DSLR Picture Clarity

Author
Discussion

Glade

Original Poster:

4,305 posts

229 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
Quick question about the clarity of the photos in this thread Cheddar Gorge Meet

- I guess this is due to noise but sure someone can confirm.

On this thread there is a clear difference between some pictures and others... i'm guessing that the clear vibrant ones were taken with DSLR. Lower noise, or better lens?

I also guess that it's not due to resolution because the pictures are resized, and compact cameras have plenty of MP these days.

Is that correct? I find it interesting seeing them side by side.

V8S

8,582 posts

243 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
While the film or digital CCD will make an impact, by far the most difference will be the lens and any camera shake due to either poor technique or slow shutter speed. You can take a poor picture on a £3,000 camera if you buy a £100 lens for the front of it.

You will notice that my pictures are relatively sharp and clear. Most of that is down to making sure I'm shooting at 1/250th or above, and sharp, 'fast' lenses.

V8S

8,582 posts

243 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
Was there a particular couple of shots in the thread that made you post up this question? Post them here.

Don1

16,047 posts

214 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
If it helps, my ones were taken with a DSLR.

Bomber Denton

8,759 posts

274 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
What lense did you use Graham?

V8S

8,582 posts

243 months

Tuesday 8th September 2009
quotequote all
I used a Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 ATX PRO on an EOS 5D Mk2.

It's a pretty sharp lens for what I paid for it about 6 years ago - about £600.

I would like the 24-105 f/2.8 Canon L as it is sharper still, but it's a grand and frankly mine's alright at the moment.

ETA: Got the Canon lens wrong!

Edited by V8S on Tuesday 8th September 18:43

Bomber Denton

8,759 posts

274 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
Cheers, need to go lense shopping!

DIW35

4,157 posts

206 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
Why are more and more people spelling lens with an extra 'e' on the end these days?

Singular is lens, plural is lenses. Where the hell does lense come from?

4hero

4,505 posts

217 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
DIW35 said:
Where the hell does lense come from?
The same place that warrantee, could of, definately, come from I imagine.

cirks

2,480 posts

289 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
4hero said:
The same place that warrantee, could of,
Or "could have" as I'm sure you meant wink

DIW35

4,157 posts

206 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
cirks said:
4hero said:
The same place that warrantee, could of,
Or "could have" as I'm sure you meant wink
Actually, I know what he meant, and could of was right in that context.

Kermit power

29,427 posts

219 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
4hero said:
DIW35 said:
Where the hell does lense come from?
The same place that warrantee, could of, definately, come from I imagine.
What do warrantees have to do with this? confused

stigmundfreud

22,454 posts

216 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
clarity can be down to so many things, kit or processing

cirks

2,480 posts

289 months

Wednesday 9th September 2009
quotequote all
DIW35 said:
Actually, I know what he meant, and could of was right in that context.
Nope - but here endeth my misunderstanding of what you meant ! There is no context in which "could of" is correct unless as part of two separate grammatical phrases eg. "I took as many photographs as I could of the paint drying".
Anyway, back on subject (apologies to the OP and you if I missed what you were getting at smile

Yellabelly

2,258 posts

259 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
Sorry, but the fact that some of you missed the point that Neil was making, proves his point.

YB

DIW35

4,157 posts

206 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
Cirks, if you re-read 4Hero's reply, he is saying that warrantee, could of and definately come from the same place as lense - i.e. from the pens (keyboards) of dumbed down Britain.

So you will see that my further reply, that 'could of' was right in that context, was actually correct. Neil was pointing out that 'could of' was often used in place of could have, but to make that point he had to use the incorrect could of, correctly. wink

GetCarter

29,565 posts

285 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
Glade said:
I also guess that it's not due to resolution because the pictures are resized, and compact cameras have plenty of MP these days.
Amount of mp is largely irrelevant. My D1 (9 years ago) had 3mp - it took MUCH better photos that 10mp point and shoot cameras today. It's the size of the sensor, not the amount of pixels squeezed onto said sensor that is important. Chuck in decent glass...(and someone who's read and understands the manual) and that's why some photos are good and most are crap.

cirks

2,480 posts

289 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
DIW35 said:
Cirks, if you re-read 4Hero's reply, ........
Ah, sorry me wos right slow their......my bad wink


Simpo Two

86,735 posts

271 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
cirks said:
4hero said:
The same place that warrantee, could of,
Or "could have" as I'm sure you meant wink
Or even 'warranty' smile

Kermit power

29,427 posts

219 months

Thursday 10th September 2009
quotequote all
DIW35 said:
Cirks, if you re-read 4Hero's reply, he is saying that warrantee, could of and definately come from the same place as lense - i.e. from the pens (keyboards) of dumbed down Britain.
confused

Warranty - Some form of guarantee covering goods or services

Warrantee - The person to whom said warranty has been granted

Warrantor - The person providing said warranty

Am I missing something?