What kind of cameras do you use for personal use? Do you like film, digital, point-and-shoot, advanced, SLR, etc.? What brands and models do you suggest would be favorable. Feel free to comment about any details worth noting!
-
Last edited by Skippybox; 26.08.2008, 07:57 PM. -
Some time ago I got a Pentax Optio 60 camera as a birthday-present.
So if I want to take a digital photo, I use it. Most of the times it's sufficient for my purposes.
One aspect that could be a favorible : not only saving as JPG but also as uncompressed BMP or TIF. -
Save as BMP or TIF
That is a nice feature.Originally posted by Sam_Zen View Post
You don't see that much anymore, with the way JPG has been embraced.
Comment
-
Yep. It's the same principle I handle anyway with bitmaps :
Doing the work with the uncompressed material. Only choose for some compression for the final result.Comment
-
Absolutely! But how do you change the industry? You have to pay quite a bit just to shoot in RAW, and bypass JPG-only cameras. But a BMP or TIF option would make things simpler. Is flash memory just too small still to handle it, or is JPG just reasonably acceptable considering the resolution (as high as 13MP)?Comment
-
That is the basic rule of data compression, encode to lossy at most one time. Consumer cameras or hardware in general (like MiniDisc) compress to lossy because the average joe wouldn't understand the difference. The capacity of storage mediums is often expressed in "hours of video", "num of photos", etc. A system recording lossless or higher quality lossy would look uncompetitive in such comparison.
The speed of flash memory is limited. It can definitely handle the data rate of uncompressed photos. But the manufacturers rather choose to improve the speed of continuous shooting, because again a faster camera would look better in the market. Professionals and prosumers, who understand the technical side will simply skip the low end.Comment
-
Why can't JPG comparisons continue to be used for competitiveness, but still have a lossless format choice in addition to JPG? Would it still be cost-prohibitive to the manufacturer, or simply be ignored by most users, like you say?Originally posted by j7n View PostComment
-
Main point indeed. If recording the photo, it probably will be done uncompressed, but then the algoritm is calculated, before saving.The speed of flash memory is limited. It can definitely handle the data rate of uncompressed photos.
Of course the situation manufacturers/consumers plays a role here.
After buying a camera, how many consumers will check the menu, to get a higher resolution?
But I think the manufacturers should be more aware of the fact that not every consumer just want to look at the picture.
Some of the consumers like to edit the shot first, to enhance the quality, before looking at it.
The reverse can be valid too. Suppose you have to make a cover for an audio-album.
So you send a compressed version as an example. If it will be applied, it must be the uncompressed, big version.
The audio-situation is quite analog here obviously.
Most consumers now accept listening to a compressed mp3-version of a track, instead of the original WAV file.
(or a format which isn't lossy)Comment
-
Most important thing when buying a camera is to know what you want it for.
You may want a camera for your pocket, always ready for a snapshot, or you want to do advanced quality holiday photography. Or you want to go in for creating pictures for print media. - Is it outdoors or studio work you are planning for? etc. etc.
If you want more than the most rudimentary functions, you need to go through all the features on offer and check whether they are important to you. - That takes some time and work, but then maybe you will be spending a couple 100 quid upward.
What I came up with for myself was (a few years ago) the Canon Powershot G5.
Important to me:
- DSLR was too expensive at the time
- image quality (obviously)
- comfortable buttons and menus
- Fast lens (f 2.0)
- metal thread for tripod (plastic will wear out)
- swivel screen
- remote control
- manual control of time/aperture
- manual white balance
- affordable flash memory (important at the time, much cheaper now)
Medium importance:
- zoom range
- bulb setting (not available in the Canon G5)
- viewfinder info (none in in the Canon G5)
- various extras like time lapse, gray filter,
- Megapixels (5 MB is quite enough for me, more will not be beneficial unless the sensor area is increased)
- external flash socket
unimportant:
- most automatic modes and presets
From todays viewpoint I'd like to have video capability that is only limited by the flash card memory. As it is, the G5 will only record 3 minutes at a time.
I haven't found anything since that fits my requirements equally or better than the Powershot G5. Even DSLRs, while giving better quality images, don't give the functionality I want.Last edited by jazzman; 29.08.2008, 12:42 PM.
currently running 4.56 / 32 bitComment
-
What we want!
Don't we want it all?!Originally posted by jazzman View Post
Excellent cameras are the G5/G6. Do you like the successors, the G7 and G9? They are quite different though. No swivel screen or secondary display.What I came up with for myself was (a few years ago) the Canon Powershot G5.
Important to me:
- DSLR is still too expensive with all the lenses
- image quality (obviously)
- fast processing/startup
- 2.5" swivel screen!
- wide zoom range (12-20x)
- manual controls
- auto mode
- cheap, replaceable batteries (AA - not lithium-ion)
- video (640x480 or 1280x720)
- compact, lightweight
- good controls (dials/buttons)/menus(logical/aesthetically-pleasing)
- remote control-wireless preferred
- Megapixels (8MP+)
- Supports cheapest memory cards (SD, CF - not MS or xD)
I'm basically looking for a high-zoom prosumer camera. I'm leaning towards Panasonic, but I also am considering Olympus, Fujifilm, Canon, and Sony.Last edited by Skippybox; 10.09.2008, 11:46 PM.Comment
-
I got my new camera! Well, two actually. After looking around for awhile, I settled on the impossibly hard to get Panasonic DMC-LX3K. The quality is great for a compact and I am impressed with the features/performance.
I also wanted some zoom and a few other features, so I opted for the Canon SX10IS. I had gotten excited about the SX1IS, but thought the SX10IS was the better choice. The SX10IS also seemed better than the SX20IS, which just came out. But, I sure wish I had that wireless controller on the SX1IS!Comment
-
My first digital camera was a Konica KD-500Z! (Now my daughter has this one!)
Actual I've the SLR camera Canon EOS 5D and the compact Lumix DMC-TZ7 from Panasonic!Comment
-
I considered the very impressive DMC-TZ7 (DMC-ZS3 here in the US), but I wanted the bigger sensor in the LX3, so I gave up the zoom.Originally posted by Frank View Post
The EOS 5D is a great SLR, but I wanted to wait awhile before getting an SLR, which are a bit cumbersome to use. Maybe a 5D Mark II next time, but boy is it expensive!! What's your impression of the cheaper Sony Alpha A850?Comment
-
Hhmm... good camera, good technical details!Originally posted by Skippybox View Post
(But Sony for a SLR camera ... ? I think Sony is probaly the best decision for a video solution!)
Why not look at DMC-G1K or DMC-GH1K from Panasonic or the PowerShot G10 or PowerShot G11 from Canon?Comment
-
I know I said SLRs are cumbersome, but I'd still want a traditional SLR if I got one. I mentioned the 5D Mark II and the Sony, since they have full frame sensors. I'll have to investigate whether a full frame sensor is always ideal though.
G11 and DMC-G1K are definitely interesting, as is the Olympus Pen EP-1, but probably not my taste. For the cost, I'd lean towards a true SLR.
If Sony does video well, as you say, why do you question its SLR performance? Not enough experience or history in that market?Last edited by Skippybox; 28.08.2009, 10:53 PM.Comment
Comment