Sort of......About Cameras (which seem to be essential to posting here).

Well, 300, that's right, the smaller the aperture, the larger the depth of fileld (sharpness).
But the smaller the lightsensitive chip the larger is the depth too. Nearly all compact cameras
have a small photo chip, that the user is not albe to work with sharp/unsharp areas in the picure.
The larger the photo chip, the smaller is the depth of sharpness. ((is that undersandable with my
awful school english??))

Point two: The lenses of the compact cameras have an aperture up to 5,6 or 6,3. Only a few have
11. Smaller apertures are senseless because of the small photo chip and the "set of problems" like
light refraction at the collimator leaves that makes unsharp pictures.

Digital SLR have a "large" photo chip. That makes it possible to use apertures up to 22. But the optimal
aperture for crispy sharp pictures is mostly 5,6. At this aperture you have a flow of sharpness (???)
((the Japanese call it "bokeh")) in the picure you never can get with a compact camera.

If it is wanted to take crispy close up images, the easiest way is to use a compact camera. But it has
to be one with a macro shot function or a manual focussing. Also it makes sense to use a tripod and
the timer release. The SLR helps to give an artistic form to the pictures.

Haebbie
 
Last edited:
Thanks Habbie for the good explanation.

We have gotten off BGs theme a little and are into high tech talk. BG wondered if anyone was wanting a new camera, and Christmas is coming up, what other people used. Our tech talk has been useful and Habbies recommendations are good. I have always sworn my old 5 mp Fugi point and shoot with macro function and timer, shot a sharper image than my three times more expensive Canon.

One difference is that I must compose my photo, i.e. arrange the knives and props, so that I don't do any cropping or fancy photo fixes to the picture. It will mess things up because of the small number of pixels in the screen.

With the SLR I am able to cover some mistakes with photo editing techniques without messing up the pixels as much.

If I was going to buy a camera today to shoot family and knives, I would get a point and shoot with 10 to 12X magnifaction, it would have macro function, self time for shutter, take AA batteries and I would prefer it allow you to view scene thru a viewfinder and see it on a big screen on the back, I say prefer but this is a option. Sometimes the light glare outside makes it hard to see a screen only view finder. If you want to get fancy you can see if the camera stops downs to f11 or something close. If you want to shoot fancy wide angle scenes or telephoto wildlife then get the SLR.

Thats my opinion.......300Bucks I take pictures of Buck knives.

5 mp photo
DSCF1249-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well, we're getting into interesting stuff now!!

I don't mind it at all, 300.......in fact, maybe it's just what we need.

Look at this. I just realized my aperture range is right on the lens. It's 3.4 to 5.6.

canon-powershot-s95-and-sx130-is-announced_1.jpg


That seems pretty crazy to somebody who's used to 1.4 to 16!!! You can't expect to manipulate depth of field much with such a limited range of F stops.

I'm confused.

I had been thinking these digitals must rely heavily on ISO changes to make good pictures, but now I'm sure.

Understanding ISO (and keeping your ISO set where YOU want it) seems to be very important with digitals.
 
I'm going to try setting my ISO at 200 and using slower shutter speeds with a tripod.

I realize now that when on automatic the ISO could be sky-high and I wouldn't know it--resulting in a lack of sharpness.
 
BTW, 300......you described my camera pretty well, except it has a few more functions (Av, Tv, M, and a few more).

It's awful hard to find a digital camera with a viewfinder.
 
Last edited:
Hi OP,

The answer to the camera question is three questions :) :

1. What do you want to do with your camera?
2. How much do you want to pay?
3. What level of image quality will you be satisfied with?

If you want a camera that can take casual shots with decent quality and don't have the time to learn about photography (exposure, white balance, etc.), then almost any camera made by the big names today will satisfy you. Many of them are less than $100. High-end cell phones these days also take great images (like the poster above showed in his iPhone pics), as do super-zooms (also called “bridge” cameras, like the Nikon L110 another poster showed above). These cameras are just fine for pictures that you plan to post on the interwebs or share with friends.

But if you want pictures that have just the maximum in image quality, that take pictures that can take the viewer’s breath away… then a point-and-shoot (the ones you showed) or super-zooms or cell phones won't do. Photo buffs can readily see the difference. Anybody who tells you his cell phone or point-and-shoot takes pictures just as good as a full-size DSLR doesn't know photography. The sensor is too small (about the size of the head of a tack), and they don't give you enough control or glass to get the most out of available light.

For maximum image quality, you need something with a much bigger sensor like a rangefinder (Leica M9), mirrorless system (Sony NEX, Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 system, Fujifilm FinePix X100), or DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex). These cameras have sensors the size of stamps or larger and also give you full control and easy access to manual features like shutter speed, aperture, etc. The drawback is that they are bigger, heavier, and WAY more expensive than point-and-shoots, super-zooms, or cell phones.

Of course, like I said before, it all depends on what *you* are satisfied with. If your $200 point-and-shoot takes pictures you are happy with, then there’s no need to upgrade. But since you started this thread, I’m guessing you are considering upping the control and image quality. First thing you need is a good camera with a large sensor and a good prime lens that gives you full control over the camera. Then you need to learn photography (exposure, white balance, etc.). There are many resources on the interwebs, but I find this guy’s videos entertaining and very easy to follow. It’s fun to watch him explain stuff, and he does it in simple, easy to understand language: http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=FontanaKnowledge#g/u.

Here are some other good sites for learning more about photography:

http://www.youtube.com/user/BestPhotoLessonsCom#p/u
http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/oima_learn_center.asp
http://photo.tutsplus.com/
http://www.picturecorrect.com/

Personally, I shoot with an Olympus Pen E-P1 with a 17mm Zuiko prime lens. When I get more money, I’m probably going to upgrade to an E-P3 and get a faster, higher-quality prime lens (Panasonic Leica 25mm/F1.4). My current system is about a $700 system. The system I want to upgrade to will cost me about $1,600.

I’m not a professional, just an enthusiast. Here’s some links to threads where I’ve posted pictures. They’re not the greatest pics, but I like ‘em:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php/887142-Two-by-John-H-Davis?p=10054548#post10054548

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/s...Tourism-–-trip-report?p=10088865#post10088865
 
i would show you mine, but i cant take a picture of it (its my only camera lol)

anyways, i shoot a canon 60D

great camera, i love it, works for everything i need it for and a whole hell of a lot more.
 
crazyengineer said:
i would show you mine, but i cant take a picture of it (its my only camera lol)

anyways, i shoot a canon 60D
Click to expand...

Oh.....you mean this picture?? Easy as pie. :)

CANON60D.jpg


EDIT and Back on topic.......this picture (which I snagged off the internet) demonstrates why it's handy and useful to be able to manipulate depth of field.......the distracting background is blurred out.
 
Last edited:
Mag G......thanks much for all the info.

My first 35mm camera was an Olympus.......that was 1967. :)

I'll dig through your info. Digital is a whole new world, but it's an incredibly convenient medium.....just amazing.
 
i meant I couldnt take a picture of mine

but yes, thats the camera, and it works decently enough for depth of field.......i need to get a better lens...

BG42EDGE said:
Oh.....you mean this picture?? Easy as pie. :)

CANON60D.jpg


EDIT and Back on topic.......this picture (which I snagged off the internet) demonstrates why it's handy and useful to be able to manipulate depth of field.......the distracting background is blurred out.
Click to expand...
 
Took this last night.

Yes, you need the tripod and self-timer to do this.

IMG_0619.jpg


A man, his dog, a fire.......and a bowl of chili.

Just doesn't get any better after a hard day (well, an hour or two) of cutting wood.

:D
 
300, yes, the 5 Megapixel are enough. You can enlarge a 3 Megapixel picture as large as you want,
because the resolution af a human eye is limited and you need an exact distance to have an overview over
the complete picture. The distance is too large to see the structure.

The 5 MP camera has a few reserve. The point is, to find the correct field of view when
you take a picture, and you don't have to zoom into the picture to find the correct image detail.
Have fun with the "old" Fuji. It seems to be a good one!!

Best,
Haebbie
 
Mag G said:

For maximum image quality, you need something with a much bigger sensor......(postage stamp)
Click to expand...

My camera gives me full control......but apparently doesn't have the bigger sensor.

Ok, Christmas IS coming......so either Mag G or any of you guys that are experienced with digital......can you give a few examples of the best values and lowest priced cameras with this much bigger sensor?

Where and what camera is the entry level to postage stamp sensors? Is the size of the sensor indicated anywhere in the published camera specs?
 
Well, Bg, let us take the top professional cameras aside: System cameras with excangable lenses have the larger APSC chip or the fourthirds chip. These Cameras are high sensitive and have a low noise in the pictures. Classic DSLR are available for 300 USD and more, made by manufacturers like Canon, Nikon, Sony and pentax. But there are some more manufacturrs too. DSLR have an optical Viwfinder. Other System cameras have only a control monitor, but they are smaller and lighter than SLR.
Compact cameras and bridge cameras (looks like an SLR but has'nt a removable objectve) hav e small chip. That doesn't matter if you have light enough. At susetting, lamplight or moonshine, when a Systemcamera makes pretty good pictures, the cameras with the small chip show a lot of noise in the picture and show wrong colors.
These are the most important differences. And there are general exeptions from my statements. But I hope it helps to start the search for the best camera for YOU ;).
Best,
Haebbie
 
Last edited:
BG42EDGE said:
Mag G said:



My camera gives me full control......but apparently doesn't have the bigger sensor.

Ok, Christmas IS coming......so either Mag G or any of you guys that are experienced with digital......can you give a few examples of the best values and lowest priced cameras with this much bigger sensor?

Where and what camera is the entry level to postage stamp sensors? Is the size of the sensor indicated anywhere in the published camera specs?
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t worry too much about the sensor size if you’re taking pictures for web display only; for that, the camera you have is more than adequate.

If you’re printing your shots and you’d like to print larger sizes with lots of crisp detail, then sensor size plays an important role.

A simple way to guesstimate the sensor size of a given camera model is the crop factor (more on this in a bit).

The mirror-less cameras have a smaller sensor than the DSLR cameras and the DSLR cameras have a variety of sensor sizes.

In the 35mm DSLR variety, the most common crop factor is (roughly) 1.5 – in layman’s terms it means your old 100mm lens is really a 150mm lens on the digital body.

Canon, Sony and Nikon all offer a full-frame digital 35mm body. These bodies have larger sensors than the typical digital 35mm camera. They also cost a lot more.

For a larger sensor (above and beyond the 35mm offerings) you can step up to a medium format (digital) camera – but you’re talking close to $10,000 for the entry level body now.

As for entry level DSLR recommendations; I think you should ask yourself some questions before you make that jump.

  1. What do you plan to shoot?
  2. Do you have any (good) older lenses from the film days and if so, what mount are they?
  3. Does your budget allow for a good, high quality lens that will help bring out the best your new camera body can attain?

If you’re shooting static subjects – just about any brand/model will do just fine. If you’re shooting a lot of moving subjects (kids, sports, pets) then you’ll want something that can track and focus very well and you’ll want expensive, fast, glass.

If you’ve got some good old glass in a specific mount, you’d be ahead of the game if you bought a new body with the same mount.

The lens is as important, probably more important, as the body and a good lens will cost you. Entry level glass ranges from not very good to quite capable, but the prices are usually very reasonable.

As for a specific model recommendation, I’ll speak about the brand that I use (simply because I have experience with that brand).

The Pentax Kx is a remarkably good camera in the entry level field. I think that model is being phased out (in favor of the Kr) but you can still pick it up (brand new) if you shop around (online). I believe you can get the body, with the 18-55 lens, for something around $500 (possibly less).

When that model was released, it was very highly regarded in the photography community and it remains one of the best entry level cameras.

Earlier (in this thread) I posted a couple of shots I made with this camera. The shot of the man singing is a shot that is very difficult to make: the lighting was horrid and the man was moving a lot. I had to bump the ISO up to 12,800 in order to get my shutter speed fast enough (to stop the movement). I was helped tremendously by the fast glass I was using, but getting a shot like that is very, very difficult.

The Pentax Kr is the replacement for the Kx – it has some added features but it also costs a bit more. I think you can find it, with kit glass, for something around $650.

Pentax has the advantage of being able to use every lens Pentax has ever made – and there are a lot of them out there. Some of the older glass is excellent and very reasonable in cost.

The disadvantage with Pentax is the lack of reasonably priced long glass. You can get lenses longer than 300mm but it will cost you an arm and a leg. To be fair, long glass in other mounts is super expensive too.

The other brands (Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc...) all sell entry level cameras. Some are better than others, but each one would serve your needs very well.

I’m not positive that I have the model number correct, but Nikon’s entry level camera (Nikon 5000) is very well thought of too. I prefer Pentax, but I’m very sure that I’d be quite happy shooting a Nikon.

I would highly recommend that you buy from a reputable dealer – B & H photo or Adorama are two that I can recommend. Both are excellent and both have a very fair return policy if you purchase something you’re not happy with.
 
Thanks, Haeb......I appreciate it.

You said "forthirds" chip. Was that correct and what does it mean?

Here's my old camera......that was a different era. I'm a relic. :D

IMG_0634.jpg
 
That's a 55mm Micro Nikkor 3.5 to 32.

It has an M2 attachment that is not on it in the picture.
 
BG42EDGE said:
Thanks, Haeb......I appreciate it.

You said "forthirds" chip. Was that correct and what does it mean?

Here's my old camera......that was a different era. I'm a relic. :D

IMG_0634.jpg
Click to expand...

I have similar stuff too. But I'm pretty sure that the lenses from your silver beauty are not usable with actual Nikon DSLR. :(

The fourthirds standard is a standard for foto chips. It has an aspect ratio of four to tree parts (4/3). In contrast: The APSC standard has a ratio of tree to two (3:2). APSC is a few larger than 4/3. Crop factor 1,6 : 1 on contrast to 2 : 1 related to 35 mm format.
Best,
Haebbie
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top