PDA

View Full Version : Pictures with only a 3.2 megapixel cam



PiMpIn SmUrF
10-02-2006, 09:44 PM
yup thats right.... Only taken with a nikon coolpix 3200 (3.2megapixel)
Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's. I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Photographs/D1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Photographs/D6.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Photographs/D5.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Photographs/D3.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Photographs/D2.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/animals/1-1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/animals/2-1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/animals/5-1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/Pt%20pics/2.jpg


ya i know there crappy but i think they came out good for the kind of camera i was using

Palmiros
10-02-2006, 09:52 PM
they look good!:thumbsup:

BerserkerCatSplat
10-06-2006, 01:04 AM
Nothing wrong with 3.2MP. I'm looking at upgrading to a camera with a whopping 4MP next year. I currently have a camera with 6MP.

Weapon_R
10-06-2006, 01:40 AM
what program do u use to get the borders?

PiMpIn SmUrF
10-06-2006, 01:42 AM
photoshop 7.0

streetarab
10-06-2006, 09:08 AM
dont knock 3.2 megapixels, all my pics are in 3.2 :D

EK 2.0
10-06-2006, 09:11 AM
I have an 8 MP camera...but only ever shoot as high as 5...I mean what I am learning thanks to all the questions I ask everyone here...

Yeah your camera can sometimes be limiting...not a "hot enough ISO available", or sometimes just not enough zoom...but its not much about the camera but the composition and lighting and such...

Canmorite
10-08-2006, 03:09 PM
Lenses are usually the #1 factor.

djayz
10-08-2006, 04:22 PM
those pics just go to show that its the camera man not the megapixels

but usually something around 5 seems to do it for me.

FiveFreshFish
10-08-2006, 04:29 PM
I'm not a fan of tilted perspective photos. The other ones are good.

PiMpIn SmUrF
10-08-2006, 04:32 PM
yup the reason why i really want a new camera so i can get really good Lenses for it, the zoom on this camera sucks ass.

also thanks for the comments.

streetarab
10-08-2006, 11:40 PM
the zoom on my cam is INSANE, but dont even bother with low light, i quit while im ahead by not trying

Gurpy
10-08-2006, 11:55 PM
Cool, but I realllyyy dont like the tilted shots, just my opinion though.

turab16
10-09-2006, 12:14 AM
does anyone know how to keep lens open for like longer time and then take picture with digital camera??

with the cool effects!!

BerserkerCatSplat
10-09-2006, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by turab16
does anyone know how to keep lens open for like longer time and then take picture with digital camera??

with the cool effects!!

Are you asking how to use a slower shutter speed? If so, check your camera's instruction manual to see if you have shutter-priority mode in your camera.

Melinda
10-09-2006, 01:06 AM
Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF
yup thats right.... Only taken with a nikon coolpix 3200 (3.2megapixel)
Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's. I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2
ya i know there crappy but i think they came out good for the kind of camera i was using



Originally posted by Canmorite
Lenses are usually the #1 factor.

No, the photographer is the #1 factor. The camera has little to do with the quality and the finished look of ANY photo.Megapixels are largely tied only into the size overall size you can print it at. You should see some of the incredible photos people like Ben and Ekliptix pulled off with crappy point and shoot cameras before they upgraded. You'd be utterly surprised. Equipment usually is the LAST factor in a good photo.

Sorry for the tangent, I'm just sick of people saying "Look at all the cash I just dropped on this, now I can take some SAWEEEEEEEET photos!" When they clearly have no idea what they're doing and only bought an expensive cam based on what the pros or their talented friends are using. Megapixels is not what gives you nicer, or better looking photos. Holding a $2000 piece of equipment does not somehow magically turn you into some pro star photog.

EK 2.0
10-09-2006, 03:14 AM
Melinda...dont forget about those ISO's...hahaha...

FiveFreshFish
10-09-2006, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by Melinda
Sorry for the tangent, I'm just sick of people saying "Look at all the cash I just dropped on this, now I can take some SAWEEEEEEEET photos!" When they clearly have no idea what they're doing and only bought an expensive cam based on what the pros or their talented friends are using. Megapixels is not what gives you nicer, or better looking photos. Holding a $2000 piece of equipment does not somehow magically turn you into some pro star photog.

Can is the key word. Does not mean they will be a good photographer.

A beginner with high-end equipment has the means to explore the techniques used by professionals. One who buys expensive equipment, uses it, and tries different things will be better than if he were to stick to a point-and-shoot.

Don't look down at novices with pro equipment unless they're true poseurs; you don't know how talented they'll be and how quickly they'll get there.

Melinda
10-09-2006, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by FiveFreshFish


Can is the key word. Does not mean they will be a good photographer.

A beginner with high-end equipment has the means to explore the techniques used by professionals. One who buys expensive equipment, uses it, and tries different things will be better than if he were to stick to a point-and-shoot.

Don't look down at novices with pro equipment unless they're true poseurs; you don't know how talented they'll be and how quickly they'll get there.
If you read the original post, he does state that with this better camera he WILL be taking better photos. I dont look down on novices, everyone is one at some point. I am simply commenting on the 'photographers' who think that the camera and lenses they use magically makes them good. I backed that up by commenting on how good people like Ben and Exliptix became on "non pro" cameras when they first started posting on beyond. They did not need high quality dslr cameras to get amazing results just from playing around with what they had.

BerserkerCatSplat
10-09-2006, 06:19 PM
OK, this is probably going to be a bit harsh. I am not going to sugar coat this, like I normally do these sorts of things, because I think it needs to be said.



Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF

Im buying a Canon EOS Rebel XTi 10.1MP SLR Digital Camera within 2 weeks so I will be taking WAY WAY better photo's.


No, actually. You won't. You will be taking sharper photos. You will be taking bigger photos as well. But better? That's something different entirely.



I also already know all my basics on camera's. Ya im pretty excited haha

Actually, to be dead honest with you, you don't know all the basics. Composition is a very, very basic component of good photography, and your photos' composition is rather lacking. Subjects dead center in the middle of the frame, randomly tilted shots, that sort of thing. Have you ever heard of a basic photographic element called the Rule of Thirds?

Will a brand spankin' new Rebel XTi fix your composition? Not in the least. Will it somehow infuse originality into your images? Not a chance.

However, all is not lost. There are a million tutorials, examples, workshops, classes, Internet sites, forums, and magazines to give you a lifetime's worth of good examples to learn from.

http://photoinf.com/General/AGFA/Photo_Composition.html

There's a basic page on photo composition, found in about 0.1 seconds using Google. Photographers aren't born, they're made - so you've got some learning to do.




anyways here are my recent crappy pics from the 3.2


As you said, the pics are pretty poor - but it's certainly not the camera's fault.



But all I've said isn't just nebulous opinion - I can give you some concrete examples of how getting awesome equipment will not make a person's pictures instantly awesome.

Here's one person's equipment.
http://www.efiunlimited.com/gallery/data/520/Canon_5D_01_r.jpg

In case you're wondering, I've done a quick price check and the basic elements of that setup cost him a staggering ~$7050.00, which is not even including his "Soon to buy" list of $4000.00, which I'm sure he's bought already.

It's quite a collection.

Now, let's see an example of what he considers a good picture!

http://www.efiunlimited.com/gallery/data/500/S3_22Apr2006_08.jpg

Is it sharp? Absolutely! Are the colours nice? You bet, Photoshop is great! Is it a good, well-composed photo? Not even close!

Now, this photo isn't just a random shot of a nice car parked on the side of the road - this was part of a full photoshoot of the vehicle, and the photographer had complete control over placement of the vehicle.

And yet, he takes a picture of a car with a garbage can growing out of its ass. With random tree branches protruding into the frame.


http://www.efiunlimited.com/gallery/data/500/S3_22Apr2006_12.jpg

So, after that, he has the car moved to the opposite side of the street, so he can get a dead on shot of the rear quarter panel! Sharp? Yes! Good exposure and colour? Yes! Original? Possibly. Eye-catching? Nope. Creative? Nope. Interesting? Not at all.



So, what I'm trying to say is that the best equipment in the world can't and won't help you if you don't know how to use it for its intended purpose. Any of the above shots, if printed in a magazine or hung on a wall, would look like rubbish. They'd be sharp, the Megapixel count means you could blow them up to cover the side of a building, but they'd still be subpar pictures.

So do yourself a favour - before you drop a thousand bucks on a new camera, go and learn from the people who know what they're doing. Pick up a few photo mags and see what the professionals do to make things look interesting. Discover what you need to do to get your shots the way you want them. If you think your shots are "crappy", it's probably because they are.

I'm not trying to harp on you individually, but there's a lot of people that think a new camera will instantly transform their snapshots into photographs, and they're very, very wrong. Before I got into photography more seriously, I thought that as well. But the more I talked to people like Melinda, Ben, Ekliptix, D'z Nutz, and other people who take a lot of excellent shots or even shoot for a living, the more I realized how untrue it is. The #1 key component behind every shot is the mind of the person taking it, and the most important thing is how well that mind knows what it's doing. Cameras don't take pictures. People do.

Melinda
10-09-2006, 06:35 PM
To the original poster:

I assumed these photos were posted to get some tips, advice, ect on your photos. I will appologize for highjacking your thread, but to make up for it, here are my pointers:

Work in the rule of thirds. Divide your viewfinder of your camera into three both horizontally and vertically. Work off of that. Landscape photos of parks and trees *usually* look badly when tilted, takes away from the natural beauty of what we're looking at.

Make a connection with your subject. Things that are smaller than you will not photograph well if they are taken from a much higher vantage point unless they are looking up at you. For future dog photos, kneel down and shoot from their level. Same goes if you shoot any child.

And find your right white balances for different lighting. The car photo is the wrong white balance and needs a tripod.

BerserkerCatSplat
10-09-2006, 06:47 PM
As an additional tip, here's one thing that I always try to keep in mind when shooting:

Stand up, and hold the camera to your eye.

Now, never take a picture from that position if you can avoid it.

Almost every single last person sees the world from that angle, about 5 and a half feet up. They see everything from that perspective, almost every waking moment. Therefore, a photo taken from that angle is pretty much garunteed to look boring to the average person.

So, bend down, climb a ladder, get a higher vantage point, whatever it takes to make it more interesting! :D

streetarab
10-09-2006, 09:06 PM
Good post berserker, I understand exactly what your sayin but at the same time, I feel I would take WAY WAY better pics if I had a better camera.

I think I've hit a road block with my cam, I can't change lenses or anything so I don't have a lot of flexibility and I'm limited in what I can try. Night shots suck, they're not even worth tryin. Like fivefreshfish said, a beginner with good shit has the ability to explore, I can't, but if I did, I would be better because I could try become better.

So maybe a good cam COULD make someone a better photographer. :dunno:

PiMpIn SmUrF
10-09-2006, 09:52 PM
wow u guys kick ass, im not offended in any way. Thanks so much,

but just wait and see..........................................:bigpimp:

BerserkerCatSplat
10-11-2006, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF
wow u guys kick ass, im not offended in any way. Thanks so much,



Another good quality is the ability to accept constructive criticizm - and you seem to have that under control. Keep it up. :D

Ekliptix
10-11-2006, 12:18 AM
I'm glad someone else cleared up the Megapixal myth.

2.1Mp camera here:
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/Ekliptix/CottageMagazine4small.jpg

BerserkerCatSplat
10-11-2006, 12:25 AM
Another example, a 24"X36" print from a 4MP D2H.

http://www.grafphoto.com/articles/printdogma.html

streetarab
10-11-2006, 07:30 AM
just to clarify, for me its not about megapixels but QUALITY and VERSATILITY of a camera, its just that those good cameras come with more megapixels, ive taken good shots with my 3.2 but its not as versitile as a rebel or d50

ex1z7
10-18-2006, 12:44 PM
The MP debate always jerked me the wrong way.. "Oh you only have 3.2mp? Well I have 5!".

http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/4840/5864/camera-digital-seitz-medium-format.phtml

Cus 1 or 2 mp increments /really/ make that much of an amazing difference.




I, like pimpin smurf, intend on upgrading my equipment, and then intent to learn how to use everything by simply going out and doing it. I'd love to post up a few of my shots to see what a few of you more skilled photographers think, and if you could give me some constructive critisism too, I think I may do that infact.. <stops thread jacking>

Pimpin Smurf : I think those shots look very good, interesting angles and perspectives - it makes it interesting.

The fish hook picture is my favourite..

And why do you want a Rebel ?

turboMiata
10-21-2006, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Ekliptix
I'm glad someone else cleared up the Megapixal myth.

2.1Mp camera here:


0MP 30 dallah camera.

http://www.portscan.ca/blog/archives/bwog060211.jpg

BerserkerCatSplat
10-21-2006, 10:52 PM
^That's incredible, how did he/she pull that off? Or is that one of yours?

Ben
10-22-2006, 02:45 AM
Thanks for the compliments Mel, I appreciate it. We all start somewhere. MP has nothing to do with how good your camera is for the most part. It's the quality of the sensor capturing the image! And even then, if you are lacking skill on composition and utilizing the cameras settings, even a top of the line Canon 1DsMKII for the low price of $10,000 cant help you.

When I first really got into the digital bug, DSLR's were not yet affordable to the point of being a easy purchase. I was looking at a Fuji S2 Pro which was running about 2500 bucks or so, and this was about as cheap as they came. The Canon D60 was in the 5k range and there was really nothing else to choose from. So I used my POS Canon S200. A year later Canon released the 300D (Rebel mk1) and then everything took off.

I shot many a car show with that small little S200 camera but absolutly maximized every possible feature and speck of quality I could get from its 2MP sensor. Since then I've been through 4 DSLR's.

Take proper care in the composition, and know the cameras maximum limitations. You dont need to post process the hell out of something to get a good photo if you take the time to shoot it properly the first time. Post processing can add to a photos style and give it more of a artistic feel however, so if this is your style, run with it.

When I first started shooting, I would always imagine how the photo would look, printed, framed, hanging on the wall, before even hitting the shutter button. Now it just comes naturally. You learn through experience. Hell, most of the time now, I can shoot without even looking through the view finder and it's framed exactly how I'd want just because you learn your equipment (this is generally when I'm shooting rolling shots of another car while driving my own, and I cant take my eyes off the road, I think Ekliptix has a photo of me doing just that when I was photographing his car, haha).

I now shoot with cameras ranging from 6.1 megapixels to 12.7 megapixels, but the quality of the shot remains the same. Hell, I used a D30 the other day (not a 30D, but the original 3.1MP D-SLR from Canon) and you couldn't tell when it was resized to web sizes.

Its all in the quality of the sensor, and the person behind the viewfinder.

Keep up the great work everyone, it's astonishing seeing SO MANY PEOPLE firing off some great photos compared the the handful of us a few years ago.

Cheers!

Ben

41,000 photos and counting this year.

soupey
10-22-2006, 10:36 AM
i use a 4.0mp canon S400 for everything, love the camera to death, i bought a Canon A540 but it never had the same feel to it, always seemed to take crappier pics even tho it was "6.0MP", so ended up selling it and stickn to my camera..heres some of the stuff ive taken wit it


http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/1.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/2.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/3.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/4.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/5.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/6.jpg
http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/7.jpg.

silver_gs-R
10-22-2006, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by soupey

http://members.shaw.ca/ypatel/7.jpg [/B]

SICK PICTURE!!!

l8braker
10-22-2006, 01:31 PM
Nice pics soupey!

soupey
10-22-2006, 01:40 PM
only the car pics have been curved with photoshop, the rest are direct off the camera, just shrunk and tagged wit "soupey"

likwid
10-22-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by PiMpIn SmUrF


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/animals/1-1.jpg

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i294/PiMpIn_SmUrF/animals/2-1.jpg



Is your dog asian?

RobTheGob
10-22-2006, 05:34 PM
Man - the "tilting" of the camera doesn't work. I think there are a few times when it does work - but in most cases, it just looks like you are trying to be "artsy"...

Just my opinion...

streetarab
10-22-2006, 07:35 PM
i find it works really well when trying to get a full car in frame, but close up, thats the only time id ever use it