Not Jack's kind of photos... Cotton Bowl 2022

I did not realize so few OU fans made the trip.
Haha. LOL. It was the 4th quarter and even an OU frenemy of mine who knew I was gonna be overhead left the stadium. Decided that he'd have more fun going and doing Uber than waiting for the post-game traffic jam. Seemed like a lot of OU folks didn't think the last 15 minutes were worth their time.
 
Man.. Those are really crisp shots! Are you capturing .raw and doing post-edits?
 
Man.. Those are really crisp shots! Are you capturing .raw and doing post-edits?
I did shoot RAW because of the clouds and haze - you can get a hint of the haze in the wider angle shot looking toward downtown - (it was really a lot worse than you'd think from the photos), with minor edits - not too much, though. We actually shoot .jpg more often than most people might think.
 
I did shoot RAW because of the clouds and haze - you can get a hint of the haze in the wider angle shot looking toward downtown - (it was really a lot worse than you'd think from the photos), with minor edits - not too much, though. We actually shoot .jpg more often than most people might think.

OK. I'm going to spin this off into a photog geek out discussion. :D

I have an older DSLR - Canon XSi - which is 12MP. Back 'in the day', it seemed that MP was the measurement for everything. Now, maybe it seems notsomuch. What say ye? Is it still worth paying more for higher MP?

My biggest qualm with the camera is low light handling. I can't seem to get the blur out of things that aren't super well lit. My sister has a newer (~4 years old now I guess) Canon and it has ISO up to 64k or some ridiculous number while mine tops out at 1600. Is ISO the big difference in older cameras to newer cameras? From my VERY limited understanding, higher ISOs mean grainer pics - is that still the case?

I'm running standard Canon glass - most with max EF of 4 - 4.5 or so with one down to 3, but nothing better than that. Is the better glass with better EF a big benefit to get the shots you have above? I tend to do more landscape type stuff than fast action sports, but still...
 
OK. I'm going to spin this off into a photog geek out discussion. :D
I have an older DSLR - Canon XSi - which is 12MP. Back 'in the day', it seemed that MP was the measurement for everything. Now, maybe it seems notsomuch. What say ye? Is it still worth paying more for higher MP?
MPs not so much, but get a full-frame camera and you'll never go back. I have the top-of-the line Canon camera, the 1DX Mark iii and it only has 20.1MP. Of course I'm the guy that buys a $6500 camera and can't wait until the Canon R1 comes out... rumored to be $8K... I lose so much money on photography!
 
MPs not so much, but get a full-frame camera and you'll never go back. I have the top-of-the line Canon camera, the 1DX Mark iii and it only has 20.1MP. Of course I'm the guy that buys a $6500 camera and can't wait until the Canon R1 comes out... rumored to be $8K... I lose so much money on photography!
I’m using a Nikon D850 and a lens that a lot of people hate, lol. I think lenses and full frame and sensor quality are probably key. Most people don’t need to be able to blow a picture up to the size of a wall (but one of my boss’ photos just had that done).
The benefit of more MP plus good lenses is that you can do a serious crop and still deliver an adequate quality photo if necessary.
 
MPs not so much, but get a full-frame camera and you'll never go back. I have the top-of-the line Canon camera, the 1DX Mark iii and it only has 20.1MP. Of course I'm the guy that buys a $6500 camera and can't wait until the Canon R1 comes out... rumored to be $8K... I lose so much money on photography!

Are you a Precision Camera guy?
 
I’m using a Nikon D850 and a lens that a lot of people hate, lol. I think lenses and full frame and sensor quality are probably key. Most people don’t need to be able to blow a picture up to the size of a wall (but one of my boss’ photos just had that done).
The benefit of more MP plus good lenses is that you can do a serious crop and still deliver an adequate quality photo if necessary.

Makes sense. So far I've resisted the urge to upgrade. But I tried to get some wall-hanger shots when we were in UT a few years ago and they just don't 'snap' like I would like. I'll keep tinkering and keep my eye out for last year's models on sale this year. :)
 
Makes sense. So far I've resisted the urge to upgrade. But I tried to get some wall-hanger shots when we were in UT a few years ago and they just don't 'snap' like I would like. I'll keep tinkering and keep my eye out for last year's models on sale this year. :)
If you can afford more MP, go for it, but after the 30-40 MP range, you start eating up lots and lots of storage space - Gigabytes worth. I'm often shooting 40+ Gb worth of mostly .jpgs per month...
 
If you can afford more MP, go for it, but after the 30-40 MP range, you start eating up lots and lots of storage space - Gigabytes worth. I'm often shooting 40+ Gb worth of mostly .jpgs per month...
The Canon R1 is rumored to have 50MP to 100MP. I'm hoping it's 50! I don't want to use the extra space. I can already blow my photos up to poster size.
 
Back
Top