Tonight's Cell Phone Sunset and Gratutious DSLR Panorama
 

I enjoyed Data's new cell pics. My 4 year old Samsung S8 can't quite match up. Posted anyway and then a previous more serious attempt with the DSLR.


Attachment 53725
The one below is a top 5 sunset since we lived here.


Attachment 53726

Stunning! That's the difference when you know what the hell you're doing. :lol:
Scott

Those are really pretty! Clearly the S8 and the S21 are in different leagues. Wife and daughter have the S8. I gave my daughter the S9 which was the first model that truly had incredible photography.

Other than the amount of pixels in any given pictures, the only huge difference I see between yours and mine is in the panoramic picture. The amount of distortion of the buildings has improved radically since even your DSLR was made. :yesnod:

I'll try and take one soon for a comparison. :seasix:

:seasix::seasix:


The number of pixels, while important, is less important than the size of the sensor and the size of the glass. Cell cameras are getting really, really good, but DSLRs and the new mirrorless lenses produce still produce better quality.

An interesting note about pixels... the first photo above is nearly 4 times larger on disk that the second. I didn't shoot the cell in raw mode which is part of the reason for the difference image quality. JPGs don't edit well at all compared to raw files. Can't remember when I last shot a jpg with my DSLR.

Distortion is just the physics of the lens and the position of the camera/lens when the photo is taken. It really doesn't have much if any to do with pixels. It's all about the lens. Cells with multiple lenses like your Sammy help with that. Most high quality real estate photos where all the walls and surfaces are perfectly straight are taken with tilt shift lenses - sort of a compact version of an old bellows view camera. Distortion is fairly easily handled in post processing - you just have to allow for the resulting cropping.

I grabbed few shots with my DSLR during the sunset in the first shot and will try to process and post a comparison.

Thanks Scott. That panorama shot has quite a bit of work in it. :D

Period. End.

*DSLR :)

Great pics.

Thanks and thanks for the DLSR find. I kept looking at my post... ???? then finally saw it in the title. :)

Ya' dang pixel peeper.

I read pixel articles on FM, and other photo sites a few yrs., ago. Pixel density and the size of the pixel frame help determine the sharpness of a photo was my understanding. All pixels have a border or frame. Decrease the size of it and the photo sharpness increases. I can say that is very true. Look at a collodion photo in person and you will be amazed by it. If it's 150 plus yrs, old or a new one. You are basically creating liquid film without pixels with the process.

:seasix:

Pixel density is a real-world concern. Using a full frame sensor - 36mm x 24mm- The 5D MK IV is 30MP. That's a specific number of pixels spread across a predetermined area. (The sensor)

Now take a 5DS at 50MP. This sensor crams 20 more MP into the same area. BFD right? Not exactly. Higher MP *generally* means poorer low light performance. And for me this is the big one; More megapixels mean those smaller pixels are more susceptible to camera shake.

Using my 5D MK IV and R5 as an example. I could routinely and consistently capture BIF at 1/1600 to 1/2000 second on the 5D MK IV. The added pixels of the R5 however forced me to bump my shutter up to 1/2500 to achieve the same number of keepers. On the R5 @ 1/1600 my keeper rate becomes inconsistent. And I'm pretty damn steady. (all those years welding probably had some impact on steadiness I'm imagining)

Interesting. Never thought about that or had real experience with the different setups.

Do you still have a high-end film camera? I still have my old Canon body. I thought about getting some good film, having it processed on the best paper, etc...and comparing a film photo to a printed digital photo.

I still have my Canon Elan 7e which I've had for 20 years for sure.

It's been so long since I printed anything from a film camera I have no idea how that comparison would look these days.

I do remember scanning my Fuji Velvia slides to get them into a digital format I could work with.

Pixel size is very important in astrophotography where light gathering capability is key.

And if you don't have high quality glass, it's garbage in/garbage out.

I'm sure you know about Canon's Ra? Mirrorless which means RF mount.

Absolutely. Several locals I know have switched, or added one to their kit. And some Nikon guys ditching D850s for the Z7.

Upgrading from my old Canon kit lens to a pro level lens increased my image quality considerably more than going from a 50D to 7D and eventually to a 5D3. Would love to upgrade that if my usage warranted.

Get a tripod ya maroon!:rofl:

What makes that sad is the Z7 is not a mirrorless version of the D850.

If I could start over with lenses etc., I'd probably get a D850. Unless I get a substantial boost in my interest in photography, I'll keep my Canon 5d3 and my ZWO ASI1600mm Pro astro cam.