|
FasterThanLight posted:My sister just got a G12, and I played around with it for a bit the other day. The optical viewfinder seemed pretty small and not very useful to me, so definitely try it out first. The camera's controls were really nice though, better than most entry level DSLRs IMO. Even has an ISO dial! Yup. If my G9's viewfinder tunnel is any indication, it's pretty much neigh useless for any serious composition, it's quite dark (obviously still beats live-view LCD) and it has parallax error, so any near field composition made with is is useless. Also you see your lens barrel at the wide end. But, even so the G-series body always had nice control dials, and more importantly to me a nice feel. It's a bulky camera but that makes it easy to grip and steady. Also it beats the S90/95 with a bit more telephoto. (28-140mm vs 28-105mm) Personally I have the S90 and I like it very much. But sometimes I wish, especially in low light, that it was a bit easier to grip/more substantial. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Dec 28, 2010 |
#
¿
Dec 28, 2010 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Sad Panda posted:Is there any reason to not disable digital zoom? Does using it have any advantage at all? I have an s95 and it was one of the first things I did. Nope. As far as I know, every camera has to work with the same pixels, that you have at your disposal with the final JPEG as well, when it creates the digital zoom effect. To add insult to injury the interpolation algorithms are usually way less sophisticated than what you can do on a PC. (Bicubic, Genuine Fractals) The only (tiny tiny) advantage that I can think of is, that if the camera has only a JPEG mode, the digital zoom likely happens before it goes to the JPEG engine-- so you don't blow up the JPEG artifacts as well.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
CarrotFlowers posted:I just posted this in the SAD thread because someone else had mentioned it, but I figured this is more appropriate: Make sure your expose your images correctly, as it shows more in images that are 2/3 - 1/3 stops underexposed. You can further reduce it for critical shots, by exposing to the "right" e.g. exposing it as bright as you can without clipping details, then bringing it down to normal in post processing. Check the useful live-histogram, as you don't want to rely on your LCD for that. But in all honesty, I prefer the subtle and very film looking grain of the S90/S95 at low ISOs over the crap that we had to put up with, using older compacts. I'm actually happy that Canon chose not to smudge away the noise as they usually do with their small compacts, leading to clean, but artificial looking images. I have recently looked at my first digicam images from the Powershot A20 (Dates back to 2001) -- ugh. 2 megapixel smudge-ville, at ISO 50 -- no less! Furthermore, having printed some images from the S90 and having them printed large -- I can safely say the grain is practically invisible even in prints of 16x20inches. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 11:04 on Jan 9, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2011 10:55
|
|
|
coke posted:It sure does. As the meter in every camera wants to make everything '18% grey/22% luminance'. Also the compacts that I had tend to (strongly) emphasize the focus point for the exposure. This is, because the camera tries to be smart. So, if you focus on something -- it guesses you probably want that properly exposed properly (for 18% grey). That means if you focus on a something very dark in a white/bright environment, the environment will likely blow out (unrecoverable overexposure) as it tries very hard to correctly expose the black object. The camera's meter won't go as far as it would if you were shooting in a dark room, but it will still overcompensate.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Prathm posted:How big a pain in the rear end is that loose ISO-ring on the s90? I have the S90, too and it's a fantastic little camera, for when I don't want to lug my dSLR. Image-quality wise the S95 and the S90 are identical for all that matters. The S90 "loses" HDR modes and some other things that I've never used anyway. The only thing that would have been nice to have for me is the 720p movie mode. If the ring on the S90 is giving you trouble, you can always perform a little bit cardboard surgery and never worry about it again. It never bothered me enough to fix it, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:I am shopping for a cheap, small, most likely used P&S to take with me on random outings and errands that fits the following (as best as possible): Pretty much agreeing with my foreposters here, you want very much even from an "old" camera but are only able/willing to give up $100 of your cash. So I thought why not spend even less and just go and test the waters. That said, before getting into dSLR, my previous camera was a Canon A570IS, which I loved to death. I took lots of great pictures on it, which people commented on, assuming that I was using an expensive camera. (I was not.) It has image stabilization, 7.1megapixels and is 35mm with f/2.6 (lower than 2.8  ) at the wide end, 4x zoom, it also supports CHDK as I CHDK'ed mine. The best part is that it takes regular AA's & is currently available at amazon.com used for just shy of 50 bucks.Maybe there's a newer A series camera out there to beat it - dunno, just sharing my thoughts here. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2011 08:26
|
|
|
jsmith114 posted:I don't expect to find something that has everything I listed - the preferences section is just stuff that would be nice. Since my now broken Canon G1 opened up to 2.0 I figured there might be something with a lens faster then 2.8 The CHDK on the A570 IS was OK, it enabled some nice stuff, like exposures beyond the 15 seconds limit and extremely fast shutter speeds like 1/4000 and such, I actually rarely used it for the RAW modes as the RAW was usually not that much better than the best JPEG the camera could put out. That said, there actually was a bit of headroom gained using RAW, but it's 1/2 of a stop at best. Which is, of course, a far cry from any dSLR. Conclusively, I mostly shot the standard JPEGs and the results came out just fine. ISO 200 is perfectly useable, as is ISO 400 with CHDK RAW. ISO 400 JPEGs are also are okay-ish, when needed. ISO 800 is OK in emergencies I guess, RAW could end up being actually good-ish - never tried, though. If you want I can upload roughly 100MB of pictures for you to trawl through, all taken with this camera. Of course it doesn't have to be THIS one camera -- I'm basically just trying to dispel the myth that you need a $300+ camera to take good pictures, no matter how much the gear-heads and arm-chair photographers insist on it. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Feb 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
soru posted:I just picked up a Fuji X10 from Amazon's warehouse deals site for $430. Totally awesome camera and their "like new" condition meant absolutely impossible to tell it was ever used. I think for the price it'd be tough to beat the images that come off it. Congrats on the nice camera. But you have to be careful when exposing highlights, especially I night scenes. See more here: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/3340468423/fujifilm-x10-orbs-investigated-does-the-firmware-fix-work/
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
the posted:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/t...&ref=technology It's hype plain and simple. The sensor in that camera is Nikon CX sized and is not much later technology thus it gives comparable results. That means it is indeed better than most compacts, but for the price I don't really see the point, yet. Yet? Well, there is the interesting twist that the camera is similar in size to Canons S90/S95/S100 line. It also offers a better sensor and brighter lens. If it weren't for the price it would be a nice kick in Canon's rear end. Given Canons track record in this market segment, don't expect them to come up with any miracles though. We'll probably see some lukewarm rehash. That said if you got the money, and they don't botch it up in the last minute, then Sony's solution seems to be shaping up as the go-to shirt-pocket camera. Here's a more level-headed preview courtesy of DPreview: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/ Edit: Not smaller. Duh! VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Cacator posted:Canon already put out the G1X, which has a slightly larger sensor than m4/3 but worse lens than that Sony (basically a suped up G12). I haven't heard people being that enthusiastic about it though. I've handled both cameras, actually just this lunchtime actually - and the G1X is a god drat tank compared to the Sony RX100. It's really much closer to a S100 size wise. That said your point still stands; people aren't really enthused about it, probably because the price on both cameras is completely ridiculous. You can get an entry level dSLR kit for the same amount of money. And with that you will have something that crushes both cameras from usability and IQ standpoints ,let alone lens selection, expandability etc. And in case of the G1X the size & weight difference vs entry level dSLR isn't even that big. I mean not from a "size in mm", but practical standpoint. You can't pocket it, unless you're wearing cargo pants or a thick jacket. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Jun 29, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2012 06:12
|
|
|
DJExile posted:I believe so. The Canon G12 has it. No, I don't think so - this is actually a hardware feature. If you put your ear to the G12 you'll actually hear the ND filter click into place. It is that way with my friends G12 and with my old-rear end G9.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2012 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 06:40 |
|
|
Krakkles posted:i said the glass is "theoretically great", not theoretically better / faster / anything comparative. Sweet straw man, though. The sensor is not garbage, if you compare it to other cameras from it's class/time. Like the S95. And to prove I'm not talking out of my rear end, look at the link here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/OlympusXZ1/9 Be sure to check out the RAW comparison (next page), where the XZ-1 beats the (doctored) S95 RAW so much in terms of clarity, color and detail that it just isn't funny. Heck it even stands on it's own against the newer S100, S110 iterations. I know this because I researched it, as I wanted one of these some time ago, but couldn't justify the cost/size factor as I was already owner of a Canon S90. Yes it has it quirks, but so do all compact P&S cameras. And of course it will lose out to the APS-C compact crowd, but different horses for courses and all that. If you are really serious about sensor size and noise / dynamic range, a compact isn't the way to go anyway - either at least full frame digital or film. Edit: Removed personal attack. Sorry, shouldn't do this. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Apr 25, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2013 06:35
|
|