Thought I'd Show It Off

Miva · Post by **Miva** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:43 pm

Hi!

I like testing

So i couldn't resist and did one.

Both pictures are saved with compression factor = 80

First picture is 640*480.

Second picture is 2560*1980 resized to 640*480 with Bi-Linera (2 pass) method.

There is no difference (almost). So for internet pictures megapixels are not so important. Important is optics, CCD and electronic quality. But usually cameras with higher megapixels are better quality.

Cheers
Miva

hue35 · Post by **hue35** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 7:53 pm

crazydave wrote:I do use the macro setting, and get about 6 inches away. In the macro setting it cuts light. If put a light near it to compensate, the yellow light makes it look like crap, so I have to get up close to hit it hard with the flash, 'cause I'm really just trying to get the colors accurate.

I knew lighting was my biggest issue, in order to move back, but I thought I needed a flood, I never considered a flourescent desk lamp, I'm gonna have to try that.

You might have noticed that I've been taking some pics in the sun, to help with the lighting issue, but the sunlight is too harsh and contrasting, and again i have to hit it hard with the flash to get the colors balanced, but now I'm wondering what would happen in the sun if I shut off the macro, and moved back.

Flourescent light will make the color worse than incandescent (it will turn green)... use a halogen desk lamp. They're a cheap and decent light investment. You can still use the macro setting even if you back up a bit. Try shooting 12 inches from the car, then crop in on the car.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:44 pm

I have to agree hue, My old HP 620 ( 2,1 MP) sucked in both florescent and Incondescent(sp) it seemed to make pics greeny or yellowy.

This new cam though doesn;t see to need much light in macro mode even without flash. I just use the flash for reg pics like of my son cause it makes the shutter speed alot quicker plus I shake like granpa simpson so its hard to take great stills off the tripod.

crazydave · Post by **crazydave** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:41 am

Stoli wrote:I have to agree hue, My old HP 620 ( 2,1 MP) sucked in both florescent and Incondescent(sp) it seemed to make pics greeny or yellowy.

Yep that's my problem. Even your optimized pictures looked great, so it would seem that it's not so much the megapixels as much as it's just a better camera, and my technique.

I guess this last line from Miva about sums it up...

But usually cameras with higher megapixels are better quality.

Well here's my plan, the Salvation Army had a buttload of halogen floor lamps. I'm gonna see if I can grab one of those for a couple bucks, and then hack that up to make my picture taking light.

Here's a question for you guys. My wife wants to just get a 35mm, and just scan our pictures in. She's got one with SLR, and lense included for 350 bones. Is that a good route to go, or would we be better off considering a camera like Stoli's?

Miva · Post by **Miva** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:35 am

crazydave wrote: Here's a question for you guys. My wife wants to just get a 35mm, and just scan our pictures in. She's got one with SLR, and lense included for 350 bones. Is that a good route to go, or would we be better off considering a camera like Stoli's?

My second camera is 35mm SLR (Canon 50). I have digital camera for one year and took not a single picture using SLR in this time. Working with digital camera is faster, easier and less expensive.

Cheers
Miva

hue35 · Post by **hue35** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 2:59 pm

I have a bunch of 35mm SLR gear, and I love it, but it's a different thing. I wouldn't use that camera for anything that was going to end up online. Like Miva said, the cool thing about digital is that it's free to use after the initial investment. I've had my digital camera for almost 2.5 years, and I've taken over 7,500 shots with it. I'm damn happy I didn't have to pay for film processing for all those shots. Also... snap a pic, download it and post it is way faster than... shoot a roll of film, have it processed, make a scan.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 7:56 pm

well if I would've had the 1400 bucks CAD I would've bought the Canon Rebel in a hearbeat over this camera.

If your gonna buy new dave go big or go home. ( not being mean ) If you camera does decent enough shots for ya keep it for now and save your money and get a digital SLR. The canon rebels the best bang for the buck ( about 799-1099 USD )

I'll post some outdoor (nature Shot ) I took taday of my son feeding the ducks. Theres AWESOME!!!!!

crazydave · Post by **crazydave** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:04 pm

Well I tried to talk my wife into a better digital camera, but since she uses her pictures for scrapbooking, and everything goes to paper, she's sold on getting a 35mm for several reasons. So it looks like I'm stuck with what I got for right now.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 8:22 pm

So then heres a solution. Buy a good quality SLR 35MM and buy a good digital. You can get a reall good quality digital for like 250-400$ USD. Christ for 400$ you can get my camera if ya shop around. I paid so little because I get stuff at cost.

Just get something like a Canon a70/A80 there only about 269-300USD?

Thats my opinion anyways.

Stoli · Post by **Stoli** » Sun Jan 18, 2004 9:30 pm

Heres Some shots of it ouside. It was kind of a cloudy yucky day out.

This pic is of ducks 75 Ft away using 8x optical zoom no flash. Remeber to always click the accualy size button in bottom corner of IE. This will give you a real look at the raw image.

http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/i ... 20Zoom.JPG

This is a close up of a duck. I was 3-5Ft away no zoom/flash.

http://members.rogers.com/forbitpimps/i ... p%2003.JPG