I’m a hiker and a grandmother. For the former, I need a lightweight, small camera. For the latter, I need zoom to capture small creatures without closing in on them and disturbing their activity. I currently have an Olympus stylus zoom 140 film camera. It doesn’t have a macro mode for closeups of small flowers which is something I would like. My husband has a film Nikon SLR with multiple lenses that takes beautiful pictures but we never take the camera with us because it’s just too heavy and bulky. Now I’m thinking about a digital camera. Trying to choose is comparing apples and oranges.
For example, the Kodak DX6440 has 4 MP and 4X optical zoom. The Sony DSC-P92 has 5 MP and 3X zoom. They cost exactly the same. I have looked at reviews and they really don’t help much. I’m lefthanded, so I find the cameras that have a very big "handle" for the right hand to be somewhat uncomfortable, though I probably could learn to use it.
1. How do I choose? Where do I put the priority? MP or zoom? Or something I haven’t thought about?
2. Will I be happy with the picture quality of a medium priced digital camera?
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Eva, I really think that any 4 MP or higher camera that feels good to you will give you very nice pictures. A longer zoom like the Kodak you cite would be especially valuable for trying to take those critter pix and a good close-focusing macro is a must. But most importantly, find a store where you can actually hold the camera and simulate shooting with it; I consider that very important for anyone, but especially a left-hander.
Image quality : get some pictures on a CF card and bring them home. Compare then and eliminate the brands for those you don’t like. Photo stores will let you do this with no questions asked.
Canon makes really small cameras with no handle (they’re basically the shape of chocolate bar or cigarette pack). Consider them. Several collegues have recently bought S400 and S45 (in fact, 3 of them). They’re all very happy. Small, but too small. Well equiped, and image quality is fantastic.
You might want to check out this topic <http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@@.2ccec593/12> that I posted a week or so ago about the Kodak DX 6490. It’s a little more expensive but it comes with an awesome 10X zoom. I just got it about a month ago and I love it. It does a great job with macro shots too. It does have a right hand SLR type grip but it’s not real big and fits my hand nicely. I’m not trying to talk you out of the DX 6440, it’s just that for a little less than $100 you get a lot more zoom and I feel a lot more features.
BTW, this is my second Kodak and I’ve been extremely pleased with both.
Hi Eva, I also am a grandmother, a hiker, bicyclist, snorkeler, all of the above. I have had a Nikon Coolpix 990 for 4 years and it takes wonderful pictures, but needing something smaller and lighter, I gave the 990 to my husband and got the Coolpix 4300. It is just perfect for me. Small, easily carried under jacket, or in a large pocket, and rugged too. Macro with the CP 990 is somewhat better than the CP 4300. The 3X zoom is OK for me, but you always get into situations with wildlife when you will want more. The ‘Digital lag’ between pictures is not as long with the CP 4300, but it is still an issue over film cameras. I know they now have much smaller cameras(and phones) available, and I look at them with envy for their size. They go into the smallest pocket. But for now, the little CP 4300 is the favourite of the family, it is an all around nice little camera. Will be very interesting to see what everybody here suggests, as it is getting close to the time when things appear under the ‘tree’. Jane
One thing to remember is that smaller is not always better. The smaller the camera is, the more difficult it is to hold still, especially at high zoom. With a heavier camera, ther is some "weight" to the camera to keep it steady when you trigger the shutter. Small is fine as long as you are careful to keep the camera very still (or use a tripod). Sometimes size does matter.
Barry
wrote in message
I’m a hiker and a grandmother. For the former, I need a lightweight, small
camera. For the latter, I need zoom to capture small creatures without closing in on them and disturbing their activity. I currently have an Olympus stylus zoom 140 film camera. It doesn’t have a macro mode for closeups of small flowers which is something I would like. My husband has a film Nikon SLR with multiple lenses that takes beautiful pictures but we never take the camera with us because it’s just too heavy and bulky. Now I’m thinking about a digital camera. Trying to choose is comparing apples and oranges.
For example, the Kodak DX6440 has 4 MP and 4X optical zoom. The Sony
DSC-P92 has 5 MP and 3X zoom. They cost exactly the same. I have looked at reviews and they really don’t help much. I’m lefthanded, so I find the cameras that have a very big "handle" for the right hand to be somewhat uncomfortable, though I probably could learn to use it.
1. How do I choose? Where do I put the priority? MP or zoom? Or something
I haven’t thought about?
2. Will I be happy with the picture quality of a medium priced digital
1. Don’t try to compare a digital to the Nikon as you’ll be disappointed. My old OM-1 takes better pictures than the best digital so you need to ask yourself just how often do you need the extra quality.
2. I echo the delay issue someone else mentioned. Particularly if you’re trying to catch wildlife. Some of the camera’s have a maddeningly long delay between pressing the button and image capture. In fact that, along with my desire for high resolution, is part of the reason I’m still non-digital for the primary images.
3. Since you already have film cameras you might consider a film scanner. The lack of a macro mode on the Olympus can be compensated for by cropping and enlarging in PE after you scan the image. And since the scanned image will be higher resolution than a digital one you’d end up with an equivalent image. Ditto for zooming with PE from a film scan.
All that said, as you already know the best camera in the world is useless if it’s such a burden that you leave it at home. If I was buying today I’d get the 10x Kodak.
wrote in message
I’m a hiker and a grandmother. For the former, I need a lightweight, small
camera. For the latter, I need zoom to capture small creatures without closing in on them and disturbing their activity. I currently have an Olympus stylus zoom 140 film camera. It doesn’t have a macro mode for closeups of small flowers which is something I would like. My husband has a film Nikon SLR with multiple lenses that takes beautiful pictures but we never take the camera with us because it’s just too heavy and bulky. Now I’m thinking about a digital camera. Trying to choose is comparing apples and oranges.
For example, the Kodak DX6440 has 4 MP and 4X optical zoom. The Sony
DSC-P92 has 5 MP and 3X zoom. They cost exactly the same. I have looked at reviews and they really don’t help much. I’m lefthanded, so I find the cameras that have a very big "handle" for the right hand to be somewhat uncomfortable, though I probably could learn to use it.
1. How do I choose? Where do I put the priority? MP or zoom? Or something
I haven’t thought about?
2. Will I be happy with the picture quality of a medium priced digital
I agree with Barry that smaller is not always better. In choosing my new camera, I found that I just couldn’t handle all the controls on the very small cameras. I used a 35mm Stylus for many years and liked its durability while hiking, etc. After trying three Kodak models, I settled on the Stylus 400, which is shirt pocket sized, has an adequate zoom, good macro, seems to be very durable and weather resistant. It’s a tough decision though – there’s so many good cameras out there.
wrote in message
I’m a hiker and a grandmother. For the former, I need a lightweight, small
camera. For the latter, I need zoom to capture small creatures without closing in on them and disturbing their activity. I currently have an Olympus stylus zoom 140 film camera. It doesn’t have a macro mode for closeups of small flowers which is something I would like. My husband has a film Nikon SLR with multiple lenses that takes beautiful pictures but we never take the camera with us because it’s just too heavy and bulky. Now I’m thinking about a digital camera. Trying to choose is comparing apples and oranges.
For example, the Kodak DX6440 has 4 MP and 4X optical zoom. The Sony
DSC-P92 has 5 MP and 3X zoom. They cost exactly the same. I have looked at reviews and they really don’t help much. I’m lefthanded, so I find the cameras that have a very big "handle" for the right hand to be somewhat uncomfortable, though I probably could learn to use it.
1. How do I choose? Where do I put the priority? MP or zoom? Or something
I haven’t thought about?
2. Will I be happy with the picture quality of a medium priced digital
I’ve been meaning to ask you about your Kodak 6490’s Schneider zoom. My younger son is also thinking of the same model. I only had fixed Schneider lenses in a folding camera and one for my old baby Lindhof, and that had been a long time ago.
I have the smaller Kodak and like it very much. I went into a few camera shops and simply tried holding different ones … some didn’t feel right at all but the moment I picked up the Kodak I knew it was the one for me.
What exactly would you like to know about the Schneider lens? If you’re asking about optics, I’m not a very good judge. If you’re asking about the 10x, well all I can say is that it’s awsome! Comming from a 3x camera the 10x is a big change. One thing, though, you pretty much need a shooting platform of some sort (tripod) when you zoom very much. Otherwise you get a lot of camera shake and blurry images.
EVA, You know the old thing about going on a trip…lay out all that you want to take … then take half of it AWAY. My point is that you might do the opposite in buying a camera. Lay out all the things you want then buy half again as much. I’m on my third digital camera and determined next time to take a giant step. They get outdated so fast! Marty
Today I had some time to kill so I haunted camera stores and came across a really sweet looking camera it is the Minolta A1. It fit well in the hands and everything seem to be designed for a and maybe by a photographer. When I got home I read two reviews. The one by Steve’s DigiCams gave it a glowing review. The other by DPReview seemed to think it was evil personified. Anyone know about this camera?
Eva, I have a 3 MP Canon A70 and love it (well, except for the manual focus, but all digicam point and shoot cameras have the same problem). So I’d recommend the 4 MP A80:
He’ll be very happy with it Chuck; it’s a great camera. If only I had waited six months . . . (yeah, then I’d never own a camera, just waiting for the next big thing.)
Another suggestion: the Olympus C740 and C750. I just bought the C750 and love it. I wanted a long zoom, but due to WAF (wife acceptance factor) I didn’t want to buy a large camera or anything that looked too much like an SLR. The Olympus C740 and C750 have a 10x zoom, but look pretty much like a point and shoot. They aren’t as small as a Stylus, but smaller than similar offerings from Fuji / Kodak. It also has a macro mode. The C750 has 4MP (vs. 3.2MP for the C740) plus a few extra features.
Grant, This A-1 is a marvellous camera, but the best thing is the optics. This 28-200 (compared to 35mm) zoomlens is one of the best in the market, probably the best. A big advantage over real DSLR cameras: never any dust on the sensor as there is no interchangeable lens.
re Ray’s suggestion about the s400. I have this one and it does have a decent macro, but it is not good at all for zoom-type situations. If you can get right up close to the critters you can take a great shot, or for your flowers, but from any distance it’s no better than a very basic low-end consumer grade film camera. Zoom doesn’t zoom all that much optically, and the digital zoom feature is pretty worthless–just makes noise in the photo.
Hello Leen. Thankfully I have not had a problem with dust on the sensor yet. Since you have had a DSLR for some time now I am assuming that you have dealt with this problem before. What are your preferred methods for cleaning the sensor?
I just had to clean my sensor yesterday. It’s the second time. I noticed spots on my pictures. Basically, I use a very soft hand blower, camera positionned facing ground so that the dust may fall outside when removed. That did the trick.
Eva, It really comes down to how much you want to spend. A lot of good cameras have been recommended here. The Oly C-750 has that incredible 10x zoom range. The Nikon Coolpix 5700 has a very fine 8x zoom lens, but it’s pricey. If you want to stay in the $300-$400 range, I would second the earlier recommendation for the Canon Powershot A70 or A80…about $300 and $400 respectively. We just bought an A70 as a "carry around" camera…My Oly E-20 is a tank! The picture quality is really surprisingly good for a 3.2 megapixel camera. (The A80 is 4)My wife took it to Africa and came back with some really good pics. The zoom is only 3x, though. Bert
Minolta A1 … DPReview seemed to think it was evil personified
Just read that review – he gave it a "recommended" instead of a "highly recommended," because of some concerns about image quality. I had just about settled on the Fuji S7000, but now … ?
If only the Minolta had the last-5-frames feature and the 6 MP resolution or the Fuji the 28-200 zoom and the camera-shake compensation.
The manual is online and I am half way through it. Best not look at it as might push you over the edge. This all started because a friend of mine was looking at the Nikon CP 5700 and wanted my opinion. Pick up the Nikon then the Minolta put down both and told him I had to do some looking it feels so much nicer than the Nikon and the EVF is so much easier (for my body size that is). Maybe this will be a camera that will keep me content until a dSLR that is of my liking will come along. Please some one give me a good slapping.
I’m sure I’d be "extremely happy" with the Fuji – I’ve owned three Fujis and been happy with all three (my old FinePix 1400 even survived my 7-year-old rolling it down a flight of stairs!). It’s just that the Minolta has some kick-tail features that the S7000 doesn’t, for about $100 more street price. The big ones for me are the 28mm wide-angle (more important to me than super-tele, I do a lot of group shots) and the camera-shake feature, ‘cuz I also do a lot of work in limited-light situations beyond the range of flash where a tripod is not practical (as in a church). The main drawback of the A1 compared to the S7000, it appears from reading the review, is the A1’s mediocre fast-shooting features, important to me since I also cover basketball games.
Maybe I should just buy both (in his dreams, the boss says).
Stu, I was told by a pro a while back that the ‘reduce camera shake’…or ‘image stabilization’ in digital cameras ( the use of this option ) deteriorates the image…that it actually removes pixels. …Perhaps they have improved this option in the last year or so…but…not sure this would be the option to change my mind from the fuji. Doesn’t the fuji have a wide angle accessory ? I should just go check the site…I guess I’m lazy tonight.
Thanks for the link, Jodi. I knew the Fuji has a wide-angle lens attachment, but it’s >$100 more, and I’d rather not have to mount it every time I need it, if I can avoid it.
According to both reviews I’ve read, apparently the camera-shake feature in the Minolta is a mechanical correction that counteracts jiggle. The dpreview site had some samples that show decent hand-held images down to 1/15 second or so.
The Minolta has a couple other features that appeal to me – a tiltable LCD, provision for a battery pack, and a status panel separate from the LCD.
OTOH, there are apparently some iamge quality issues and manual focus issues with the Minolta.
well, I guess it’s a toss up then for you isn’t it ? I took some pictures today of some flowers ( roses and lilies) my hub gave me for our wedding anniversary ( I had to take a picture…it’s the first time he ever bought me flowers ! 😉 ) Anyways, the pics are beautiful. The red roses, the greens, the lilies…all superb ! That was indoors on macro using the ‘P’ setting. I have used the zoom a few times without a tripod and despite the shake the pics still came out clear so I’m not complaining in anyway about my Fuji…just love it !
Sorry for not having been more specific. Did you notice any barrel or pincushion distortions on images taken at both ends of the zoom range? How’s the closeup shots? Do the colors come out natural like seen with the naked eye, over-saturated or undersaturated? Thanks.
Happy Anniversary, Jodi! Ours was two days ago. My wife is an extremely practical person and doesn’t want flowers. Instead we drove up to Napa Valley and had a nice leisurely lunch at Julia (Childe) Cafe.
Anyone congratulations on their wedding aniversary.
Grant, what is the estimated counter value of 33 years and 4 months? I ‘ll never have an excuse to forget my wedding anniversary as it took place on the 11th of September (1970). So, within a few weeks, January 11th it will be 1/3 of a century. Time to celebrate with a nice present.
I cannot understand why so many people seem to be divorcing; I cannot allow a divorce financially. Moreover, I cannot divorce, because I cannot cook anything else than an egg.
I think a weekend away, a quiet B&B lots of walking and holding hands. Leave the cameras and cell phones at home.
On marriage longevity: Doreen and are have been married for 37 years and when asked our secret we will both say that neither one of us knows how to commit the perfect murder. It should be noted that Doreen is an avid murder mystery reader and I read every book she does. She looks for the poison I look for the antidote.
I avoid using a cell phone as much as possible -I hardly know how to use it- but why torture me to send us away for a weekend without a camera? I will be insufferable! Probably the best way to end a long relationship.
No nice gadgets from my endless wishlist involved at all? Not even a nice Miles Davis or John Coltrane CD?
I’m a little disappointed now I notice her endurance obviously pays me so little.
poor image quality on the S7000 ??? Give me the freekin’ camera and I’ll prove otherwise. i can’t see how…considering my S5000 takes superb images. Just give me the freekin thing.
"The Fuji FinePix S7000 is a camera with a lot of potential that was ultimately a let down in the image quality department. In what seems to be a trend lately on their cameras, Fuji is processing and compressing their images to death, causing higher than average noise and other digital junk. I can live with a little "grain" in images, but when it starts eating away at details, it’s too much.
"The best way to get good images out of the S7000 is to shoot in CCD-RAW mode with the sharpening set to "soft". But then you’ll have to post-process all your images, which is something that I (personally) don’t want to do. Also, as each RAW image takes up 13MB, you’ll quickly burn through the average memory card. Shooting at the 6M setting is advisable in most situations, as the 12M modes are just too noisy to be useful, except for when you know you’re making large prints. If Fuji could just get the noise under control (firmware upgrade?) they’d have a much more compelling product, as color and exposure were both very good."
….
"I’ve been disappointed by the images produced by cameras using the SuperCCD HR sensor (on the S5000 and now the S7000), and I’ve seen plenty of "regular folks" who feel the same way. A camera can have the fanciest movie mode in the world, but it doesn’t matter if the pictures don’t look good. The S7000 was a camera that I wanted to love, but there are many other cameras out there that take far better pictures."
I realize there are those who may disagree, but $700 is too much for me to roll the dice with.
Stu, I’ve been really happy with Minolta products for over 20 years now. I have the Dimage S414, it’s only a compact digital, but I have been extremely pleased with the crisp image quality from it. I would think their higher end models would only be better. I wish you well with your camera search.
Open it in PSE and zoom into 100% view. The noise in the sky is clearly visible. Think this is just my crappy monitor? Set the magic brush sensitivity to 10 and select the sky.
Thank you, Mr. Dixon, I believe you’ve just saved me from making a very expensive mistake.
For a camera that has no grain it sure seems to have grain. What I also noticed is the over sharpening in this image. Look at the support wires on the far right of the bridge where the red meets the blue of the sky and you can see ghosting. the tell tail signs of over sharpening. I suspect this camera may be a kick ass machine in raw where no internal sharpening is concerned. Why oh why do manufactures do this? It is not only Fuji as once you know what to look for you can see it in just about every digi camera. Dame it digis are pretty good at this point they do not need to made to into what they aren’t.
I think the main culprit is overly aggressive JPEG compression. And with the S7000, except at 12MP there’s no way to turn down the compression, except going to RAW. No TIF option, no Fine … Sheesh! Even my 3-year-old 1 MP FinePix 1400 gives me 3 compression levels (and less noise at the highest level than the S7000, I might add!).
Should have gone out to a meeting but realized it is much to late. So I type on. The ghosting on the lines and where any sharp object meets the sky but the grain is something else, or so I think. All things being equal if you have the same size chip and you add more wells to it you should get more noise. the Fuji S602Z and the S7000 have chips that take up the same real estate but the S7000 has twice as many targets so ….. I did say all else being equal and I would have hoped that Fuji has made some adjustments to the new chip. One can hope that this photo was taken from a camera that slipped through quality control but this may not be the case. One of the reasons at this time to go to a True dSLR is that their 6 meg chip is much larger than the prosumer chips therefore Nikon Canon and the likes can maintain low noise across the "ISO" range using 6 meg chips.
Minolta does make an extremely nice camera in the their A1 in spite of its problems. It is feature rich an to my mind a camera that was designed by photographers for photographer. But Nikon’s CP 5700 is also and extremely good candidate and in some ways better than the Minolta but in others not as good. So you pays your money and takes your chances.
Chuck -> they didn’t say it was "gone," neither did they say it was a problem. All they said was "The best way to get good images out of the S7000 is to shoot in CCD-RAW mode with the sharpening set to ‘soft’." There are sample RAW images on the site, but I don’t have a converter, so I can’t check them myself.
Grant -> The CP5700 looks like a great camera, but what got me interested in the A1 initially was its 28mm wide-angle zoom. The 5700 is 35-280, and I’ll have a lot more use for the 28 than for the 280.
Back to wedding anniversaries for a moment: I got y’all beat. And ours is also this month…I never forget the date…the 31st. Yup, we got married on New Years Eve in….hold your breath…1960. I think I needed a tax deduction that year…:) Bert
As for cameras in the $700 price range, how about the Canon G5 or the Oly C750? Both very fine from what I have heard. But if I were looking in that price range, I think I would save my shekels a little longer and buy a Canon 300D Rebel. Bert
Once again Grant has taken us to places beyond our ken! May have to try all of that stuff, Grant, all I need is a faster PC and about 800gb of storage!
Re#60 Many camera tests are done with pre production models. A few weeks ago I printed a 20×24 image made with a brandnew Fuji S7000. No problem with over sharpening, JPEG artifacts etc. At least not visible. Sometimes manufacturers change their models without notification. I don’t know, but anyhow, this enlargement was impeccable.
I don’t know; I printed from a TIFF file on CD. My customer did scale it to size with 10% increments like I told him to do. As I was aware of the in camera sharpening according to the tests, I told him not to sharpen the image in Photoshop. As far as I know him -and that’s rather well- he uses the highest quality JPEG setting at maximum resolution on his camera.
I think one issue with the S7000 is that Fuji has declined to enable anything other than basic compression at anything less than 12MP. If he shot at 12MP in RAW or minimum compression JPEG, the noise may not be as prevalent, but those options aren’t available at lesser resolutions.
Also, The sample photos that are posted should not be ‘god’s word’ as far as what these cameras can do. I blew up a whole pile of pics this afternoon looking for that sharp noise on edges of things and couldn’t find them. It’s possible they had the ‘sharpness’ setting turned on….which in fact will give you a certain degree of ghosting noise at edges which is barely visible unless you ‘blow it up’…. Anyways, I’m extremely happy with my fuji and that is pretty much all that matters. 🙂
While Fuji does make nice equipment I think the term interpolation is salesman’s puffery I suspect the correct term should be extrapolation. 😉 …. ducking and running.
Jodi, the bottom line here is that you’re a magician with digital images. As someone said earlier, you could do wonderful things with absolutely miserable equipment! I’m very glad you’re enjoying your camera. That’s all that’s important. 🙂
It’s possible they had the ‘sharpness’ setting turned on
Don’t know. According to the site, "Unless otherwise noted, photos were taken at default settings, with the ISO set at 200." The EXIF data shows Sharpness=3, but I have no idea what that means.
The sample photos that are posted should not be ‘god’s word’ as far as what these cameras can do
Agree. However, they do appear to be the work and conclusions of a competent independent reviewer, and when I’m getting ready to drop $700 or so, I’m going to weight that very heavily. Although this is not likely to be my main camera for as long as my Nikon FE has been (i.e., 20 years or so), it’s going to be for a number of years, and I want to get it right.
The Camera stores would make life a lot easier if they would allow us a cooling off period of day a week or two. That way we would have a chance to see what the camera can really do.
Stu, listen, I’m not pushing you toward the Fuji by no means but merely defending my camera 🙂 Granted I have the S5000 and did not spend 700. I completely understand.
Jodi, I have great respect…and admiration…for your artistic abilities. I suspect you could make pictures from a Brownie Box camera look good…and I bet you don’t even know what that is. But when a sensor collects image data, it gets the pixel values for the sensors it has. Anything beyond that…is no better than resampling. Call it interpolation or whatever you want. You can’t make blood out of a turnip. Bert EDIT: I should add that interpolation is already performed on the data from every sensor presently on the market except the Foveon.
Bert, yes I understand the meaning. What I should have said was I believe this particular camera does a ‘heck’ of a better job with interpolation than if you put the image in Photoshop and resampled it…imo. I should say a ‘hell’ of a better job.
Grant, I think it’s kinda both interpolation and extrapolation…..the outer edges of the image are pushed outward (extrapolation) and stuff is filled in between the spread-out pixels (interpolation).
Chuck, i thought he was just making fun of me again. I really don’t pay much attention because i know Grant hates digital photograhy…or I should say…images that come from a digital camera. I’ll never get a fair shake from him…..as long as it’s a ‘friendly’ one I’ll be OK 😉
A lot of camera shops are happy to let you take your own compact flash card in and put it in the demo model and then take away some images and play with them at home to check.. That helps…but the type of images that you can play with are limited by the environment in the shop. (The shop I go to has a studio flash set up which they will let you play with…very useful for testing)
Susan, Before we bought my wife’s last digital…a Canon Powershot A70, we went into a local store, and I took a CF card with me. It worked out very well…got a few images of the store interior with lots of detail…lighting was OK without flash. It’s a really great way to buy a camera. Pretty hard to do with a film cam, though… 🙂 Bert
Hey, Grant…is that true what Jodi said? You don’t like digital photography? Does that include images scanned from 35mm film? Just curious… I’m trying to explore this for myself right now, as I have described in other threads. I borrowed a nice old Canon EOS 620 film camera from my brother-in-law. I’m currently shooting a bunch of rolls which I plan to scan. Also, I’m going to do some comparison shots, using my Oly E-20 and the Canon shooting the same scenes…probably in my backyard. It’s not so easy to do a real apples-to-apples comparison…can’t get exactly the same aperture and shutter speeds, etc. It should be interesting to blow them up in PSE and see the difference. Bert
Jodi is teasing me. I love all aspects of photography and when it comes to the final print I make no distinction of how it got there. Personally I have two, digital two 36mm, and one 2 1/4 square cameras and use them all. I take more photographs with digital than I do with silver but I consistently get a higher percentage of quality images with film cameras. All the photos on my web site were taken with digital ( … Maybe a few were scanned in from film). I do however have some concerns when it comes to digital and I can be quite critical of digital. That being said I have been in the market for a new digital and have been seriously considering the Fuji FinePix S7000z, Minolta Dimage A1, the Nikon CoolPix 5700 and for a few bucks more a Nikon D100 (as I have the lenses for it). In the end all leave something to be desire and so I have elected to put off a new digi purchase a bit longer. I would be completely satisfied with the digi I own if I could only get it to consistently focus properly.
Did you notice any barrel or pincushion distortions on images taken at both ends of the zoom range? How’s the closeup shots? Do the colors come out natural like seen with the naked eye, over-saturated or undersaturated? Thanks.
I’m probably not the one to ask these questions. I’m a total amateur, but I haven’t noticed any pincushion distortion. I’ve taken very few long range zoom shots, however, because camera shake really becomes a problem (and I haven’t gotten my Christmas tripod yet 😉 ) so I can’t really comment on that end of the zoom range. As for closeup shots, I really like what I’ve seen so far. Check out my entries <http://www.cavesofice.org/~grant/PhotoGallery/index2.html> in the latest photo challenge for some examples.
I’ve always liked the color produced by Kodak digital’s and I wasn’t disappointed with this camera. To my untrained eye, the color looks very natural.
Grant wrote: "I consistently get a higher percentage of quality images with film cameras"
Grant, I cannot imagine this is because it is recorded on film instead of digital. I suppose you get the highest percentage of quality images from your medium format camera. Not just only because it is MF, but these cameras require more attention, more time to sontrol your shot etc. probably you use the digital camera like a point and shoot, just to record things instead of "creating an image".
I myself learned since I went completely digital, that I produced more shots, but the quality of the best ones is higher than ever before. As there are no extra costs I shoot more to capture the fleeting moments I might have lost when I had to take care of the number of exposures on my film. I’m currently using the Fuji S2 Pro SLR both on location and in the studio, but I’m considering an extra camera in the studio that can be used like a waist level camera as this -in my opinion- requires and allows more attention to carefully framing and composing an image.
Maybe it is just only my way of considering cameras, but I think the ergonomics of a camera influence the way you pay attention to your subject (lighting, composition, framing, posing etc.) before releasing the shutter. Another good reason to work from a tripod too as this is a kind of more "contemplative" way of shooting.
Gorgeous picture and little girl! She yours? Yeah I like Kodak Color. Keeps me from taking really bad pictures most of the time. 😉 Which Kodak do you have?
Joe, it’s the DX3500. Got it back when it was still ‘new’…ha ha ha….but it has done me well. I upgraded to the Fuji because I wanted a camera where I had control of my shots. The Fuji happens to capture color heavenly as well…good thing since I was habituated to being spoiled with the good color in the Kodak 😉
I agree with Jodi about Kodak colour (I have thesame kodak as her). I seem to do less colour correction on images from that camera than from my G3. That little camera is a great point and shoot – being fixed focus it has minimal lag between pressing the shutter and actually taking the pixtue – and the lens produces images that are surprisingly sharp. I tend to take it to the beach and places where I am worried about getting my good camera sandy or spoilt – or I let the kids use it.
Apart from lack of control, the only other problem I found with the images from it was the high degree of compression which left noticeable artefacts in some shots.
Leen .is almost exactly right about allowing more attention with my 35 mm. But it goes a little deeper! One of the things I really don’t like with the non dSLR digi’s is there humungous depth of field. I love using depth of field to separate my subject from its surroundings. Because of this I am constantly shooting near full open, that is f2.0 in my camera’s case. This requires more accurately focusing and that is not my camera’s strong suite. Even when I try to look at my results with the replay the digital zoom is not sufficient enough to give me crisp results so I never really know. This is too bad because it would be a wonderful little camera if only it would focus accurately.
Susan and all: I’ve gotten so used to the Canon color renditions that when I was given a CD full of pictures taken with a Kodak I found the colors to be overly vivid and saturated. However, as I let my eyes adjust to the Kodak renditions, I realized they were probably as close or closer to ‘real’ than my Canon – just on the other side of neutral. Now I find myself more inclined to crank up the colors of the Canon to be more like the Kodak. Haven’t done any printing that way – remains for me to see which is more pleasing to the eye and ‘realistic’.
No biggie. Your shots of glassware are beautiful with the mystery lighting. I’ll pass on your info to my son. Thanks.
BTW, it’s quite easy have a rough check of the distortion of your camera lens. For out doors, mount the camera on a tripot and try to center the lens straight onto a brick wall. At larger enlargements, distortions at the outer edges will be noticeable. For better control of centering the lens, do it indoors. Tape news print on a wall. Again mount the camera on tripot. Measure the center of paper to the center of the lens. Both measures are to be taken from the floor vertically, and from the same corner of the wall. The planes of the wall surface and your film/CCD plane may not be exactly parallel but the end result is nothing more than having more distortion on one side than the other with the shot.
It’s not scientific or anything but gives a reasonably good idea of the lens in distorion. I found it easier and more comfortable with the indoor method. Some of the older brink walls are crooked and may give the wrong idea. 😉
I came from Kodak Digital Science color and now crank the saturation parameter in my 10D to 2+, then sometimes add another 10% later as well.
Kodak Digital Science is more than just cranking up the saturation, per se. I think they boost each channel slightly differently (I think I read that somewhere…) Canon seems really bland (my wife says "gray") by comparison. I only bought the 10D when I read that the saturation was adjustable in-camera and that it had an orientation sensor (another Kodak plus for me.)
I believe Nikon is bringing to market a less expensive DSLR, similar to the Canon Digital Rebel, which would take your lenses. Might want to wait a month or two to pull the trigger on a new digicam.
Yopu are right about a new Nikon DSLR. However the camera will not be available untill after april at the earliest. I myself am waiting to get one too.
I think the Canon 300D Rebel is pretty nice. It’s too bad they dumbed down the software, but the features they left out wouldn’t bother me. Of course, if I had a stack of Nikkor lenses, that would alter the equation… Bert
Went to that site you posted and compared Digital Rebel and Nikon D100. The site seems to suggest that the Rebel has an LCD viewfinder? I thought the Rebel had an optical viewfinder.
Not sure if I should cry of cheer! I need some photographs from my yearly Card and the camera worked well for a change, but when I turned it off the lens didn’t retract properly. I tried it may time and it is misbehaving in a non consistent way. Is the camera failing? Is this the end on my hateful G1? Oh my, oh my, now may I have to spend money on a new camera. That is the bad part the good part is I will not have to justify buying a new camera when I have a perfectly good one (even if I hate it). Now how is that for Pollyanna. 😉
Dick, The Rebel is a true SLR. You are looking through the lens. Optical viewfinder. The only way to go. If you ever use an SLR, you will never be satisfied with anything else. That’s my mantra that I have repeated in many threads here. Bert
Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
