How good is 24meg realy ?

Started 11 months ago | Discussions
Roland Karlsson
Forum ProPosts: 20,908Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

Seriously - those eye images were taken under so different conditions that nothing can be said.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to fotografos, 11 months ago

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ? if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
James O'Neill
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,939
Like?
Re: Megapixels shmegapixels
In reply to DRabbit, 11 months ago

Very true.

What most people don't get is that however you increase the number of pixels you're not increasing the resolution linearly - you're recording the image laid down by the lens with greater fidelity.

What the images which kicked the thread off prove (if anything) is that whilst 24MP should be better *if all other things are equal* in reality they aren't: the lens, the availablity of stabilization, photographer technique, AA filter, the processing, all end up contributing to the final image. If these are strong 14MP is plenty, heck I've just passed the 10th anniversary of getting my *ist-D and 6 MP stands up pretty well.  Given a choice between a K3 body a 6MP sensor or *ist-D with 24MP I'd take the K3 - the number of cases where I needed more MP has been negligable. The number of shots I've got with newer cameras that I wouldn't have attempted with older ones is significant.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
afterswish1
Contributing MemberPosts: 691
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to Rod McD, 11 months ago

Rod McD wrote:

Hi Don,

I would have thought that a 50% increase in resolution was worth having if you need to upgrade. My K5 is 60% up on my old K10D. 24mpx is +50% on the 16mpx of my K5. (And 36mpx is +50% more on 24mpx.) While any increase has an edge, I think 50% is probably what I would see as the significant step up that might make an upgrade worthwhile.

Is it needed, is it worth having? I think that depends on several things. One needs to recognise that having a sensor doesn't produce images. An image pipeline does - and that means lens, senor, and processor of matching capability. And it depends on usage. If you view only on 4X6" prints and an 11" laptop, then 24mpx is overkill. OTOH, if you do print big, even occasionally, it may be very much worthwhile.

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool - if you like you could compare the K5 and K10, or K3 and K5, or other cameras with a 50% increase in sensor resolution (eg the Nikon D3X & D800).

Cheers,

Rod

Hi Rod,

You're quite a bit off in your calculations for increased resolution there. It's not an insignificant increase by any means, but not quite as good as you think. A lot of people seem to be making that error, perhaps someone should make a separate thread about it...

[Edit: I see someone else in this thread beat me to it!]

-- hide signature --

Gravity will make you crazy until you get the hang of it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MightyMike
Forum ProPosts: 30,834
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Winder
Senior MemberPosts: 1,316Gear list
Like?
Re: Megapixels shmegapixels
In reply to DRabbit, 11 months ago

DRabbit wrote:

To double the resolution of a 15mp camera, you need to multiply 15 x 4. You would need a 60mp camera to double the resolution.

The difference between the K3s 24mp and the K7s 15mp is about 1300 pixels on the widest side. It's not a significant difference.

What is of more importance is the overall image quality of a more current camera. In theory, processing gets better, improvements are made to noise performance, the camera may be faster or focus more accurately, etc. etc. MP shouldn't be your gauge on whether to upgrade or not. At least not at this point in 2013. I've printed VERY large from 8mp cameras with excellent results, and recently with 16mp camera with outstanding results… The 10mp files from a much older Leica M8 can produce beautiful large prints. There are more important reasons to upgrade (sometimes) other than Megapixel counts.

24mp in green, 16mp in white.

Amy

It's not simply a matter of increasing resolution.

DxO 24MP vs 16MP Lens Test

 Winder's gear list:Winder's gear list
Pentax K-3 Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Pentax smc FA 31mm F1.8 AL Limited Sigma 85mm F1.4 EX DG HSM
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
JNR
JNR
Senior MemberPosts: 1,808Gear list
Like?
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100
In reply to Roland Karlsson, 11 months ago

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

-- hide signature --

JNR
www.jamesrobins.com

 JNR's gear list:JNR's gear list
Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED MC Pentax K-01 Pentax K-30 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Samyang 8mm F3.5 Aspherical IF MC Fisheye +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Karlsson
Forum ProPosts: 20,908Gear list
Like?
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100
In reply to JNR, 11 months ago

JNR wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

Yeah. It is not easy to make consistent test shots.

I know that DPReview have produced some comparison test images that has to be avoided if you want to know what he camera can do. It is maybe a good idea to look at some other of the K5 sibblings, in particular the one without AA filter. And also look at some other ISO values.

Note though - that, for this comparison, I am not interested in high ISO performance. I am trying to evaluate the maximal performance, which you do not get at high ISO.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Conjure
Regular MemberPosts: 310
Like?
1600 px versus 2500 px:
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

cheers

Anton

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fotografos
Contributing MemberPosts: 728Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

 fotografos's gear list:fotografos's gear list
Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-3 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to MightyMike, 11 months ago

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to fotografos, 11 months ago

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: K3 >> K5 according to IR image comparometer @ ISO 100
In reply to Roland Karlsson, 11 months ago

7100,k7 ir the same smearing details I was seeing. Don

Roland Karlsson wrote:

JNR wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Rod McD wrote:

It's interesting to have a look at different sensors on the IR comparator tool -

The K3 is MUCH better at ISO 100 than K5. I really wonder if the difference can be that large?

Keep in mind this IR tool takes JPEGs directly from the camera presumably using the default setting. As such it isn't really comparing sensors directly. Take care, as well, to ensure that the focus points the same as IR is not terribly consistent in that regard. I don't have a preference between the two cameras (owning neither), but too much can get read into the IR comparisons.

Yeah. It is not easy to make consistent test shots.

I know that DPReview have produced some comparison test images that has to be avoided if you want to know what he camera can do. It is maybe a good idea to look at some other of the K5 sibblings, in particular the one without AA filter. And also look at some other ISO values.

Note though - that, for this comparison, I am not interested in high ISO performance. I am trying to evaluate the maximal performance, which you do not get at high ISO.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
MightyMike
Forum ProPosts: 30,834
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

Donald B wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

everyone has eyes, don't need a sales site to tell me the difference in photo quality, even my 75 yo mother can see the difference , and can only see out of one eye.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

The eyes can't be trusted when the photos are pre-manipulated. Basically what I'm saying is there is absolutely no controls in your experiment to make any result out of it valid. A great photographer can do a good just with perceived inferior equipment and a idiot can ruin a perfectly good photo with poor editing skills. Random photos, random setting, random situations, random people, random skill sets, random editing which amounts to with no controls are a useless way to evaluate a cameras capabilities. You won't find me judging a camera by any photo results but my own, therefore when i judge a camera its by the numbers, the specifications, its on a technical level not the subjective and totally blind way of looking at random photos.

Unless a visual test/example is done with absolute precision and total controls then it can be skewed in dozens of ways making it propaganda and not truth.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

-- hide signature --

Mike from Canada
"I am not a great photographer! God is a great creator! All I do is capture His creation with the tools He has provided me."
'I like to think so far outside the box that it would require a telephoto lens just to see the box!' ~ 'My Quote :)'
http://www.michaelfastphotography.com/galleries/VP-BDI_3a.jpg
http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?sort_order=views%20DESC&first_this_page=0&page_limit=180&&emailsearch=mighty_mike88%40hotmail.com&thumbnails=

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Roland Karlsson
Forum ProPosts: 20,908Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to MightyMike, 11 months ago

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

 Roland Karlsson's gear list:Roland Karlsson's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sigma DP2 Quattro Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III Pentax K-3 Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +8 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Jim in Hudson
Senior MemberPosts: 1,158Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Roland Karlsson, 11 months ago

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my!  On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database.  So what cameras are these?

 Jim in Hudson's gear list:Jim in Hudson's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Pentax K-3 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR Pentax smc DA 35mm F2.4 AL +3 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
fotografos
Contributing MemberPosts: 728Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to Donald B, 11 months ago

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

Does he have a website or online gallery? I would love to browse the portfolio of someone that shoots for Vogue, Woolworths, McDonalds etc...

.bill

 fotografos's gear list:fotografos's gear list
Pentax K-5 II Pentax K-3 Pentax smc FA 50mm F1.4 Pentax smc DA 16-45mm F4 ED AL Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
kyc888
Regular MemberPosts: 149
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Jim in Hudson, 11 months ago

Jim in Hudson wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my! On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database. So what cameras are these?

These crops are misleading. IR has a K-7 review, indeed, but it doesn't show up in the comparator. You can look up the K-7 review for the images. I did, and here are links to the "no flash, auto WB" images.

D7100 vs K-7

My opinion is that the D7100 shows more detail especially in the hair and the texture of the doll's skin is a close call. The D7100 looks like it's focused more on the lips than the face (thus clearer hair) while the K-7 is focused a bit back of that (thus a bit more detail on the skin but lips and hair more blurred). Perhaps this isn't the best comparison because of the slight difference in focal planes.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24 meg realy ?
In reply to Jim in Hudson, 11 months ago

Jim in Hudson wrote:

Roland Karlsson wrote:

MightyMike wrote:

Donald B wrote:

sorry Mike but couldn't hold off any longer, now explain how my test were not correct ?

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

I see 2 photos, no idea of setting but they definitely look like you tried however. I assume the right one is the K-7 and what i see is the look of false detail in the form of luminance noise... as for actual detail not much difference just more pixels per area of detail on the left side... the lighting sure looks different and the processing, you're certainly getting different colours and saturation.

This is the imaging resource mannequin indoor image. Its a doll. If you look at cameras with higher resolution you see that the right image is ... right (sic!). The plastic skin looks like that, more or less. The left image is seriously smoothed. What the skin color of this doll is, I have not the slightest idea.

Oh my! On top of that, I don't see the K-7 in their comparison database. So what cameras are these?

hi Jim, you have to click on "ALL" cameras and these are at iso 400

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Donald B
Senior MemberPosts: 3,466Gear list
Like?
Re: How good is 24meg realy ?
In reply to fotografos, 11 months ago

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

fotografos wrote:

Donald B wrote:

I was just talking to a friend of mine that's been a world class pro for 40 years and he understands my logic perfectly, he him self confessors to using the latest software to increase file sizes so he can print bill boards and bus stops and agrees you don't need the large sensors. he said the days of mf are gone.

cheers don

It's been a while since i've been here and I drop in for a few minutes to see how well the K3's been received and I read this... Are you kidding me???

.bill

in what regards, am I missing something ?

You must be if you seriously believe the days of MF are gone! Perhaps Phase should stop making those digital backs then?

if you have something to say, say it with a comparison photo. Oh I forgot one of your own not from a web site.

I'll leave that one to you!

cheers don

All the best,

.bill

not my quote, a friends, he shoots for vogue, house and garden, woollies, macas the list goes on.
spoke to him yesterday and he took all his camera gear to a shop for sale even his phase.

Does he have a website or online gallery? I would love to browse the portfolio of someone that shoots for Vogue, Woolworths, McDonalds etc...

.bill

will pm you bill.he's pretty good.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads