Digital Camera Question

[tenders]

Look for a camera that has either a macro mode or a macro attachment.

Best results will be from a digital slr with macro lens but this will also be the most expensive.

your advice was most helpfull

short , sweet , and to the point.

i have FINALLY decided on a Nikon Coolpix. will post some samples this comming weekend.


thank you

[SquirrelDip]

No problem!

There are still a lot of good points brought up throughout the thread.

The Nikon Coolpix should be a good option - don't get fooled into the mega-pixel game as good optics are far more important than more mega-pixels.

[stiltman]

I have the coolpix 4300. Its the best darn camera I've owned. My wife has a Casio Exilim EX-Z750 and my 4mb camera takes much better pics than her 7mb camera.

[Conquest10]

don't get fooled into the mega-pixel game as good optics are far more important than more mega-pixels.

Very true. I'd take a 2.74 megapixel Nikon D1H or a 4.48 megapixel Canon 1D over a 10.3 megapixel Casio Exilim Z-1000 anyday.

[tenders]

here are some pics from the new camera as promised

dscn0008.jpg

[tenders]

and my penny

dscn0009.jpg

[JohnnyMalaria]

Just out of curiosity - anyone violently opposed to camcorders with still image capability?

Here are some (reduced size) images from my Sony PDX10. I was pleasantly surprised. Seems like a reasonable option if you have spent a lot of money on optics for the camcorder.

[stiltman]

here are some pics from the new camera as promised

What model did you finally decide to get?

[lordsmurf]

I see processing and moire noise in your images tenders, but it's a decent enough consumer camera. It looks okay to me.

[tenders]

its a Nikon Coolpix L2. i only had it about an hour when i took those, so i'm hopeing to improve once i figure it out a bit more.

[ozymango]

Just out of curiosity - anyone violently opposed to camcorders with still image capability?

Not me! Not violently opposed, that is. Actually I'm not even mildly opposed. In fact, I would love a good single integrated camera/camcorder device.

And yes of course such a creation would be a "compromise," because still and motion image capture each focus (pardon the pun) on various mechanical constructs and you can get better ultimate performance out of separate devices. Based on $$$ and current technological limitations, that is.

But I can see this being more integrated in the future, definitely for more "home" use. I've lugged around 35mm SLR cameras and S8mm movie cameras, digital cameras and analog/digital camcorders, even old tube video cameras and VHS "portable" decks weighing in at half a ton, combined ... ... and sure, nothing beats the quality of some of your better stand-alone stuff, but damn if I wanna always have to lug that stuff around!

[Abbadon]

Those are nice pics. I did a test with my BenQ 5.0 megapixels:

[Abbadon]

One cent.

[cyflyer]

Is that a giant rat or what, johnnyMalaria ?

All the digital photos here appear fine, but that brings me to another important point in the digital vs film argument. It takes photographic skill and understanding to produce a good photo, with good exposure/composition with film. It takes software to produce a good digital photo. I find it very difficult to admire digital photos because they are oh so easily manipulated and changed from the original photo. I look at a digital photo and think "is the photographer good, is the camera good, or is photoshop good ?" "is this the original photo taken or not ?"

Abbadon, have you noticed how badly the sharpness falls away in the corners of your photos, especially the coin ?

[JohnnyMalaria]

Is that a giant rat or what, johnnyMalaria ?

Actually, it is a hyrax, supposedly the nearest living relative to the.....elephant!

BTW - the image is as captured except for a size reduction and JPEG compression at 20%.

[Conquest10]

Abbadon, have you noticed how badly the sharpness falls away in the corners of your photos, especially the coin ?

That's a problem with consumer grade lenses. They're mostly slow and really soft in the corners and very prone to CA.

But come on cyflyer, there's mostly nothing new with digital that wasn't used in the film days. There's those new filters that people who first discover Photoshop use, but other than that, there's nothing really new. Its just a lot easier now (you don't have to keep re-developing a new print when you want to make a small change).

[Abbadon]

Abbadon, have you noticed how badly the sharpness falls away in the corners of your photos, especially the coin ?

I had to cut and resize both pictures to be able to upload them here, so what you see it is the result of saving the pics with MS Paint in order to reduce the size from 2.5 megabytes to just 1.0 megabyte.

I also used a function in my digital camera to focus on the coin more than the rest of the visual field.

[tenders]

Is that a giant rat or what, johnnyMalaria ?

All the digital photos here appear fine, but that brings me to another important point in the digital vs film argument. It takes photographic skill and understanding to produce a good photo, with good exposure/composition with film. It takes software to produce a good digital photo. I find it very difficult to admire digital photos because they are oh so easily manipulated and changed from the original photo. I look at a digital photo and think "is the photographer good, is the camera good, or is photoshop good ?" "is this the original photo taken or not ?"

Abbadon, have you noticed how badly the sharpness falls away in the corners of your photos, especially the coin ?

my penny was cropped , but nothing else was done to my pics. you bring up a good point though , as i have wondered that myself from time to time.

now for a new pic not enhanced.

fscn0021.jpg

[cyflyer]

But come on cyflyer, there's mostly nothing new with digital that wasn't used in the film days. There's those new filters that people who first discover Photoshop use, but other than that, there's nothing really new. Its just a lot easier now

Oh, but everything is new, not just filters. Put things in that weren't there, take things out you don't like, increase the sharpness, this, that, create the picture as you want it. Which is not really what photography is about. Thats what art is about. Photography is, or at least was, about capturing/freezing a moment in time, as it happened. Digital photography is the equivilant of what a paint brush and canvas used to be, create almost what you want. An example of this is an event I read about on CNN recently. A photographer covering the Lebanon-Israel conflict had his hundreds of war photos wiped/rejected from his agencies' files because they found he had manipulated the smoke from the Beirut bombings by making it look artificially more intense, or some sort, on A COUPLE of the photos. So they rejected the lot.

The mind boggles at what twisted things could have happened with some of the famous photos in history if they had digital and photoshop back then. There would be a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald leaning out of the conservatory window, etc etc. You get the picture.

[tenders]

But come on cyflyer, there's mostly nothing new with digital that wasn't used in the film days. There's those new filters that people who first discover Photoshop use, but other than that, there's nothing really new. Its just a lot easier now

Oh, but everything is new, not just filters. Put things in that weren't there, take things out you don't like, increase the sharpness, this, that, create the picture as you want it. Which is not really what photography is about. Thats what art is about. Photography is, or at least was, about capturing/freezing a moment in time, as it happened. Digital photography is the equivilant of what a paint brush and canvas used to be, create almost what you want. An example of this is an event I read about on CNN recently. A photographer covering the Lebanon-Israel conflict had his hundreds of war photos wiped/rejected from his agencies' files because they found he had manipulated the smoke from the Beirut bombings by making it look artificially more intense, or some sort, on A COUPLE of the photos. So they rejected the lot.

The mind boggles at what twisted things could have happened with some of the famous photos in history if they had digital and photoshop back then. There would be a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald leaning out of the conservatory window, etc etc. You get the picture.

wow..you are so perceptive. i partly agree with you. now the bad news. digital photography is going to take over ....weather we like it or not. art? beauty? isn't that supose to be how people view it really it should not matter how great a camera you have. if you like the image , great ; if you don't then you don't.

[Conquest10]

Oh yeah, when I was talking about filters, I was also thinking about that. I do not consider that part of photography at all. That is digital art.

I have no problem with slight Photoshop work. Such as cloning out a piece of dust or something that distracts the eye or a little noise reduction on high ISO images. Sharpening is something that must be done in digital photography. There is an AA filter in front of the sensor that softens up the image.

Now, what that AP photographer did is completely unacceptable. The worst thing is that it is such a horrible PS work that it is laughable that he actually thought he could get away with it. And even more shame on his superior. That person does not deserve his/her job is they let that photo go through seeing how bad it was.

[Conquest10]

I'm sorry, he was a Reuters photographer not AP. His name is Adnan Hajj. This is the photo.



This guy should not still have a job in photography (or anything to do with photo manipulation). This is not his only doctored image another was also found to be doctored so I have no problem with them pulling out all his shots as they are now suspect. These guys with their attitude really make me sick.

[cyflyer]

At least he didn't stick a big mushroom shaped cloud in the background ! LOL

See, he was a lousy photoshoper, what about those that are good at it ? Doesn't that make you wonder about every photo you see, especially when there is a LOT of financial gain at stake ?

[lordsmurf]

I look at a digital photo and think "is the photographer good, is the camera good, or is photoshop good ?" "is this the original photo taken or not ?"

You need to be all three. Any good photographer will be able to see a bad camera or PS mistake/misuse.

What Conquest10 said is true too, a lot of things in Photoshop are not new, just easier to use. I could burn and dodge in a darkroom, alter color levels, even do the "clone tool" or something remotely close to repair images. You could even splice negatives or get creative with the paper and projector, to seriously alter an image. The funny part is most people still don't know how to use Photoshop, and think it's hard. Ha!

Photojournalists without ethics are not journalist, they are paparazzi. Altering a news photo to change the appearance of an event can be, usually is, and should be a career-ending move. The only way something like that is acceptable is when it is considered an illustration or artwork, and used in non-news, and carefully marked as being altered to the artists desires. That Adnan Hajj photo is shitty, as is his amatuerish Photoshop butcher-job.

On the other hand, I like what I see shot by JohnnyMalaria.

[tenders]

well i guess i have the photo bug as i have upgraded again. after much research and many , many hours of reading i have bought the Powershot S5 IS. keep in mind i only bought it 2 days ago and i'm no expert....yet here is a sample.



img_0025.jpg



img_0005.jpg

[lordsmurf]

Process those images. The 005 image has horrible chromatic aberration (that red/blue glow around objects). I use a specialized software, DXO Optics, which is not going to work for you image (at least I doubt it would), so I can't give too many specific suggestions. But modern software like Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop CS3 is supposed to have some CA-removing filters. And then you can always search online for CA removal tips.

Otherwise, the images seem decent for a point-and-shoot.

Not something you want to hear now, but for $500, you could have gotten yourself a pretty nice DSLR (Pentax, for example).

[thecoalman]

I'm sorry, he was a Reuters photographer not AP. His name is Adnan Hajj. This is the photo.

Here's the original :P :

[tenders]

Process those images. The 005 image has horrible chromatic aberration (that red/blue glow around objects). I use a specialized software, DXO Optics, which is not going to work for you image (at least I doubt it would), so I can't give too many specific suggestions. But modern software like Adobe Lightroom and Adobe Photoshop CS3 is supposed to have some CA-removing filters. And then you can always search online for CA removal tips.

Otherwise, the images seem decent for a point-and-shoot.

Not something you want to hear now, but for $500, you could have gotten yourself a pretty nice DSLR (Pentax, for example).

i did think of dslr , but then i would have to buy lenses too and that still is a bit much for me. thanks for replying BTW i know this thread is old. how would i detect CA in my images? what software would i use? DXO only has a module for S2 IS , didn't seem to do a thing to the image when i ran it through.