PDA

View Full Version : Sorry laddies, OT again digital cameras



darryl
10-12-2007, 12:09 AM
I'm just venting now, so don't bother reading this if you're tired of this topic.

After a somewhat exxhausting time comparing cameras, image qualities, etc- the last pic I brought up for comparison was from the Rebel XT. Even the best p0int and sh00t couldn't come close to matching the picture quality. I guess I kind of knew that, but after comparing very many images from the point and shoots, it hit home. Now I'm back at square one.

Well I guess I'll let the gray matter stew on this for awhile now.

aostling
10-12-2007, 12:52 AM
After a somewhat exhausting time comparing cameras, image qualities, etc- the last pic I brought up for comparison was from the Rebel XT. Even the best point and shoot couldn't come close to matching the picture quality.

I have not read the earlier posts, so don't know where this is coming from. What are your intended uses, and how much are you willing to spend?

[edit] The premiere website for digital camera tests is dpreview. http://www.dpreview.com/ . The reviews are lengthy, but you can take a shortcut to the CONCLUSIONS at the end.

gmatov
10-12-2007, 01:22 AM
I too have no idea what you are talking about.

If you are talking about ANY digital camera being better than even a cheap, 5 buck, film camera. You are probably right.

I am on my second Olympus camera, 3 megapixel to 7 megapixel, and I am no happier with this one than with my old one.

Pictures just flat out suck.

Wish I had bought a Sony or a Nikon. Bought a Nikon for my 15 year old granddaughter, cheaper than mine, takes better pics. A daughter has her second Sony, more megapixels than the old one, outstanding photos, enough so that she uses it professionally to shoot weddings for hire.

Oldest daughter bought a Nikon with all them extra lenses, after I bought the g'daughter's camera, 8 megapixel, I think, FANTASTIC pictures.

I am the only asshole who thinks that Olympus makes a good camera. And I no longer think so either. I hate to throw this thing away so soon. Should e-bay it. Get SOMETHING for it.

As far as I am concerned, it is a very poor camera, as was my previous Olympus.

Not EVER again, no matter how much cheaper it is per megapixel.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, it's uh, uh, can't fool me again."
I think GW said that.

Cheers,
George

JRouche
10-12-2007, 01:39 AM
Aostling is correct.. The DP site IS the camera site...

I have a Rebel XT, nice camera. No point and shoot for the most part though.. I have a lil Cannon point and shoot though and I love it. Specially for bangin around. Not too worried about it getting broken.. JRouche

gellfex
10-12-2007, 02:20 AM
Fuji had an amazing series of 6mp cameras going, f20, F30 & F31fd, with great reviews on DPReview. Their specialty is low light, they can take usable photos at ISO 1600. They are also very fast and have more manual controls than the typical pocket digicam, and became a favorite of DSLR owners to have as a pocket cam.

I have a F31fd, and I got a new F20 for my mother in law last year and she loves it. You can get a F20 refurb for $99 here http://www.bwayphoto.com/ViewProduct.aspx?id=3263883

Evan
10-12-2007, 02:40 AM
I have the Digital Rebel and my daughter has the XT and the next one up. While you can more or less point and shoot on full auto that isn't what it is meant for. It's a Film SLR without the film. It has tremendous flexibility and can use a wide variety of lenses. Just the other day I made an M42 screw thread adapter for my Canon so I can use my old but good manual lenses.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics2/m42adapter1.jpg

The Rebel has the ability to use old non electronic lenses without losing all features. The auto focus notification will still work and tells you when the focus is correct. The light metering also still works so you can use the lenses in aperture priority as normal.

darryl
10-12-2007, 02:56 AM
Though I'm not a photographer, my standards for image quality must be a tad high. I don't like seeing 'candied up' images- I think grass should look like grass and not kaleidescope confetti, and the same for leaves, stones, etc. My casio 4 meg camera can easily produce enough image noise to render it useless, and it seems even the best high-meg cameras don't do a whole lot better. I can get some pretty awesome images from that little camera, but it needs lots of light. They all do.

The best 'news' is that a digital SLR can produce a great image even when the light is not so bright- which is a lot of the time, here at least. Some of the point and shoots apply the equivalent of a 20 mule team to change image noise into something which someone, somewhere, must think is a 'breakthrough' in image quality. My eye doesn't find it pleasing, and I can't justify spending the several hundreds to get that. Sure, the artifacts disappear in a small print, but even at only 8x10, there they are. My desire is to be able to produce a print that is better than that, even if it's just going to hang on my wall at home.

Well, I guess that's where I'm coming from on this whole issue. That's my rant- over for now. I just might move up the p and s ladder a bit for now, with the Panasonic fz7- cheap enough, very nice lens set with lots of zoom- and seemingly less disruption of the image due to processing than it's successors, the fz8 and above. It does produce a significantly better image than the Casio. That camera can also be a 'packalong'. Then I'll move up to a decent SLR when I'm willing to spend a grand and more.

Or so I'm thinking right now anyway.

speedy
10-12-2007, 05:36 AM
I have the Canon A630 and I am very happy with it. Good previews on http://www.dpreview.com/ and elsewhere.

Your Old Dog
10-12-2007, 05:55 AM
Fuji had an amazing series of 6mp cameras going, f20, F30 & F31fd, with great reviews on DPReview. Their specialty is low light, they can take usable photos at ISO 1600. They are also very fast and have more manual controls than the typical pocket digicam, and became a favorite of DSLR owners to have as a pocket cam.

I have a F31fd, and I got a new F20 for my mother in law last year and she loves it. You can get a F20 refurb for $99 here http://www.bwayphoto.com/ViewProduct.aspx?id=3263883

Ditto that on the F31fd. After months of searching that's the P&S camera I wanted to go where my $10,000 Nikon system wouldn't due to weight and size or expendability. (HOWEVER: The HSM'er should note it will not macro as well as some inexpensive cameras. It goes down to about 14 inches which fine for my shop needs. I have a microscope for any closer inspection. Did I mention it has "image stabilization" that works?)

Evan
10-12-2007, 08:32 AM
The best 'news' is that a digital SLR can produce a great image even when the light is not so bright-

Yep, there is no substitute for aperture.



and seemingly less disruption of the image due to processing than it's successors, the fz8 and above.

Many better cameras offer the option of shooting in RAW mode. That means the image is "uncooked". Really, it's not an abbreviation or acronym.

Prokop
10-12-2007, 09:34 AM
I work with photoeditors and most of them are former photo reporters. One of them told me to stick to lens maker and not the electronic maker when buying digital camera, since the picture is still made by the lenses.

My $0.02 only, I use few years old point and shoot Nikon and I am quite happy with it.

Evan
10-12-2007, 10:02 AM
One of my best cameras is my old (relative term in the digital camera business, three years is old) Nikon 4300. 4 megapixels but it has an outstanding lens. The lens is perfectly matched to the pixel size of the sensor array. Without this matching the extra megapixels don't mean a hill of beans since the optical resolution is the determining factor for image resolution, not the number of pixels. If the lens cannot produce an image feature as small as the sensor pixels then the the extra pixels add no extra information to the image.

This is the major dirty little secret in the digital camera business and is where the digital SLR cameras win big. The basic laws of optics say that the resolution of a lens is a product of the aperture vs the focal length. It's known as Rayleigh's limit. It isn't complicated.

S = 1.22 Lambda/D

Where S is the minimum resolvable angular separation of two objects, Lambda is the wavelength of the light, and D is the diameter of the aperture.

If this separation is larger than the distance separating two pixels on the sensor then the extra pixels do no good. Lens quality plays a part but when the lens is diffraction limited no further improvement is possible except by increasing the aperture of the objective. That's why I said "There is no substitute for aperture".

Thomas Staubo
10-12-2007, 10:53 AM
Ditto that on the F31fd. ........ (HOWEVER: The HSM'er should note it will not macro as well as some inexpensive cameras. It goes down to about 14 inches which fine for my shop needs. .......

I thought it sounded strange that it wouldn't focus closer than 14" (~35cm), so I checked the specs at DPreview (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Fujifilm/fuji_finepixf31fd.asp) .
And it says:

Normal focus range = 60 cm, Macro focus range = 5 cm
So it seems it has a separate macro mode (as most compacts do).
BTW, I have also heard lots of nice things about this camera.


Thomas