All Forum Comments
Comment by i-Berg posted on Reducing resolution ... at 07/04/2010 - 11:16
Comment by i-Berg posted on Quality issue with TC at 07/04/2010 - 10:51
Comment by i-Berg posted on Reducing resolution ... at 07/04/2010 - 10:48
Comment by i-Berg posted on Red Kite in flight. at 07/04/2010 - 10:35
they won't move no matter how close you get until you nudge them with your finger.
Nice work Tim
Comment by i-Berg posted on Lantern bugs at 07/04/2010 - 10:33
Comment by i-Berg posted on Poll - How often do you use a camera? at 07/04/2010 - 09:50
Comment by i-Berg posted on Pentax only features at 07/04/2010 - 09:48
Would be used predominantly for indoor pictures of the kids
You've already got some good advice here. I wonder though what you actually intend to do, when you say 'predominantly indoor pics of the kids'?
Two parts to that - what hangs off the word 'predominantly'? What else will you be doing with it, and how does that affect your choice/s?
Secondly, pics of the kids: Are you looking at action shots of a number of kids? (I reckon you probably are). But - perhaps you are doing portraits of individual kids? These two choices of 'kids pics' are important for you. If it is about groups of kids in action, flexibility and a wide angle are more important. That may suggest a closer look at a short zoom.
If it is mainly kids portraits, then a portrait-length prime (eg a fast 50 or 70mm) might be better for you.
But the 'other' uses you are contemplating may have a bearing on your choice too. Perhaps a zoom to start with, and then do a check of all your images after a time to see what focal lengths you're actually using?
The you could make some further evidence-based choices on additional lenses (or not )
Comment by i-Berg posted on looking for my first prime!! at 07/04/2010 - 09:36
Comment by i-Berg posted on Entries for Fortnightly Competition # 38 - Genius Loci at 07/04/2010 - 08:26
Comment by i-Berg posted on New KX abroad for first time at 07/04/2010 - 08:24


Thus, the answer to your question is that, using the above method, there is no 'better or worse' in this - it's entirely your choice, and no penalty attached for using 'odd' sizes.
By way of example, if you took an image, did an 'odd-shaped' crop of it, then resized the crop, you would almost certainly end up with odd numbers on either or both axes.
That happens regularly - and I can't tell the difference solely on that account.
Happy resampling!