Soma

Resources => Pictures [Public] => Topic started by: Muffin on January 03, 2011, 04:56:50 AM

Title: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 03, 2011, 04:56:50 AM

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate ;)

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one ;)
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

Title: Buying a Camera
Post by: Jahn on January 03, 2011, 05:57:29 AM

Quote from: ® on January 03, 2011, 04:56:50 AM

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate ;)

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one ;)
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

I have lost my camera, at least I can't find it.
So I bought a new one, the same edition of Canon Ixus 110is.
The price range for this camera goes from SEK 3500 to only 1400, that is about USD 500 to 200.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2009/08/12/Canon-IXUS-110-IS/p1 (http://www.trustedreviews.com/digital-cameras/review/2009/08/12/Canon-IXUS-110-IS/p1)

review


comment NICHOLAS JONES said on 14th August 2009

I bought one a couple of weeks ago for £189.00 from Amazon in their sale. It has replaced my old Canon 850 is. It is a great little camera & is much easier to use than my old one. The on screen hints are very useful while you are getting used to the camera. The quality of the photos & movies are really excellent. I wasn't sure about not having an optical view finder but the screen is bright & sharp it isn't a problem. A great buy, highly recommended.

Title: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 03, 2011, 07:01:48 AM

Jahn, that's pretty much the same camera under a different name. Canon uses different branding for the American (Powershot) and European (Ixus) markets.

Canon Ixus 110is  = Canon Powershot SD960 IS
Canon Ixus 130    = Canon Powershot SD1400 IS

IS stands for Image Stabilizer. Don't worry if you don't see it on newer models, Cannon dropped the usage from the names, but the cameras still have it. Look for the specifications if in doubt.

Title: Buying a Camera
Post by: Michael on January 03, 2011, 08:54:41 AM

That's timely - I have become very dissatisfied with our old Kodak compact, which has been a fabulous camera, but 5 mp is now obviously too small for proper cropping.

When I bought the Kodak I did a lot of research. It seemed most pros always like Cannon, but because all these companies are constantly leap-frogging each other in feature improvements, at any one time reviews recommend different ones.

I'll look into these ones Rudi suggests here. I recall there were many factors - eg metal cameras were safer with travel (less likely to break), speed of readiness to take the photo from switch-on, type of battery (lithium), size - small but not too small, size of the back viewer, and especially the optical zoom, so long as quality was not sacrificed. I'm rusty on this now, but the most critical factors as I recall was not just the mega-pixels, but the size of the sensor (or whatever they call the thing which receives the image for capture). Lastly, and most important, the lens.

Title: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 03, 2011, 10:35:47 AM

PS: Lori, I'm sorry for polluting this thread, some moderator please feel free to split it. We can have a discussion on cameras in a dedicated thread.

---

Actually, megapixels is the least important factor. I have a 12MP camera and I shoot with the equivalent of 6MP, and I still crop and downsize my images. See my latest swan pic.
You only need 12+ MP if you want to print your images in larger then standard pic format (cca 11x14").

The first thing you need to decide is if you want a compact point-and-shoot or a SLR camera.
Interestingly enough, Nikon's canadian website has an awsome display of their range of products. Couldn't find such a clear presentation on any other site, Nikon or Canon.
Compact (http://nikon.ca/en/Coolpix.aspx) vs. SLR (http://nikon.ca/en/Slr.aspx)

In case of the SLR camera the lens is less important because they are interchangeable and work on pretty much all the models Nikon lenses on Nikon cameras, Canon lenses on Canon cameras, Sony lenses on .. well you get the drift. There are also independent lens manufacturer who make lenses for these companies. That's a huge field to explore.
Talking about zoom factor when buying an SLR  camera makes no sense, your zoom is whatever the focal length of your lens is. A standard 70-300mm lens is called a zoom lens not because you have a 4.2x optical zoom, but because it can see far. My 18-55mm lens has a 3x zoom factor but it is a wide to  standard lens. I also have a 50mm, fixed focal length lens - I take a step back or forward if I need to. I cannot take a picture of a pidgeon on the roof of the cathedral 100 meters away, but who cares. In the past year I used only this lens, which means that I am walking around with a 0x zoom camera. :P

For SLRs, Nikon and Canon are considered pretty much equal, with Nikon having a hair edge on the top end cameras. The Nikon D3x is considered the best "prosumer" digital camera in the world, for $8.000 it should be. On the entry and advanced level their offerings match each other.
It is a matter of preference, I'm very happy with my Nikon and I wouldn't change it for anything. (well, maybe for the new Nikon D7000 :P)

There are two sensors on the SLR market, DX and FX, and they are important mostly to professional photographers. FX stands for "full frame" - 36x24mm, DX stands for "half frame" - 24x16mm. The full-frame is equivalent to the 35mm film sensor, they are also much more expensive and you tend to find them only on high-end professional cameras.

In case of compact cameras the situation is a bit complex. You buy the camera on a what you see is what you get basis. In this case sensor size does matter, but usually they sport a standard size over all the models.
For mega-pixels, choose the one that is smaller. If you see two otherwise equivalent models with say 10 and 12 MP, choose the 10MP. However between 2MP and 12MP choose the 12MP!!! :D
Zoom is relatively important here, the high-end Nikon compact has a 7x zoom, but the focal length is equivalent with 28-200mm on an SLR camera. The Canon camera I recommended (not high-end) has a 3.7x zoom, equivalent to 28-105mm, that's half as the Nikon. You can zoom in more with the SLR by replacing the lens, not so with the compact. Not such a big issue as you shouldn't be afraid to take a step forward or backward - don't worry about people look funny at you. Walk that extra mile if you have too :D

You also want a lens that has large maximum aperture, weather you are going SLR or compact. The Canon apparently has a very good quality lens which takes sharp pictures, and paired with the large aperture size it sounds a sweet deal. Large apertures, low f-stops (f2.8) lets you take better pictures in low-light conditions by allowing you to reduce the exposure time. They are also hard to manufacture and very expensive.

Between other stuff you mentioned, I would say speed of readiness is one of the most important factor. The camera should feel snappy both when turning on and on working with the menus, options, the interface should be clean and easy to use.
Consider the picture I snapped today in a nearby park. I was strolling in the park with no intention whatsoever to take pictures, my camera was inside the camera bag which was inside a backpack which was on my back, with my hands tucked away deep in my pockets (temperatures -10C/14F), when I saw the sun appear from behind the clouds and trees. I rushed to get out my camera and take a snapshot. I wasted about 30 seconds to get my camera out. Luckily my camera is almost instant-on, it takes only a few microseconds from being turned off to fully operative. I took 3 pictures then tried to adjust the exposure, but by that time the sun was gone.
Compact cameras could take quite a few seconds to turn on, which sometimes is annoying, and can cost you the picture. Or you could keep the compact camera in your front pocket. ;)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Michael on January 03, 2011, 12:12:00 PM

Yes, as this is an interesting discussion, it should have it's own thread - perhaps Vicki could stick it somehwere, as she's good at that.

I'm personally less interested in the SLR stuff, as that is getting serious, and most people who get serious do a lot of research before they purchase.

Most professional photographers apparently use at least two cameras - an SLR and a compact. The compact is in the pocket, or at least more consistently available, so they use that for unexpected snaps. I use the compact when travelling, as I don't like carrying around a heap of bulky equipment. Actually Julie now uses the compact and I use the video camera, which is still fairly small but doesn't take as good stills as the compact Kodak.

For some reason I don't understand, I have read that most professionals prefer a particular model of Cannon compact, which is now long superseded by other models and brands in features, but they still prefer that one, which of course I forget which it is.

So for the Compact, we have a few issues:

1. Mega-pixels. I understand most advisers dismiss this now because every new camera seems to have reached the practical limit of mega-pixels, even mobile phones. The main drawback as I understand is the size of the picture - how many you can store on the camera, how many you can store on the computer, and how fast your computer is to process large files in Photoshop.

I can definitely see the degradation of my 5 mp photos when I crop say 50%. This is probably less of a problem for Web as you can only have 72 p/inch there, yet I still see a difference. The problem may be other aspects of the picture from the camera than the mega-pixels, but the full version looks great (though no where near an SLR pic like Rudi and Taimi take).

2. Sensor size. From what you say Rudi, it seems most bands have also evolved this aspect, or are you only talking about SLRs? Where do you see the sensor size specs for a compact? What is the technical term to look for?

3. Zoom. This is most important for me, because while travelling, I like to take pictures of people who don't know I'm photographing them. This is where the cropping comes in. I recently realised this as I have been doing a lot of video editing, and once I perfected the digital zoom in editing, I don't have to bother so much with the zoom on the camera. So long as there is plenty of digital info to allow quality digital zooming. Thus the biggest file the better for me, as I can handle them on my computer.

However zooming in the camera is important as it affects how I feel about a shot, and thus whether I want to take it at all. Also I am always of the belief that artistic quality should be pushed as close to the original action as possible, in any art form. Thus the more creative I can be in actually taking the picture the better - editing should only polish it up.

I have seen professional photographers dance all over the place, in and out of people's faces, but while I travel around, I prefer to be as discrete as possible, and still get the unaffected picture (unaffected by the photographer).

I would not want to consider anything less than 7x zoom on my next compact camera. But I don't fully understand what you mean by focal length in relation to zoom Rudi - please explain. I thought it meant the lens's depth of field in any one shot. Don't see where that relates to zoom.

4. Aperture. I'm not up with this - I assume it means how wide the opening, and thus how large the lens. But surely the quality of the lens is more important than it's size? The ability to take un-flashed pictures in poor light is definitely on my list of required features, so I assume aperture size is important here. What technical spec do you look for in this?

5. Speed of readiness. This is something I saw focused on with most reviews, but actually in practice, I notice Julie misses a shot because she delays clicking for too long - something about speed of eye, and decisiveness.

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Nichi on January 03, 2011, 02:23:52 PM

Quote from: Michael on January 03, 2011, 12:12:00 PM

Yes, as this is an interesting discussion, it should have it's own thread - perhaps Vicki could stick it somehwere, as she's good at that.

Did so. You're in it, baby!  :D

(Thought "Pictures" was the appropriate place, but if you like another spot, jes' lemme know.)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Michael on January 03, 2011, 03:04:35 PM

Thanks V - yep, pictures is the place.

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Ke-ke wan on January 04, 2011, 03:48:28 AM

Quote from: ® on January 03, 2011, 04:56:50 AM

Taking good pictures is 76% talent (creativity, perspective, attention to detail, etc.), 13% technique and experience and 11% the camera. Numbers are approximate ;)

A few things you should keep in mind when buying a camera.
If you are looking for compact cameras then anything below $200 will not be a much of an improvement over the phone. For an all-around compact I would choose Canon's SD1400 IS or Canon SD3500 IS (the latter has slightly better lens and screen, plus it's touch screen).
For dSLR's I would recommend Nikon's D3100 (or D3000) or D90 (which I own).
But do your research.

I would recommend getting a compact first and see how things go. He can upgrade later when taking the photography class, if he wants. Plus he will be able to tell you which one ;)
The compact you could keep it as a family camera to pop in your pockets whenever you go out.

Thanks for all the helpful tips Rudolf! 

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 04, 2011, 09:22:39 AM

Quote from: Morninglory on January 04, 2011, 03:48:28 AM

Thanks for all the helpful tips Rudolf! 

You're welcome, I'm glad you found your way over here. ;)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 04, 2011, 11:17:53 AM

Let's get the easier ones out of the way. These should be the last things you want to consider. Meaning, first decide on the lens you want (focal length, aperture size, shutter speeds), then see what are your options for MP's and sensors for the given lens type. Not the other way around.

1. Mega-pixels and 2. Sensor size

Actually what matters is pixel number to sensor size ratio. The more pixel you try to cram on the same size sensor the smaller the pixels have to be. As a rule of thumb, larger pixel sizes will produce a sharper and less "noisy" image. 10 million pixels on a 1/2.3" sensor will create a smaller resolution image (smaller printable size/ less zoomable) then 12 million pixels, but the image quality will be better and more life-like.
12 million pixels on a 1/1.7" sensor however feel fine because the sensor is larger, which makes the extra 2 million pixels happier :P
Though the quality of the image produced depends also on the manufacturing process, so it might be that Canon can get good quality out of small sensors and small pixel sizes.

Ultimately you don't really have much choice for these two properties. One will get either a 10MP or 12MP camera, with one or the other sensor size. The difference between them will be perceptible only to the top professionals. If you are shopping for an all-around camera it will make no difference whatsoever.

For the enthusiast, like Michael, the choice will be a matter of personal preference and type of photography one wishes to do : quality over quantity? And available budget.

The technical term to look for the sensor size is sensor size.

Canon G12	CoolPix P7000
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/CanonG12.png)	(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/COOLPIXP7000.png)

A good, in-depth description of sensors can be found here (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm).

I will cover the focal length and aperture in a subsequent post.

PS: the FX and DX sensor sizes are used in SLR's, and are not relevant to compact cameras. You will never find a 35mm sensor in a 50mm camera. Well, maybe in 2050.

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Ke-ke wan on January 04, 2011, 03:09:41 PM

Quote from: ® on January 04, 2011, 09:22:39 AM

You're welcome, I'm glad you found your way over here. ;)

I followed the signs! ;)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 07, 2011, 10:15:25 AM

Focal length:
Zooming

The focal length is the distance between the lens and the sensor (film) when you focus the lens on infinity. This length will define the field of view and the magnification of distant objects. In other words how much you can take in horizontally and how far you can see.

Below is an illustration to see just what a difference focal length can make in an image
http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/focalflash.swf

Magnification and field of view depends also on the size of the sensor, therefore a 50mm lens will perform different on a 1/1.7" sensor and 1/2.7" sensor. The 35mm film was kept as a reference point, so to avoid confusion, manufacturers will often include the equivalent of the lens on 35mm.
Example:

Canon S95	Nikon CoolPix S8100
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/focal_length_canonS95.png)	(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/focal_length_nikon_coolpixs8100.png)

Lenses are organized in three  categories: wide-angle, normal, tele

< 20mm	Super Wide Angle
24mm - 35mm	Wide Angle
50mm	Normal Lens
80mm - 300mm	Tele
> 300mm	Super Tele

Lenses are further categorized in zoom and fixed lenses. Any lens that has variable focal length is a zoom lens - you can zoom in and out with it. Lenses with only one focal length, are fixed - not surprisingly.
The zoom factor is the factor between the longest focal length divided by the shortest focal length. In our examples we get a 3.75x zoom factor for Canon and 10x zoom factor for Nikon.

When buying a digital reflex camera it makes no sense talking about zoom, because you can change lenses based on requirements. On the same body you can have an 18-55mm lens (wide-angle zoom) or a 75-300 mm lens (tele zoom) or a 50mm (fixed normal - I use this most of the time, and leave my zoom lens at home :P).
However in the case of compact cameras you are stuck with the lens attached to the camera, therefore manufacturers try to build lenses that can cover the most distance possible. Naturally, with higher coverage comes higher prices.
Just look at the new Canon PowerShot 30SX IS (http://www.canon.com.au/Home/For-You/Digital-Cameras/PowerShot-Digital-Cameras/SX30IS-Camera?wid=ptsuperzoom1011) - it has a very impressive 35x optical zoom, for a very impressive €500 price tag. But don't get fooled, it's not likely a camera you can carry in your jeans' pocket.

On the bright side, when the optical zoom is not enough you can always cheer up that there are ways to zoom (http://www.makemymood.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/csizoom.jpg) and enhance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk) images digitally.

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Michael on January 08, 2011, 09:29:24 AM

These are great Rudi - and I read that site on sensors. I am learning a lot, but shit, there is much to learn!

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Jahn on January 09, 2011, 06:32:44 AM

Quote from: Jahn on January 03, 2011, 05:57:29 AM

I have lost my camera, at least I can't find it.

Heh ... I found it in drawer in the garage. So now I got two cameras  :)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 10, 2011, 12:03:00 PM

Heh, now you can start taking 3D pictures. 
I'm preparing my googles. :D

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Muffin on January 28, 2011, 11:52:16 AM

Aperture and shutter speed
A Tedious Explanation of the f/stop (http://www.uscoles.com/fstop.htm)
A Tedious Explanation of Depth of Field (http://www.uscoles.com/depthoffield.html)
 - check out these excellent and easy to follow articles on apertures, depth of field, shutter speeds. I will only write a short summary of the very basic concepts, taking inspiration from these, and explain how to read the specifications for these.

Shutter speed is easy - it is how long the shutter is open and lets light on the sensor. The only thing influenced by this is exposure and blurriness of the image. Longer shutter speeds will pick up more movement. Most of the time this is annoying, other times it's good. Starting from 1/30 seconds cameras will pick up the micromovements caused by your breathing, and if you think that if you stop breathing helps, then think again. Your heart still beats, and the blood is being pumped to and from your fingers - which will move the camera. Some lenses have built-in vibration reduction, Canon calls it IS - image stabilizer, Nikon calls it VR - vibration reduction. Look for these letters in the names of the cameras and lenses, but even better if you read the specifications. Canon dropped these letters from the official model names, since all of their comapct cameras now have IS. Check if you're in doubt.
  Even with IS/VR it is almost impossible to have sharp pictures with exposures above 1/10 - that's a tenth of a second. If you need even longer exposures then think - tripods; or be creative, find something to put your camera on ;).

Shutter speed is expressed in second and fractions of seconds. Like this:

Code: [Select]

8 seconds    4 seconds    2 seconds    1 second    1/2 second    1/4    1/8    1/15    1/30    1/60    1/125    1/250    1/500    1/1000Camera manufacturers will usually specify the shortest value, since that the most significant. Keeping the shutter open for one second is easy. Keeping it open for 1/4000th of a second requires precision work and high quality durable materials.
Canon S95 has a 1-1/1600 shutter speed, I'm not excited about the 1" upper limit, but it's still a good range for most anything.

Long shutter speed - the bad
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/shutter01.jpg)


Long shutter speed - the good
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/shutter03.jpg)

Long shutter speed - the questionable :P
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/shutter02.jpg)
I forgot that I was on longs exposure mode

---

Aperture is how big the opening is in front of the lens. Together with the shutter speed is the other determining factor for exposure.
Lenses/cameras with large aperture are commonly called fast lenses, because they allow you to use faster shutter speeds.

For sake of convenience, the aperture is given by the ratio between the diameter of the hole and the focal length of the lens. It is expressed in f/stops from from f/1.4 to f/22, where the standard scale is:

Code: [Select]

1.4    2.0    2.8    4    5.6    8    11    16    22 Smaller values represent larger apertures!
Just like with the shutter speeds, each of these values halves/doubles the amount of light that enters onto the sensor - the whole is a circle, the value designates the ratio between diameter and focal length of the lens, and with each step the area of the circle is doubled or halved. Take a 50mm lens and do the math if you don't believe me.
Thanks to the f/stop being a ratio between size and focal length, f/stops represent the same amount of exposure
regardless of the focal length of the lens used. An f/2 aperture on a 26mm lens will provide the same amount of light then a f/2 aperture on a 50mm lens, though the actual physical size of the opening will be different.


As you can see both the scale of apertures and shutter speeds is a halving scale, which means that you can achieve the same exposure with different set of values. Say that you decide that 1/125th at f/8 gives you the correct exposure, then all of the following values will give the same exposure:

Shutter Speed	1/4	1/8	1/15	1/30	1/60	1/125	1/250	1/500	1/1000	1/2000	1/4000
f/stop	f/45	f/32	f/22	f/16	f/11	f/8	f/5.6	f/4	f/2.8	f/2	f/1.4

Which one you will use will depend on the effect you want to achieve.
The aperture is one of the biggest factors for the depth of field of an image - along with focal length and sensor size. Depth of field is simply the distance before and behind the subject that is in focus - how many "stuff" is in focus in your picture.
Large apertures (lower f/stops) produce a smaller depth of field, and are great for portrait photos and other creative work. Smaller apertures give a very large depth of field which makes them preferable when shooting landscapes and architecture. You can see lots of examples that illustrate the depth of field concept in my galleries.
Shorter shutter speeds are good at "freezing" the moment, so they are frequently used for sports and action shots, or capturing anything that moves. Snapping a swan in it's flight and have his wings sharp requires extremely short shutter speed, large aperture and good focusing.

How to read the specifications:
If you recall, aperture is a ratio between size and focal length. This means that on zoom lenses to have the aperture f/2 on the whole range of focal lengths, the radius of the opening would have to grow and shrink as you zoom in/out. This is a difficult engineering task - lenses are already made up of complex individual elements, designing dynamic shutter apertures complicates things even more. Therefore lenses that maintain aperture on different zoom levels are few and far between and extremely expensive. Over the $2000 mark.
Manufacturers will always specify the values at the low end and the far end of the focal length. Like this:

Canon S95	CoolPix S8100 Black
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/CanonS95f.png)	(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/COOLPIXS8100f.png)

For Canon you can see the maximum and minimum apertures at the two extremes (Wide - 28mm, Tele - 105mm).
Nikon says only the maximum apertures, so f/3.5-5.6 means an f/3.5 aperture at 30mm and f/5.6mm on 300mm.
In terms of "speed" Canon wins on the wide angle, but Nikon has an edge on the far range - with it's larger zoom factor. At the far end both cameras are pretty much the same, but Nikon "sees" further.
If you plan to shoot lot's of portrait photos or close-up, in low light (or not) conditions the Canon is a better choice. If you need zoom to see far in normal light conditions the Nikon is better.
Keep in mind that I didn't bother to take two same-range cameras for comparison, you might find a faster Nikon camera with the same good zoom. Or a Cannon with a better zoom range. Apples and oranges. :P

I have a 50mm f/1.4 lens. One of the fastest lenses ever built. It is expensive. I didn't pay extra money for a fast lens and not use it to it's fullest potential. I shoot almost always at f/1.4, sometimes I stop down to f/2.0 or f/2.8.

Depth of field - the bad
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/aperture01.jpg)


Depth of field - the almost good
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/aperture02.jpg)

Depth of field - the good
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/aperture03.jpg)

Depth of field - the star
(http://www.sensoriumdei.org/assets/photography/aperture04.jpg)
Thanks to the creative use of the depth of field, it is obvious who's the star in the picture above. :)

Title: Re: Buying a Camera
Post by: Michael on January 29, 2011, 12:15:21 AM

Thanks for that Rudi - it is very interesting as I have been looking at compacts recently. Having just blown my bank account on a car, I will wait till mid year to upgrade my camera. But I'll take all this into account.

I recently talked with Ben (on top of the mountain) about his compact. He said it wasn't a reflex, as they are more expensive, but had a very long zoom. It was a Panasonic. But he also said it didn't take RAW, only JPG.

I found looking at the back screen to take the picture, not very useful. And obviously only being able to output in JPG was compression from the word go. A Photoshop expert once told me, every time you save as JPG, it loses quality. It doesn't just save at the same quality as it opens with, even on 12.