Mouthfuls: Digital camera recommendations - Mouthfuls

Jump to content

  • (31 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Digital camera recommendations Varying prices, things to consider

#406 User is offline   Lippy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8,571
  • Joined: 12-March 04

Posted 23 August 2008 - 03:49 PM

QUOTE(tanabutler @ Aug 23 2008, 11:01 AM) View Post
[To add to what Lippy said: I use the lowest aperture and bump up the ISO (but I rarely go above ISO 400, since it results in speckles called "noise" on photos).


[smacks head with heel of hand] Of course! Sometimes, that's enough to do the trick, although the higher the ISO, the lower the image quality, as it was with film. Sometimes you can make a virtue of that flaw for effect, to produce a film noir-ish photo.

Abbylovi, these are all reasons to get a camera that allows for some manual control. You can actually learn about the technical aspects of photography and use that knowlege to improve your photographs. You can always start slowly, by using the Auto or Program settings, and experiment when you are ready, but you won't outgrow your camera nearly as fast as you would if it didn't have the manual controls.
0

Your Ad Here

#407 User is offline   rancho_gordo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,983
  • Joined: 17-January 05

Posted 23 August 2008 - 04:01 PM

QUOTE(omnivorette @ Aug 23 2008, 08:23 AM) View Post
Sometimes you need a flash. And then you use the flash. I use the flash when I.....need to use a flash.


Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!
Visit lovely Rancho Gordo: ¡Cuanto le Gusta!
"How do you say 'Yum-o' in Swedish? Or is it Swiss? What do they speak in Switzerland?"- Rachel Ray
0

#408 User is offline   Peter Creasey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,327
  • Joined: 07-November 06

Posted 23 August 2008 - 04:04 PM

QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) View Post
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."

"The sensor size is far more important [than the pixel count]. After all, it's undisputed that a 6-megapixel Nikon D40 digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them."



_________________
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Pete/Houston
SOAC . . .
. . "for the discreet and refined enjoyment of uncommon wine . .
. . . . and victuals and the companionship accruing thereto" . . . .
0

#409 User is offline   Lippy 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 8,571
  • Joined: 12-March 04

Posted 23 August 2008 - 04:09 PM

The thing to remember is that a high pixel count does not guarantee image quality. It is only one factor. If you are interested in blowing up pictures to poster size, then you will need a higher pixel count than if you are only going to post them on-line or print 4 x 6 or 8 x 10. In that case, 7 pixels is perfectly adequate. My camera, the Canon A610, has only 5 pixels and is generally considered by the "pixel-peepers" to have better images than its big sister, the A620, with 7 pixels, although any alleged difference is invisible at normal viewing sizes.
0

#410 User is offline   mcj 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 574
  • Joined: 13-January 05

Posted 24 August 2008 - 09:21 AM

QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) View Post
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) View Post
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."

"The sensor size is far more important [than the pixel count]. After all, it's undisputed that a 6-megapixel Nikon D40 digital S.L.R. takes better pictures than a 10-megapixel shirt-pocket camera, because its sensor is relatively gigantic. Its individual pixel sensors can be larger and soak in more light, even if there are fewer of them."


I did say "all things being equal". Comparing a "shirt-pocket camera" to the Nikon D40 is somewhat akin to comparing a Chrysler Neon to a Porsche... and why automobile reviews compare vehicles within the same class.

DSLR's don't just get their quality advantages from more light per pixel via a larger sensor, but primarily from a larger diameter lens (and much better optics to begin with). Mathematically, doubling the diameter of a lens increases the area of light falling upon the sensor (at the same distance from the lens) by 4 times. (Think of a lens as a pipe. A narrow pipe limits how much light gets through it much more than a larger diameter pipe. Doubling the diameter of the pipe allows 4 times the amount of light to pass through it.) That exact same principle is applies to all branches of optics. In astronomy, the telescopes are referred to as "light buckets": the bigger the bucket, the more light it can capture and the better an image it can record. Since a change of a single f-stop results in doubling/having the light falling onto film or a sensor, 4 times more light is the equivalent of increasing exposure by 2 f-stops. If that lens is positioned slightly farther away than the smaller one, it could be made to focus upon a smaller diameter sensor, similarly increasing the light that the sensor receives by a factor of 4.

Manufacturers are going to have cut a lot more out of shirt-pocket cameras than just the lens diameter. Number of lens elements, quality & types of lens coatings, weaker, slower processors, etc. all affect the image quality and are sacrificed to cut costs because these small cameras are destined for the average consumer with lower budgets and image standards than those of professionals with high-paying clients.

Would anyone expect a $50 all-in-one camera to perform as well as a $2,000 camera & lens system?

Lippy:
QUOTE
although any alleged difference is invisible at normal viewing sizes.

QUOTE
a high pixel count does not guarantee image quality. It is only one factor.
Bingo, on both counts. (We know that you really meant megapixels instead of just "pixels". wink.gif )
Likewise, a low pixel count does not guarantee image quality either. It's the entire camera working together as an integrated system.
The advantages of more pixels is primarily for producing larger printable images and ease of editing. Since printers normally only print in the 300-400 dpi range, an image of 2.0 - 3.5 MP (1200 x 1600 pixels to 1600 x 2400 pixels) is all that's needed for the typical 4 x 6 print, but will show degradation (fuzziness, loss of contrast, etc.) when printed as an 8 x 10 (or an 8 x 12, coincidentally, 4 times the area of a 4 x 6).
"Life expectancy would grow by leaps and bounds if green vegetables smelled as good as bacon." - Doug Larson
0

#411 User is offline   hollywood 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 19,116
  • Joined: 31-March 04

Posted 24 August 2008 - 01:52 PM

QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Aug 23 2008, 09:01 AM) View Post
Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!

Guess we have to cut out eating beans as well. Don't want to bring on any heat seeking missles.
I got hurt feelings, I got hurt feelings
I feel like a prize asshole
No one even mentions my casserole.
I got hurt feelings, I got hurt feelings.
You coulda said something nice about my profiteroles.


FOTC
0

#412 User is offline   rancho_gordo 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 9,983
  • Joined: 17-January 05

Posted 24 August 2008 - 03:00 PM

QUOTE(hollywood @ Aug 24 2008, 06:52 AM) View Post
QUOTE(rancho_gordo @ Aug 23 2008, 09:01 AM) View Post
Hello? There's a war going on! Maybe after the war, sure, but certainly not now. No flash! Loose flashes sink ships, as we all only too well!

Guess we have to cut out eating beans as well. Don't want to bring on any heat seeking missles.

I hope you don't mind but I've reported your post to the admins. I consider this both a personal attack and a discussion of my religion. Expect to be banned for life, much like the sad tranny biker bar in Pomona you used to visit.
Visit lovely Rancho Gordo: ¡Cuanto le Gusta!
"How do you say 'Yum-o' in Swedish? Or is it Swiss? What do they speak in Switzerland?"- Rachel Ray
0

#413 User is offline   tanabutler 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,759
  • Joined: 01-October 04

Posted 02 September 2008 - 05:12 PM

So, Abbylovi, has your camera arrived yet? What'd ya get, huh, huh, huh?

smile.gif
"Nana, I just counted to infinity really fast!" Logan, age 5-1/2
0

#414 User is online   Abbylovi 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,579
  • Joined: 15-March 04

Posted 02 September 2008 - 05:30 PM

Busy week last week so I wasn't able to get one yet but I plan to go by J&R this week or next to play with cameras. I will report back as soon as I do, I promise!
It is better to have beans and bacon in peace than cakes and ale in fear.

0

#415 User is online   g.johnson 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 16,279
  • Joined: 11-March 04

Posted 02 September 2008 - 09:30 PM

QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) View Post
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) View Post
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."


Given the same optical arrangements, the same amount of light will fall on a given square mm, say, of the sensor regardless whether there are 1000 or 10,000 pixels in that square mm. So assuming that the sensor doesn't have some sort of threshhold below which no light is registered*, it should always be possible to simulate the response of the lower density detector by adding adjacent pixels together.

*I would guess that in practice that's a fairly safe assumption.
I earned $400,000 a year at Lehman Brothers.

eG Ethics Signatory
0

#416 User is offline   mcj 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 574
  • Joined: 13-January 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 04:58 AM

QUOTE(g.johnson @ Sep 2 2008, 05:30 PM) View Post
QUOTE(Peter Creasey @ Aug 23 2008, 12:04 PM) View Post
QUOTE(mcj @ Aug 23 2008, 01:38 AM) View Post
"less power per pixel"


M, Here are some similar comments...

QUOTE
"Too many megapixels can actually impair a camera's performance. For example, the typical sensor in a consumer camera is 0.5-0.7 inches. The more millions of pixels, the smaller each pixel must be-and the smaller the pixel, the less light-gathering efficiency it has, and the worse the camera performs in low-light or stop-action shots."


Given the same optical arrangements, the same amount of light will fall on a given square mm, say, of the sensor regardless whether there are 1000 or 10,000 pixels in that square mm. So assuming that the sensor doesn't have some sort of threshhold below which no light is registered*, it should always be possible to simulate the response of the lower density detector by adding adjacent pixels together.

*I would guess that in practice that's a fairly safe assumption.

I almost misread your post. Yes, that could be one method used to create lower resolution images and a form of what you've written has already been in common use since the first digital image sensors' inception, as you'll see below. I can see that it would be similar, in principle, to a reflecting solar array in which the array size is fixed, but a greater number of smaller mirrors are used in place of a smaller number of larger mirrors to accomplish the same task of gathering light.

So far, we have only discussed the theoretical light gathering capabilities based upon pixel size* and thus have had to confine the theory to black and white photography. However, since it is the digital realm and the vast majority of photographs are taken in colour, that is what camera image sensors are designed to capture – especially since the quotes were mainly regarding common consumer-grade digital cameras and we are, after all, trying to judge overall image quality.

*As you'll see in the articles linked below, pixel size is relative, since what we have been commonly referring to as pixels are actually photo-sites within the sensors. Within each photo-site are a number of sensor pixels, however, after image processing, they are combined ("demosaiced" [de-mosaic-ed]) into a single image pixel.


To gain a better understanding (or to get even more confused) regarding some of the various technical issues involved with camera sensors, here are some links to broaden horizons:

http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4276/foveo...o-the-test.html
QUOTE
Traditional CCD and CMOS sensors use a single layer of pixels that are set in a grid, relying on a pattern of microscopic red, green, and blue filters to separate the components of light on each pixel. Interpolation and postprocessing merge the data into the color image we see on screen.

The most widely used sensor grid is the Kodak-developed Bayer pattern, with two green pixels for each red and each blue pixel. This aims to take advantage of the human eye's higher sensitivity to detail in green objects. For improved black-and-white detail, to which the eye is even more sensitive, luminance information from all pixels is combined.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor
QUOTE
The Foveon X3 sensor is a CMOS[1] image sensor for digital cameras, designed by Foveon, Inc. and manufactured by National Semiconductor[2] and Dongbu Electronics.[3] It uses an array of photosites, each of which consists of three vertically stacked photodiodes, that are organized in a two-dimensional grid. Each of the three stacked photodiodes responds to different wavelengths of light, i.e., each has a different spectral sensitivity curve. This is due to that fact that different wavelengths of light penetrate silicon to different depths.[4] The signals from the three photodiodes are then processed, resulting in data that provides the three additive primary colors, red, green, and blue.


The Bayer filter
QUOTE
A Bayer filter mosaic is a color filter array (CFA) for arranging RGB color filters on a square grid of photosensors. Its particular arrangement of color filters is used in most single-chip digital image sensors used in digital cameras, camcorders, and scanners to create a color image. The filter pattern is 50% green, 25% red and 25% blue, hence is also called GRGB[1] or other permutation such as RGGB.[2]


Demosaicing
QUOTE
A demosaicing algorithm is a digital image process used to interpolate a complete image from the partial raw data received from the color-filtered image sensor (via a color filter array or CFA) internal to many digital cameras in form of a matrix of colored pixels. Also known as CFA interpolation or color reconstruction, another common spelling is demosaicking.


"Life expectancy would grow by leaps and bounds if green vegetables smelled as good as bacon." - Doug Larson
0

#417 User is offline   ghostrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,119
  • Joined: 23-April 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 06:41 AM

I just returned from 12 days in Maine, during which I learned to use my new digital camera. I'd bought a Panasonic DMC-FZ 18 back in March. It sat in its box till we got up to Maine. This was my first foray into digital photography.

Killer lens from Leica. Amazing zoom from 28mm - 535mm (35 mm equivalent). Scads of capabilities.

Took a while to figure out all the bells & whistles. The manual, I'd give an 8 / 10. Some annoying absences from the Index.

Many user-friendly design features, as I expected from Panasonic, & they delivered.

I absolutely love the digital TTL viewfinder. No parallax issues, works great in the bright Maine seaside light.

Not a box camera; if you're looking for something to slip into a pocket, this ain't it. If you're like me & want something that feels like a traditional 35mm camera, though a bit smaller & lighter, this one's a keeper.
It was hard to avoid the feeling that somebody, somewhere, was missing the point. I couldn't even be sure that it wasn't me. - Douglas Adams

Please come visit my new blog and be Tantalized.
0

#418 User is offline   omnivorette 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 25,546
  • Joined: 08-March 04

Posted 03 September 2008 - 04:46 PM

How's the flash?
"It seems a positively Quixotic quest to defend food from being used as any kind of social signifier, as if it could avoid the fate of each other component of our everyday lives." -Wilfrid
0

#419 User is offline   ghostrider 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 6,119
  • Joined: 23-April 05

Posted 03 September 2008 - 11:53 PM

QUOTE(omnivorette @ Sep 3 2008, 12:46 PM) View Post
How's the flash?

I tried it 3 or 4 times to be sure that it was functional but didn't experiment with it beyond that. No time, figuring out all the available-light permutations was daunting enough. It has a point-shoot mode but I like to know more about what the camera is seeing.

One of the handiest things I found is the auto-bracket mode, where it'll take 3 shots with varying EVs. That came in very useful with some high-contrast scenes where the auto-metering didn't get it quite right, at least to my eye.



It was hard to avoid the feeling that somebody, somewhere, was missing the point. I couldn't even be sure that it wasn't me. - Douglas Adams

Please come visit my new blog and be Tantalized.
0

#420 User is offline   memesuze 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,732
  • Joined: 30-January 05

Posted 10 September 2008 - 12:40 PM

For those of you with the Canon Powershot: load a little bit of software onto an SD card, put it in the
camera, and voila! you've got a RAW-shooting, motion-detection, time-lapse-shooting powerhouse
"When you think about it, all of my greatest work is poop tomorrow." - Mario Batali

Even if you live to be 100, life is short.
0

Share this topic:


  • (31 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic