Another camera derailment

bwana said:
Are you getting these bad results in low light conditions because that kit lens really isnt that bad. You might also consider getting faster lenses (the 50mm f/1.8 "nifty fifty" is a must have if you dont already have it).

Here's cheap IS for you http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/showphoto.php?photo=1961&cat=503 - you just need to supply the 2l coke bottle :p
Click to expand...

Its definitely camera shake - light conditions are relatively lowish - late afternoon pictures of birds... Not able to use tripod as pictures are 'off the cuff'. The fifty might be a solution for people shots but I prefer to use a Zoom.

Have you ever heard/seen that 55 to 250 I linked to? Wonder if the price is right :confused: - I have e-mailed them. It might be a replacement for my 70 to 300 tamron.
 
adsl3g said:
Its definitely camera shake - light conditions are relatively lowish - late afternoon pictures of birds... Not able to use tripod as pictures are 'off the cuff'. The fifty might be a solution for people shots but I prefer to use a Zoom.

Have you ever heard/seen that 55 to 250 I linked to? Wonder if the price is right :confused: - I have e-mailed them. It might be a replacement for my 70 to 300 tamron.
Click to expand...
I dont think the IS isnt going to have much of an effect on moving objects (birds).

Sorry, I havent heard of the lens you're referring to. WHo did you email? SACamera or B&H?
 
A few months back I got the panasonic fz50. But I am very disapointed. Its built in noise reduction mess every shot up. Even at the low setting. Dont know what to do now, cause I saved a year for him, and the moola is bad now.
 
Tell me, if I buy from B&H, what taxes do I pay? Is it vat and import taxes? And if I pay with visa, do they also charge extra for international payments?
 
jacqvt said:
A few months back I got the panasonic fz50. But I am very disapointed. Its built in noise reduction mess every shot up.
Click to expand...

I have been consistently disappointed with Panasonic. The "quest for zero defect" always seems to come at the expense of quality.
 
you guys are heavy into cameras. are you going pro or something cos a decent 5 mp camera does the job pretty well, except when you zoom in and take photos. i have a samsung 5 mp camera which takes stunning photos and costs nowhere near the price you guys are willing to pay. but i'm not a pro and i don't know what your intentions/preferences are.
 
mercurial, buy yourself a secondhand 5mp DSLR and compare the quality of the images - especially if you blow them up nice and big.

The other reason to go SLR is that your compact works well in "ideal" conditions but you can do magic with an SLR in really nasty conditions. You have way more control over what the camera does.
 
I think this small point and shoot cameras are for snapshots, and the bigger ones for photos.:D
 
koffiejunkie said:
mercurial, buy yourself a secondhand 5mp DSLR and compare the quality of the images - especially if you blow them up nice and big.

The other reason to go SLR is that your compact works well in "ideal" conditions but you can do magic with an SLR in really nasty conditions. You have way more control over what the camera does.
Click to expand...

the resolution of my pics i set to 1600x??? and when i zoom in at the pic after it's transferred to my pc, it's still really good quality(but not when i zoom and take a pic). but if you wanna be a pro then obviously you will need something professional. for me just taking photos for special occasions, well, that's all i need it for really and i'm quite happy with the stunning quality. i'm not taking photo shoots of hot chicks and what not :p
 
mercurial said:
the resolution of my pics i set to 1600x??? and when i zoom in at the pic after it's transferred to my pc, it's still really good quality(but not when i zoom and take a pic). but if you wanna be a pro then obviously you will need something professional. for me just taking photos for special occasions, well, that's all i need it for really and i'm quite happy with the stunning quality. i'm not taking photo shoots of hot chicks and what not :p
Click to expand...
And that's all that matters - too many people buy uber fancy cameras and never realise that its over kill when it comes to taking good pictures.
 
There's way more involved that resolution. Your camera compresses the image to jpeg (mostly). jpeg is a lossy format, which is ajustable. For an example, take one of your images, one with lots of detail, open it in Photoshop or something similar, save it as a jpeg. When given the option set the quality to the lowest number. Now compare the result to the original picture. The resolution is still the same, but the quality isn't.

I'm willing to bet most compact cameras use a fairly low quality compression. Here's an example.

Compare the shots taken with a Sony DSC-W80 7.2MP camera:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sonyw80/page5.asp

with the same shots taken with a Pentax K100D 6MP camera, a camera which is heavily critisized for it's poor quality image conversion:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxk100d/page17.asp

Now, lets cut out the image conversion, something the compact can't do, and shoot in raw with the same Pentax (lower res than the compact, right?):

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/PentaxK100D/page20.asp

See the difference? Compact cameras have come a long way, but in terms of image quality they're nowhere near DSLRs. Which is why they're cheaper.

If you're still not convinced, here is a 640x480 image taken with my camera phone, and here is the same one with a Sony DSC-T100, also at 640x480. This is admittedly at the lower end of the argument, but the same thing apply. Resolution takes you only so far. What the camera does with the image after that is what sets them apart.
 
Last edited:
koffiejunkie said:
That's pretty nice! Damn near the price of an entry-level DSLR though...
Click to expand...
True but remember the camera you have in your hand is always better than the one sitting at home.
 
True. My camera is always in my pocket - you never know when a goot shot sneaks up on you. But then, mine is rather small compared to these two.
 
There's a multimedia section on the forum?!? :eek:


bwana said:
I dont think the IS isnt going to have much of an effect on moving objects (birds).

Sorry, I havent heard of the lens you're referring to. WHo did you email? SACamera or B&H?
Click to expand...

I usually do perched birds but the lens actually disables IS when panning up or down or l to r.

I emailed SACamera - want to know if they can get the lens like in 3 days or so.

bwana said:
True but remember the camera you have in your hand is always better than the one sitting at home.
Click to expand...

Never a truer word spoken - I have some funky pics on my phone that would never have been captured cause my camera is not with me...


Andre said:
Sounds like an interesting lens. I have a 70-200 without IS and I wish it had it. Wonder if the 55-250mm would do as a substitute?

Also wonder if it could take a 1.4 extender and still autofocus on a 400D body?
Click to expand...

Will post what they say about it - now that my visitors have gone - will check up a bit more on this lens.
 
Andre said:
Sounds like an interesting lens. I have a 70-200 without IS and I wish it had it. Wonder if the 55-250mm would do as a substitute?

Also wonder if it could take a 1.4 extender and still autofocus on a 400D body?
Click to expand...
I just bought a EF 70-200mm (f/4.0L USM) . . . . and I cant wait for it to arrive! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X