Digital Photography and Cars
Discussion
Don said: Canon Powershot S20/S30. I have the S10 - previous model. Brilliant. Its shaped like a brick with nothing to break off. Its small enough and light enough to carry wherever you need it. Takes GREAT digital pictures. Can't recommend it highly enough.
I've got a Powershot S40 and taken over 4000 pictures in the 6 months I've owned it.
For stills, it's the dogs danglies; however, movies leave quite a lot to be desired. It does them but it doesn't focus track or alter the exposure during shooting. You can't even zoom in and out while shooting!
For a movie taken on the S40, check out www.tvrcc-bristol.co.uk/media/video/RollingRoad.mpg (2.55Mb)
For a still taken by Dan's digital camcorder check out www.tvrcc-bristol.co.uk/reports/0208Mania/images/RussnPat_1.jpg
If you only want occasional movie clips, then the S40 is fine. If you want REAL movies, get a digital movie camera.
You can't have your cake and eat it !!!!
I bought a new digital camera recently and had the same dilema - I really wanted a digital SLR with interchangeable lenses but my budget wouldn't stretch that far. After reading numerous reviews I went for a Sony DSCF707 -an excellent camera! 5 megapixel, 5 x optical zoom, variable shutter etc and mpeg. Approx £800
The Fuji FinePix 6900z is the daddy of the mid-priced 3/6mp cameras..
It has the look & feel of a digital SLR and will do 6x zoom. You can also get a 1.5x zoom adapter taking you upto 9x zoom (about 450mm in 35mm camera terms) and a wide angle adapter too.
You'll find quite a few PHers have one of these - Incorrigible & myself included.
It has the look & feel of a digital SLR and will do 6x zoom. You can also get a 1.5x zoom adapter taking you upto 9x zoom (about 450mm in 35mm camera terms) and a wide angle adapter too.
You'll find quite a few PHers have one of these - Incorrigible & myself included.
You guys seem pretty clued up on the digital camera front so maybe you coud help me.
I am after a cheap digital camera £100-£150 to take snaps to post to a web site I want to set up. It will probably live in my karing kit bag so liable to get bashed around a little which is why I dont want to spend too much.
Been looking at the Fuji finepix A201 (or is it A102) anyway 2million mp, about £130. Any good or could you suggest an alternative.
Sort of pics I want to post are here http://uk.briefcase.yahoo.com/wraith34uk . all these are scanned, some from a disposble camera as my last 35mm camera got water in it.
Cheers for you help
Paul
I am after a cheap digital camera £100-£150 to take snaps to post to a web site I want to set up. It will probably live in my karing kit bag so liable to get bashed around a little which is why I dont want to spend too much.
Been looking at the Fuji finepix A201 (or is it A102) anyway 2million mp, about £130. Any good or could you suggest an alternative.
Sort of pics I want to post are here http://uk.briefcase.yahoo.com/wraith34uk . all these are scanned, some from a disposble camera as my last 35mm camera got water in it.
Cheers for you help
Paul
CarZee said: The Fuji FinePix 6900z is the daddy of the mid-priced 3/6mp cameras..
You'll find quite a few PHers have one of these - Incorrigible & myself included.
...and GregE240. The "new" version of this camera (the Z602, I think it's called) is a retrograde step backwards, IMHO. True, you get audio on your avi's (nice), but Fujitsu have added a Microdrive next to the Smartmedia slot which makes the right hand side (as you hold it to your face) of the camera terribly heavy and thus difficult to balance for when you are snapping away.
But if you can still get hold of a 6900Z, I'd recommend it. Ours hasn't skipped a beat, and produces amazing photos.
Just my 0.02.
Can't say I've noticed any problems with it being unbalanced though - guess it depends on the shape of your hands.
loserkid said:
I'm getting bored of shelling out for photographers who generally don't seem to be that good these days - except the ones who are really excellent but charge accordingly!
That would be me
. Like every thing else in life, you get what you pay for. With digital cameras the more money you spend the higher the resolution and/or the more control, gadgets, features, larger zoom range etc you get. Most of the cameras in a given price range are much of a muchness. Ignore things like Fuji claiming 3 mega pixel capture, 6 mega pixel output. This is just the camera software doing interpolation, something you can do yourself in Photoshop. This just creates more 'fake' pixels from the existing 'real' image data. If this is done to extremes the result is the same, soft mushy pictures. Also Ignore digital zoom, crap.
Do you want a camera you can slip in your pocket? Some of the cameras mentioned like the Nikon 5700, good camera, are just to bulky. For small compact and good quality I would look at the Canon Ixus range. Enough quality for a good 8X6 print or (10X8 at a squeeze depending on the model). If you need pics for the web just about anything will do.
It's true most of these digi compacts aren't really suitable for sports photography having 'shutter lag' (time between pressing the tit and the camera taking the picture). But if you're serious about the sports, you will have to go down the SLR route, but bare in mind most of the mid range SLRs, Nikon D100, DIx Canon D60 etc will choke for breath (take time to write images to the card from the buffer) after taking 3-5 shots at their highest quality. If you already have a good SLR film camera maybe better to stick to that. The only digi with good performance for sports is a Canon eos 1D. This will shoot at 8 frames per sec for 21 frames at full quality (enough for a double page magazine spread). With one lens it will set you back a minimum of
If I had to pick just one compact digital I'd go for the Canon G3, a great little camera with a good lens, a bit to big for the pocket though. FYIW I bought a Canon S40 for happy snaps. It's just about pocketable but a little to big and heavy for comfort. They have just bought out a new version, the S45, same size but better, faster, performance. Think it costs about .
The best thing is to pick your budget with the features you (think) you need and go to the shop and have a good play with a shortlist. Even if a camera is highly recommended you will not enjoy taking pictures with it if it doesn't feel right in your hand.
As mentioned before the best place for side by side, very comprehensive reviews, is Phil Askeys site:
www.dpreview.com/
HTH, good luck.
Edited to correct brain fade.
>> Edited by bacardi on Thursday 5th December 18:03
I've got a Sony DSC-S70 that I've had for a couple of years.
USB connection
Memory stick storage
6 x digital zoom
3.3 mega pixels
Carl Zeiss lens
Its been excellent, quality is very good - the lens is the important thing, even with lots of pixels and buttons a cheap lens will take cheap photos.
USB connection
Memory stick storage
6 x digital zoom
3.3 mega pixels
Carl Zeiss lens
Its been excellent, quality is very good - the lens is the important thing, even with lots of pixels and buttons a cheap lens will take cheap photos.
Try this one, seems pretty good for web stuff and you can use a smartmedia card which means up to 128mb storage. There are a few on that site sufficient for what you want it for, most have example pictures, some are much cheaper and would still do what you want, just with less memory. Just don't expect photo quality prints, cos it won't really happen with 1.3 MP's
Cotty said: You guys seem pretty clued up on the digital camera front so maybe you coud help me.
I am after a cheap digital camera £100-£150 to take snaps to post to a web site I want to set up. It will probably live in my karing kit bag so liable to get bashed around a little which is why I dont want to spend too much.
Been looking at the Fuji finepix A201 (or is it A102) anyway 2million mp, about £130. Any good or could you suggest an alternative.
Sort of pics I want to post are here http://uk.briefcase.yahoo.com/wraith34uk . all these are scanned, some from a disposble camera as my last 35mm camera got water in it.
Cheers for you help
Paul
The Fuji will probably be the old Fuji trick of 1MP and upping it by saying the 'output' is 2MP when in actual fact it is just software driven. I'd avoid Fuji's like the plague but that's IMHO.
moleamol said:I thought optical was 'proper' zoom and digital was the crappy software enhanced one. Am I missing something or did you just put the wrong thing in your text?
bacardi said:Also Ignore optical zoom, crap.
Well mines got digital zoom and the lens moves in and out like a 'proper' zoom.
JSG, yours has optical and digital zoom, same as mine. The optical zoom is the 'proper' zoom whereby the lens moves to focus the image onto the CCD array. Digital zoom simply expands a section of the detector array, which means that if you double the zoom, you quarter (I think) the image resolution. You can disable the digital zoom from the system menu. I think Bacardi must have got his wires crossed, he is spot on if you replace 'digital' with 'optical'.
moleamol said:I thought optical was 'proper' zoom and digital was the crappy software enhanced one. Am I missing something or did you just put the wrong thing in your text?
bacardi said:Also Ignore optical zoom, crap.
In the words of Capt. Mainwaring 'Well done, I was wondering who would spot that.'
Sorry chaps, I did, of course, mean 'digital' zoom is the crap one. Same difference as interpolation, making something out of nothing. No idea why I typed optical. Tied, late last night when I typed it. Must remember to use brain and fingers together when typing!
Wasn't being tw@tty matey, just checking
bacardi said:
In the words of Capt. Mainwaring 'Well done, I was wondering who would spot that.'
Sorry chaps, I did, of course, mean 'digital' zoom is the crap one. Same difference as interpolation, making something out of nothing. No idea why I typed optical. Tied, late last night when I typed it. Must remember to use brain and fingers together when typing!
I know a fair bit but you seemed very knowledgable on all things camera and I thought maybes I was wrong.Wasn't being tw@tty matey, just checking
I know a fair bit but you seemed very knowledgable on all things camera and I thought maybes I was wrong.No, didn't take it that way at all. I was the tw@t for typing the wrong word. As you and Mervynp spotted the error, it just reminded me of Dads Army when Capt. Mainwaring tries to get out of looking like a burke in front of the others.
As for being knowledgeable I guess I should be. I make my living by taking (digital) pictures all day long, which makes it even more embarrassing!
Bacardi - you may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but I was not under the impression that digital zoom was necessarily the same as interpolation. Not on the Fuji 6900 anyway.
I take a lot of 1mp photos as most of my stuff goes onto a screen and no further. At that resolution, having a 3mp CCD, I have 2 or 3 (?) 'notches' of digital zoom available to me after the optical zoom has fully extended.
I had presumed that the reason I have this option is because if you're only taking 1mp shot, you'd have interpolation or averaging of some sort to get a 1mp JPG from a raw 3mp CCD image. Therefore, if you use digital zoom and take a photo which is effectively only using the middle 1 million pixels, you get an uninterpolated photo as you're not having to take an average as you do with a 1mp using the full CCD.
The only point at which I would experience interpolation proper would be when taking a 3mp shot - I have only 1 notch of digital zoom avabailable - which I presume must use the 6mp mode hence interpolation
It's really hard for me to explain without diagrams.. do you see what I'm getting at?
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 5th December 18:43
I take a lot of 1mp photos as most of my stuff goes onto a screen and no further. At that resolution, having a 3mp CCD, I have 2 or 3 (?) 'notches' of digital zoom available to me after the optical zoom has fully extended.
I had presumed that the reason I have this option is because if you're only taking 1mp shot, you'd have interpolation or averaging of some sort to get a 1mp JPG from a raw 3mp CCD image. Therefore, if you use digital zoom and take a photo which is effectively only using the middle 1 million pixels, you get an uninterpolated photo as you're not having to take an average as you do with a 1mp using the full CCD.
The only point at which I would experience interpolation proper would be when taking a 3mp shot - I have only 1 notch of digital zoom avabailable - which I presume must use the 6mp mode hence interpolation
It's really hard for me to explain without diagrams.. do you see what I'm getting at?
>> Edited by CarZee (moderator) on Thursday 5th December 18:43
CarZee, I do, good point, and you are not wrong. If you are producing lower res' files from your high res' chip you can use your digital Zoom without lost of quality up to a point. Phil Askey can explain it better than me:
www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Digital_zoom_01.htm
To be honest I hadn't thought about it from that point of view. Personally I can't get enough resolution as all my work goes to print. The web is a low quality environment when it comes to pics. Another factor which may affect your web pictures is how much .jpg compression you give your files. Apply too much of this and it is as bad as interpolated digital zoom.
So I guess the general advise is, if you need high quality prints avoid digital zoom. If your pics are for the web you may be able to use it without loss in quality. Either way, do some tests and see what is acceptable to you.
www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Digital_zoom_01.htm
To be honest I hadn't thought about it from that point of view. Personally I can't get enough resolution as all my work goes to print. The web is a low quality environment when it comes to pics. Another factor which may affect your web pictures is how much .jpg compression you give your files. Apply too much of this and it is as bad as interpolated digital zoom.
So I guess the general advise is, if you need high quality prints avoid digital zoom. If your pics are for the web you may be able to use it without loss in quality. Either way, do some tests and see what is acceptable to you.
I've recently bought myself a FujiFilm S602 Zoom, got it for a complete bargain secondhand... as far as motorsports goes it's about the best there is I reckon because not only is it a great camera for taking some pretty darned good stills in any lighting/scene conditions like any competent high-end camera but it also takes some amazing 640x480 resolution video (with sound) and what's more it's at 30fps and you can just fill up whatever storage media you have (no annoying 15-second limit etc. Being 30fps means you can video edit and make some incredible slow-mo action shots. Got some we took at the rally NZ 2003 with an identical camera and it's really incredible... highly reccommended!
A couple people have recommended a digital SLR, but I have one and wish I didn't. I've used an analog (traditional) SLR for years, so the problem isn't in the concept... I bought a Minolta Dimage 5-something, and it has real problems focusing.
The screen is small enough so that it is very difficult to tell if the image is in focus or not, and the autofocus works terribly. I can't count the number of important pictures that I have lost due to being out of focus. If you want to take pictures of fast-moving cars, the auto-focus doesn't have time to focus on the object before it is long-gone.
When the camera is "on", the pictures are stunning. But it is all or nothing - either crystal clear or totally horrid. If I have lots of time, I can play with the focus to get it close, but if you want action shots, that is difficult.
By all means, get optical zoom, but I, for one, wish I hadn't spent the extra for the SLR and had just gotten a fixed-focal camera...
The screen is small enough so that it is very difficult to tell if the image is in focus or not, and the autofocus works terribly. I can't count the number of important pictures that I have lost due to being out of focus. If you want to take pictures of fast-moving cars, the auto-focus doesn't have time to focus on the object before it is long-gone.
When the camera is "on", the pictures are stunning. But it is all or nothing - either crystal clear or totally horrid. If I have lots of time, I can play with the focus to get it close, but if you want action shots, that is difficult.
By all means, get optical zoom, but I, for one, wish I hadn't spent the extra for the SLR and had just gotten a fixed-focal camera...
gt5s_1985 said:
If you want to take pictures of fast-moving cars, the auto-focus doesn't have time to focus on the object before it is long-gone.
Easy remedy: Autofocus the spot where you want to catch the car (before it's there obviously), put camera on manual focus, take a couple of pictures as the car comes by and move the camera along with the car.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff