Digital Camera Rant

[i386]

I had a Sony DSC-W30 (6megapixel, 3x Zoom, Carl Zeiss lens). The picture quality was great. Many people were shocked to find out I was using a point and shoot and not a digital SLR. I always assumed it was such a good camera because of the lens. I bought it because I liked the controls and the on-screen stuff. I didn't realize it was such a great shooter until later.

Well, the camera got stolen from the wife's classroom about 6 months ago.

As a replacement, she bought me a Sony DSC-W220 (12megapixel, 4x Zoom, Carl Zeiss lens). One would think this camera would top the one I had before. Not even close. The pics have a lot of noise in them (they appear grainy). She's a more experienced shutterbug than me so I had her go out and take some pics too. She agreed, the quality is unacceptable. I think the sensor maybe isn't as good as what Sony put in the older cameras. I'm pretty sure the problem isn't the lens.

We took the camera back to BestBuy. No problems there. Still looking for another camera. Didn't see anything else at BestBuy that impressed me. Would like to try one of the new Panasonix Lumix cameras but so far we haven't been able to find them anywhere.

So, I'm looking for a good point and shoot and I'm picky. It needs to be small as I keep it in my laptop bag. No interest in an SLR at all. 95% of my shooting is on automatic. IMHO, if you have an SLR and keep the camera on auto, you just blew your money on an expensive point and shoot.

 

[4JawChuck]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Your grainy photos are the result of the image stabilization raising the ISO to compensate for shake and the autoexposure raising the ISO in low light shots. I think these newer megapixel cameras are relying too much on silly features like this to compensate for incorrect usage and are too heavy handed in operation as you have found out. They can usually be forced to work without the features or they can be shut off...too late to try that now though.

You might like a better quality camera such as a Canon G series camera which is still point and shoot but has a better sensor and optics, many pro's use them in war zones etc where they still need a quality image but don't want the weight or the cost of a total loss possibility. A friend of mine has a G10 and it takes great photos, my Canon DSLR is better of course but only because of superior lenses...one of my lenses cost more than 6 of her cameras! Of course this is still a $500 camera and the one you had was $150...big difference!

A Canon Powershot SX120 is a nice little camera closer to your price range at $250 and has 10X zoom, nice to be able to use alkalines if you run out of battery power in a pinch too. Still not really shirt pocket size but to be honest nothing in that size range takes great quality photos anyway. I wouldn't spend less than this, you get what you pay for.

Lots of different makes out there to look at, I only listed the models I know work well and have no problems in the field that I am aware of. I would stay away from the under $250 cameras, they have become very poor in quality and fragile from the experience of people I know who had them. Disposable comes to mind if you have issues with them.

If it was my money I would buy a new Canon G11 or an older model G10 used, these are great cameras and well worth the investment. The photos speak for themselves.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G11/G11A.HTM

 

[i386]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Maybe, but some of the test shots I took were outside and they were still too noisy. I hesitated to use (and shouldn't have used) the word "grainy". When I used the ISO setting on the old camera, usually the pic was grainy. That's not what the new camera did.




Here's a pic I took with the old camera (DSC-W30). Click the magnifying glass to see it in 1:1. I couldn't get a picture of that quality from the DSC-W220.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/H--AEQBKJaHM12PjSPLCaA?feat=directlink

I wasn't necessarily shopping for cameras in the $150 price range. The DSC-W30 I had was $350 when I bought it. It just so happens that the new Sony is less.

 

[BWR1953]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

...A Canon Powershot SX120 is a nice little camera closer to your price range at $250 and has 10X zoom, nice to be able to use alkalines if you run out of battery power in a pinch too. Still not really shirt pocket size but to be honest nothing in that size range takes great quality photos anyway...

This is EXACTLY the camera that Santa brought me. I couldn't be more thrilled! The Canon has the nice 10x optical zoom, but ALSO has up to 40x DIGITAL zoom and it really brings things in close. (See pix below, taken yesterday, which were shot from INSIDE my house looking out through a glass window! I left the camera in AUTO mode when I took the photos.)

And I'd been looking at the Sony DSCW290L prior to that, but after reading all the negative reviews, moved on.

Another great thing about the Canon is that I can use the zoom with the movie mode as well. It also has a full manual mode too!

Here is the "reference" photo, taken without magnification. It was an overcast and dreary day. The bluebirds were out there, but not in view at that moment. Note that you can see a faint reflection of a venetian blind from another window inside the room.

Next is an unretouched pic of a bluebird on the birdhouse with the magnification set at 10x.

And finally, another pic taken with the digital zoom maxed out at 40x and after I sharpened and brightened it just a little. Sweet!

 

[paulspaddle]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I'm nodding in agreement with Chuck here. The Canon 'G' series is excellent.

BUT did you say the camera was stolen from your wife's classroom?? If she's in the public school system and plans to use it there I wouldn't be investing in a more expensive camera. I'd suggest you can't go wrong with a Canon Elph series.

This is an great site that can help with research:

http://dpreview.com/

 

[ddrieck]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I use the Canon Power Shot A640 10.0Megapixels at work.

If you need to get really close up shots, this one really performs, you can zoom in on the date of a penny without any blurring at all. Just set it to maro and shoot

Overall picture quality is amazing just using the factory default settings. I believe there around $300.00

 

[bkwapisz]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I have an older Olympus C-5060 that is 5.1 MP and outshoots most any other little point and shoot cameras I have seen. I don't think it's an SLR, but for what I take pictures of (teeth) it works great. In either case, the darned files are so big that I have to reduce them to email them.

 

[WizeOne]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

......Would like to try one of the new Panasonix Lumix cameras but so far we haven't been able to find them anywhere .....

Check Costco. I saw them there just before Christmas.

I have the DMC-TZ3. It has the 28mm to 280 mm Leica lense (wide angle to10x optical zoom) It's a real tidy little package.

 

[i386]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Thanks for the ideas. The G11 is REALLY nice (drool) but it's a lot more than I wanted to spend.

My main gripe is I had a good camera ($350) at the time and replaced it with a new upgraded model (happened to be $150) that takes bad pictures.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I'm a Nikon shooter, but I agree in regard to the Canon G series and Powershot series cameras - they are quite good. I also agree that the problem you were having was most likely related to automatic ISO selection.

What I don't agree with, is that buying a consumer level DSLR is a waste or money. You can start with the fact that they are SLR cameras and that makes quite a bit of difference. Aside from many other considerations, just the ability to use many different lenses, makes them a better camera for quite a few people. That said, digital point & shoot cameras are very capable these days and work just fine.

I carry a Canon Powershot around in my car all of the time and sometimes take it out in the boat, when I don't want to bring my Nikons. I always forget what model it is, but its four years old and looks much like a miniature DSLR, with an LED view finder (which I hate) and a swing out screen on the back. It's only 5 MP, but the images that it produces are very good. I attribute this to the fact that it uses the same CMOS sensor that was used in the older, Canon EOS line of DSLRs and it has very good "glass."

The photo, below, is one that I post here a lot, because it is a good example of what the camera can do. I did pump the greens up just a little and added a wee bit of unsharp mask, but actually very little. If you look at the bird's eye closely, you will see shadows created by his eyelashes. Not bad for a "point & shoot!"

???

 

[lowkee]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Something to keep i mind, if you wish to use the video recording option on a camera, make sure it can record for a decent continuous length. I bought a Canon powershot 870IS and even though I use an 8GB sd card in it, the video cuts off at 3 minutes. A hacked firmware ups it to 60 mins, but it's really quite silly to have an 8GB camera limit you to 3minute videos. Amazing how many cameras limit you like that (now that I know to look). Otherwise, this little camera has been superb. I replaced an old Casio Exilim $MP with it and the photo improvement is astounding. As much as some people hate image stabilization for photo quality, I've found it to be a life saver when it comes to 'rare moment' photos, since a little twitch on my old camera would spell blur city (and I wouldn't know until I offloaded the photos), where I've yet to have a blurry photo come from this camera. As with any IS camera, you can disable it for tripod shots and get less grain.

 

[ezmobee]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

BUT did you say the camera was stolen from your wife's classroom?? If she's in the public school system and plans to use it there I wouldn't be investing in a more expensive camera.

Problem solved http://lifehacker.com/5259519/deter-thieves-by-uglifying-your-camera

 

[paulspaddle]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Problem solved http://lifehacker.com/5259519/deter-thieves-by-uglifying-your-camera

Actually that's cool!

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Well, I always seem to be swimming against the stream, but if you were really happy with that camera, why not just get another identical one?
Check eBay, they have a brand new-in box unit for ~ $175-.

http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/Sony-Cybersh...wItemQQptZDigital_Cameras?hash=item588456f93a

 

[LadyFish]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Incredible photo Jay_Merrill.

We have always had 35mm, our first was a Konika and our last one was a Nikon. We have a small Canon digital and decided this year that our Christmas gift to eachother would be a Nikon D90 DX 12.3MP Digital SLR Camera. We also purchased 5 lenses along with some filters, tripod, etc.

I am still re-learning the triangle and when I need to shoot quick I put it on auto everything. I will also continue to bring the little digital camera along on trips for backup.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

The photo, below, is one that I post here a lot, because it is a good example of what the camera can do. I did pump the greens up just a little and added a wee bit of unsharp mask, but actually very little. If you look at the bird's eye closely, you will see shadows created by his eyelashes. Not bad for a "point & shoot!"

Finding out that even the experts have to "tweak" their photos is a bit like when you get the "Santa Claus" speech....

Seriously though, two questions if it's not hijacking..:
1) Do you always keep originals and doctor and save "copies", or does the doctored version replace the original in your archive?

2) If you do keep the original, any chance that you could post the two together? I would be curious whether my very amateur eye can pick out the difference.

 

[jay_merrill]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I always save the originals and even when I use Photoshop to edit, I often use layers, with the original photo (background) left alone.

Even in the world of professional photography, photos are routinely edited. In fact, many are highly edited. Go look at the cover shot of Whitney Houston that is on the newstands at Walmart checkout lines now. I noticed it yesterday. Trust me when I tell you that the photo is Photoshopped "to death." In fact, it is so photoshopped that it took me a second to realize who it was.

One of the arguments going on in the glamour photo world right now, is the degree to which models and celebs are edited. They have every blemish removed, body contours altered, makeup enhanced, etc. I don't get too bent out of shape over editing skin issues (to a degree), but the business of changing body shape kind of annoys me.

BTW, even the "masters" edited photos. In today's photography world, digital editing is no secret and people assume that this is where heavy editing of photos began. Its not. Ansel Adams (the famous B&W photos of Yosemite, etc.) edited most of his photos, but he did it in the darkroom.

The average person also might be surprised at how many photos even the top fashion photogs shoot, just to produce a handful that an Art Director will accept for publication. It can be in the hundreds or even thousands. I will never forget being involved in a fashion shoot in the early 80s, when film was still the only medium. The crew showed up with a steamer trunk full of Kodachrome! The photog had a couple of camera assistant helping him, who were reloading several cameras and passing them to him, while he burned up film with the motor drive cranking away! He shot about 6 models and I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if the total frame count was in the thousands!

Then there is the other extreme. I used to hang out with a guy by the name of Tony Linck, in New York. I was in my thirrties at the time and he was probably in his seventies. While this name may not ring a bell to most folks, he was a well known shooter for Time & Life magazines. Tony was amazing to watch, because he "came up" when there were no "automatic everything" cameras. I used to watch him shoot moving objects, while adjusting zoom, focus, shutter speed and aperture. To say that the camera was an extension of his brain would be darn near accurate - he really didn't conciously think about what he was doing. To him, doing these things was pretty much like having your brain "tell" your hand to move.

No matter what level you are shooting at, the main thing is to just have fun. The thing that I love most about my part time endeavor, is that it lets me combine many interests. I can shoot from the boat, I can shoot from a nature trail, I can shoot at a car show ....... Its darn near endless.



???

 

[BWR1953]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

Finding out that even the experts have to "tweak" their photos is a bit like when you get the "Santa Claus" speech....

Seriously though, two questions if it's not hijacking..:
1) Do you always keep originals and doctor and save "copies", or does the doctored version replace the original in your archive?

2) If you do keep the original, any chance that you could post the two together? I would be curious whether my very amateur eye can pick out the difference.

I'm no master, just an enthusiast. I do take many thousands of photos every year... of my home, property, boating, fishing, hunting and various other hobbies. As jay merrill said above, taking LOTS of shots is the norm... and getting a few good ones is the goal.

I keep all of my original pix and then "doctor" the copies. For the most part, I shoot in "auto" camera mode, but if I have time, I'll switch to manual and adjust shutter speed, white balance, etc. Oftentimes I'll use a tripod.

GETTING a shot (especially of da birdies) is more important to me than getting it perfect the first time. I know that the computer can help overcome quick-shot deficiencies, so I tend to take a bazillion images and pick the best one to use once I'm on the computer.

All that being said, when I have the chance, I do take my time and use manual mode to obtain the very best picture possible... and then I don't have to use the computer to correct/enhance the images. Even so, if I can, I'll still take many, many pictures in manual mode and use the best ones.

As for putting up an original image... the sizes are too big to do that correctly here on the forum, where we're limited to 640 pixels. Part of the image editing process is to crop the photo to the accepted size limit on any given forum.

It's a great deal of fun though! I now have my old camera residing in my car, because ya just never know what you'll see while out and about.

Back to topic - the idea of simply replacing the stolen camera with an identical unit doesn't sound like a bad way to go. If ya liked it the first time afterall...

-BWR

 

[BoatBuoy]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

According to the exif file, that parrot was shot at F4 - amazing resolution.

 

[ThumbPkr]

Re: Digital Camera Rant

I repair cameras as a hobby and I carry so many different ones that I don't ever get used to any of them.I do shoot on automatic most of the time with the digital cameras but I still shoot film like the old days.
I have also edited in the dark room while printing and have had the good fortune of being in the company of some professionals at that time for a lot of great tips to guide me along.I seldom leave the house without 3 or 4 and often more cameras in tow.Ron G

Here is a link with a phone number in the Hartford Craigslist for a DSC-W30 for $150.
http://hartford.craigslist.org/pho/1527698471.html