Please sign in to comment. Don't have a profile? Join now! Joining is absolutely free and no personal information is required.
I sent some sample pictures and information about the camera - a set I've sent to others - at the gmail account in your profile. Easier to continue by email than comments! :-)
What I'm trying to say is, for instance - this photo, which was shot with a 300mm lens -http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/escafeld01/Photographs%20for%20Geograph/X1_zpsbcf62707.jpgIf I quarter the image, like so -http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/escafeld01/Photographs%20for%20Geograph/X4_zpsb21ed596.jpgI'm assuming that it now looks as it would if taken with 1200mm lens, because I've multiplied it by a factor of four.OK, the image quality is grainy, but wouldn't have been so noticeable with a smaller ISO number and a busy background and less so at 640x480 and having said that here's the 640x480 -http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a303/escafeld01/Photographs%20for%20Geograph/640x640_zpsf7f62cdb.jpgI don't have job, I'm retired. My hobbies include taking photographs for this website - My profilehttp://www.geograph.org.uk/profile/4330I'm even more interested in the Nikon if it's as good as you say it is for macro work. I would like to build up my collection of photographs of wild flowers, fungi and plants.
640 x 640 certainly limits any reason for a heavy-duty camera. Not sure how you do your calculation - the 16-mp sensor is 4608 x 3456. You can print a 9x12 at 400 dpi, and use a magnifying glass to see detail in the print not visible to the naked eye.Using this camera has produced a new issue; disappointment at how much detail is lost "printing" it to a usable print or screen size. From 8 feet away, a picture of a Canadian Swallowtail butterfly shows the fuzz on its body and the scales on its antenna - detail which, if you had the butterfly in your hand, you'd need a magnifying glass to see! Historically, a print was considered "sharp" if a point resolved to 0.010", or 100 dpi. By that measure, you'd need to print at around 3' x 4' to see all the detail. So definitely overkill for your current job!
Yes, I did look at that earlier, and I have quite a few Nikon batteries. Geograph requires photographs of no more than 640x640 so at the maximum end, 1000mm, it would be 4000mm plus!
Check out the Nikon P510 - it's exceptional for architectural detail. I was photographing the capitals on the Widener Library at Harvard, and when I examined the pictures, I discovered that they were covered by bird netting, invisible to the naked eye at that distance (over 100'). They couldn't have been more than half a mm in diameter, but they resolved clearly, complete with cut ends, at that distance. I took a wide-angle of Memorial Hall, then zoomed in on the copper drain gargoyles near the top of the tower - you could see mortar defects and soldering details. Don't know how I ever did without it....
The telephoto lens is the least used lens I have, but I was looking at the Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Digital Camera with the 24-1200mm lens for those long shots of the railway and big sunsets, etc. I mostly use a 10-24mm, to get shots like those of the first of my jigsaws - Boston "Stump" (I added the sky later), Lincolnshire and Purfleet Quay, King's Lynn. I'm currently photographing the churches of Lincolnshire - 650 plus, and the lens is excellent for both exterior and interior shots. I mainly take photographs for Geograph and subjects are mostly within 1km; very rarely more, though I do shoot the odd telephoto for myself.Ah, the clogged up tips. That's what caused the end of my venture into pen and ink. If I ever draw at all, I use Corel Draw v10
Alfred Steiglitz: "The 35 mm camera is like an oyster - it spawns thousands of young that one might survive." He should have seen the digital camera! But I wouldn't go back. Carrying my 2-body 5-lens XK system with a heavy tripod, trying to get pictures of birds while manually focusing a 600-mm lens on a matte viewscreen - and not knowing whether you had a shot until the film was developed... Now I have a new Nikon P510, affordable pro-am, 16 mp, with a zoom of 24-1000mm, with auto-focus and image stabilization (even at the longest distances) and a ton of other features. I've gotten more great pictures in 3 months (some of which simply weren't possible on the old cameras) than in several years of the more labor-intensive older system. Super-sharp detailed hand-held 1000mm shots, no more tripod - and a camera you can carry in a belt pouch; I still can't get over it! Not to mention no more developing and printing costs (even in the '70s, presentation prints cost $35 each).Anyway, I assumed you used technical pens when I looked at the details; the uniformity of line would be almost impossible with a quill pen of any type. I was experimenting with them at the time but wasn't happy for the type of sketching I do (and keeping the finer tips unclogged); I still have a full set somewhere.
Drawn with a set of Rotring Rapidograph pens. I got my Minolta in early '68 and then my wife got one for less money, with two extra lenses, a camera case, and a camera and lens holdall, which I've just thrown away. I miss the 35mm film, it makes you think twice about composition, exposure and whether you need to take a photograph at all.
A4? Pretty delicate work! And I like the pointillist effect for the clouds. [And by the way, my first SLR was a Minolta SRT-101, back in 1966! :-) ]
Thanks. The drawing, which was A4 in size, took almost 8 hours. If I couldn't finish a drawing in a day I would end up scrapping it. I scanned it as a 7000x5100 bitmap at 34.05MB. This 1024x768
Hmmm. I don't usually do drawings, and don't usually do black & white - but it's an interesting subject, and I have a soft spot for architectural drawings. In the event - partly because you were so meticulous - it didn't take much longer than a regular 130-piece puzzle, and I'm glad I did it. It's an excellent drawing! What was its original size, and how long did it take?