My Adriatic Blue '95 Riviera

Oh yeah, 21MP will do the job. How often do you see prints that big anyway? I mean, on an 8 x 10 my Kodak will look very similar to the same pic taken by one of those, but when you need billboard size prints the SLR or DSLR's the way to go.

Where do you live, by the way, Stan? Just wondering.

I understand what stan is saying, but those are great pictures nonetheless. Your idea is important, not the price of the camera. The advantage of a 21MP camera isn't always the image size so much as it is the ability to crop a very small area and still have clarity.

This one should be saved for the calendar. Beautiful work. You understand depth of field very well (or at least your camera does):

Thanks, Aaron! I also have one with the focus a little closer, and it looks brighter out.

i agree Aaron he should be like the site photographer

Nope, 1st one's better. Do you know why?

The camera's so good you can see a little piece of dirt floating in one of the drops in the middle, and the focus shouldn't be at the very bottom of the pic. And I get those pics by setting it to full(10X) zoom and walking far away. The trick to mastering a digital camera is learning how to do the manual stuff through the automatic systems, like aperture narrowing, exposure, and focus.

And you've pretty much mastered it. You should go get an old Canon SLR film camera body and a 200 mm lens. I've taken some great shots with my '80s Minolta SLR back in the day. A cheap way to get some great shots, and learn about how light works.

The dirt doesn't bother me, but I agree the focus in the foreground isn't the best. Also, the first image has better value contrast, and your F.O.R. captures more of the car's curves, so it's not so abstract like #2. The feeling of #1 is Riviera essence, but #2 is just shapes to me.

MP count matters (to me at least)-too bad you can't see the difference here `caus ethe shout are jpeg/bmp.But RAW is a different planet.

And what better way to word it than that, AA.

well,maybe the difference between RAW files of Canon eos 1ds Mark III and Nikon D3 won't be so noticeable.JPEG/bmp are small files compressed already even shooting fullsize JPEGs are no match for a RAW file.Too bad on this web-site we can't post raw-the file is way too large.
AA is right you can get used Canon 1ds Mark II which is 16,7 MP and still have amazing raws.

IBx1 wrote:

And what better way to word it than that, AA.

4 years of art school emanating through my keystrokes.

Quote :

AA is right you can get used Canon 1ds Mark II which is 16,7 MP and still have amazing raws.

I meant an old school Canon SLR that uses film.

My dad worked in a photo lab for a couple of years when he was 17. We haven't had a blackroom in our house for years, going back to the early 80's, especially since it was rennovated from the ground-up in '04. Never learned any of the real trade myself, but I guess I inherited the photo-taking ability quite well.

stan wrote:

MP count matters (to me at least)-too bad you can't see the difference here `caus ethe shout are jpeg/bmp.But RAW is a different planet.

Megapixels only make a difference if you plan on blowing the picture up. My dad has an old 2 MP Canon Powershot that takes excellent pictures. My digital camera is a 5 MP Konica Minolta Dimage Z2 and my film camera is a Canon Rebel G (Both take great pictures). I've seriously seen 7 MP Kodaks that take nastier pictures than my 5 MP Konica Minolta, I think it's more about how well made the camera and lens is (A lens as thick as a pen is not going to give that great of pictures no matter what MP it claims to be).

I noticed that you said you all only buy new cars. Why? Buying new cars is very bad financially as you pay all the depreciation of the car. We've only bought one new car (and it was wrecked by a drunk driver), the rest have all been used and we've had better luck than some of the people we know who bought brand new cars.

But the fact of the matter is that this topic is about my car, not comparing apples and Nikons.

I agree, the lens is more important than megapixels. I don't think stan disagrees with this. I will say that there are some very thin cameras out there taking great pictures, though. It's like anything else - things aren't always a certain way. There are exceptions. And quality only matters if it is perceptible.

I can understand buying new cars. If I had enough money, I'd do it every time. Spending money isn't always about getting a good deal. Supporting business you believe in is important, too.

I don't think I'll ever buy a new car, unless I someday get the money for something like a Mercedes or BMW or some other car with a lot of options that I want very personalized to myself. Otherwise I'll save a ton of money and just buy a well cared for used car.

IBx1 is right-let's stop this nonsense.
Did you PEOPLE see the 8 mile Silver Arrow 21on eBay from Venetia, PA?

stan wrote:

IBx1 is right-let's stop this nonsense.
Did you PEOPLE see the 8 mile Silver Arrow 21on eBay from Venetia, PA?

He has come down on his price quite a bit, about four years ago it was on eBay for $41,500. Maybe in a few years it will get down to where I can afford it and I'll add another one to my collection?!?

i remember it last year on autotrader.com for $39,500.but this is the first time he posts pictures.

Just figured I'd say it here:


HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY!!!

I can't believe I forgot this one...

All ice, no water. I love it when snow melts, for the pics on page two, and then freezes up again for one like this. It's the driver's side mirror, btw:

God's jealous of my car.

Perfect lighting here:

you always have good pics,i like the framing on this one

Thanks. If you mean the border around the pic, my cell phone does that by itself, but if you mean the actual photo setup, thanks a lot! I always find these great shots with perfect 5:00PM lighting, and sieze the opportunity.