|
Are we allowed to talk about film p&s cameras or digital only? I've been trying to find a wide angle film p&s and all I've really come up with is the superheadz slim/ultra wide cameras but they're at 22mm and I was hoping for something wider but not a fisheye either. I was also hoping to avoid the "toy" cameras but I'm thinking that's the only way I could get such a wide angle in a p&s. vvvv ah thanks, I misread the title of that thread when I posted this here. RoflcopterPilot fucked around with this message at 19:28 on May 15, 2011 |
#
?
May 15, 2011 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
RoflcopterPilot posted:Are we allowed to talk about film p&s cameras or digital only? I've been trying to find a wide angle film p&s and all I've really come up with is the superheadz slim/ultra wide cameras but they're at 22mm and I was hoping for something wider but not a fisheye either. I was also hoping to avoid the "toy" cameras but I'm thinking that's the only way I could get such a wide angle in a p&s.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 11:18
|
|
|
So, I think I want something that's portable but has a huge sensor. I know the cannon s90 is great, but I'm strongly considering the Olympus PEN E-PL1. For less then the cost of a Cannon s90, I can get a sensor that's over 5 times larger. Camera would be bigger, but not stupid huge like a DLSR. And I could always get the pancake lens later on. HMMMM. Apparently the pancake lens costs more then the camera itself. WTF.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 18:07
|
|
|
john ashpool posted:So, I think I want something that's portable but has a huge sensor. I know the cannon s90 is great, but I'm strongly considering the Olympus PEN E-PL1. For less then the cost of a Cannon s90, I can get a sensor that's over 5 times larger. Camera would be bigger, but not stupid huge like a DLSR. And I could always get the pancake lens later on. Check out the Mirrorless thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3410935 I think the NEX is available in a kit with a 16mm pancake, and is a bit smaller than the E-PL1.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Check out the Mirrorless thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3410935 Thanks. Sorry for the derail. Its sad that every time they put a huge sensor in a compact, it has to be absurdly expensive.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 18:33
|
|
|
john ashpool posted:So, I think I want something that's portable but has a huge sensor. There are precisely three digital compacts with nice big sensors*: The Fujifilm X100 The Sigma DP Series The Leica X1 All of 'em pricey as gently caress and all a bit odd. Had my first play with the X100 in over the weekend, and it's a weird thing. Truly amazing photos, but the interface is hard to get used to, and holy poo poo it takes an absolute age to turn on. The electronic viewfinder isn't as great as I'd hoped either (although the optical is very lovely). I'm still torn, personally. But yeah, unless you want to go mirrorless (which can be a good call), you don't have much choice. *[Citation needed]
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
john ashpool posted:HMMMM. Apparently the pancake lens costs more then the camera itself. WTF. Welcome to photography.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2011 21:22
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:I think the NEX is available in a kit with a 16mm pancake, and is a bit smaller than the E-PL1.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 13:47
|
|
|
After enjoying my nex3, I sold it in favor of the canon s95, just for pocketability. The best camera is the one you have with you! Heed this advice!
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 15:06
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:The 16mm is kinda bad, but they're making a zeiss 24/1.7 :0 I don't find it bad IQ-wise, but it's pretty limiting if it's your only lens.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 15:09
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:d. Had my first play with the X100 in over the weekend, and it's a weird thing. Truly amazing photos, but the interface is hard to get used to, and holy poo poo it takes an absolute age to turn on. It's not a dslr, the controls make perfect sense after even 3-4 days of normal use. With quick start enabled, and a Sandisk Extreme Pro 45mb/s SDcard formatted in camera, it starts up in less than 2 seconds.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 15:45
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:It's not a dslr, the controls make perfect sense after even 3-4 days of normal use. With quick start enabled, and a Sandisk Extreme Pro 45mb/s SDcard formatted in camera, it starts up in less than 2 seconds. I mostly meant the digital UI - the physical controls (apart from that bizarrely execrable plastic disc thing) are all utterly lovely, especially the little exposure doodad. As you say, the controls made a lot of sense to me having come from rangefinders and the like. It was using the same SD card we've got for emergencies in a RED One, which is a ludicrously fast thing for shooting at 4k, so it wasn't that. I didn't know about a quick-start mode though - I may have to make sure the owner knows about it! It would be odd if he didn't as he's been reading the manual for long before he actually got the drat camera, but he was grumbling about start-up times so maybe he missed it. Would make a lot of difference to its every day usability. I also really liked those Fuji film stock simulation settings - as someone who's got kinda fed up with dealing with RAW in my workflow, those JPEG modes were a real treat. The Velvia in particular did a really good job with spring colours.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 16:20
|
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:I don't find it bad IQ-wise, but it's pretty limiting if it's your only lens. http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/542-sony16f28nex?start=2 And yeah, a 24/2.8 as your only prime on launch? WTF were they smoking?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 16:40
|
|
|
hairysammoth posted:It was using the same SD card we've got for emergencies in a RED One, which is a ludicrously fast thing for shooting at 4k, so it wasn't that. I didn't know about a quick-start mode though - I may have to make sure the owner knows about it! It would be odd if he didn't as he's been reading the manual for long before he actually got the drat camera, but he was grumbling about start-up times so maybe he missed it. Would make a lot of difference to its every day usability. He needs to make sure it's that exact card I said, as most people consider a class 10 card to be fast, but it's much slower than the extreme pro in the X100. Also you *must* make sure you format it in camera. It makes a huge difference. I format mine every time I have uploaded my photos onto the computer.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2011 16:52
|
|
|
Why on earth would SD card speed be so critical to startup time?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2011 04:18
|
|
|
dissss posted:Why on earth would SD card speed be so critical to startup time? That's a question for a programmer, but it absolutely matters, both the card speed and having it have been formatted in camera. People who put their SDcard in an ipad or other mac product that writes poo poo to the SD card report slower start up times after, and slower write speed. Format in camera, and the problem goes away.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2011 11:27
|
|
|
Crossposting from the 'real camera' thread, didn't see this one: Recommend me! I've recently started traveling extensively for my job and I'm looking for something to take decent photos with. Once upon a time I was a photo student, but at the same time I'm not looking to create high art. Just some nice quality landscape / architecture shots from the different places I visit. Since this will be a travelin' camera I'm considering things like size and durability a bit higher than I would otherwise; I've pretty much written off SLRs unless they're not as bulky as I remember from a few years ago and can be had for 'a couple hundred'. I also should always be able to dump the photos to my laptop every day so I shouldn't need a great deal of storage capacity either. I think my record so far is 30 in a day. So if there are some small and tough yet decent quality digicams out there for under 200 or so I'd like to hear about them. Thanks in advance if you guys can get me pointed in the right direction. \/\/\/ I only meant that having large internal memory wasn't a big concern for me, but you're right most cameras just use mem cards now. Thanks for the links I'll check them out and compare against the Canon S90. Takes No Damage fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 20, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2011 01:31
|
|
|
poopinmymouth posted:That's a question for a programmer, but it absolutely matters, both the card speed and having it have been formatted in camera. People who put their SDcard in an ipad or other mac product that writes poo poo to the SD card report slower start up times after, and slower write speed. Format in camera, and the problem goes away. Got the new card yesterday - it's like a different camera. Thanks! Takes No Damage posted:I've recently started traveling extensively for my job and I'm looking for something to take decent photos with. Once upon a time I was a photo student, but at the same time I'm not looking to create high art. Just some nice quality landscape / architecture shots from the different places I visit. Since this will be a travelin' camera I'm considering things like size and durability a bit higher than I would otherwise; I've pretty much written off SLRs unless they're not as bulky as I remember from a few years ago and can be had for 'a couple hundred'. I also should always be able to dump the photos to my laptop every day so I shouldn't need a great deal of storage capacity either. I think my record so far is 30 in a day. I'm not sure what you mean by "shouldn't need a great deal of storage capacity" - that's entirely defined by the memory stick you use. But there's been a few recommendations in the thread at that sort of price point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I like this Fuji at the sub-$200 level. That site has some good reviews and comparisons of the main rivals, which is useful. There's also dpreview, who do some really in-depth reviews.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2011 12:04
|
|
|
OK, I've spent the last few days reading around on camera review sites and had it narrowed down to 3 or 4 contenders. Then I went over to the dpreview side-by-side thingy and now I'm all indecisive again  This should link to the comparison page I made: http://tinyurl.com/3kxd6koEverything seems pretty comparable to each other until you get to Optical Zoom and the S90/5 only has 3.8 compared to 8x and 10x for the others. So my first question is how big a deal is that really in digital P&S? Would a 10x zoom really be the same quality as 2x or 3x in those cameras? And would the S90's (I assume) overall higher image quality make up for the smaller Optical Zoom? Then I scroll down to the Photography Features and see the S90/5 are the only ones that have Shutter Priority or Manual Exposure Modes, and just half of the other cameras I was looking at even have a setting for Aperture Priority. Coming from film cameras losing all that manual control would really bug me so that's a big attraction to the S90s for me. Pretty much I'm asking if the image quality and manual control of the S90s would make up for less zoom. And finally, it looks like the only reason the S95 exists is because Canon looked up and said 'oh poo poo everybody else has HD video.' Since I don't care about video for this the S90 would be preferable to the S95 for photos alone, correct? I see a S90 on diymicro for 299 that I'm leaning more and more towards. Oh and the CHDK software, does that really add anything to the S90s? It looks like a lot of the features that it enables on other cameras is already present on the S90s.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Takes No Damage posted:I see a S90 on diymicro for 299 that I'm leaning more and more towards. Oh and the CHDK software, does that really add anything to the S90s? It looks like a lot of the features that it enables on other cameras is already present on the S90s. An S90 new from a store for $299 is pretty good. You may be able to do better if you want to chance eBay, but the price of the S90 has stayed pretty stable as it's quite a desirable camera. Personally, of that lot in your DPR list, my choice would be defined by budget. An F80 (which, as you note, offers aperture priority despite being very cheap) can be had for $140. An S90 can be had for $300. Both are great cameras at their respective prices. If you're happy spending $300, it's no contest. Those are the only two cameras I'd consider in that lineup... but then, I'm a sucker for prime lenses, so I couldn't give a toss about optical zoom. Honestly, if you're wavering: get the S90. Shoots RAW, full manual modes, built like a brick, a pleasure to use, a steal at $200-$300 new. You want to zoom, just walk closer or crop in post. hairysammoth fucked around with this message at 11:16 on May 30, 2011 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 11:13
|
|
|
Consider the G11/12 too. Lenses are slower at the wide end but you do get a bit more reach and they're so nicely built I don't think aperture priority is especially useful on cheap point and shoots - my Panasonic LZ10 has it (all the manual controls actually) but at the long end of the zoom you only get to choose from 5.9-8.0 which doesn't really give you much control. May as well leave it in auto
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
Just to note that to shoot RAW on the S90/5 you have to be in apeture/shutter priority or manual to set picture quality to RAW. In auto it will only go to large jpeg. I have the S95 for if I decide to use it for video. Which is very rare but happens at times. Personally I love mine after upgrading from the SD780. Picture quality is better and finally can use full manual and push out RAW. Its nice to have those features when I don't want to take my dslr out with me when on a trip.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
You can shoot RAW in Program (P) mode.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2011 13:56
|
|
|
I want to upgrade from my Nikon Coolpix S560. I mostly take pictures at concerts and my Nikon takes some great pics from up close or outdoor during the day. I've even got some good pictures from the balcony with no flash because I was leaning against the rail. But I'm hoping if I chuck around three or four hundred bucks I can get something that's easier to get good shots at range, especially since I'm seeing a couple stadium shows and a festival this summer.. I know the general recommendation is the Canon S90/95, but the fact that I'd be going to a lesser optical zoom makes me wary. Here's some examples of what I'm getting now: Good at range  Okay at range  Not so good at range  Up close greatness   My current camera isn't a bad camera but I bought it a couple years ago for about 150 bucks, so I'm assuming there's something better out there that might be worth getting.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2011 02:34
|
|
|
I'm having no luck finding a S95 in stores... is there any buzz that something new might be coming along, or should I just suck it up and order one online?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Why wouldn't you get it online? It's usually cheaper and it'll arrive before you're halfway through the user's manual pdf.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
I have like $300 store credit to Best Buy, but it's out of stock at all the local Best Buys, and says 3-5 days to ship to a store.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2011 23:09
|
|
|
If you don't need HD video, the S90 is the same thing (right?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Looks pretty close, just a few tweaks toward user friendliness. My local BB is going to order me one to the store. Win win. Thanks for the tips anyhow!
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 02:52
|
|
|
INTJ Mastermind posted:If you don't need HD video, the S90 is the same thing (right?) Also the S95 is 5 better than the S90.
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
I just posted some shots from the U2 show in Seattle I took with my S95 over in the concert photography thread. Totally pleased with the results, only qualm is the battery dropped from 2/3 to 1/3 and was dead very very shortly after dropping to 1/3. really wish it gave a better indication but my own drat fault for not packing a second battery. http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3092090&pagenumber=65&perpage=40#post392325434
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
This thread just cost me a lot of money because I read the thread title and bought an S95.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 23:25
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:This thread just cost me a lot of money because I read the thread title and bought an S95. Don't forget your water proof housing for $180. It's awesome and a lot of fun when you're around and in water.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2011 23:41
|
|
Haggins posted:Don't forget your water proof housing for $180. It's awesome and a lot of fun when you're around and in water. Jesus, 130 feet? I'm a scuba diver so I must know how legit that is.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 01:23
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Don't forget your water proof housing for $180. It's awesome and a lot of fun when you're around and in water. oh man, totally buying one of these before I go back to Hawaii.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 03:06
|
|
|
I got one for my S90 and it's awesome. Haven't had a problem with leaks or anything. The only issue I have with it is that it only works for the S90 and I'm not sure if it'll work with a 95. However, that's just the nature of the beast because it has to fit exactly so you can control everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 03:13
|
|
|
Underwater photos totally rule. You can get those disposable film cameras that go underwater that take ok pictures if you know what you're doing but come with all the pitfalls of 35mm and what's really a pretty crappy disposable camera. Here are a couple examples I took on the Great Barrier Reef last year with a disposable (both taken while snorkelling, I have no disposable camera diving shots):  And this was taken on the Great Barrier Reef as well, on a different reef. The first two were while diving, the third one was while snorkelling.    If you're going to be diving you NEED to have a digital and not the disposable because of the light issue. Also use your flash. Those were taken with a Canon IXUS 900TI. All that said, my mom got a picture of a hammerhead shark with the disposable. She says it was around 5m below her while she was snorkelling, and it isn't the clearest photo but you can definitely make out the outline of what is 100% a hammerhead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2011 03:45
|
|
|
I am planning to do my Russia/Mongolia trip with only the x100, but going without any backup whatsoever is just plain stupid, so I'm going to buy a compact. I figure since I have all my normal usage covered with the X100, I want something with a stupid long lens while being tiny, and preferably with raw coverage (leaving out a lot, including the s90, which I liked, but far too short of a lens). Thinking of the Casio fh100. Massive zoom, raw (albeit slow) capture, small size, and pretty cheap, used ones around 175 USD. Anyone tried one of these? If everything goes according to plan it will only be used for possible wildlife spotting, or if I think a compressed landscape shot is so amazing I need to bust it out. Quality seems reasonable for this. I downloaded a raw file and played with it, quality seemed pretty good for such a minuscule sensor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2011 15:36
|
|
|
There's a refurbished Canon SD1400, 2 Canon batteries and chargers, case, and accessories for $150 in SA-Mart. Unless I'm mistaken, that's a very good deal. Refurbished direct from Canon costs $209 + tax. Star War Sex Parrot fucked around with this message at 21:31 on Jun 9, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2011 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Anyone have a Nikon P7000? I saw one at a store last night and I really like how the controls look. Reviews seem pretty down on it though, at least compared to the equivalent Canons. Also, the s90/95 seems to getting a lot more shout-outs than the G12- is that mainly because the s95 is a little cheaper and smaller, or are there other advantages over the g12?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2011 18:28
|
|
