drew.haynes
New member
Ah, I see what you meant. I would just consider a p&s to be any non-slr. I have a Panasonic FZ20 laying around somewhere - I'd consider it P&S but it's pretty large.
Which digital camera?
- Thread starter Evenflow
- Start date
drew.haynes
New member
There are some P&S cameras that do wonderful in good lighting, like the Panasonic I mentioned, but, especially if he's considering getting a 50mm 1.8, no P&S I've seen is gonna compete with that when it comes to IQ or low-light ability... especially since most SLR image sensors handle noise alot better at high ISOs. The low light ability should be way better for him. Unless you NEED something small, I would always go with a cheap/used SLR body these days and a good lens - way more control if you want it, and can still be pretty idiot-proof when you use pre-programmed settings.
quakerroatmeal
New member
I'd definitely pick a slr over a p&s compact camera, does it need to be compact? Manual mode is much better, have much more to play with.
drew.haynes
New member
Not really. Especially shooting non-moving objects like cars!
You just need a basic understanding of the effect of Film Speed (ISO Setting), Aperture (f-stop setting), and Shutter Speed. Learning what to set them to in different situations will just come with time, but a general understanding of their effects will speed up the process a lot!
Feel free to ask any questions and I will answer as best I know how! Again, fredmiranda.com would be another useful forum for picking up photography tips - it's like the autopia or the camera world!
d
You just need a basic understanding of the effect of Film Speed (ISO Setting), Aperture (f-stop setting), and Shutter Speed. Learning what to set them to in different situations will just come with time, but a general understanding of their effects will speed up the process a lot!
Feel free to ask any questions and I will answer as best I know how! Again, fredmiranda.com would be another useful forum for picking up photography tips - it's like the autopia or the camera world!
d
drew.haynes
New member
If the speed of your car is somewhat matched to the speed of the target, not really, although it will take some experimenting with the shutter speed and aperture to get whatever amount of motion blur and background blur that you want. If the shutter speed is TOO fast, the ground will be clear even though you are moving fast, too slow and it will be possibly TOO motion blurred, and it may be hard to keep the car from having it's own motion blur due to your hand movement. Know what I mean?
Do you have a basic idea of the effect of those parameters?
Do you have a basic idea of the effect of those parameters?
drew.haynes
New member
Here are two examples of a very fast shutter to help demonstrate what I last said. Both these shots have a fast shutter, leaving little time for the road to blur at all, you can really only sense the motion of the bike by the motion blurred tires.
These ARE NOT my images, don't want to take credit. They belong to Fred Miranda user Damon Spencer - merely using them to demonstrate, as he is clearly a better photographer than I'll ever expect to be.
And now one with a slower shutter that gave the ground time to blur:
d
These ARE NOT my images, don't want to take credit. They belong to Fred Miranda user Damon Spencer - merely using them to demonstrate, as he is clearly a better photographer than I'll ever expect to be.
And now one with a slower shutter that gave the ground time to blur:
d
drew.haynes
New member
Well, brief explanation...
You need enough light to fully expose an image. How you get that light is a combination of film speed (iso), shutter speed, and aperture (f-stops). Adjusting each has possible pros and cons.
Aperture -
Measured in f-stops (f1.8, f4, f22, etc). The lower the f-stop #, the larger the aperture (the opening where light enters). f1.8 is quite a large aperture and will let alot of light in quickly. f30 for example is tiny, and won't let as much light in at once.
A large aperture like f2.8 will produce a SHALLOW depth of field. For example, if you take a picture of a person's face at f1.8, everything behind and in front of the focal point will blur intensely and rapidly. At a small aperture like f22, you'll have a broad depth of field, and for example, you could have your friend in focus @ about 5 ft away, while ALSO having a mountain in focus 1 mile behind him. Make sense?
So, assuming you have plenty of light, the primary purpose of changing aperture is to adjust your depth of field. If you are confused i'll find good example pictures. The second effect is that larger apertures let more light in, and thus you can get the same TOTAL amount of light in less time (faster shutter speeds). For example, a picture taken at f1.8 and a 1/250sec shutter speed may be as well exposed as a picture taken at f32 and a 1sec shutter speed. If you should a long shutter speed like 1sec, you'll likely have motion blur you don't want caused by your hand shaking, that's why if you are shooting in lower light situations, a big aperture like 2.8 or 1 is very handy. You can use a large aperture to let you get the same light with a faster shutter and avoid hand shake!
Shutter speed-
How long does that aperture stay open? You can use a longer shutter to allow intentional motion blurring, or just if you need more light at your current iso and aperture.
ISO-
This is how fast the image sensor evaluates incoming light. Ideally, lower ISOs are always better. The higher the ISO, the faster light comes in, and therefore you can handle using shorter shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures. Also though, on the downside, higher ISOs produce more image noise.
If you have enough light, stick with the lowest ISO you can - it will produce the most noise-free images. If you are in a lower light situation and a big aperture alone is not cutting down your shutter speed enough to avoid motion blur, raise the ISO so light is evaluated faster. Now you can decrease the shutter speed some, eliminate motion blur, and the cost is just more image noise - depending on what ISO you are on.
Have any questions?
You need enough light to fully expose an image. How you get that light is a combination of film speed (iso), shutter speed, and aperture (f-stops). Adjusting each has possible pros and cons.
Aperture -
Measured in f-stops (f1.8, f4, f22, etc). The lower the f-stop #, the larger the aperture (the opening where light enters). f1.8 is quite a large aperture and will let alot of light in quickly. f30 for example is tiny, and won't let as much light in at once.
A large aperture like f2.8 will produce a SHALLOW depth of field. For example, if you take a picture of a person's face at f1.8, everything behind and in front of the focal point will blur intensely and rapidly. At a small aperture like f22, you'll have a broad depth of field, and for example, you could have your friend in focus @ about 5 ft away, while ALSO having a mountain in focus 1 mile behind him. Make sense?
So, assuming you have plenty of light, the primary purpose of changing aperture is to adjust your depth of field. If you are confused i'll find good example pictures. The second effect is that larger apertures let more light in, and thus you can get the same TOTAL amount of light in less time (faster shutter speeds). For example, a picture taken at f1.8 and a 1/250sec shutter speed may be as well exposed as a picture taken at f32 and a 1sec shutter speed. If you should a long shutter speed like 1sec, you'll likely have motion blur you don't want caused by your hand shaking, that's why if you are shooting in lower light situations, a big aperture like 2.8 or 1 is very handy. You can use a large aperture to let you get the same light with a faster shutter and avoid hand shake!
Shutter speed-
How long does that aperture stay open? You can use a longer shutter to allow intentional motion blurring, or just if you need more light at your current iso and aperture.
ISO-
This is how fast the image sensor evaluates incoming light. Ideally, lower ISOs are always better. The higher the ISO, the faster light comes in, and therefore you can handle using shorter shutter speeds and/or smaller apertures. Also though, on the downside, higher ISOs produce more image noise.
If you have enough light, stick with the lowest ISO you can - it will produce the most noise-free images. If you are in a lower light situation and a big aperture alone is not cutting down your shutter speed enough to avoid motion blur, raise the ISO so light is evaluated faster. Now you can decrease the shutter speed some, eliminate motion blur, and the cost is just more image noise - depending on what ISO you are on.
Have any questions?
jfelbab
New member
evenflow said:
There a few things not to like about the A620 put picture quality and color fidelity aren't among them. I'd look to your computer and monitor calibration settings for the problem. Did you run a hardware calibration of your monitor? What colorspace are you using? If not you will probably be disappointed with the results from any camera, IMO.
Good budget p&s camera from canon is a720is or SX100is. Both produce good quality sharp pictures for a point and shoot. Only thing which isn't that good is low light performance. Noise is very visible at higher iso. Other than that it is hard to find anything really wrong.
Laptop displays are these days the worst. With most on default settings colors look washed out and the display has wrong color temp. First sign if you have a cheapest display is that the brightness changes if you slightly tilt the display. What you want from flat display is for example S-PVA panel instead of TN type. (which all of the cheaper ones are)
More explanation from here about the types:
Thin film transistor liquid crystal display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Laptop displays are these days the worst. With most on default settings colors look washed out and the display has wrong color temp. First sign if you have a cheapest display is that the brightness changes if you slightly tilt the display. What you want from flat display is for example S-PVA panel instead of TN type. (which all of the cheaper ones are)
More explanation from here about the types:
Thin film transistor liquid crystal display - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It still can have TN type panel at that price range, some are very good though and it isn't such a bad thing if you are happy with it.
Try playing with settings Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool
Spending some time tweaking the display settings made huge difference on my laptop.
Try playing with settings Photo Friday: Monitor Calibration Tool
Spending some time tweaking the display settings made huge difference on my laptop.
jfelbab
New member
evenflow said:
That is a common symptom of an uncalibrated display or not being aware of the color space being used. You didn't mention if you have calibrated your monitor or which color space you are using but I'd hazard a guess the answers are; no, you have not calibrated your monitor and probably don't know what a color space is. If this is true, a new camera will look just as dull on your system as your 620. You need to get a handle on colorspace and color management.
Here are a few links that should help:
Jeffrey Friedl’s Blog Digital-Image Color Spaces, Page 1: Introduction
LCD monitor test images
http://www.color.org/version4html.xalter
I love my Rebel XT dude; absolutely no complaints even with the kit lens. IQ is 100X better than my Optio camera and even my brothers higher MP Sony P&S camera.
Edit; Rebel XT also has a sport mode; although it would be better to adjust the shutter speed manually; it does a decent job.
Edit; Rebel XT also has a sport mode; although it would be better to adjust the shutter speed manually; it does a decent job.
drew.haynes
New member
The price of the XT currently makes it a good choice as well. Lots of people will buy the XT and a good lens or two over time, then really grow into photography and decide they want a big hitter like a 30D, 40D, 5D.. and you can keep your high quality lenses and upgrade bodies easy.