Need a new camera
OhioGuy
for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
included pictures)
I need something that is:
1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
(I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
5) under $200
Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
couple weeks for a potential deal.
For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
specs above? Thanks!
BigDog1
Take a look at the Fuji FinePix S1000fd. It's the only one out there
I know of that meets all of your criteria. But, as a serious amateur
photographer I personally wouldn't recommend it, especially if you're
trying to produce publication quality photos. It gets very mixed
reviews in terms of reliability and build quality. I've had one in my
hands and think it's pretty junky. There's more to picture quality
than resolution. The optics are much more important.
To get something that meets all of your criteria you're going to have
to at least double, or maybe triple your budget. If you're actually
making money from your writing it's a deductible expense, so why not
buy a good one?
The markup on digital cameras isn't that much. It's not very likely
you're going to find anything with these specs, within your budget, in
a Black Friday sale unless it's a door buster with only a hand full
available that will require you to camp out overnight to have a shot
at one.
Jeff
> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
>
> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
What exactly are your publishers asking for?
>
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
Only SLR's have an "actual" view finder that shows the actual (or
close to it) image. None are in the $200 range. A digital view screen
should work well enough for you.
>
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
That's a lot of zoom, why do you need that. Are you taking pictures
from far away?
Unless I miss my guess, what you really need is some form of macro.
Most macros don't work at full zoom.
But, what you really need in a camera is different than what you've
asked about.
Key features in a "real" camera:
1) Ability to control exposure. Ideally you should be able to control
exposure in 1/3 f stops.
2) Ability to control depth of field. Typically this means
controlling f stop. In a small camera this would be from f2.8 to f8 in
1/2 stop increments. Look for an "aperture" priority setting. You don't
want a camera that only has automatic features. Usually you'll see an
"A" for aperture priority and a "T" for time priority. Look for another
camera if it doesn't have that as a minimum.
3) Ability to control focus. This may just be an indication of where
the focus is set to. If it is not where you want, you can recompose.
That is what you really need to control the picture. There are
cameras with high megapixels that are essentially worthless because they
don't allow you to set any of those. You'll also want a camera that is
ergonomically easy enough to use that you don't have to drill through
menus to get to that.
I can alway recommend Cannon but not all Cannons have those features.
If you get a AA operated camera, go buy a set of NiMh rechargeables to
go with it. About $20 with charger. Alkalines won't last long. More
expensive cameras will have a LiIon battery.
Jeff
Al Bundy
I've gone through probably a dozen digital cameras. The battery usage
has often been very bad. It is so bad on an HP I have that I rigged up
lithium ion batteries with a greater capacity and voltage to run it
properly. Then I switched to Canon. The "A" series Canon was designed
for alkaline batteries. They also allow rechargeable types. I take
pictures every day. I can be assured of taking over 100 pictures over
a few days without a problem. The book says 400+ on a charge. I just
recharge them based on a time basis every few weeks. So I recommend
Canon. They have models using four AA cells as you wanted. The high
level of zoom you seek is probably not going to happen for that $200
price. There are reasons for that too. Unless you use a tripod, even
the anti-shake won't prevent some fuzzy pictures at that level of
zoom. In such cases you are better off taking pictures with less zoom
and cropping them on your computer. I suggest at least 4X optical
zoom, but more is not really helpful unless you plan to use a tripod.
Partly off topic, I also have an old Sony Mavica that takes pictures
on a floppy disk. The run time on the battery is over two hours
continuous operation. The pictures are only about about 75kb
(640X480) so that's a problem. The big advantage is that it has a 10X
optical zoom and a 1/4000 speed lens. Those zoomed pictures are very
clear. No tripod is needed. If I were not stuck on Canon, I would
consider something more modern from Sony because of their superior
engineering.
BigDog1
I agree your assessment of battery life, Al. I use a Canon Powershot
that takes two AA batteries as my walking around camera. I don't
shoot as much as you, and don't bother with rechargeables. I use
lithium batteries. They seem expensive, but I get as many shots from
a pair of them, as six or eight alkalines. The down side is that
they're designed to put out full power over their entire life. The
low battery warning doesn't work; they don't get "weak". When they
die you go from fully charged batteries for one shot, and your camera
is a paper weight for the next. After they've been in the camera for
a while you have to have a spare set handy.
Jeff
The A's are nice cameras, I carry an A95 always. 4 AA. I can take
hundreds and hundreds of pics on a set of NiMh. Usually have a 2GB card
in it. Flash usage will take a severe hit on that, but then on camera
flash pictures tend towards being hideous.
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=183&modelid=17482
Personally, I like the fold out screens. You may not need that. But
they really help with composition as the lens and view screen do not
need to be pointing in the same direction.
Canon leads in camera technology, Nikon is catching up. Sony always
does something experimental and I would not buy a Sony product without
an extended warranty. I say that because I've been in the service business.
Most of the other brands are ergonomic monsters. Always test the
camera and if you know little about photography take a photographer with
you. Don't buy solely on megapixels and zoom. There's plenty of bad
cameras out there just for those that fall for catchwords.
Jeff
Al Bundy
Good advice there.
At one time I was bringing cameras home from WalMart and they were not
working for me because of battery life or software that can't be
checked in the store. The manager of the department said, "WalMart
will be tracking all these returns and may shut you off at some
point." I pointed out that their store policy allowed the returns and
I considered those cameras defective. I ended up over at Target for a
sale.
Dave
"OhioGuy" <no...@none.net> wrote in message news:gfk881$k4g$1...@aioe.org...
You won't find that camera for $200 on Black Friday or any other day in the
next six months or so. The prices will come down, but less than $200? Give
it 12 months at least, or up your budget. I think the closest you will come
if you buy this year is a Nikon Coolpix P80, which bfads shows an adscan at
Circuit City for ~$300 on Black Friday. I know you said 4 AA batteries, but
any digital camera that uses plain old AA batteries is going to have very
short battery life, even if there's FOUR of them. The P80 has rechargeable
lithium ion. The specs claim 250 pictures per charge. Allowing for the
usual fudge factor, you should get 100 pictures per charge out of it,
easily. And you can always carry a spare battery pack, if you want. You'll
have to buy an SD memory card for it, about another ten bucks. The same CC
Black Friday ad shows SD cards from 2GB to 8GB, ranging from 5 bucks to 25
bucks. ANY of them would work great. I'd probably go for the 4GB Kodak
brand SD memory card for $9.99. MORE than enough room, I don't think you'll
ever fill it up. -Dave
Al Bundy
I also have to point out that a 9MPX picture for the purpose of a
generally small magazine article is much more than usable or
necessary. A simple 3.2MPX picture would end up almost identical when
compressed to the size used there. I find the focus and lens speed
more important in landing a clear picture. For that matter, a simple
35mm film camera would do even better. You could have the pictures the
same day and on a disk too. My local CVS drug store does a great job
of enhancing any marginal photos.
It would sure be nice if you would share one of your free lance
articles that has a picture. If this is really more than just a
pastime or hobby, you need to think of professional equipment and
compare reviews of same in the photo group.
The Real Bev
> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
I love my Canon A720IS.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/canon_a720.html
> I need something that is:
>
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
8 mp
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
yes
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
6. In theory you want image stabilization with
this zoom level, but I can't really tell the difference.
> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
> (I've found from past experience that the cameras that only
> use 2 simply won't let you take enough pictures)
2 AA cells. I use Duracell precharged NiMH batteries, which claim to
maintain charge up to a year. I have two in the camera and another pair
in the case. I've never needed to take so many pictures that battery
death from usage was a problem so I haven't kept count. My guess would
be a couple hundred on a pair of charged batteries.
One thing about the camera -- every once in a while it thinks the
batteries are dead. They're not, and it realizes it when you open and
then close the battery door. I had a previous similar camera which
after a while NEVER realized the batteries were OK, and it was replaced
under warranty with the A720.
> 5) under $200
$199, probably cheaper now.
> Now I've seen a number of models that seem close to what I am looking
> for, but nothing that meets all of these. We are getting pretty close
> to Black Friday, but I don't know if any higher end digital cameras like
> this tend to be discounted, or whether it might be worth waiting another
> couple weeks for a potential deal.
>
> For now, can anyone recommend a camera that you use which meets the
> specs above? Thanks!
I wouldn't have a camera with a proprietary battery. You have to buy a
spare (they're never cheap) and keep it charged and ALWAYS have it with
you; in a pinch you can buy AAs just about anywhere.
--
Cheers,
Bev
[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York
The Real Bev
> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking pictures
> for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for articles with
> included pictures)
One thing I forgot, which I swore I would pay attention to when I bought
my current camera and then didn't -- WHY DO THEY ONLY GIVE YOU ONE
EYELET? No sane person wants a camera to dangle from his wrist or flop
around dangling from his neck; you need TWO for any sort of stability.
I was really bummed that the only cameras with two eyelets were bigger
than I wanted. How much could an extra eyelet cost?
Jeff
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>> I'm in the market for a new digital camera to use for taking
>> pictures for some freelance writing I do. (magazines pay more for
>> articles with included pictures)
>
> I love my Canon A720IS.
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/2007_reviews/canon_a720.html
I'm not surprised!
The Canon A series just keeps getting better, and cheaper!
How's it look at the higher film speeds?
I just had a look at the rest of the current Canon A line, and yours
looks like the best. I'm depressed they dumped the fold out screen though.
Jeff
OhioGuy
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/580519-REG/Canon_3190B001_PowerShot_SX#specifications
It doesn't meet ALL of my criteria, but it looks pretty good for
$204.95 plus ship. My only concern really is the 2 AA batteries,
instead of 4.
I want to use AA's because I just bought a bunch of those hybrids -
the low discharge NIMH.
I'd like a good zoom because I'm trying to get good pictures of an
albino squirrel that I'd like to do a story on. My current camera only
has a 3x optical zoom, and about 4mp, and everything I get when zoomed
in is just too blocky looking. For personal use, there are also many
times when I'd like more of a close up picture of a bird, wildlife, or
nature scene that is far off.
Al Bundy
>
> It doesn't meet ALL of my criteria, but it looks pretty good for
> $204.95 plus ship. My only concern really is the 2 AA batteries,
> instead of 4.
>
> I want to use AA's because I just bought a bunch of those hybrids -
> the low discharge NIMH.
>
> I'd like a good zoom because I'm trying to get good pictures of an
> albino squirrel that I'd like to do a story on. My current camera only
> has a 3x optical zoom, and about 4mp, and everything I get when zoomed
> in is just too blocky looking. For personal use, there are also many
> times when I'd like more of a close up picture of a bird, wildlife, or
> nature scene that is far off.
No offense intended, but you surely need more practice with the camera
you have it would seem. I could take that picture without any zoom and
make it clear and vibrant. Maybe the camera is defective. Maybe there
are settings you are not using that would improve the image. I would
suggest changing the focus strategy that the camera uses. Most have
options there. It sounds like you are not focused properly. If you are
merely using the automatic settings on the camera, you are doomed to
failure. I believe the key to good photography is to take lots of
shots. Change the settings and take the shot different ways. I keep my
manual setting with the light exposure bumped up 1/3 because many
digital pictures are under exposed. I can then shoot quickly on
automatic and manual before adding other optional variations.
And don't assume you are done when the picture is taken. You can
enhance the photos and cover your errors.
Like they say, "You can't buy a better golf score with more equipment."
OhioGuy
> No offense intended, but you surely need more practice with the camera
You're probably right - I've never messed with most of the settings.
My current problem is that I'm so far away from the squirrel in
question that the max optical zoom still has him way, WAY too small in
the resulting pictures, so I have to engage the digital zoom to even get
it close to the necessary size.
We're talking about a squirrel here, roughly 1 foot in size, and 80
to 100 feet away. I think the digital zoom is what ends up making it
look blocky in the resulting pictures, because the camera said something
like
"200k resolution" when I was zoomed in. I think that's two tenths of a
megapixel resolution, right? Not so great, which was why I was looking
for a better optical zoom and higher resolution. My current camera just
isn't up to the job.
Jeff
That's a long way off.
Note that you can buy after market adapters that increase the focal
length of the lens (more zoom) for not a lot of money. Some of these
just clip on. Caveats about this in a bit.
Bear in mind that this will give you a slower lens. So either longer
exposures or higher ASA. And of course, you will have too much depth of
field because the lens is working at a smaller aperture.
There's an art to shooting wildlife at great distances and generally
you'll need a fast long lens to get the subject sharp and the background
out of focus. Buy a Canon with the fastest longest lens that you can
afford. They will always publish the minimum fstop at full zoom (smaller
is faster) so you can look that up. And try to get the camera closer,
many of these cameras have remotes. You have lot of obstacles in the way
of getting a good image.
Jeff
Al Bundy
Forget the digital zoom. I keep mine turned off. Use the maximum
optical zoom and make sure your picture size is set to the biggest
picture available. Take the shot and crop it later using something
like Irfanview. You will be surprised how large and close that
squirrel appears. If that's not enough then you do need more
professional equipment with a telephoto lens.
Also, for $1.29 you could buy a jar of peanut butter that would bring
you 70 feet closer. One time I threw out a ball of peanut butter and
the squirrel had no other interest in life other than that for some
time.
The Real Bev
>> No offense intended, but you surely need more practice with the camera
>
> You're probably right - I've never messed with most of the settings.
> My current problem is that I'm so far away from the squirrel in
> question that the max optical zoom still has him way, WAY too small in
> the resulting pictures, so I have to engage the digital zoom to even get
> it close to the necessary size.
Digital zoom is useless -- exactly the same as cropping and enlarging
the result.
> We're talking about a squirrel here, roughly 1 foot in size, and 80
> to 100 feet away. I think the digital zoom is what ends up making it
> look blocky in the resulting pictures, because the camera said something
> like
> "200k resolution" when I was zoomed in. I think that's two tenths of a
> megapixel resolution, right?
Is that the file size? The darker the image the smaller the resulting
file needs to be at full resolution -- My biggest files are between 1
and 3 megabytes. I can cut that down to 200K, which looks OK on my
1680x1280 monitor, but I wouldn't want to print them. Actually, I don't
want to print ANYTHING -- digital photography has finally freed us of
the need to store bales of paper.
> Not so great, which was why I was looking
> for a better optical zoom and higher resolution. My current camera just
> isn't up to the job.
Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it weren't for pain, we wouldn't have any fun at all.
The Real Bev
> Also, for $1.29 you could buy a jar of peanut butter that would bring
> you 70 feet closer. One time I threw out a ball of peanut butter and
> the squirrel had no other interest in life other than that for some
> time.
A fond memory -- a raccoon cleaning out a peanut butter jar. Delicate
little hands scooping out every last morsel of greasy goodness.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Self Test for Paranoia: You know you have it when you can't
think of anything that's your own fault.
BigDog1
[Snipped}
>
> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>
Hmmmm - never heard that. 8 megapixels is certainly more than the
average point and shoot digital camera user will ever need. In fact
anything more than 3 or 4 megapixels is overkill in most cases (but
don't try to find a new 4 megapixel camera anywhere). That's more
than enough for 4x6 "snapshots", or the occasional minimally cropped
5x7 or 8x10 enlargement. And for viewing on the computer, cell phone
cameras have enough resolution.
My Canon 40D has a resolution of slightly more than 10 megapixels. I
can assure you there is no degradation of those images. Quite the
contrary. I've cropped to as little as 20% of the original image, and
made tack sharp 8x10 enlargements.
The problem most people run into is the size of the files high
megapixel cameras produce. My Canon produces 3 to 5 MB jpegs, and 15
- 20 MB RAW files when set at maximum resolution. It takes pretty
robust hardware and software to efficiently deal with files that
size, An older computer with minimum memory and a small hard drive
would be overwhelmed.
I certainly agree that we're printing far less than we used to - and
that's good on many levels.. But I still print quite a bit. My wife
can't show off the photos of our grandchildren when she goes to lunch
with her friends, if they're all on the computer at home. And of
course I've still got to keep track of many file boxes full of slides,
negatives, contact sheets and enlargements from 30+ years photography
before I went digital.
Jeff
> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [Snipped}
>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>>
>
> Hmmmm - never heard that.
I think what this is referencing is that higher megapixel cameras tend
to be noisier at the the same ISO, because the individual pixel is
smaller. Newer sensors, and full frame sensors have ameliorated that.
About 150 pixels/inch (for a glossy print) seems OK, so your figure
of 3 megapixels for a 4*6 is about right. As you know there's a lot of
variables.
Jeff
The Real Bev
> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>
> Hmmmm - never heard that. 8 megapixels is certainly more than the
> average point and shoot digital camera user will ever need. In fact
> anything more than 3 or 4 megapixels is overkill in most cases (but
> don't try to find a new 4 megapixel camera anywhere). That's more
> than enough for 4x6 "snapshots", or the occasional minimally cropped
> 5x7 or 8x10 enlargement. And for viewing on the computer, cell phone
> cameras have enough resolution.
Well, my 640x480 is pretty inadequate, but it's good enough for
convincing somebody that if he keys your car you'll have a record of his
face and license plate. Other 'record' shots too...
> My Canon 40D has a resolution of slightly more than 10 megapixels. I
> can assure you there is no degradation of those images. Quite the
> contrary. I've cropped to as little as 20% of the original image, and
> made tack sharp 8x10 enlargements.
Can't remember where I read it or the details. Ergo, worthless.
> The problem most people run into is the size of the files high
> megapixel cameras produce. My Canon produces 3 to 5 MB jpegs, and 15
> - 20 MB RAW files when set at maximum resolution. It takes pretty
> robust hardware and software to efficiently deal with files that
> size, An older computer with minimum memory and a small hard drive
> would be overwhelmed.
Raw files are overkill in my case. I took 200K shots with my Coolpix
800 for 6 years and was perfectly satisfied except for the 2x zoom,
inadequate flash and slow write-speed (hence the 200K shots).
> I certainly agree that we're printing far less than we used to - and
> that's good on many levels.. But I still print quite a bit. My wife
> can't show off the photos of our grandchildren when she goes to lunch
> with her friends, if they're all on the computer at home. And of
> course I've still got to keep track of many file boxes full of slides,
> negatives, contact sheets and enlargements from 30+ years photography
> before I went digital.
I've scanned the best of the 35mm and 2.25^2 slides (I'm really happy
with my Canon scanner, even if it is windows-only) and have a big box of
prints to do... and another big box of 8x10 b&w to do... one of these
days... As long as I keep them all on multiple HDs I figure I'm way
better off than with paper.
I've got a box of b&w prints from the 1920s -- friends and relatives of
my grandmother, I guess. My mom didn't know who those people were or
where they lived. I see stuff like that at estate sales too. Depressing.
Fake ID
>
>> No offense intended, but you surely need more practice with the camera
>
> You're probably right - I've never messed with most of the settings.
> My current problem is that I'm so far away from the squirrel in
>question that the max optical zoom still has him way, WAY too small in
>the resulting pictures, so I have to engage the digital zoom to even get
>it close to the necessary size.
Proving that necessity is the mother of stupidity I've done telephoto by
shooting through my binoculars. With a POS 3MP P&S camera and cheap but
big 20x80s the shots can pass for ones taken with the native optical
zoom. An adaptor like for a spotting scope would make things easier.
It would be really nice with the camera would do manual focus.
m
Al Bundy
On the other end, I taped a lens from a pair of eyeglasses to the
front of an HP335 to take close ups. I used Velcro so I could R&R it.
Dan Birchall
> 1) at minimum 8 or 9 MP resolution
> 2) has an actual viewfinder to look through
> 3) 8x to 9x optical zoom or more
> 4) uses 4 AA batteries, not 2
As MCF-L's resident 3000-exposures-a-week guy ;) let me just say that
you left off a point:
6) comes with a flying unicorn pony that poops rainbows
In other words, you're asking for a feature set that's something out
of a fairy tale - you can probably get any three of those features
together, but not all five.
I'll get it out of the way: if you're shooting for publication, you
want - or will soon come to want! - better optics and image processing
than a pocket camera is going to give you. You don't have to spend
$5000 on a professional DSLR setup, but $800 ($500 for a body, $300
for a good long zoom lens) is _not_ unreasonable if you seriously want
to take pictures of squirrels from 60-100 feet.
If it weren't for the long-zoom requirement, I, like Bev, would point
to the Canon PowerShot A720IS. I take mine all over the place and
it's great at lower ISO settings. (400+ it does get a bit grainy.)
As it is, I'm going to recommend a camera I don't actually own myself:
Canon PowerShot SX110 IS. I owned another long-zoom Canon all-in-one
years ago, sort of the great-grand-daddy of the SX110, and this has
the specs that are really going to matter to your squirrel - 9mp and
a 10x zoom. It doesn't have an optical viewfinder, and only takes
two AA's... but at a $249 MSRP, and you can probably find it on sale
for closer to $200, maybe even under $200 on Black Friday.
Hope this is of some use.
-Dan (who takes cameras kinda seriously)
--
Screaming in Digital - http://scream.org/ - Queensryche fandom since 1991.
Jeff
> On Nov 15, 10:37 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> BigDog1 wrote:
>>> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> [Snipped}
>>>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>>>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>>>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>>> Hmmmm - never heard that.
>> I think what this is referencing is that higher megapixel cameras tend
>> to be noisier at the the same ISO, because the individual pixel is
>> smaller. Newer sensors, and full frame sensors have ameliorated that.
>
> noisier than they are today, but that's been a while.
>
> Though I rarely shoot an ISO higher than 400 (and stay as far below
> that as I can), I can go pretty far up the scale before noise becomes
> an issue. Usually somewhere between 800 and 1600, and can get almost
> to 3200 before it's too bad to deal with.
The new CMOS sensors are supposed to look damn good at 3200 and you
can shoot several stops faster. I find that unbelievable.
I've noticed that the small Canon A series are rated to 1600. My A95
looks pretty noisy at 400 which is it's top.
>
>> About 150 pixels/inch (for a glossy print) seems OK, so your figure
>> of 3 megapixels for a 4*6 is about right. As you know there's a lot of
>> variables.
>
> You bet! And the biggest one is the lens. Even a moderate quality
> lens attached to a "pro-am" quality DSLR will out perform the optics
> of the best point and shoot camera out there.
Well, I've sunk a long way as far as lenses. I haven't used my
Hasselblad for several years, the glass on it never let me down. The
lens on my Rebel is abysmal in comparison particularly shooting into the
light, a lot of flare. I would call those optics pretty amateur though.
What I dislike most about the small camera is that the fstop is
diffraction limited to f8. It's also very hard to shoot Macro as you
don't have as much control over focus, it always seems like it's focused
a little off. That and the poor light sensitivity, but that is all
changing, except for the fstop.
You've got to go pretty
> far down the quality scale towards the junk end before that's not the
> case.
>
> By the way, thanks for the new word! Never saw "ameliorated"
> before. :-)
Jeff
Don Klipstein
>Ralph wrote:
>> On Nov 15, 10:37 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>> BigDog1 wrote:
>>>> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> [Snipped}
>>>>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>>>>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>>>>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>>>> Hmmmm - never heard that.
>>> I think what this is referencing is that higher megapixel cameras tend
>>> to be noisier at the the same ISO, because the individual pixel is
>>> smaller. Newer sensors, and full frame sensors have ameliorated that.
<SNIP>
>>> About 150 pixels/inch (for a glossy print) seems OK, so your figure
>>> of 3 megapixels for a 4*6 is about right. As you know there's a lot of
>>> variables.
<SNIP>
One thing I found: A trick for more megapixels to not mean more noise,
especially for printing 4*6 at 150 pixels/inch or whatever:
Use a higher megapixel camera, and "resample" the image to one with
fewer and bigger pixels with photo editing software that has such
capability to do that right.
I even researched into what my Canon Powershot A640 10 megapixel camera
would do in comparison with the 8 megapixel variant. I would have
expected the results after processing as I just described above to be
about the same. But the higher megapixel one had noise that would be less
after such treatment and hardly more noise in a picture about 11% bigger
at same pixels per inch. It appears to me that the "DIGIC processing" was
improved for the 10 megapixel version over that in the 8 megapixel
version.
One thing to look for: Overall size of the sensor. Bigger sensor and
same F ratio means more light and higher signal/noise ratio. I chose the
Canon Powershot A640 (and gave serious consideration to a different
megapixel version of basically the same camera, could that be A630?) due
to larger overall sensor size of "1/1.8 inch nominal size", actually close
to effectively 7.1 by 5.325 mm or maybe effectively very close to 7.092
by 5.319 mm. The image dimensions in pixels are 3648 by 2736, and that
uses most but not quite all of a sensor whose dimensions are mentioned in
a review site as being 7.18 by 5.32 mm.
The "nominal size" of a sensor in fraction of an inch is that of the
glass bulb around the sensor should the sensor be a vacuum tube type one,
based on ratios used for such things. The actual effective sensor width
in the wider dimension is close to 50-55% of the "fractional inch" nominal
sensor size, and the actual effective sensor width in the narrower
direction ("image height") is 75% of the actual effective width.
Cameras with high megapixel count, small size and sensors smaller than I
described have sometimes been called "Barbie cameras".
I do say go for larger overall sensor size. Newer versions of the
"DIGIC processing" in the camera helps, and higher megapixels appears
to help slightly with giving more freedom to resample or blur images to
smooth out the noise.
The one downside of larger sensors is that the lens has longer actual
focal lengths, meaning less "depth of field" (ability to stay reasonably
in focus over diverse distances in the same shot, mostly when distances
are shorter and F ratios are smaller).
If you like to take pictures of the sort where something 6 inches away
and something 4 feet (or more) away are simultaneously reasonably in
focus, then that is best done with a camera with shorter actual focal
length lens and smaller sensor size. That task may be done well by what
are sometimes called "Barbie cameras" - ones with smaller sensor sizes, or
smaller sensor size for the megapixel count. Those cameras can have
fairly high megapixel count, and are typically more compact in size and
often simpler to use and are often "derided" by camera reviewers for
having more noise.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
aine...@gmail.com
xoxo,
aineecumi
neway, my secret to release tension is playing this game <a
href=http://www.gamestotal.com> http://www.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://uc.gamestotal.com> http://uc.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://gc.gamestotal.com> http://gc.gamestotal.com </a> <a
href=http://3700ad.gamestotal.com> http://3700ad.gamestotal.com </a>
<a href=http://manga.gamestotal.com> http://manga.gamestotal.com </a>