Digital Cameras. Any advice? - by LancerChronics
rachel on 8/5/2008 at 14:15
Quote Posted by LancerChronics
I guess what it comes down to is, can I take a picture, blow it up to 1440x900 on my computer, and not get any "artifacts" (pixel look).
With that kind of resolution, you shouldn't have to worry about that. No matter what you choose you'll shrink/crop the pic to 1440*900, not enlarge it. Once you set the camera properly, noise shouldn't be an issue.
As for the fact it's widescreen, you could still frame a regular picture with that goal in mind, and just crop the upper/lower sections to fit a widescreen ratio later at home.
Quote Posted by IndieInIndy
I recently picked up a Lumix DMC-FZ8K with 12x zoom. I can get some very high quality images out of it, but the biggest problem I'm having is that all shots are shaky/doubled since the camera moves when I press the button. Doesn't matter what anti-shake settings I've selected.
(...)
Maybe this will improve when I'm more familiar with using this camera, but my first opinion is that the Lumix's image stabilization is next to worthless.
I have this problem every once in a while, what I do is set the timer to 2 seconds, that way I can press the button and stabilize the camera again before it actually takes the snapshot.
That said it's kind of rare. I took most of my (
http://trail.freylia.net/) road trip pics while driving with the camera in one hand, and the stabilizer was top-notch 90% of the time.
I mainly have the issue with a longer exposure time, which mostly happens when I trust the auto settings too much.
jay pettitt on 8/5/2008 at 15:28
Jay's odd tips.
There's an odd relationship between pixel resolution, image quality and usability. The more squeezing of pixels onto a CCD gizmo increases the noise (and hence yucky post processing) and slows image capture making nasty bodges such as image stabilisation (ruinous to image quality) and bulky tripods (ruinous to the whole compact thing) necessary. On a big camera you can have a big CCD which negates some of these problems - not possible on a compact. In short, don't be fooled into thinking that more resolution is a good thing, it ain't necessarily so. Unfortunately there's no guarantee that a lower resolution CCD isn't just inferior cheap crap.
.RAW is awesome sometimes - if you get into post processing with any kind of enthusiasm having not lost half the image information is a godsend. However there's no denying that .RAW files eat hard drives and SD cards before breakfast. One should also be slightly aware that .RAW files don't follow a standard format - each manufacturer has their own proprietary system and they're not compatible or come with any assurances that they'll still be supported in five years time.
Batteries don't last long. Lots of posh cameras come with Lithium-Ion batteries that need special charging gadgets - Spares are expensive. If you're out in the wilds for a long weekend you'll likely come unstuck - where as AA batteries are cheap and plentiful.
I have a Leica D-Lux 3 - it's got a high-res noisy CCD (you can however dial the noise reduction up for snaps and down for wannabe serious photographer moments), image stabilisation (you can switch it off), needs a tripod and runs off a Li-Ion battery that can only be charged in a special cradle. It does however have full manual mode (including manual focus). I like it. It's gotta be said though, picking a funky camera is no alternative for getting up early in the morning.
[CENTER]
Inline Image:
http://www.jaypettitt.co.uk/images/L1030032.JPG[/CENTER]
Android8675 on 8/5/2008 at 15:43
Get a Canon point-n-shoot, then run (
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK) CHDK. (Custom firmware) unlocks some nice features like saving in RAW format, changing your shutter/iso speeds outside the supported range, etc.
Doesn't overwrite the firmware built into the camera, so easy to remove if you don't like it.
rachel on 8/5/2008 at 16:11
Quote Posted by jay pettitt
[awesome pic]
Could I have a large version of that one pliz pliz pliz? :)
LancerChronics on 9/5/2008 at 03:23
Raph: Good point about my pics probably being scaled down, I forgot the 12.2 MP cameras have a resolution up to 4000x3000.
Jay: Thx for the tips, tripods aren't a problem, there are such things as mini-tripods thankfully that would probably fit easily into one of the pockets on my trench coat. How much space does a RAW file take up normally? Will i need a 2gig mem card for my new camera if I want to go with that format?
Android: Holy $h^t. That's awesome. I was looking through the special builds and there's a motion sensor one that lets you capture shots of lightning strikes. Maybe I should look into the A650. I just wish it wasn't so bulky.(Edit:Actually I'm liking the looks of the PowerShot SX100 IS, all of the sample images I've seen for it seem much clearer that the other cameras I've been looking at)
Nice pics by the way to both Raph and Jay.
jay pettitt on 9/5/2008 at 07:08
I can easily chomp through 8gig or two in a day of mild snapping.
I'd be a little wary of clear images. Clear images mean the camera is performing heavy post processing which is nice for point and click, but not so nice if you want to do some digital dark room stuff. If it were me I'd make sure that the camera gave me the option to switch that stuff off.
LancerChronics on 9/5/2008 at 18:01
Wow..8 gigs? That's more memory than "The Witcher" takes up on my comp. Not to concerned about the needing to turn the options off on the SX100IS, as it comes with a few more options than your basic Point-Click. Also, it's a Powershot, so that CHDK program should work with it, letting me turn off pretty much what I want.
Edit: Scratch that....Apparently the SX100IS utilizes a new os. Therefore they can't port CHDK to it. Sigh* Can't things be simple?
rachel on 9/5/2008 at 18:40
Yes, my RAW *.tif files can easily reach 6-7Mb each (and that's with a 6MP camera... Don't want to know what the size will be on a 12MP one!) I have two 2Gb SD cards that I keep for when I need the big pics. I do that only when I know I'll be doing heavy processing afterwards though, most of the time, high quality JPG is more than enough.
Thanks Jay! :thumb:
