Here is a shot from my Lumix FZ30 this morning, hand held with bad lighting
This was reduced to 600pixals, long axis, for the web from full size.
Now here is a simple crop of a detail area from the same picture, cropped while the picture was full size. Note that this is not even the focal point, or the center of the picture on purpose
It was pointed out to me that part of what I said in my other post made no sense. THe lumix is a 12x optical zoom, but has a fixed overall physical length, meaning the optics are all internal. The lens does not “grow” in physical length as you extend the zoom, which reduces image shake, especially as the camera gets older.
3 Megapixel is enough to make an 8x10 inch print or most web or on screen uses. 3 to 5 megapixel cameras are cheaper than dirt, but be careful, cheap cameras often have substandard lenses.
The higher the megapixel count, the more severely you can crop and the larger you can make prints, but there well be no observable improvement in small prints from the uncropped file. Your eye can only resolve a little over 200 pixels per inch. I have made a 20x30 inch print from a 6 megapixel image that was as good as an 8x10 from the same image.
Digital zoom is just in camera cropping and interpolation…not a good idea.
Optical zoom is a zoom lens. The quality of the lens determines the quality of the zoomed image. That quality is easily checked in the store. To check the quality of the zoomed or cropped image, photograph something small in the image, like a newspaper and zoom in on it.
Using the screen on the back of the camera for a viewfinder will severely shorten the battery life.
I have several Canon EOS series cameras, both film and digital. Before I retired from my photography business, I bought new sets of cameras about every 18 moths in a quest to keep up with rapidly advancing technology. However, I have not bought a camera in 3 years, and no longer keep track
I recently bought a Nikon D60 DSLR with a Nikon 18-55 VR lens and added 55-200 VR zoom lens.
I am blown away by the quality of the images and the relative ease of use. I am not a pro by any stretch of the imagination so I plan on taking classes to learn more about the camera and taking good pictures.
I agree film is dead. I like digital. I only print the photos I like, don’t waste film and processing on bad photos, and I don’t have to buy the film or pay to have it developed. I can have my pictures printed without leaving my computer. Nothing to drop off and just stop and pick them up when they are ready. Saving my pictures is easy. No photo albums or boxes of slides. Just burn to CD/DVD. [:)] [2c]
It doesn’t have interchangable lenses, but I just love my Fuji FinePix S700. Feels like my old Olympus 35mm in my hand, great grip. It has a 10x optical zoom, but the real reason I bought it was for it’s macro mode— it will focus down to 1cm. Fuji has a newer (improved?) model, but I don’t like the layout of the controls as much, so if you can find one of the S700s new, it should be a bargain price.
Very pleased with the camera. I was considering either a Nikon or a Canon, I ended up with the Nikon. Initially I just bought the kit with the standard lens. Within a week I was back at the store to buy the zoom lens.
Now I just need to bring my skills up to match the abilities of the camera. [:I]
I visited Bob’s photography page and found a lot of good tips there. [8D]
I get to borrow an S700 once in a while. Great camera. I’ve seen them down to $145! The new one your talking about is the S1000 I mentioned earlier in this thread. The nice thing about the 1000 is it has full manual option along with the all the bells and whistles. I can’t wait to get one! The super macro function is AWESOME!
Bob…thanks for the link to your website. I found it very helpful and informative. Great modeling too! I really like those Canadian stubby Alcos.
I think I may have narrowed my selection down to either a Canon Power Shot SD770IS or a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5. They are reasonably priced and seem to be able to do what I will want and need. Does anyone have experience with either of these two cameras?
The point to emphasize in the discussion about cropping however is that you need a good pixel density to start with. Someone mentioned 10 mp as a standard. I am using a Kodak CX7300 that only specs out to 3.2 mp. I also use Microsoft Digital Image Suite to process a lot of the photos I post, and I haven’t had that much luck with cropping function. The enlargements tend to be a little fuzzy and out of focus. “Croppy”, in other words.
I am looking to upgrade, so I find threads like this quite interesting.
The photo I used in my cropping example was taken with a 3.0 megapixel Olympus D550Z.
This is a crop from the previously cropped photo.
It’s not so much the equipment but what you do with what you have. A news photographer who could take great photos with a cheap 35mm camera taught me that.
No, the equipment has a lot to do with it also. Recall the poor quality pics you took with the $10 dime store camera. Having a the best equipment does not directly result in taking great photos. You still need to understand things like shutter speed, depth of field and composition. But understanding those things will help get better results from so-so equipment.
How true. Knowing how to use what you have is a big plus. I’ve seen people with really expensive cameras take some really bad photos and blame it on the camera instead of their own lack of understanding of the instruction manual, if they bothered to read it at all.
Seriously, I can attest to the fact that having great equipment does not make one a great photographer but at the same time having low quality equipment can hamper even the most talented. The old rule from doing video is garbage in = garbage out, I think that applies here too.
Having tried cropping pictures taken with 3.0 megapixel and then trying it again with an image from the new Nikon with 10 megapixels…well there is just no comparing the two. [2c]
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but there’s a whole lot of evidence to the contrary. Film continues to be better than ever, and is superior for many applications.
Just ask Fuji, who spent untold amounts of money bringing back one of their most loved slide films just last year.
Nope, Canon changed their lens mounts long before the digital reble came out. The EOS stuff came out long before the digital revolution. The older series (FE ???) will not work with modern (since 1990 or so) Canon slr bodies.
Thanks for sticking up for film. It may seem old fashioned, but I do take my best pictures with my manual Nikon FM-2 - No auto anything: it requires me to actually think about what I’m doing.
I regard digital cameras as the 21st century answer to poloroid. They have their own kind of usefullness, but I prefer film for serious work. The other day I was looking at the photos I took at the 2002 Olympics. My digital camera would have never measured up.
Still, I like taking digital pictures so I can instantly post pictures here. In a pinch I even use my camera phone. It’s always better to get a picture, one way or another.
I went to www.dpreview.com and looked at the cameras you were asking about.
Sony DSC-170 - This migh do a decent job for you with the exception that at ISO 400 and over I’d expect it’s noise (grainines) to stink. This means you’ll be stuck with flash for handheld shots in most train rooms. If you can put the camera on a tripod or steady it against the layout it should be ok. It’s manual focus appears to operate in 5 steps (rather than continuous) so I’d not expect wonders from it in that department. I’d check on the white balance modes too looking for a mode where you can set the color temperature in degrees kelvin. The dpreview page for it shows apperature range from f3.3 to f5.2. It’s hard to tell if this is wide open to fully stopped down or wide open at various zoom settings. In any case it’s not got a very fast lens (at f3.3) and for the depth of field our model pictures cry out for you’ll want to stop down to f8 which with the reduced focal lengths in a compact digital should give dof similar to f22 or f32 in a 35mm slr. The price seems attractive. dpreview didn’t see fit to review the camera so these number are from the mfg spec sheet.
Panasonic TZ55 - dpreview doesn’t seem to list this model.
Olympus Stylus 1010 - this camera has a 37-240mm (35mm slr equivalent) zoom. For me I’d want someth
Another thing that I find useful if shooting outside on a bright day is a camera with an actual view finder in addition to the LCD screen. It’s very difficult to see what your shooting on an LCD in bright light.[2c]
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if you think that digital can’t compete with film due to the quality of the image, well, I would surmise you haven’t used a decent digital camera yet.
I borrowed the office’s Nikon D-70 and the Lumix FZ30, and it was the latter that made me say - I’m done with film. The quality was that good, and that amazing.
I could go on about the strengths of digital vs film, especially with composition and archiving, but the market has already told the tale. 3 years ago we had 4 camera shops in my local area, we now have one. If Fuji is dumping cash into slide film, well, odds are they hired the same executive who used to be at Sony, and decided not to take Apple up on it’s offer to collaborate on a portable music device…[:-^]
Seriously, I’d recommend trying another camera if you honestly think film is better. The cost alone in development can amortize the price of a digital camera pretty fast, especially if you take a lot of pictures.
