0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It all depends what you intend using the camera for.
Quote from: DoctorBeaver on 15/02/2008 22:06:04It all depends what you intend using the camera for.I think.....and I'm guessing here.......he may want to take some photographs !!.....crazy I know!!...
Fuji make the best cams.
I am not really into all the technical stuff. I have two 'simple' Fuji cameras. I bought the second because it is very compact..pocket job. The intention was to use it on hol and get a bigger camera later but the results from the little one are superb and they look as good as any pics I have ever seen on-line or anywhere so I dont really need another camera. I took some in Valencia, Spain and folks say they could win awards. Maybe if I wanted to do long shots a bigger optical zoom range would be handy and the Fujis are a liitle poor in low light but I would be spending a lot of money just for the odd shot. The little Fuji A610 actually did quite well taking pics of yachts well out to sea. For 99% of the time the cheap Fujis are excellent.Panasonic (or Sony for that matter) as a company I wouldn't touch with barge pole having had poor experience with two HDD/DVD recorders. There are websites with .jpgs of samples taken by various cameras. Obviously you need a good monitor properly set up to get a true 'picture' of how they perform.
Shooting clouds (unless you are doing it at night) is going to be shooting into the sky, so you certainly don't need high ISO numbers (they are intended for low light conditions).
QuoteShooting clouds (unless you are doing it at night) is going to be shooting into the sky, so you certainly don't need high ISO numbers (they are intended for low light conditions).This is the bit i was after, i have never bothered to look at iso numbers before and so assumed the higher the better...same with pixels. What i try and do is shoot without zoom (digital zoom)and use software to 'zoom' on the area i want enhanced.
I had two Panasonic HDD/DVD machines which failed and Googling found that many folks had similar probs and Panasonic didn't want to know. EH85 machines...avoid. Sony were similar with 2 VCRs. They were crinkling tapes. The bloke in the shop was prepaired to replace them with another make...He had given up with Sony. He hated Sony...bad reputation with repair men. I found out that the crinkling stopped if the machines were kept in a warm place.
- but I don't like the software side of Sony's attitude to DRM (including, but not limited to, including virus like software on the CD's).
Whatever camera you choose to buy, you must must must not bother to print on anything other than good quality paper. Otherwise it's equivalent to playing your £1k stereo system on £25 speakers.To make your pictures 'shine' use Photoshop (or equivalent) 'levels' and 'curves' controls. Pixels is one of the most pointless specifications by which to compare cameras (viz, some grotty mobile phone cameras). It's image quality which counts; flare, chromatic aberration and contrast range are what make a picture good or bad. Detail is, really, a mere detail, once you have 'adequate' resolution. Your printer needs no more than 300dpi for a 'sharp picture'.
These days, I deliberately keep the shot loose, and will often find that I can turn the shot into something very different from what I originally intended by selecting a small part of what was the original shot.
As much as i hate linking away from the forum, DPReview.com has some excellent reviews and the ability to compare all cameras that fit your criteria. I would highly recommend it.
In the case of the shot above, one thing that is immediately obvious is the white patch on the rump is saturated and lacking detail.There is an overall lack of detail in the hairs on the body of the stag, and in the grass; but it is very difficult to say if this is true of the original, or just of the shrunk down original that has been posted.The image is good, but I would certainly not claim it is as good as a high end digital SLR would achieve (this is not to suggest that anything I do is better - by own equipment is now very dated), only to suggest that better could be achieved with better equipment (the only thing that could have ben improved upon with your existing equipment would have been to slightly underexpose the shot, to bring the rump out of saturation), and then modify the brightness and contrast on the computer.
I dare say my Canon EOS would have taken a better shot if I'd had time to set it up manually (maybe even the Fuji would have been better with a manual set-up), but I saw the herd, jumped out of the car at the side of a busy road, climbed over a wall & took the photo squatting between the wall and a bush. I hadn't gone with the intention of photographing a stag - or anything else at that distance - so the camera was still on auto from taking a few shots of 1 of the horses outside its stable. I didn't even have a tripod with me.Under the circumstances, I think the image quality is surprisingly good.