight filter makes you feel better then that is good enough reason to use a filter and I can offer no response to change that.

I have talked with several pros including Wade Payne who photographs for AP and he is not a fan of UV filters. His lenses get more abuse than mine and he has yet to have a scratched lens.

[chpthril]

[G-MONEY]

Ok round 10

Ding Ding Ding......

Topic:
Best Pic contest!!!

[raythompson]

printing at 300dpi - who does that?

And what magical number do you print. 360? 600? Do you see a difference in an inkjet print at normal viewing distances between 300 and 600? If you are printing 8x10 at 600 dpi you really need a 28.8 megapixel camera unless some of those dots have been approximated. If you extrapolate a dot between two adjoining dots what is the purpose at printing at higher resolution?

"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.

I have no statistics so I guess you could call it hot air (don't tell Al Gore), only what I see at Walmart where a large percentage of consumers print their images. Stand there sometime and count the number of 4x6's vs other sizes. Check out the self service machines where two of them print 4x6's only and only one prints 8x10. Just because you print at 8x10 does not mean that others share the same experience.

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!

Let's see. Wasn't Ken Rockwell the chap that argued that you should only shoot RAW? Then he argued JPG is good enough. Or is it the other way around? Didn't Ken think the Expodisc was king until something else came along? Ken Rockwell swings with the prevailing wind. Ken Rockwell is good but that does not mean he is the king of all knowledge. His experiences are different than others.

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!

That is the most substantial reason that you have given for using a UV filter. I would still advocate that you do a test, on a calibrated digital target, in sunlight, and post the results of the RGB value of the white or gray portion of the target. As for the searches on the net I posted two links that clearly explained why the use of a UV filter was unnecessary. These people are clearly as experienced as Ken Rockwell and just as knowledgeable.

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.

I would disagree. If you go to the expense of an external flash, then a bracket is an addition that signficantly help eliminate annoying shadows when used in portrait mode. It is not difficult to teach people how to use such an accessory.

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.

A bracket will help a family shooter get better images simply and easily. Isn't that what you are advocating? Otherwise why even recommend an external flash. Keep the internal flash, devil eyes, and other such evils from the small internal flashes.

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.

I have tried the vice on the filter. It will not budge and is jammed solid. I supposed I could try a blow torch but my wife won't let me play with fire anymore after that nasty little incident. A lens hood would have absorbed the impact and not have jammed itself onto the lens. If you drop a lens with enough impact on an object to smash the UV filter the impact was serious enough to damage the front element.

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.

Maybe I just don't pay attention to these people anymore.

You like the UV filter and it works for you. Excellent. Don't change just because of me as I certainly have no hope of changing your opinion. Keep debating your opinion. Your reasons are just as valid (or invalid depending on your position) as mine.

Now, who is going to be #1 at the end of the college football season?

[jwanck11]

The poor poor horses in the world...

Just a few things:
Upgrade your printer Ray, it is 2008

Now... let's see if I can reach the horse:

1. yes, there is a discernable difference.
2. Snapfish.com
3. OK. Diss those recognized as experts to stay planted. Seek for supporting info and come up with 2 sources. The internet is perfect for that.
4. I've tested extensively. I spend most time in the foeld. I have gained you spend time in front of a computer looking at specific values. I spend some time at the comp for tuning, not creation. To each their own.
5. Flash bracket - dumb idea especially for a family shooter. Take some advice - sell your bracket on eBay and buy 2 more flashes, it will help you far more with shadow control.
6. Flash bracket - dumb idea.
7. Filter - good idea.
8.Pay attention - you are advising those very people. In this tiny population, one person all ready came forward with a scratch story. I think that is justification enough. I would hate to see someone else face the same hundreds of dollar situation because of bad advice.

[skyski_tige]

Now, who is going to be #1 at the end of the college football season?

Houston Texans are going to suck so bad that they are moved back to College!!!

[G-MONEY]

Houston Texans are going to suck so bad that they are moved back to College!!!

I thought that was Detroit

[TeamAllen]

Well the good thing with Costco is, you can try one or both out for 90 Days and return the one you don't want. There was a 50 free print coupon inside the box from Costco Photo as well.

I added UV filters to both of the lenses. I don't carry my cleaning kit with me and I got water spots on my filter. I could use a towel or shirt without having to worry about doing possible damage (scratch) to the lens.

[G-MONEY]

Well the good thing with Costco is, you can try one or both out for 90 Days and return the one you don't want. There was a 50 free print coupon inside the box from Costco Photo as well.

That's what i told Trisha she shot down that idea so fast

[Domsz06]

I used to have an old 35mm and I kept a uv filter on it too. So much cheaper to replace then a whole lens.

G stop talking about this, your making me wanna get one

[raythompson]

Upgrade your printer Ray, it is 2008

Why? I don't print at home and use a lab for my printing needs. I provide a profile, they print using dyes, not inks, on better paper.

You indicate that you print at 8x10 almost exclusively. So lets talk some about printing resolution. You cannot change the laws of physics.

360 ppi: That takes about 10.3 megapixels to print the image. That is well within the range of most of the current crop of cameras.

720 ppi: This takes 41.4 megapixels. That is well beyond the range of any digital SLR cameras that I am aware and even beyond the range of the Hasselblad cameras (drool). If you are photographing at 12 megapixels something has to to provide those extra pixels. Either Photoshop, the printer driver, or the printer has to guess to provide these extra pixels by examining the neighboring dots. 71% of the information that you are printing is guessed and was not in the original image.

1440 ppi: Here it gets even worse. Those images take 165.8 megapixels. With a 12 megapixel camera you are approximating 92% of the image that you are printing. Why bother? How do you even know the approximation is accurate or control the approximation? You are at the whim of the software that is doing the interpolation.

2880 ppi: Forget it.

At 720 ppi the largest you can print a 12 megapixel image without interpolation is 5.96x3.96 inches, basically a 4x6 image, using the Nikon D90 (12.3 megapixels).

At 1440 ppi the largest image without interpolation is 2.98x1.98 inches (a passport photo) using the same Nikon D90.

At 360 ppi you can print 11.91x7.91 inches. This will get you real close to an 8x10 size with some minor cropping on the long axis.

The printers that claim super high printing capabilities use variable drop size to approximate the information. In the case of the Epson Stylus Pro 4880 the native resolution is 360 ppi with variable drop size used to get the increased resolution to 2880 ppi. You are still printing with a 360 ppi nozzle.

But again if you do not have the megapixels to begin with the extra pixels on the image are only approximations of what was recorded with the camera. You are being tricked. These printers are very good at the approximation and can make the images look very good. But the data they are using was never in the original image.

I have a printer that will do 360 ppi so why would I want to upgrade? 99% of my printing is done at a lab and all images are provided to the lab at 360 ppi.

See this link http://www.shutterbug.com/techniques...om/0307output/ for information on optimal printing, which is 360 ppi.

[da.bell]

I thought that was Detroit

No, it's the 49ers

[Fast1911]

[G-MONEY]

I used to have an old 35mm and I kept a uv filter on it too. So much cheaper to replace then a whole lens.

G stop talking about this, your making me wanna get one

Costco has some great deals right now......

Almost too good to pass up

[G-MONEY]

I went down to Costco on Sunday and picked the Nikon D60.......

No filter yet but I'm planning on getting one only because I plan on taking it to the lake and we can get some nasty sand storms.