|
Otish - My New Camera
Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a
while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that £342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Now to immerse myself in the manual! I've taken a couple of photos using all the auto settings and have managed to get a decently detailed spider shot (spiders were what started the camera quest!) among others. Something to keep me occupied through the winter months and maybe I'll be able to match DaveH's plant parts shots next year. So thanks again everyone for the advice. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. www.rivendell.org.uk |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 27, 11:34*pm, Martin wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? *Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. |
Otish - My New Camera
On 28/10/2011 08:18, Steerpike wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, JakeNospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks. |
Otish - My New Camera
On 28/10/2011 09:36, stuart noble wrote:
On 28/10/2011 08:18, Steerpike wrote: On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, JakeNospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. It would have to be a used SLR *and* a decent quality macro lens for the sort of close-ups that he wants to do. The advantage for the SLR would be that you can use a ring flash easily on the physically larger body. I don't know if anyone does a LED or flash addon intended for P&S cameras. They are available for SLRs for a range of prices. eg http://www.srb-griturn.com/led-macro...ght-1710-p.asp These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks. Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus 100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV. The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Otish - My New Camera
These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks. Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus 100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV. The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR. I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) |
Otish - My New Camera
"stuart noble" wrote in message ... These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks. Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus 100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV. The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR. I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising. Got it in the first instance when we went on a World Cruise and it has served us well on subsequent cruises. When we cruised to the Arctic, my wife used this one. For more detailed and professional use I have a Samsung GX10 which I use for photo shoots. I use this one for all the Theatre shots, especially if they are going into the local press. I had one in last week's paper and another one this week. It's a bit bulky though and if I take a lens change, battery and spare card, then I need a shoulder bag. This is the one I now take cruising. Have to be careful where we go ashore though, some places are 'iffy' so I leave that one back on board. Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive. .................................... |
Otish - My New Camera
"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message ... Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that £342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Now to immerse myself in the manual! I've taken a couple of photos using all the auto settings and have managed to get a decently detailed spider shot (spiders were what started the camera quest!) among others. Something to keep me occupied through the winter months and maybe I'll be able to match DaveH's plant parts shots next year. So thanks again everyone for the advice. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. www.rivendell.org.uk Well done - great choice (here speaks a dedicated Canon - man :-) ) You will find the swivel viewfinder screen invaluable for extreme close-ups - set the camera mode on macro (usually the icon is a little plant) Work your way round the camera, and I suggest using Aperture priority(A/V) to start with. Good luck and please report back. Bill |
Otish - My New Camera
"Steerpike" wrote in message ... On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, Martin wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Rubbish. Jake never said he was interested in "Serious Photography", anyway the Canon G sereis are particularly fine cameras. As for "anyone with limited photographic ambitions" - you do realise that these cameras are very sophisticated with excellent lenses. I have a Canon 5D Mkll DSLR and a G11. I prefer the G11 for any macro plat shots I take. That puts your arguement in perstective. Bill |
Otish - My New Camera
In article , 'Mike'
writes I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from that sentence... -- regards andyw |
Otish - My New Camera
"news" wrote in message ... In article , 'Mike' writes I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from that sentence... -- regards andyw No doubt the regulars on this newsgroup/forum (urg/gardenbanter) will manage to add some rubbish to this posting. They usually do take every opportunity to have a dig ............ the gardening connection :-)) ............ at me. Although I must say it is the urg contributors who are the normal ones to have a go. You just watch :-)) Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive. .................................... |
Otish - My New Camera
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 00:18:38 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote: If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. I thought a lot about a second hand DSLR camera but firstly I'm not an ambitious photographer, I simply want to be able to take some decent shots of little critters in the garden and suchlike plus decent holiday photos (I wanted a viewfinder for long distance stuff as I've never been able to see the LCD screen in the sun on any camera I've had). Every DSLR camera I saw was really too bulky. Secondly, whilst I'm not against second hand per se, I was uncomfortable with going "used" on technology that I wasn't familiar with. I'd never know whether the bad shot was down to a faulty camera or my lack of knowledge about settings. The G12 was relatively simple when demo'd in the store. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:36:58 +0100, stuart noble
wrote: Depends whether those spiders are in your own back yard or whether you'll be lugging loads of equipment around on your impromptu walks. Could be anywhere. I definitely don't want bulk, just to indulge an interest rather than serious photography. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:03:31 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote: I don't know if anyone does a LED or flash addon intended for P&S cameras. They are available for SLRs for a range of prices. The G12 has a range of hot shoe, wired and wireless flash options plus lens options if I want to pay for them (!). Sometimes it is more important to have a small camera with you and get the shot than have a bag full of gear in the car. I use a slim Ixus 100IS as my always with me camera - it replaces an ageing IxusV. Exactly. The G12 is complicated enough though it seems (I haven't got that far yet) that if there are particular settings that I want to use repeatedly, I can spend the time setting up and then save that combination to a one-button memory so I suppose I'll have the best of both worlds. The only thing where P&S really falls down is on shutter lag compared to the hair trigger and repetition rate of a full DSLR. That doesn't worry me (at least not yet!). Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:35:29 +0100, "Bill Grey"
wrote: "Steerpike" wrote in message ... On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, Martin wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Rubbish. Jake never said he was interested in "Serious Photography", anyway the Canon G sereis are particularly fine cameras. As for "anyone with limited photographic ambitions" - you do realise that these cameras are very sophisticated with excellent lenses. I have a Canon 5D Mkll DSLR and a G11. I prefer the G11 for any macro plat shots I take. That puts your arguement in perstective. Bill The issue isn't money but "value for money". Having compared the Canon with Lumix, Nikon and Fuji cameras, the Canon won it in my view (the guy in the shop seemed to be edging me in that direction as well even though he knew I wouldn't be buying that day). It'll suit my purpose which is fun photography rather than "serious". I gave up trying to follow the manual on screen so printed it out. Close on an inch (2-sided printing). As I said, something to read through the winter :) Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 28, 2:07*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:35:29 +0100, "Bill Grey" wrote: "Steerpike" wrote in message .... On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, Martin wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Rubbish. Jake never said he was interested in "Serious Photography", *anyway the Canon G sereis are particularly fine cameras. As for "anyone with limited photographic ambitions" - you do realise that these cameras are very sophisticated with excellent lenses. I have a Canon 5D Mkll DSLR and a G11. I *prefer the G11 for any macro plat shots I take. That puts your arguement in perstective. Bill The issue isn't money but "value for money". Having compared the Canon with Lumix, Nikon and Fuji cameras, the Canon won it in my view (the guy in the shop seemed to be edging me in that direction as well even though he knew I wouldn't be buying that day). It'll suit my purpose which is fun photography rather than "serious". I gave up trying to follow the manual on screen so printed it out. Close on an inch (2-sided printing). As I said, something to read through the winter :) Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. I think if you had actually seen first hand how much better the results are that you would get from a DSLR, then I dont think its likely you would have taken the ridiculous sales blurb of the person who put the G12 into you seriously! Sure get a cheap point and shot to carry with you, but for anything very vaguely serious a DSLR is going to work a whole lot better in pretty much every situation. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 28, 12:27*pm, news wrote:
In article , 'Mike' writes I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from that sentence... -- regards * andyw The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW is not that nice a thing to think about............lol |
Otish - My New Camera
"Steerpike" wrote in message
... On Oct 28, 12:27 pm, news wrote: In article , 'Mike' writes I have a Fuji 6 Megs which slips into my shirt pocket when we are cruising I guess I'm probably the only one that got a very unpleasant image from that sentence... -- regards andyw The idea of a 75 yr old cruising between the public toilets of the IOW is not that nice a thing to think about............lol .................................................. ........ .................................................. ........ """"No doubt the regulars on this newsgroup/forum (urg/gardenbanter) will manage to add some rubbish to this posting. They usually do take every opportunity to have a dig ............ the gardening connection :-)) ............ at me. Although I must say it is the urg contributors who are the normal ones to have a go. You just watch :-)) Mike""" .............................. Right again wasn't I? :-))))) They slink off with their tails between their legs, then pop up from time to time :-)) Kindest regards Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive. .................................... |
Otish - My New Camera
"Steerpike" wrote in message
... On Oct 28, 2:07 pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 11:35:29 +0100, "Bill Grey" wrote: "Steerpike" wrote in message ... On Oct 27, 11:34 pm, Martin wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:49:36 +0100, Paul Corfield wrote: On Thu, 27 Oct 2011 19:03:52 +0100, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote: Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Who did you buy from at that price? A rioter? Looks like you've got a good deal. -- Martin If money is an issue but you are interested in high quality results you would have been far better of with a used DSLR, rather than a G12. These cameras are just fine for anyone with limited photographic ambitions, but the fact that you cannot change the lens, means they are far from ideal for more serious photography. Rubbish. Jake never said he was interested in "Serious Photography", anyway the Canon G sereis are particularly fine cameras. As for "anyone with limited photographic ambitions" - you do realise that these cameras are very sophisticated with excellent lenses. I have a Canon 5D Mkll DSLR and a G11. I prefer the G11 for any macro plat shots I take. That puts your arguement in perstective. Bill The issue isn't money but "value for money". Having compared the Canon with Lumix, Nikon and Fuji cameras, the Canon won it in my view (the guy in the shop seemed to be edging me in that direction as well even though he knew I wouldn't be buying that day). It'll suit my purpose which is fun photography rather than "serious". I gave up trying to follow the manual on screen so printed it out. Close on an inch (2-sided printing). As I said, something to read through the winter :) Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at pillie.me.uk. I think if you had actually seen first hand how much better the results are that you would get from a DSLR, then I dont think its likely you would have taken the ridiculous sales blurb of the person who put the G12 into you seriously! Sure get a cheap point and shot to carry with you, but for anything very vaguely serious a DSLR is going to work a whole lot better in pretty much every situation. .................................................. ................. .................................................. ................. Something else you are an expert in Chris? Other than being abusive and telling everybody what a load of rubbish they are, is there anything you ARE an expert in? Kindest possible regards Mike .. .. .. .. You watch folks at the tirade he comes back with :-)) If you want to see him have a go, mention 'Freemasons' :-)) -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive. .................................... |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 27, 7:03*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
Posting to thank all those who gave advice in response to my post a while ago about acquiring a new digital camera. I took my time (and a lot of time of a very helpful chap in one of the stores of a certain national chain) and ended up with a Canon Powershot G12 (which I bought online). I thought that 342 with an extra battery, case, SD card and mini tripod was a reasonable price so please don't tell me I could have got it cheaper! Now to immerse myself in the manual! I've taken a couple of photos using all the auto settings and have managed to get a decently detailed spider shot (spiders were what started the camera quest!) among others. Something to keep me occupied through the winter months and maybe I'll be able to match DaveH's plant parts shots next year. So thanks again everyone for the advice. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. www.rivendell.org.uk Jake If you like the camera and get on with it OK then don't worry about all the crap being writen about you having bought the wrong camera. I like Fuju, why? Because I'm used to them and they suit me. There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal followers who swear their make is the only one worth using. What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot of that is up to the person behind the camera. I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year? David |
Otish - My New Camera
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble
wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! It's the motorway principle. The more capacity the more traffic I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. I missed the annual starling visit yesterday. By the time I had one hand on the camera they had stripped an elderberry tree and were on their way. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 29, 1:04*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk. The number of pixels is to a large extent a good sales gimmick, and in general you would find that a 5 meg DSLR which is optically superior to an 8 meg PAS, will produce much better pictures! Seems strange that no one much seems to have grasped this, and also seem unaware of the size that pics would be if printed at full resolution. But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels, being superior to a DSLR with less.............. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike
wrote: But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels, being superior to a DSLR with less.............. I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was bored but whatever. I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in response to my post a while back). I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last things I should think about. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk. |
Otish - My New Camera
"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike wrote: But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels, being superior to a DSLR with less.............. I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was bored but whatever. I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in response to my post a while back). I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last things I should think about. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is at www.pillie.me.uk. Jake, don't try and argue with Chris. He is a mental case and will have the last word. Just let him get on with it. He is an expert in everything except giving praise to anybody because he knows best. If you want to wind him up, mention Freemasonry. Now watch him come back and have a go at me. He's a sad case. Mike -- .................................... Don't take life too seriously, you'll never get out alive. .................................... |
Otish - My New Camera
"Jake" Nospam@invalid wrote in message ... On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble wrote: I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Canon reduced the megapixel count from the G10 to 10mpxl on the G11 to improve the noise when using high ISO ratings. You are right when you say there is more to life than megapixels. Bill |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 29, 3:32*pm, Jake Nospam@invalid wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 06:54:46 -0700 (PDT), Steerpike wrote: But then again if you bought from one of the chains, you will have certainly have had to listen to bullshit about a PAS with more pixels, being superior to a DSLR with less.............. I didn't and no, there wasn't any. I used a store merely to get hands on comparison between cameras and the shop chap knew from the start that I was over 100 miles from home with time to kill and wouldn't be buying anything that day or, indeed, ever from that shop. Maybe he was bored but whatever. I discounted DSLR on the simple ground of bulk without any help from the assistant (but having thought long and hard about comments made in response to my post a while back). I chose the camera I did simply because I preferred it to the others I played with in the store, and all credit to the assistant for allowing me loads of time to get touchy feely with the various cameras. And to be fair he said something about megapixel count being one of the last things I should think about. Cheers, Jake ================================================== =========== URGling from the less wet end of Swansea Bay where it's about the same moisture-wise as the more wet end. The cat's web site is atwww.pillie.me.uk. Thats good to hear! An awful lot of people actually believe BS about pixel count, which is in reality complete nonsense. |
Otish - My New Camera
On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too. BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff which would be enlarged to poster sizes. Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur) and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best lenses). I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Cheers, Jake The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors. It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit. Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result. -- Regards, Martin Brown |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 30, 11:34*am, Martin Brown
wrote: On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble *wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! In the early 80's you would be able to read in magazines that 640k of ram in a computer was enough for any conceivable application too. BTW The magazine was wrong at the time. Depending on the ASA rating of the film a 35mm slide would hold between 24Mpixels and 12Mpixels of data and some slower B&W films were better still. Professional photographers also tend to use 6x7cm as a minimum and half plate negatives for stuff which would be enlarged to poster sizes. Kodaks professional PCD film scanning base*16 gave 6Mpixels (amateur) and base*64 (pro) 12Mpixels - this captures most of the detail on most film stocks (but not for ultra fine grain slow films used with the best lenses). I've taken (what I think are) better shots with the 3.5 megapixel camera in my mobile phone than with a 10 megapixel camera that the G12 has now replaced. I think there's a lot more to life than megapixels. Cheers, Jake The digicam Mpixel race has become somewhat silly these days as comparatively few zoom lenses are good enough to maintain detail sufficient to match the latest generation of sensors. It is an easy number for marketeers to sell hence the race, but once you go beyond about 8Mpixels with run of the mill lenses the law of diminishing returns sets in. It is a feature rather than a benefit. Same with "sharpness" - a lot of P&S camera by default oversharpen their images. This is because perceived sharpness in benchmarks and reviews sells more cameras. You see haloes round edges as a result. -- Regards, Martin Brown Indeed............PAS camera's have plenty of silly "features" related far more closely to marketing, than anything linked to providing good pictures! This is something thats worth looking at quite closely by anyone even vaguely interested in taking anything other than snapshots. |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 30, 11:38*am, Martin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 11:34:38 +0000, Martin Brown wrote: On 29/10/2011 13:04, Jake wrote: On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 10:38:08 +0100, stuart noble *wrote: I'm still on 3.2 megapixels for the always with camera. Never really felt the need, or seen it as a civic duty, to upgrade :-) I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes of disk capacity -- Martin- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time traveling |
Otish - My New Camera
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 Dave Hill wrote:
I remember reading not that many years ago that 5 megapixels was about the same definition as "professional" "film" cameras (remember those?) and there was no need to go any higher. OTOH, I have a magazine somewhere from the latter half of the 80s which maintained that 64K of memory and 120 megabytes of hard disk capacity would be enough to see me through my lifetime of computing needs! In the 1960s you were lucky if you had 32K bytes of RAM and 120 Kbytes of disk capacity In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time traveling Quite. I didn't see a desktop computer until 1979 when the school where I was teaching bought the Commodore Pet. A couple of years later it was a toss up as to whether I should get a Commodore Pet or a TRS-80. The TRS-80 won because it was cheaper. And it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said back in the 80s that he didn't think anyone would need more than 64k of RAM. But maybe that's an urban legend. I've got Bill Gates' book - I'll have to look it up, though I'm not sure if all of it is to be believed. He claims to have written the BASIC interpreter for all the desktop computers at that time. David -- David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK http://rance.org.uk |
Otish - My New Camera
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:22:51 -0700, Dave Hill wrote:
I like Fuju, why? Oddly enough I do like their digital cameras. The feature set seems pretty good and their bridge cameras are quite nice. The output usually seems pretty good. You still couldn't pay me to put a roll of their film in my 35mm. The saturation is always way off and they come out with a green tinge to my eye. Because I'm used to them and they suit me. There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal followers who swear their make is the only one worth using. What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot of that is up to the person behind the camera. I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year? David I'll admit to a DSLR, a compact and looking to get SWMBO a bridge camera for christmas. Add that to a 35mm minor collection and when I've got a little more money some medium format will be happening. Warwick |
Otish - My New Camera
On Oct 30, 8:02*pm, Warwick wrote:
On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:22:51 -0700, Dave Hill wrote: *I like Fuju, why? Oddly enough I do like their digital cameras. The feature set seems pretty good and their bridge cameras are quite nice. The output usually seems pretty good. You still couldn't pay me to put a roll of their film in my 35mm. The saturation is always way off and they come out with a green tinge to my eye. Because I'm used to them and they suit me. There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal followers who swear their make is the only one worth using. What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot of that is up to the person behind the camera. I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year? David I'll admit to a DSLR, a compact and looking to get SWMBO a bridge camera for christmas. Add that to a 35mm minor collection and when I've got a little more money some medium format will be happening. Warwick Jake You got me looking at the new Fuji cameras, and I must say I di like the FinePix HS20EXR http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/d...0exr/overview/ But I can't justify the cost when there is nothing wrong with my camera Still I can dream David |
Otish - My New Camera
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 Martin wrote:
In the 60's if you had a home computer you must have been time traveling Quite. Except I never claimed to have had a home computer in the 1960s. And it was supposed to be Bill Gates who said back in the 80s that he didn't think anyone would need more than 64k of RAM. But maybe that's an urban legend. I've got Bill Gates' book - I'll have to look it up, though I'm not sure if all of it is to be believed. He claims to have written the BASIC interpreter for all the desktop computers at that time. Bully for him. I hope you were impressed. Writing BASIC interpreters is trivial. I never claimed it wasn't trivial. ;-) David -- David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK http://rance.org.uk |
Otish - My New Camera
Whilst on cameras, has anyone tried having a "photo book" printed from
digital images? I have just had one done by Lidl's photo service and the results are very good, and at what I consider a fair price. Mike |
Otish - My New Camera
"Dave Hill" wrote in message ... On Oct 30, 8:02 pm, Warwick wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:22:51 -0700, Dave Hill wrote: I like Fuju, why? Oddly enough I do like their digital cameras. The feature set seems pretty good and their bridge cameras are quite nice. The output usually seems pretty good. You still couldn't pay me to put a roll of their film in my 35mm. The saturation is always way off and they come out with a green tinge to my eye. Because I'm used to them and they suit me. There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal followers who swear their make is the only one worth using. What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot of that is up to the person behind the camera. I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year? David I'll admit to a DSLR, a compact and looking to get SWMBO a bridge camera for christmas. Add that to a 35mm minor collection and when I've got a little more money some medium format will be happening. Warwick Jake You got me looking at the new Fuji cameras, and I must say I di like the FinePix HS20EXR http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/d...r/overview/But I can't justify the cost when there is nothing wrong with mycameraStill I can dreamDavidIf your results with your current camera satisfy you then stay with it.Digital cameras are rapidly becoming male jewelry:-) I doubt ladies wouldever consider them jewelry!Bill |
Otish - My New Camera
"Bill Grey" wrote in message ... "Dave Hill" wrote in message ... On Oct 30, 8:02 pm, Warwick wrote: On Sat, 29 Oct 2011 01:22:51 -0700, Dave Hill wrote: I like Fuju, why? Oddly enough I do like their digital cameras. The feature set seems pretty good and their bridge cameras are quite nice. The output usually seems pretty good. You still couldn't pay me to put a roll of their film in my 35mm. The saturation is always way off and they come out with a green tinge to my eye. Because I'm used to them and they suit me. There are loads of good cameras out there all with their loyal followers who swear their make is the only one worth using. What counts is the quality of the pictures you end up with, and a lot of that is up to the person behind the camera. I look foreward to seeing your pics, but why wait till next year? David I'll admit to a DSLR, a compact and looking to get SWMBO a bridge camera for christmas. Add that to a 35mm minor collection and when I've got a little more money some medium format will be happening. Warwick Jake You got me looking at the new Fuji cameras, and I must say I di like the FinePix HS20EXR http://www.fujifilm.eu/uk/products/d...r/overview/But I can't justify the cost when there is nothing wrong with mycamera Still I can dream. My reply should have appeared like this :- David If your results with your current camera satisfy you then stay with it.Digital cameras are rapidly becoming male jewelry:-) I doubt ladies wouldever consider them jewelry! Bill |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:17 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter