Another Digital Camera Thread - Point and Shoot

[udaman]

What kind of things were they looking at? What type of lens? Film? Were they talking about a good prime lens shooting with low speed slide film or B&W? I would say the resolving power of a 35 mm P&S or a consumer grade SLR with cheapo kit zoom lens and 400 or 800 ISO film couldn't be equivalent to much more than 10 MP.



Yep. Noise, dynamic range, and linearity are big factors.



Speaking of which, let's not forget that it's much easier for SLR's with large / full-frame sensors to have high megapixel counts without noise problems compared to small sensors found in consumer-grade dSLRs, and especially compact P&S digicams.

I guess we're speaking for different segments of the photographic community here -- I'm focussing on the needs of the more mainstream consumer and the limitation of mainstream consumer-level products, while you're speaking more for the enthusiasts and their products.

Hmm, IIRC there are only the Canon 1D, 5D, & Leica dSLR with full-frame 35mm sensors, of those only the 5D is under $3k.

Going OT as far as the P&S debate, film is still better by far-not just by the resolution factor, for a given situation (technical debates ). This is clearly illustrated at this website, and I don't think we'll be seeing any 4x5in. 500MP sensors anytime soon in the future:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

However, there a new 120 (or was it 7x7cm?) sized 33MP sensors at the higher-end pro level.

And btw, the D50 is priced currently about the same as the D40 (D40 being newer it will take time for the price to drop below the D50), and the D80 is already "<$800", for this US warranty, complete package D80, only $829

http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=621005&up=620700&start=1

Though this package for about the same price in the D50 does have a wider range in the 2 Nikkor zoom lens.
http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=373046&up=372973&start=1

If you need only equivalent of 28mm as your widest angle, and can put up with limitations of full auto operation, the optically image stablized Canon 800is is some what smaller than the Panasonic LX-2.

The Canon A710is, in addition to have a much longer (but still not that great unless you add the tele-converted 1.7x lens) focal lenght zoom, allows for adpater lens that goes even wider to 24.5mm. Given probably lower noise sensor, greater detail at higher ISO compared to the Panasonic/Leica models, and likely nearly identical lens performance (you wouldn't expect multi-thousand $ German made Leica lens performance of their rangefinder or dSLR lens on a compact P&S). I would still go for the Canon A710is, as a travel camera, just because I get more 'reach' with that 210mm effective telephoto end of the zoom range.

For the necessity of higher shutter speeds to capture action/movement in low light, in a semi-auto pocket sized P&S, the Fuji F31 with face recognition tech, seems the better compromsie than a Canon SD800is (but you lose that 28mm wider angle lens of the 800is). If you don't need higher shutter speeds, then the optical stablization of the 800is would allow for low light pictures via longer exposure speeds.

For me the 2.0in LCD on the D50 vs 2.5in in the D40 isn't that much of a deal breaker as Canon's top level 1D pro dSLR has 'only' a 2in LCD, the original D70 only 1.8in. But the Olympus dSLR I linked to in prior post, has more interesting innovative tech on it, IMO; something that no other dSLR has at present. If they can only get the size down to what the old 35mm OM-1 & OM-2 bodies were, I'd gladly give up a 2.5in LCD for a 2in LCD; as even the D40 is hulking huge compared sevelt OM-1 body and slim lens made for that camera. Whether or not the average user will actually notice any improvement with Jpeg images vis a vis new image processor in the D40 v. D50 is debatable. Good for marketing though .

What kind of things were they looking at? What type of lens? Film? Were they talking about a good prime lens shooting with low speed slide film or B&W? I would say the resolving power of a 35 mm P&S or a consumer grade SLR with cheapo kit zoom lens and 400 or 800 ISO film couldn't be equivalent to much more than 10 MP.



Yep. Noise, dynamic range, and linearity are big factors.



Speaking of which, let's not forget that it's much easier for SLR's with large / full-frame sensors to have high megapixel counts without noise problems compared to small sensors found in consumer-grade dSLRs, and especially compact P&S digicams.

I guess we're speaking for different segments of the photographic community here -- I'm focussing on the needs of the more mainstream consumer and the limitation of mainstream consumer-level products, while you're speaking more for the enthusiasts and their products.

Hmm, IIRC there are only the Canon 1D, 5D, & Leica dSLRs with full-frame 35mm sensors, of those only the 5D is under $3k.

Going OT as far as the P&S debate, film is still better by far, for a given situation (technical debates , read the articles, I think they address LunarMist's points about the 1Ds MK II supposed superiority to film), clearly illustrated at this website, and I don't think we'll be seeing any 4x5in. 500MP sensors anytime soon in the future:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

However, there are new 120 (or was it 7x7cm?) sized 33MP sensors at the higher-end pro level, which may have all the atributes of film, lacking in previous digital sensors, in that film v. digital debate. Eventually, hopefully sooner that later, digital should surpass 35mm film, but don't expect too much in the larger format sizes.

And btw, the D50 is priced currently about the same as the D40 (D40 being newer it will take time for the price to drop below the D50), and the D80 is already "<$800", for this US warranty, complete package D80, only $829

http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=621005&up=620700&start=1

Though this package for about the same price in the D50 does have a wider range in the 2 Nikkor zoom lens.
http://www.expresscameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=373046&up=372973&start=1

If you need only equivalent of 28mm as your widest angle, and can put up with limitations of full auto operation, the optically image stabilized Canon 800is is some what smaller than the Panasonic LX-2.

The Canon A710is, in addition to have a much longer (but still not that great unless you add the tele-converter 1.7x lens) focal length zoom, allows for adapter lens that goes even wider to 24.5mm. Given probably lower noise sensor, greater detail at higher ISO compared to the Panasonic/Leica models, and likely nearly identical lens performance (you wouldn't expect multi-thousand $ German made Leica lens performance of their rangefinder or dSLR lens on a compact P&S). I would still go for the Canon A710is, as a travel camera, just because I get more 'reach' with that 210mm effective telephoto end of the zoom range.

For the necessity of higher shutter speeds to capture action/movement in low light, in a semi-auto pocket sized P&S, the Fuji F31 with face recognition tech, seems the better compromise than a Canon SD800is (but you lose that 28mm wider angle lens of the 800is). If you don't need higher shutter speeds, then the optical stabilization of the 800is would allow for low light pictures via longer exposure speeds.

For me the 2.0in LCD on the D50 vs 2.5in in the D40 isn't that much of a deal breaker as Canon's top level 1D pro dSLR has 'only' a 2in LCD, the original D70 only 1.8in. But the Olympus dSLR I linked to in prior post, has more interesting innovative tech on it, IMO; something that no other dSLR has at present. If they can only get the size down to what the old 35mm OM-1 & OM-2 bodies were, I'd gladly give up a 2.5in LCD for a 2in LCD; as even the D40 is hulking huge compared svelte OM-1 body and slim lens made for that camera. Whether or not the average user will actually notice any improvement with Jpeg images vis á vis new image processor in the D40 v. D50 is debatable. Good for marketing though .

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page17.asp

I don't see the huge disparity between the Pany & Canon, but the reviewers seem to pan the LX-2 (even though it's better than the older LX-1 model it replaced) for the noisy sensor, excessive NR.

"Overall, the DMC-LX2's image quality is a mixed bag. On the positive side, the camera took had accurate exposure, and really pleasant color saturation. Purple fringing levels were very low, due in part to the Venus Engine III -- it removes it digitally. Noise levels are above average."


http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/

"The LX2's image quality weak spot is in terms of the amount of detail that is lost due to noise reduction. Even at ISO 100, fine details like grass (examples one ,two ) and hair look like they've had a trip through a watercolor filter in Photoshop. Things get worse at ISO 200, and at ISO 800 you've got a Monet painting (examples one ,two ).

What about some workarounds? I spent a lot of time messing with the noise reduction setting, and to be honest, even at the "low" setting, I didn't find it to help much. What does help quite a bit is to shoot in RAW mode. The shot below was taken at ISO 200, and here are two areas in which I saw a noticeable difference in the amount of detail loss: "


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page17.asp

I don't see the huge disparity between the Pany & Canon, but the reviewers seem to pan the LX-2 (even though it's better than the older LX-1 model it replaced) for the noisey sensor, excessive NR.

"Overall, the DMC-LX2's image quality is a mixed bag. On the positive side, the camera took had accurate exposure, and really pleasant color saturation. Purple fringing levels were very low, due in part to the Venus Engine III -- it removes it digitally. Noise levels are above average."


http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/panasonic/dmc_lx2-review/

"The LX2's image quality weak spot is in terms of the amount of detail that is lost due to noise reduction. Even at ISO 100, fine details like grass (examples one ,two ) and hair look like they've had a trip through a watercolor filter in Photoshop. Things get worse at ISO 200, and at ISO 800 you've got a Monet painting (examples one ,two ).

What about some workarounds? I spent a lot of time messing with the noise reduction setting, and to be honest, even at the "low" setting, I didn't find it to help much. What does help quite a bit is to shoot in RAW mode. The shot below was taken at ISO 200, and here are two areas in which I saw a noticeable difference in the amount of detail loss: "

 

[LunarMist]

OMG! At least half of Rockwell's comments are a complete joke. He picks up a piece of gear for five minutes and goes on and on, drawing the most inane conclusions. Anyone who owned and used the same gear for years or even decades would probably say otherwise. I think there was a list of the top ten incredulous things he said. Recently he tried to rationalize that a P/S was equivalent to a 5D in some way. Form a technical perspective he tends to practice the worst kind of science, drawing a conclusion and finding some set of data to support it. At the very least, he is too impatient to shoot RAWs with DSLRs and uses jpegs instead, enough said. JMHO of course.

The sad part is that anyone can set up a website and shout their opinions. Most people are not called out except on other forums and many of the arguments for and against specific equipment are made by people that don't even own or use the equipment. Most people spend less that $10,000 per year on photo gear. Specs and theory mean very little compared to actually going out and shooting, and then learning to PP.

Your list of 35mm format digital sensors is inaccurate. As I mentioned above, the 1Ds and 1Ds MK II were the two Canon bodies with 35mm-sized (aka FF) sensors, not counting the 5D. The 1D was an older body, from 2001. The only other FF sensors were in the ill-fated Contax N digital and in the series of Kodak+Nikon/Canon bodies. None of them were very popular due to various limitations. It's too boring to detail the sagas here.

BTW, here is warning about Expresscameras. They are one of a growing group of bait and switch stores in NY operating on the internet. I found this list somewhere, but there are probably more by now. Please don't risk being a victim.

amphotoworld.com
bestpricecameras.com
bwayphoto.com
ccicameracity.com
digitalliquidators.com
expresscameras.com
geniuscameras.com
preferredphoto.com
royalcamera.com
usaphotonation.com
wawadigital.com
thecamerapros.com
Century21Electronics.com

Also there is a suspicious pricing site shopcartusa.com. I think they create bogus reviews of the stores to create confidence. Some legit stores are thrown in for comparison.

 

[Tannin]

I see that Lunar Mist has got in before me with his comments on Ken Rockwell's reliability. Not an authoritive voice. The thing you have to watch out for is that some of what he writes is good sense, but it's cleverly disguised amongst the reams of opiniationed, fact-shy bullsh*t which, apparently, he just makes up as he goes along. (Bit like Tea, really, only Tea makes you laugh more.)

One thing I'll disagree with Lunar about is his charge that Rockwell must be a fool because he shoots JPG, not RAW. Sure, Roclkwell is a fool, but there are some very fine photographers who shoot JPG. It's not a "good" vs "bad" thing, it's a "right for this job" vs "not right for this job" thing. Both formats have their advantages, and shooting either way is inevitably a compromise. RAW essentially trades off speed and storage space requirements in order to gain the ability to decide on exposure and white balance after you take the shot. Talk of picture quality differences is largely just that: talk. A correctly exposed JPG with correct WB is so close to the best you can do with RAW that it doesn't matter.

Let's consider an example: I shoot practically all my wildlife stuff in JPG. This produces better results than RAW ever could, as most birds rarely give you more than a few seconds at best, and JPG gives me more chances of nailing a ripper shot. Of course, I have to get the exposure spot on and the white balance right, so there is a trade-off. On balance, JPG works better. (With a 1D IIN this might be different, but it's clearly my best strategy using a 20D.)

On the other hand, my landscapes and wildflowers with the other camera (also a 20D, but with much shorter lenses) are (a) often more sensitive to precise exposure and (especially) WB, and (b) non-time-critical. RAW is plenty fast enough for this, and its space requirement is no problem (far fewer shots, most of them taken with time in hand to consider it carefully). I may wind up doing all those with RAW. At present, I mainly use JPG where the lighting is unproblematic, and have taken to WB bracketing in any sort of overcast instead of using RAW. I think I'll go back to RAW for these though - presumably after I get around to buying a better RAW converter than the freebie one Canon supply.

But I'm veering a long way off-topic.

 

[udaman]

OMG! At least half of Rockwell's comments are a complete joke. He picks up a piece of gear for five minutes and goes on and on, drawing the most inane conclusions. Anyone who owned and used the same gear for years or even decades would probably say otherwise. I think there was a list of the top ten incredulous things he said. Recently he tried to rationalize that a P/S was equivalent to a 5D in some way. Form a technical perspective he tends to practice the worst kind of science, drawing a conclusion and finding some set of data to support it. At the very least, he is too impatient to shoot RAWs with DSLRs and uses jpegs instead, enough said. JMHO of course.

The sad part is that anyone can set up a website and shout their opinions. Most people are not called out except on other forums and many of the arguments for and against specific equipment are made by people that don't even own or use the equipment. Most people spend less that $10,000 per year on photo gear. Specs and theory mean very little compared to actually going out and shooting, and then learning to PP.

Your list of 35mm format digital sensors is inaccurate. As I mentioned above, the 1Ds and 1Ds MK II were the two Canon bodies with 35mm-sized (aka FF) sensors, not counting the 5D. The 1D was an older body, from 2001. The only other FF sensors were in the ill-fated Contax N digital and in the series of Kodak+Nikon/Canon bodies. None of them were very popular due to various limitations. It's too boring to detail the sagas here.

BTW, here is warning about Expresscameras. They are one of a growing group of bait and switch stores in NY operating on the internet. I found this list somewhere, but there are probably more by now. Please don't risk being a victim.

amphotoworld.com
bestpricecameras.com
bwayphoto.com
ccicameracity.com
digitalliquidators.com
expresscameras.com
geniuscameras.com
preferredphoto.com
royalcamera.com
usaphotonation.com
wawadigital.com
thecamerapros.com
Century21Electronics.com

Also there is a suspicious pricing site shopcartusa.com. I think they create bogus reviews of the stores to create confidence. Some legit stores are thrown in for comparison.

Sorry about the "IIRC" Leica, it was of course Contax. IIRC (it means what is says, btw) somewhere in this thread or another, someone bought a camera from one of the listed 'bad guys' above . And take a look a zipzoomfly's reseller rating (select low-high ratings display), or adorama which Rockwell states he buys from. Or take a look at the reseller low-high ratings for the Ritz/Wolf/etc group, and an outraged 'victim' of expresscamera stated they got "great CS" from Ritz, etc... rated 1.37 for the past 6 monhts, or just slightly higher than expresscamera. Maybe we should just not by from Jewish owned NYC camera shops then, because there's no regulation of these places? Just buy from your brick an mortar shops only, like Samy's & Bel-Air camera, or Calumet (which all have internet presence but also have retail stores).

Actually LM and Rockwell seem to be suprisingly in agreement, lol; when it comes to that rational he used for that P&S v 5D comparions...do some more reading on his site and you will see this to be true, yes, it the person taking the photos has the skills and the time, but who has both; we tend to be lazy just like Rockwell, and use the tools that allow us to do better , be it a lightweight D40, or more capable metering system like in the hulking big and heavy (though not as monsterous as the 'full' pro models) D200?. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

Ah yes, he will use that 4x5in view camera, when the need arrises, but right now, like e_dawg, he's loving the Nikon D40, but try to get a 18-200 VR Nikkor to go with it, backordered, limited supply at $750. But my original point (anyone see that?) was that all dSLR's are too friggin bulky/heavy when they don't need to be. Not reason at all we can't have an all metal bodied, metal lens group; just like the Olympus 35mm film SLR's of the 1970's the famous OM-1 & OM-2. *sigh* just have to wait another 5years I guess, before dSLR's come back into the realm of sanity.

For Tannin's nature photog, seems the D200 would be more ideal, but then both the 20D & 30D will take RAW pretty fast before the buffer fills up, so I don't think Jpeg should be the requirement, unless you want to compose/view each and every frame, rather than 'sports' like action, blast of frames, edit out the useless shots later mode.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d200.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Comparison: Nikon D200, D80, D70, D50, D40, Canon 5D and XTi[/SIZE][/FONT]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/d200-d80-d70-d50-d40-5d-xti.htm

Great comparison with FREE Sony/Ericsson cell phone 3.2MP camera v Canon 350D v Canon 5D...if you did not like the P&S comparsion, you'll love this one . (note too, he did use RAW from the 5D for this comparison, satisfied, enough said? Oh, j/k, j/k; I did not think so...rhetorical Q )

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/k800i/index.html



Considering the exposure highlights blown problem with the Fuji F30/F31, I'd still go with the Canon A710is as the better all around compact travel camera, likely to get someone like ddrueding the better shots in the long run, even when used mostly in full auto mode. Panasonic/Leica may not be so problematic with 'high' ISO noise, if just using mainly 4x6 output, but I tend to need to crop as much as 50% or more, so I want better low noise from the sensor, if possible in a P&S that's small enough to stuff if my pocket.

 

[Tannin]

For Tannin's nature photog, seems the D200 would be more ideal, but then both the 20D & 30D will take RAW pretty fast before the buffer fills up, so I don't think Jpeg should be the requirement, unless you want to compose/view each and every frame, rather than 'sports' like action, blast of frames, edit out the useless shots later mode.

I looked at and slightly lusted after the D200 when it first came out, Udaman, but changed my tune pretty fast when I looked a bit harder. As I recall, the reasons were as follows:

1: Poor high ISO performance. That's a killer, as you need to push your ISOs up to get good shutter speeds with long lenses. At 100 and 200 ISO, the D200 is very competitive with the 20D/30D, but from 400 on, it drops rapidly behind. (That Sony sensor just isn't in the same class as the Canon ones.)

2: Lenses. Nikon just don't have the range of stabilised long lenses that Canon has. For starters, there is no 500 f/4 VR, and the old Nikkor 600 isn't stabilised either. These are critical tools in the nature photography kit, and without them it's pretty much irrelevant how well Nikon bodies stack up. Nikon do have one thing Canon lacks in the lens department: their superb 200-400 f/4 that I mentioned already up above. Despite the inevitable extra weight and the not insubstantial cost, I'd swap my Canon 10-400 f/4.5-5.6 for the Nikkor 200-400 f/4 in an eyeblink. But that's not a primary length for birding: delightful lens (I have used one briefly) but too short for serious birding. Hell, my 500 is too short, but the 600s are so heavy and cumbersome that I make do with the 500. Doubtless, I'll buy a 600 as well one day, but there is no hurry for that.

The 30D does have a substantially improved RAW burst over the 20D (just about the only significant change, aside from the true spot meter), and is much of a muchness in that regard with the D200.

But I'm not really looking at anything in the 10D/20D/30D line for my next body. I need to save a few pennies, but I'm pretty much decided on one or other of the 1Ds II and 1D IIn replacements when they arrive sometime this year. (We don't know at this stage if Canon will replace them one-for-one, or with a unified single model. My guess is two models again.) Both of these have an excellent RAW burst rate (especially the ID IIn, which is designed for sport photography) and huge buffers, so I may well switch my primary shooting mode to RAW at that point. Going to put a hell of a strain on my storage requirements though.

 

[e_dawg]

But my original point (anyone see that?) was that all dSLR's are too friggin bulky/heavy when they don't need to be.

I hear you, brother. Something small but good. I will ask a similar question (basically the same, but approaching it from the other direction, so to speak): why can't we have a compact P&S camera that doesn't suck?

Considering the exposure highlights blown problem with the Fuji F30/F31, I'd still go with the Canon A710is as the better all around compact travel camera, likely to get someone like ddrueding the better shots in the long run, even when used mostly in full auto mode. Panasonic/Leica may not be so problematic with 'high' ISO noise, if just using mainly 4x6 output, but I tend to need to crop as much as 50% or more, so I want better low noise from the sensor, if possible in a P&S that's small enough to stuff if my pocket.

I think I would agree with almost everything you said, except I find the Canon A series a little bigger than I personally would like (I like my compact P&S digicams small). Having said that, I have found the Canon A series to be usually capable of excellent pics, and generally to have one of the best picture quality overall of all compact P&S digicams if you use the manual adjustments to your advantage.

I feel that the Panasonic Lumix compact digicams are capable of great pics, but the sensor is just too darn noisy to let it slide if you are using it as an all-purpose camera, unless you only shoot at 100 ISO or below. Low-light performance just doesn't cut it. Daylight is great.

 

[e_dawg]

Great comparison with FREE Sony/Ericsson cell phone 3.2MP camera v Canon 350D v Canon 5D...if you did not like the P&S comparsion, you'll love this one .
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/k800i/index.html

Ah, yes. Good link. I LOVE my SonyEricsson K790a (same as K800i but with different bands and application features). It's so useful. I have stopped using my Fuji F10. I use the D40 when I want good picture quality and don't mind lugging it around, but I use the SE K790 camera phone whenever I don't have my D40 with me (most of the time). I can't tell you how many useful and priceless pictures I have taken with it in the couple months I have had it.

Not stellar image quality to be sure, but FAR better than most camera phones I've seen (I also had a Motorola v635i 1.3 MP camera phone, which was not very good, but still took a couple of my most treasured pictures to this day). The flash is miles better than the LEDs on other camera phones, and the auto-focus is the difference between blurry pics from most other camera phones and the sharp ones from the SE. It's also got a unique built-in digital image stabilization feature too (and helps noticeably in low-light w/o flash). It's often as good as any of the older 2 or 3 MP digicams and close enough to current 5-6 MP digicams for smaller pics that I consider it a worthy substitute for a digicam.

Some examples of how I use it:

- Browsing books at the bookstore. If there's something I'm interested in, I take a picture of the book's cover so I remember it and can check online at amazon or chapters if I want to buy it or not

- Shopping for clothes. I take pics of items I'm not sure about and look them over at home or show fashion critic friends / family to get their opinions.

- When I notice "deals" in stores. I take a pic so I can remember what price & where I saw it so I can compare with other places before I buy.

- Anywhere I see something interesting that I would like to share with others.

- Enjoyable moments with friends / family when I forget or wasn't able to bring a bigger camera (i.e., most of the time). This is most important. Memories are priceless, but no matter how good a camera is, it's useless unless it's there for you wherever and whenever these moments happen.

In fact, I find my camera phone so useful as not only a phone, but also as a substitute for a compact digicam that I consider it to be honestly the most useful electronic device I own. Period. I paid C$200 for it, but I would gladly pay $500 or more for something this useful. I absolutely love it. There are a few minor complaints I have with some of the phone features, but on the whole, I recommend it VERY highly. I will never leave home without a camera phone again.

 

[Pradeep]

Problem with a camera cell is that often times certain workplaces/areas restrict them, so you end up having no camera, and no phone.

 

[LunarMist]

The cell phone cameras are not allowed at almost every facility I visit. It is hard to find some of the better cell phones without cameras and who wants to leave the cell phone in a car or with Security? Blackberries are allowed, but I don't think they have cameras.

 

[Will Rickards]

The cell phone cameras are not allowed at almost every facility I visit.

What kind of places are you going to?

I remember during my summer internship at boeing's plant here in PA as tech support, having to be blindfolded to go into one of the super secret areas. All I was doing was an antivirus new version deployment.

Another notable experience at boeing was this one computer with a scsi scanner that nobody in their little tech support could get working. It was a simple scsi id problem. Thanks to my experience at storagereview forums I was able to identify and fix the issue. The computer had sat there so long unfixed that when I got to it, it wouldn't boot because somebody took out the RAM to use in another machine.

 

[Pradeep]

There will be a camera model BlackBerry coming out shortly, but the vast majority of them do not have cameras (which is just fine for corporate use which is their market). Hope to get one shortly, will be dealing with on-call rotation starting soon.

 

[e_dawg]

They already have a camera-equipped Blackberry. It's called the Blackberry Pearl.

http://na.blackberry.com/eng/devices/device-detail.jsp?navId=H0,C101,P203

1.3 MP camera with dinky flash. No video capture. So, basically, it's a generation behind in this area.

 

[LunarMist]

What kind of places are you going to?

Most facilities with more than 500 employees and/or over $1 billion seem to have tighter security these days. As well, many are regulated by various US or international governments or institutions/bodies that create other restrictions for various classifications. Nobody wants a photograph of improper equipment or procedure to leak out, not to mention the obvious - industrial espionage.

 

[mubs]

News.com has a write-up about the new Canon EOS-1D Mark III.

 

[LunarMist]

Yeah, most of us were up late last night waiting for the official announcement and reading the white paper, etc. The 1D MK III is a terrible disappointment for people like me, still waiting for the 1Ds MK II's replacement.

 

[Handruin]

What points specifically made it a terrible disappointment? Was it the mild change sensor size among other things? I can't say the $4k price tag is worth what it offers. I'd also like to see what the top of the line brings in for the 1Ds MK II's replacement.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not a PJ or sports photog, nor do I need to shoot in caves. Canon still has nothing to compare to the linear density of the D2X and no decent long zoom like the 200-400VR. At least if new Canon had 12MP at 8FPS, or better yet 14MP at 7 FPS, it would be of some use. Of course that would not allow for the higher ISOs.

 

[Pradeep]

Suprising that they didn't announce a 1Ds-MkII successor, it's almost like Apple in the days of the G4, 18 months and no progress in speed (resolution). Except in this case it's since 2004. I wonder if the high end has been taken by the BetterLights and other high resolution scanning backs.

 

[LunarMist]

Another gem from Rockwell. He should just buy a P/S and leave the photographers alone.

 

[mubs]

Looks like he wasn't sober when he wrote that piece.

 

[Tannin]

That, Luna, is an awesome link. Rockwell's wost-ever spewing of nonsense. At least the worst I've ever seen from him. The man is extraordinary.

 

[Handruin]

There is something inherently wrong with this fellow:

Tripods are no longer required, and actually often degrade sharpness, because shutter speeds have climbed...

The only way I can see the tripod degrading sharpness is if it is reflecting sunlight into the lens because I bent it while wrapping it around his neck.

 

[LunarMist]

Perhaps he is referring to IS? Some of the old-style IS lenses experience rapid image drift when stabilization is engaged on a tripod. For example IS should be turned off when the Canon 300/4 IS and 100-400 IS are used on a tripod. Teles introduced in the past 7 years or so do not have this limitation. Nevertheless, there still can be slight drift on a solid platform, so turn it off as appropriate.

 

[e_dawg]

I wouldn't be so hard on the guy. He's just trying to have that controversial, sensationalistic aura around his pieces to draw attention to his website, get dug, etc. I like the basic point of his article, though, which is consistent from his earlier pieces -- namely, don't be so anal about technical performance. Free yourself from these self-imposed constraints and just go out, focus on the art, and take good pictures, as the end results will ultimately be superior.

 

[Handruin]

Perhaps he is referring to IS? Some of the old-style IS lenses experience rapid image drift when stabilization is engaged on a tripod. For example IS should be turned off when the Canon 300/4 IS and 100-400 IS are used on a tripod. Teles introduced in the past 7 years or so do not have this limitation. Nevertheless, there still can be slight drift on a solid platform, so turn it off as appropriate.

My 70-200 makes mention of not using a tripod with IS enabled. It would be nice if the author actually took the time to mention this for the sake of clarification. I honestly think his point was to say what e_dawg said, but Rockwell said it in such a convoluted way.

 

[e_dawg]

I think what people here are nonplussed about is his reaching and slight stretching of the truth to build his case for not needing to be a slave to one's tripod these days.

 

[e_dawg]

I did also want to comment about Rockwell's pics. Does anyone else find some of his pics overly-saturated, especially ones with human subjects in them?

As an example?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ryan/index.htm

 

[Tannin]

FFS, my granny can take better happy snaps. There is only one decent picture there and his freakin wife took that one.

Can we change the subject now?

 

[time]

Yes.

It's hard to believe that he hasn't deliberately 'enhanced' that photo, which doesn't bode well for his judgement.

 

[udaman]

I did also want to comment about Rockwell's pics. Does anyone else find some of his pics overly-saturated, especially ones with human subjects in them?

As an example?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/ryan/index.htm

Yes.

It's hard to believe that he hasn't deliberately 'enhanced' that photo, which doesn't bode well for his judgement.

I sort of wonder, how much thought any of you put into your response? Not be argumentative, but it seems like most online responses are more of the instantanious/knee-jerk reactions based on almost always a 1st and very quickly read (if that) purusal of the subject.

Yes, the 1/2 ISO 1600 (doesn't the D40 go higher?) shot is a bit blurry, and would have benefited from a tripod. But who other than very serious amatuers or professionals (many a professional does not use a tripod all the time, FWIW), most people are going to use a DSLR w/o a tripod, whether you like that or not, and they will get blurry shots for sure if they don't use an IS system!

And btw, what is the reason for turning off IS when locked down? Do not these huge tele's lens just shake on all but the sturdiest tripods, especially at sporting events where there are side winds? Just take your average 2000mm or larger telescope on a heavy duty tripod mount, you can see the vibrations in the field of vewi when viewing stars at night.

But as far as comphension of articles (please don't serve as a jurist at any trial of mine, you could be so easily swayed by just your average sharp attorney, based on what I read here). Setting up the D40 (which only took some of those baby photos, now how to you all explain the most severely vibrant colors on the Canon SD700 P'N'S which probabaly doesn't have such a setting and is set that way from the factory... ie. does anyone remember the debate long ago about Fuji film vs Kodak, consumer negative films where *everyone* (except me who wants nuetral, natural the way it actually looked colors) preferred the 'snappy' 'vibrant' 'strong reds' of the Fuji films?

You're all aware aren't you (give you prefered subject matters where a tripod does come in handy, which is NOT how most pictures are taken) that HDTV camcorders when the 1st came out, Sony CineAlta (StarWars, etc) and the studio version of that camcorder, designed for TV applications; had severly overstaturated 'vibrant colors' which simply awed so many into the HDTV bandwagon? I recall just seeing the 1280 (720p) res. version of the Terminator 3 on an earlier digital projector, and then walking over to another theater and watching the film projected version. Colors like red stop signs where frekkin vibrant pinkish red, completely unreal, same with skin colors on Caucasian actors, too pinkish.

Skin tones are notoriously difficult to get accurate with any digicam, so you're all focusing on that??? You may take the time to make sure the lighting is correct or in some instances, no matter your custom WB, the lighting is to difficult to not have inaccurate colors, that's just how it goes.

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The color changes slightly depending on if my flash is bouncing off the white ceiling or the peach walls.[/FONT]"

Reading more, thinking more about this link, well what do we have?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The saturation is a bit higher in the print because I deliberately have the saturation jacked up in my D40, with which I made the original shot and this shot."[/FONT]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d40/users-guide/menus-shooting.htm#optimize

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] + Enhanced: I prefer violent color, so I crank it up to +. I'd use ++ or +++ if my D40 had it, but that's me.[/FONT]"

"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I change a lot here. This is where I get the wild colors I love from my D40.[/FONT]"

So you're all telling me you disagree wit his tastes? Fine, then you all disagree with what the majority likes, eye-popping vivid colors (which are totally unnatural, hmm, don't many women were vibrant color makeup to 'enhance their faces, and we don't all dump on their tastes do we?)

"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is where you set the look of your image, like the saturation I love.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These choices are art. There is no right or wrong if you know what you're doing and know what you want. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I'll tell you what I use. Ignore me and Be Yourself if you prefer a different look. [/FONT]​

"

Getting back on topic, currently I need(like in the next week or two) a pocketable PNS digicam, but I can't tell if the new Nikon P5000 has manual focus capability (I always read the review saying this or that PNS has 'full manual' control, but that can mean only over the exposure settings, not necessarily focus), as it seems a viable alternative to the Canon A710is which is not 'old' enough for an update, and has Canon's older IP engine, not the newer version on the latest A500 series (which is the same as on the new DSLR from Canon). Supposedly the P5000 has the same IP from the D80 (but of course with a much smaller sensor, this doesn't mean you'll get the same lower noise, higher ISO capabilities at ISO 1600 or 3200 with the P5000).

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022006_nikonp5000.asp

If only Panasonic had a crappy optical viewfinder on the just annouced (won't be shipping until May, so I can't wait anyway) 10x (28mm-280mm)
though now that every manufacturer has gone the heavy duty noise reduction to get 'fake' higher ISO numbers (dulled images, lack of useful detail at those higher ISO), I'm not sure I'd want to use any of them at higher ISO's? Will the latest IP on the Panasonic be worse at these higher ISO's on the PNS models, excessive NR, at the expense of useful detail?
TZ-2 or 3 : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07013105panasonictz2tz3.asp

Any comments on the hybrid Canon (will this be what we'll see on future cell phones?), that does low res/HD capture (with a tiny zoom lens like that, how could you really expect a decent HD 720p image). But for many people, having a video capture with 10x reach lens in a pocket sized camera is the wave of the future (for mass consumer consumption of course )?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022203canontx1.asp

Currently shoots (can take stills at the same time!) only 13 min of HD before the SD card is full, but that should change with the next revision/model, and maybe we'll have 1080i next?

 

[Tannin]

FFS Udaman, the guy is supposed to be a talented professional photographer, and he puts up a page of dreadful photographs (a couple of them rather good, notably the one he didn't actually take himself, but mostly very crappy, and in one spectacular case unusably bad), all of them over-saturated to buggery. How much thought am I supposed to waste on that fruitcake?

 

[time]

I sort of wonder, how much thought any of you put into your response? Not be argumentative, but it seems like most online responses are more of the instantanious/knee-jerk reactions based on almost always a 1st and very quickly read (if that) purusal of the subject.

You really don't know me, do you?

I'm trying to reconcile that:

a) I'm in a bad mood, and

b) You're a complete tosser.

(There was more, but none of it was remotely work-safe. Thank goodness for Mr Delete Key).

 

[Fushigi]

Time to replace my aging PowerShot G1. I'm currently looking at the SD900. Not so much for the high MP as for the quick response time and latest processor. Something compact enough to fit in a pocket is a must. P&S as well; neither my wife nor I ever really bothered to learn effective manual camera control. We're "picture takers", not "photographers", so the digicam is used for mostly family gatherings and vacation shots.

Reasonable flash, decent # of shots/battery charge, easy to use are my other requirements. And I strongly prefer an optical viewfinder over using the LCD. 6 years after buying the G1, the SD900 is still similar enough in operation that she can pick it up easily (we played with one at BestBuy the other day).

DP Review seems to like it.

Any thoughts about it or other models to consider?

 

[e_dawg]

Some digicams to look at in order of personal preference:

Canon A710
Canon SD700
Fuji F31
Canon SD800

I would choose all of them over the SD900 without hesitation. If you can stand the size of the A710, it is the one to get by sheer virtue of the fact that it is capable of the best pics of the bunch right out of the box and can grow with you as your needs / technical inclination increase.

 

[Tannin]

Fushigi, I can't advise you at all anymore, I'm afraid. I've lost touch with all the new models in the P&S arena. E_Dawg seems to know what he is talking about (which, knowing E_Dawg, should surprise no-one), so you better go with his advice.

 

[Fushigi]

e_dawg, is there any reason you'd pick those over the SD900? Taking a quick look the only standout feature is improved zoom which doesn't matter too much for my purposes.

A710: Too thick; not really a pocket camera.
SD700: Not the current generation of processor but will read up on it anyway.
F31: No viewfinder.
SD800: Will have to take a close look at this.

Tannin, understood. The thread had drifted away from P&S units. As have you.

 

[e_dawg]

IMO, the SD900 smacks of a camera introduced mainly to give marketing some ammo to keep up with the megapixel arms race other than bringin any technical improvement to the game. If anything, IMo, the SD900 is slightly hampered by noise at high ISO

 

[e_dawg]

Hmm... just looked at the dpreview review you mentioned Fushigi... looks like the SD900 isn't as bad as I thought. I didn't like the SD900 for three reasons that seem to have been addressed:

1. The jump to 10 MP using DIGIC III really had me worried for 2 reasons: (a) they're cramming 3 million more pixels onto the sensor, and (b) the SD900 would incur the penalty of increased noise or reduced detail at med/high ISO as a result. After all, the SD800 really suffers from reduced detail at 200 ISO and up due to very aggressive NR from its implementation of DIGIC III. Addressing both of my concerns, Canon made the sensor bigger to accomodate the extra pixels and modified the DIGIC III NR on the SD900 be much less aggressive (and much more reasonable).

2. The lens in the SD800 was tested to be a step back in terms of performance. Fortunately, Canon has not made the same mistake with the SD900.

3. No IS. I had feared that with the poorer sensitivity / noise / detail trade off made to cram more pixels onto the sensor (which I now know to be an unfounded concern), the lack of IS would mean poor low light performance without flash. The SD900 does not have poor low light performance, but it is not as good as models with IS.

While the SD900 isn't as bad as I had thought, it offers no significant improvement over any of the models I mentioned below, and I am disappointed with the lack of IS. I might re-rank the P&S digicams as follows:

A710
SD700
SD900
F31
SD800

I still think the A710 is capable of better pics, although with size being an issue, the SD700 is probably the best overall since it has IS, which gives you better performance in low-light without flash (about 2-stops over the SD900 when IQ/noise is taken into concern). The SD900 is your best choice if low-light performance w/o flash is not as important to you, since it gives you more resolution to work with to crop / enlarge.

 

[Fushigi]

Great explanation. I appreciate the time that post took. I'll talk with my wife about it. I don't recall there being many times when we've done low-light w/o being able to use the flash. The only times I can think of would be taking pix of the house at night while decorated for the holidays. Family gatherings and whatnot are flash-friendly and the review mentioned the flash was effective out to something like 17 feet, which is plenty for us.

 

[e_dawg]

Just wanted to comment about taking pics with flash on compact P&S digicams... they generally do a poor job, often over-exposing anything that is close to medium range and under-exposing anything that is far. Because of the lack of intelligence they display with adjusting flash power to accurately meet the demands of a given scene, one often has to take matters into their own hands -- either by forcing the flash off and using available light (this is where IS comes in handy), or by using -1 to -2 EV exposure compensation to prevent overexposure (enabled by putting it in "manual" mode -- i.e., not full auto). Slow-sync or night mode sometimes does the trick, but I've found it to be hit-and-miss.